SPIRAL Inc. v Q-COMP

Date of decision: 22 February 2010, Commissioner Fisher

Mr John Merrell of Counsel, instructed by Employer Services for the Appellant

Mr Stephen Gray of Counsel, directly instructed by Q-COMP

Support Worker - 36 – psychological – appeal dismissed - Significant sections considered: –

s32(5) reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer in connection with the worker’s employment

Head Note

The Claimant was employed as a Support Worker by the Appellant, who provide care services. The Claimant lodged an application for compensation for an injury described as ‘psychological symptoms in general, anxiety/stress disorder’. The Insurer rejected the claim based on the injury being excluded by operation of section 32(5), that management action was taken in a reasonable way.

The Claimant lodged an application for review with Q-COMP. The review decision set aside the Insurer’s decision and determined that the claim was one for acceptance, as management had not acted reasonably in the circumstances. The Appellant employer lodged a notice of appeal in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission.

The Appellant received complaints that the Claimant had made inappropriate comments about clients in the performance of her duties. Management decided to address these complaints through an informal meeting, and they would then decide whether formal action would be taken against the Claimant.

The Claimant was notified of the informal meeting whilst she was travelling in a car and was informed that her shift would be cancelled so she could attend. The Claimant was not advised of the purpose of the meeting, the particulars of the issues to be addressed, and was not given an opportunity to have a support person in attendance. The Claimant was not advised that her responses during the meeting would determine whether formal action would be taken.

Employees were not made aware that the disciplinary process had been changed to include an informal meeting stage. The Commissioner found it was not reasonable where there was a formal policy in place, to implement a new process without advising employees. Further that the new process was not fully developed and was implemented prematurely.

After the informal meeting, management sent an email to the Claimant. The Commissioner found that the content and inferences in the email made it clear that formal action may be taken in the future and the Claimant was left in no position to decline the remedial action recommended. The contents of the email were also found to be unreasonable management action.