Compensation denied for personality-driven, 'unavoidable' psych injury

The AAT has rejected a worker's psychological injury claim, finding his personality "attracted" conflict and that he was unable to accept simple administrative decisions.

The RAAF Aeronautical Information Service draftsman had claimed compensation for an adjustment disorder with depression and anxiety, which was allegedly caused by harassment by co-workers and work pressure.

Comcare rejected the worker compensation claim both at first instance and on review. The worker sought a review in the AAT before Senior Member Bruce Pascoe.

He told the Tribunal that he was under-skilled and overworked, and that only himself and another worker were employed to do the work of six people. He said his problems coping with work were exacerbated when he had to assist and check the work of a newly hired employee.

The Tribunal considered two incidents where the worker claimed he was harassed. One involved a telephone he claimed was taken from his desk and placed at an empty cubicle while he was on leave. He was confronted and berated by co-workers after he took the phone.

The second incident involved a labelling machine that the employer purchased at the worker's request. He was told the machine was to be available to all workers and was removed from his desk. When he used the machine he claimed he was asked by co-workers what he was using the machine for and for how long.

The worker said he was upset after the incident, had some days off work and complained to his supervisor, who treated it as a complaint of harassment. An independent investigation was conducted, which found that there was no case to answer.

Senior Member Pascoe also heard the worker was frustrated with the employer's refusal to sign a novated lease for a car he purchased. The employer said the arrangements did not comply with RAAF requirements, but the worker maintained that it was within his entitlement under remuneration guidelines.

During a meeting about the lease, the worker became upset and aggressive. He was served with a summons for assault, to which he pleaded guilty upon legal advice.

Senior Member Pascoe heard evidence from psychiatrists who examined the worker and confirmed the adjustment disorder diagnosis, but found the "fundamental cause" of his injury was his personality. Further, it was within the bounds of the worker's normal functioning to be aggressive and create conflict.

Senior Member Pascoe was satisfied that the worker suffered a psychological injury in the course of his employment, however, on the balance and having regard to all of the evidence, found it was the result of failing to obtain a benefit.

"The [labelling] machine and telephone incident both occurred because [the worker] was not prepared to accept administrative actions which did not allow him exclusive use... and to unilaterally take back a telephone needed for other purposes.

"More significantly," he said, "the problem arose from a perceived failure to have his opinions sought and accepted."

Senior Member Pascoe said the worker was not seeking to be treated the same as everybody else but sought special benefits for himself not available to others.

He found the worker's personality was a significant contributing factor to the conflict he attracted.

"It is difficult to see how the employer could have avoided such workplace injury given the obvious vulnerability resulting from his personality," Senior Member Pascoe said, affirming Comcare's decision.