The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has ruled that a worker suffered incapacity and impairment as a result of an injury identified as a major depressive disorder with anxiety and panic disorder, to which employment with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) contributed to a significant degree.

The worker had sought a review of a decision made on 11 September 2018 that had denied liability for a psychological injury under section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

The worker was employed by ACMA. Initially, he worked as an APS6 policy officer. He was then promoted in subsequent years to an EL1 position working as an assistant manager.

The worker worked with the acting manager of the compliance operations section when the worker joined the compliance operations section. Over the years, their relationship became fractured, and this occurred comparatively early on. The relationship remained fractured at all times thereafter.

After a series of events that created friction between the worker and the manager, on 23 May 2018, the manager sent an email that aggravated the worker’s mental condition after he had been recently overworked with duties.

The same day after the receipt of the email, the worker consulted his doctor, who certified him as unfit for work for two days. He stated in addition to the stress, he was feeling even more depressed, finding it hard to sleep, and was still suffering panic attacks at work and on the way to work.

In written submissions, the ACMA had disputed the worker’s credibility, and it was alleged that there was an inconsistency in medical histories in respect of the allegations of overwork and bullying.

In the hearing, the tribunal held that it was satisfied, based on the medical evidence, that the worker’s injury, being a major depressive disorder with anxiety and panic disorder, occurred on 23 May 2018.

Tribunal member Robert Cameron found that the worker was exposed to a state of affairs in the course of the performance of his duties (and to which he would not otherwise have been exposed), which contributed to the psychiatric condition from which he now suffers. Accordingly, he had suffered an injury by way of an aggravation of an existing ailment within the meaning of s 5A(1)(c) of the Act.

The tribunal also rejected that the email sent on 23 May 2018 by the manager to the worker was reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner.

“The tribunal also considers that sending the email of 23 May 2018 in the very strong language that was used was not reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner, given that the [manager], when she had the opportunity to do so, did not speak to the worker directly when they were both present in the office on 22 May 2018,” Member Cameron said.

“The [manager] conceded that she had not given the worker an opportunity to respond to the matters before she drew the conclusions that she did in the email. She had not found out what his position was in relation to such allegations.”

“The tribunal considers that it was not reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner to send the email adopting the language used with respect to an alleged shortfall of hours when no cross-checking or independent verification had been undertaken to determine what hours the worker had or had not worked.”

The AAT ordered the payment of costs and disbursements to the worker in respect of this application pursuant to s 67 of the Act.

Read the judgment  

Petersen and Comcare (Compensation) [2023] AATA 456 (22 March 2023)