When Welfare Checks Lead to Claims: Lessons for the Workplace

Date: April 10, 2025

Woodroofe and Comcare (Compensation) [2024] AATA 3611.

Key Points:

• The applicant made claims for psychological injury as a result of what the applicant claimed to be a series of workplace “bullying” events. Liability to the claims was declined on the basis that the condition arose out of reasonable administrative action, and the Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decisions.
• The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from Major Depressive Disorder, significantly contributed to by four workplace incidents. While the Tribunal approached the applicant’s evidence cautiously, it accepted these incidents contributed to his condition but ultimately found the actions taken were reasonable in the circumstance. It emphasised that while administrative actions need not be perfect, they must be objectively reasonable, tolerable, and fair, which all four incidents was satisfied under section 5A of the SRC Act.

Background:

In November 2021, the applicant submitted a claim for compensation for “adjustment disorder with anxious and depressed mood” claimed to have been sustained as a result of several instances of bullying since 2021. Liability was declined by Comcare pursuant to section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (the SRC Act) on the basis that the condition arose out of reasonable administrative action.

In November 2022, the applicant submitted a further claim for compensation for “post-traumatic stress disorder” claimed to have been sustained as a result of the same mechanism. Liability was declined by Comcare on the same basis.

The Law:

Section 14(1) of the SRC Act provides:

subject to this Part, Comcare is liable to pay compensation in accordance with this Act in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment.

A disease is defined under section 5B of the SRC Act as an ailment, or an aggravation of an ailment, which has been contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee’s employment.

An ailment is defined under section 4 of the SRC Act as any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition.

Section 5A(1) of the SRC Act indicates that where a disease is suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of an employee’s employment, no liability exists for that condition.

The issues:

In determining the Application, the Tribunal was required to consider:

• whether the applicant has suffered an ‘ailment’ as defined in the SRC Act;
• if so, whether that condition was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the applicant’s employment, pursuant to section 5B of the SRC Act;
• if so, whether liability for the condition was excluded pursuant to section 5A(1) of the SRC Act, on the basis that it was suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action

The evidence and the findings.

The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant suffered from an ailment, being a psychological condition diagnosed as Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), that was significantly contributed to by his employment with the Australian Federal Police.

While forming the view that the Tribunal should approach the applicant’s evidence with caution, the Tribunal accepted that four workplace incidents made a significant contribution to the applicant’s condition, including:

1. The telephone call from Commander Naomi Binstead to the applicant, during which Commander Binstead told the applicant that he should have deferred to her as the senior officer during a meeting earlier that day.
2. Inspector Brett Booth’s telephone call to the applicant to conduct a welfare check.
3. Inspector Booth’s voicemail to the applicant asking the applicant to return his call.
4. The telephone call from Sergeant Ben Willis to the applicant advising that the ACT Police were scaling back their involvement with ACT Health and that the applicant could return to the COVID Taskforce at Winchester or to his gazetted police station at Gungahlin.

Regarding the first incident, the Tribunal considered the applicant’s evidence was deeply at odds with Commander Binstead’s evidence and the stated purpose of the phone call. The Tribunal stated that while uncertainty naturally remained about what occurred during this conversation, on balance, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of Commander Binstead. The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s submission that the telephone call amounted to supervision of the applicant’s employment by Commander Binstead. Rather, the Tribunal found that Commander Binstead’s action was a reasonable counselling action in providing advice regarding the preference for a more junior officer to defer to a senior officer at meetings. Accordingly, the Tribunal was satisfied that Commander Binstead’s action constituted a reasonable counselling action taken in respect of the applicant employment pursuant to section 5A(2)(b), and that this was undertaken in a reasonable manner.

The Tribunal dealt with the second and the third incidents together. Again, the Tribunal noted the applicant’s evidence stood in stark contrast to the evidence of Inspector Booth’s. The Tribunal did not consider that Inspector Booth’s behaviour was unreasonable or that he should have approached the matter in a different form. The Tribunal noted that Inspector Booth’s prior interactions with the applicant demonstrated that he, as the applicant’s direct supervisor, was understandably concerned about the applicant’s welfare, given the applicant’s unresponsiveness to various forms of communication and apparent intoxication. The Tribunal noted that in the circumstances, inaction at the time by the applicant’s employer may have been unreasonable and potentially negligent. Accordingly, the Tribunal did not accept the applicant’s contention that Inspector Booth was heavy handed or behaved unfairly in contacting the applicant, and was satisfied that the telephone call and voice mail, albeit late at night, was reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner.

Regarding the fourth incident, the Tribunal was satisfied that the situation involving the applicant had reached a tipping point and the action to remove him from his role was justified in the all the circumstances. The Tribunal accepted the evidence that no final or formal decision to remove the applicant from his role had been taken on or around Inspector Booth’s telephone call with the applicant, but that his removal was a likely outcome, and such a decision would have been further informed by the proposed meeting with the applicant on the following Monday at Winchester. The Tribunal considered this was a reasonable course in the circumstances, but noted the meeting did not occur because the applicant was required to quarantine. Further, the Tribunal was satisfied that even if such a decision was final, Inspector Booth’s telephone call was reasonable given the concerns held for the applicant’s welfare and his continuation in that role. The Tribunal considered it was open to Inspector Booth to make such a determination. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the removal of the applicant from his role was reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner and fell squarely within the exclusion in subsection 5A(2)(f) of the SRC Act.

Relevantly, the Tribunal noted there is no standard of perfection required in relation to the administrative action, although it must be taken in an objectively reasonable manner and be tolerable and fair. The Tribunal was satisfied that incident four met the relevant statutory test under section 5A of the SRC Act.

Lessons Learnt:

The key lesson from this case is the importance of ensuring that workplace administrative actions, particularly those involving employee welfare and performance management, are conducted in a manner that is objectively reasonable, transparent, and fair. Employers should clearly communicate the purpose and context of their actions, maintain consistency in their approach, and document their decisions to mitigate misunderstandings and disputes.

For the employer’s, this case underscores the crucial need for clear protocols and documentation in handling workplace incidents. Additionally, a thorough review of evidence, coupled with thoughtful investigation strategies and experienced advocacy, is essential for the successful resolution of such matters. These measures not only strengthen the defence against claims but also ensure that all actions are conducted fairly, reasonably, and in compliance with legal standards.

Contact:

Download PDF here:  Woodroofe and Comcare (Compensation) [2024] AATA 3611

« Back to Insights