Alcohol-related injury at work party deemed compensable, bench dismisses reliance on High Court test

Alcohol-related injury at work party deemed compensable, bench dismisses reliance on High Court test



The injuries sustained by a worker at an alcohol-fuelled work Christmas party occurred in the course of her employment and not during a "social" activity, an appeals bench has ruled in rejecting a regulator's bid to block her claim.

Deputy President Judges Tony Rossi and Miles Crawley and Deputy President Stephen Lieschke of the South Australian Employment Tribunal rejected ReturnToWork SA's submission that the function was a social event that fell within the exclusion outlined in section 7(7) of the State Return to Work Act 2014.

ReturnToWork relied on several High Court cases in arguing the worker's employer had not "induced or encouraged" her to attend the Christmas party, meaning it was not liable for her injuries.

However, the full bench pointed out that the High Court's test of inducement only applied to injuries sustained during an "interval" within an overall period of work where the worker was situated, at the request of the employer, at a "remote" location.

The current case was not a remote location case, the bench found.

The incident occurred in November 2018 when the worker – a hairdresser employed by Karrara Hair and Beauty Centre – attended a fully-paid-for work Christmas Party at the invitation of her employer.

The event was held at a resort in Aldinga and involved overnight accommodation, lunch, unlimited alcohol, a spa bath and a male stripper. While under the influence of alcohol, the worker attempted to step out of the spa but slipped on the tiles and fell, sustaining hip and leg injuries.

The worker applied to ReturnToWork for medical expenses and weekly incapacity payments, but was denied these on the basis that she had not been directed to attend the party and, as such, had failed to prove the injury occurred in the course of her employment.

In reviewing the regulator's decision earlier this year, SAET Deputy President Judge Mark Calligeros heard Karrara's annual Christmas party was a significant event for the company with the owner closing the salon for the weekend and describing it as a time when staff could "let their hair down."

He found the employer "actively fostered the attendance and participation of employees in the event" by providing alcohol, accommodation, amenities, a spa bath and a stripper, and gave the employees "a very wide discretion or choice as to how they could behave".

He concluded that the worker had been encouraged to attend the Christmas function and "tacitly or impliedly invited" to participate in its activities, including using the spa bath that caused the injury.

He noted video footage showed the owner directing the worker and other staff members to exit the spa bath due to their intoxication, which was further evidence that the event was a "work-related function", and not purely a social event.

Deputy President Judge Calligeros went on to find the worker's employment was a significant contributing factor to her injury, as required by section 7(2)(a) of the RTW Act.

"A number of the decisions and actions of [the employer] significantly contributed to the occurrence of the injury suffered by [the worker]. This included the nature of the venue, the supply of alcohol and the expressed desire that the employees have a good time," he said.

ReturnToWork appealed, but Deputy President Judges Rossi and Crawley and Deputy President Lieschke rejected its submissions.

They highlighted that the worker "did not engage in a frolic of her own" and using the spa bath was "within the scope" of activities Karrara requested the worker undertake.

The full bench found no error in the previous decision, ruling the worker's employment gave rise to the circumstances that led to her slipping and falling and injuring her right hip and leg.

Return to Work Corporation of South Australia v Valentine and Karrara Hair and Beauty Centre [2022] SAET 134 (4 October 2022)

“This article originally appeared on OHS Alert and is reproduced with permission”