copyright  |  disclaimer  |  privacy policy  |  print ready

« back

Compensation for psychological injury and reasonable management actions for an employer

Excerpts from this article first published in ‘Human Resources’ Magazine, Issue 100, 21 March 2006

Scheduling a meeting, without saying specifically what the meeting was about, has been held to be reasonable - excluding an employee from compensation under Queensland’s Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act.  Qantas Airways Limited and Q-Comp considered the eligibility for workers’ compensation of an employee who suffered a work related impairment.

The employee was a team leader. He had relationship problems with his second in command and some safety concerns. Qantas wished to investigate an incident between the employee and his second in command. A meeting was arranged. Before the meeting, the employee developed a perception that: management would be biased and he would be disciplined. He did not attend the meeting. Instead, he visited a doctor and had time off. His claim for compensation was rejected. On review, Q-Comp accepted the claim. Qantas appealed. The appeal considered whether there was an ‘injury’ and, if so, whether the employee’s claim was excluded because the injury was a psychological disorder arising out of:

• reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer in connection with the worker’s employment; or
• the worker’s expectation or perception of reasonable management action being taken against the worker.

Doctors disagreed on whether there was a diagnosable psychological disorder. Commissioner Blades applied Queensland precedent. He found that even without a diagnosable psychological disorder there was sufficient impairment to infer injury.
The Commissioner held:

• It was reasonable management action to hold a meeting to investigate an incident.
• Failing to provide details of the meeting, before the meeting, did not make the action unreasonable or mean that it was not implemented in a reasonable way.
• The injury arose out of the circumstances above.

He stated “what management must do is be reasonable, not perfect, and if it be that before a meeting can be held with a worker, he has to be told specifically what it is about, I think it is placing too high a duty upon management”.

Whilst the provisions in each State’s workers’ compensation acts are not identical, the concepts are similar and the principles in the case may apply to similar circumstances in other States.

HR Tips

• In the context of workers compensation, it may be reasonable to schedule a meeting without informing the employee specifically what the meeting is about.
• In some circumstances, injury may be inferred from impairment which falls short of a diagnosable psychological disorder.
  
  

Richard Taylor
Senior Associate
Australian Business Lawyers