By Gaby Grammeno Contributor
The worker was employed by Campbelltown City Council as a Website Content Specialist from June 2019 to 9 May 2024. In February 2024 she claimed workers compensation for psychological injury due to workplace events related to bullying, harassment, micromanagement and other poor treatment over the previous four years.
The employer denied liability, claiming that her psych injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or planned with respect to performance appraisal, disciplinary action or provision of employment benefits. The Council also disputed her claim of total or partial incapacity as a result of workplace injury.
The worker applied to the Personal Injury Commission of New South Wales to resolve the dispute.
The parties were unable to agree on a resolution or the possibility of a settlement, and the case was heard in the Commission in October 2024.
In the Commission
The Commission’s task was to determine whether the worker’s primary psychological injury arose out of her work, whether she had a pre-existing condition that had been exacerbated by her job, and if so, whether the employer could use the defence that the worker’s condition was caused or exacerbated mainly by reasonable management action. It was also necessary to work out how much she was entitled to in compensation and medical expenses.
Personal Injury Commission Member Karen Garner referred to the ‘egg-shell psyche’ principle and noted that in deciding whether the employment was the main contributing factor to the aggravation of a psychological injury, it is the worker’s perception of workplace conditions and incidents that counts, rather than whether the worker’s perceptions were objectively reasonable.
The worker’s evidence was that her workload was excessive, she was directed to carry out IT work outside the scope of her contracted duties, and she was not paid an allowance that she was due for training and supervising her assistant beyond six months.
She also submitted that she felt ‘overwhelmed and deeply distressed‘ because her complaints were not addressed, and after repeated appeals she was further undermined when performance issues were raised against her and her manager ‘bullied and micromanaged’ her.
She felt unable to continue at work, obtained a certificate from her GP and took leave for a period.
On returning to work, she lodged a formal complaint with the help of the union, but her difficulties continued and she was stood down and told she needed to provide a certificate stating that she was fit to perform her normal duties.
In February 2024 she submitted a claim for workers comp, and since then she had been unable to work and suffered ongoing symptoms of severe depression and anxiety, difficulty focusing, concentrating and interacting with people.
Her claims were generally corroborated by medical evidence citing work-related stress and a diagnosis of ‘anxiety, likely an adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood and possibly PTSD from the prolonged lack of support and bullying in the workplace’.
The worker’s GP expressed the opinion that her employment was ‘100% the contributing factor’ to her psychological conditions.
A psychiatrist consulted by the employer gave evidence that in his opinion, the worker’s condition was pre-existing and not caused by her employment.
A psychiatrist consulted by the worker, however, expressed the view that despite her medical history indicating she’d been stressed in the past, her present psychological condition was not pre-existing and her employment was the main contributing factor.
The employer did not challenge the worker’s credibility or the factual background, and PIC Member Garner accepted that on the balance of probability that there had been various real events at work which the worker perceived as bullying and harassment.
Considering the evidence as a whole, Member Garner found that the worker had sustained a primary psychological injury in the nature of a disease, that her condition was not pre-existing, that it had arisen out of and in the course of her employment. She found that her employment was the main contributing factor to that injury, and that the cause of her injury was multi-factorial in that it was not ‘wholly or predominantly’ caused by reasonable action related to performance appraisal, discipline or provision of employment benefits. It was also held that a significant cause was the various real events at work (which included the applicant being directed to perform duties outside the scope of her contracted duties, being subjected to an excessive workload, micromanagement of her duties and lack of support) that the worker perceived as being bullying and harassment.
She found that the worker had no current work capacity, either in her pre-injury employment or in suitable employment during the period from 15 February 2024 to 29 August 2024.
The Commission ordered the Council to pay her almost $43,000 in weekly compensation plus her medical expenses.
What it means for employers
Complaints of bullying and harassment should be carefully investigated and addressed in ways that alleviate the problem, as far as reasonably practicable, even if the worker’s perceptions of unacceptable treatment are not considered reasonable.
Read the decision
Anderson v Campbelltown City Council [2024] NSWPIC 556 (8 October 2024)
