Commission decides whether there was reasonable management action
The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) recently dealt with a worker who alleged that his employer’s flawed HR process caused him psychiatric injury.
Cornelius Duggan filed an appeal against a decision made by the Workers' Compensation Regulator (WCR) in February 2020. Duggan said that he had suffered a psychiatric or psychological injury during his employment with Brisbane Catholic Education (BCE).
He worked as a groundsman at St. Martin's Catholic Primary School in Carina in May 2017, Duggan had previously worked as a contractor at the school, assisting the former groundsman.
In November 2018, Duggan faced an informal complaint from a teacher at St. Martin's brought to the attention of the principal. The complaint revolved around Duggan's compliments to the teacher and her resulting discomfort.
In response to this initial complaint, the principal issued directives to Duggan, including refraining from approaching or speaking to the said teacher unless it was an emergency and being mindful of proximity to the teacher's classroom.
Formal complaint against the worker
Around June 2019, the teacher formally filed a written complaint about Duggan. The principal then approached Duggan while he was carrying out his duties to inform him of this additional complaint.
The content of the latter complaint had new allegations that, during his work at St. Martin's, Duggan had made the teacher uncomfortable on two separate occasions.
Duggan claimed that he suffered a psychiatric or psychological injury due to these events. Furthermore, he said the injury was a result of the complaint made against him and the management actions taken in response, which he deems unreasonable.
A month later, Duggan's general practitioner issued a workers' compensation medical certificate, diagnosing him with depression and anxiety.
‘Poor handling’ of the worker’s case
The medical certificate attributed the injury to "stressful circumstances at work – accusation of harassment, no attempt at resolution," and it indicated that Duggan had no functional capacity for any type of work until October 2019.
The reason for this incapacity was cited as "due to poor handling of the patient's case, resulting in extreme and ongoing stress leading to significant depression and anxiety."
The WCR recognized that Duggan had sustained an injury and that the injury occurred during his employment. However, the WCR said the injury was the result of reasonable management actions taken in a reasonable manner and is therefore excluded as an "injury."
Was it reasonable management action?
In its decision, the QIRC found that “prior to the development of the injury, Duggan was not provided with a written copy of the complaint.”
It also said that the principal “decided that the second complaint would be dealt with in an informal manner pursuant to the complaint management procedure.”
Moreover, it said that “holding the meeting wherein Duggan was advised of a formal written complaint about him amounts to management action.”
“Such a meeting is different [from] the normal duties and incidents of Duggan's employment. Accordingly, the action is [a] management action.”
“Ultimately, Duggan's injury has arisen from management's handling of the second complaint. However, the management action taken was reasonable,” the QIRC said.
