Compo claim for driveway injury must be accepted

The worker was employed by a state utility as powerline worker. Based at Port Pirie, his job involved both office and field-based tasks. He was required to be on a one-in-four week standby roster to attend call-out work outside of normal hours, and was provided with a work vehicle to be housed at his property.

On the afternoon of 6 September 2019, he received a text message requesting him to attend a job at Jamestown along with other workers on the standby crew.

Case Update


A tribunal has found that compensation must be paid for an injury sustained by a worker in the driveway of his own home, because the journey he was about to undertake had a real and substantial connection with his employment. The case gave rise to a consideration of whether South Australia’s current workers comp legislation imposes a more or less stringent requirement for a connection between the injury and the employment, than the previous workers’ comp Act.

The injury


After changing into his work attire, he got into the vehicle then accidentally dropped his keys, which fell out the driver’s side door and landed on the driveway.

While remaining seated in the driver’s seat, he leaned out the driver’s side door to pick up the keys. Being a four-wheel drive vehicle, however, the driver’s seat was elevated approximately 90cm from the ground, and the reaching action caused him to suffer a strain to his back.

He reported the injury, then sought medical treatment at the local hospital.

As he was incapacitated for work and had incurred medical expenses, he put in a workers comp claim to cover medical costs and provide weekly payments.

His employer rejected the claim, however, on the grounds that the injury did not arise from his employment and his employment was not a significant contributing cause of the injury.

The worker challenged this rejection of his claim, and the case was heard in the South Australian Employment Tribunal.


In the tribunal


The worker maintained that he was injured in the course of carrying out his duties, or at least, in the course of a journey undertaken in order to carry out the duties of employment, so the injury should be compensable under the Return to Work Act 2014 (SA) (the Act).

His employer argued that at the time of the injury, the worker was not carrying out duties of employment but merely undertaking activity preparatory to undertaking duties of employment. The employer’s submission contended that the worker was not in the course of a journey at the relevant time, as he was at his place of residence; alternatively, if he was in the course of a journey, there was no real and substantial connection between the employment and the journey or between the employment and the accident.

In a case previously heard by the tribunal, the deputy president judge had concluded that that a real and substantial connection between the employment and the accident is a prerequisite for compensability.

In this case, the deputy president judge found that he was unable to agree with the conclusion arrived at in the other case. Instead, he found that the present Act requires a real and substantial connection between the employment and the journey being undertaken at the time of the accident out of which the injury arises.

He noted that the change in the wording of the provision between the previous and the current Acts involves a shifting of emphasis from the connection between the accident and the employment to an emphasis on the connection between the journey and the employment.

He therefore ordered that the employer’s decision to reject the worker’s claim must be set aside, and the claim must be accepted.

The bottom line: It remains to be seen whether a connection with the journey rather than with the accident will be considered sufficient to justify compensation in future cases involving journey injuries.


Read the judgment


Thelan v Utilities Management Pty Ltd [2021] SAET 6 (18 January 2021)

 Originally posted on http://workplaceohs.com.au

Contact Us

Zenergy News

22 Apr, 2024
The annual Zenergy Leaders Forum is one of the premier events on the senior health, safety & sustainability calendar in Australia.  This is a non-ticketed invitation only event hosted by Zenergy. Attendee numbers at the Zenergy forum are 150 and will include executive, people and culture directors, CEO, COO and directors of health & safety and HSE personnel. The topic for this year is “Integrated Psychosocial Risk Management”. All of the event information is below and reach out to your account manager at Zenergy for further details.
22 Apr, 2024
This article has been reproduced with permission from OHS Alert, and the original version appears at www.ohsalert.com.au . A commission has cautioned that society's "significantly raised" bar for what constitutes consent for physical interactions is "even higher" in work-related environments, in upholding the summary dismissal of a worker for inappropriately touching a colleague. In Perth, Fair Work Commission Deputy President Melanie Binet said that regardless of the intention of the worker, who claimed he was simply moving his female colleague "out of the way", his conduct was a valid reason for dismissal. Workers should be "on notice" of the increased scrutiny of behaviours, given the extensive social discourse and media coverage on sexual harassment issues, she said. "This is particularly so in the mining industry in Western Australia where a parliamentary inquiry [see related article ] focused community attention on the odious frequency of sexual harassment and assault of women in the mining industry." The Deputy President added that recent amendments to the Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009 that specifically identify sexual harassment as a valid reason for dismissal (see related article ) "reflect a societal recognition that sexual harassment has no place in the workplace in the same way as violence or theft don't". The worker was an Alcoa of Australia Ltd advanced mechanical tradesperson when he was sacked for inappropriately touching the colleague in an office at Alcoa's Pinjarra Alumina Refinery in September last year. The worker claimed he turned his back to the colleague to squeeze between her and a desk to go to speak to another person and his hands made contact with her lower torso. Afterwards, the colleague's partner entered the office and found her visibly distressed. He confronted the worker, accusing him of grabbing the colleague's buttocks and squeezing it. The issue was escalated, and the worker was summarily dismissed after an investigation concluded he sexually harassed the colleague by making "unwelcomed and socially inappropriate physical contact". Alcoa found the worker breached codes and policies that he had been trained on, which stated that harassment was not determined by the intent of the person who engaged in the conduct but by the impact on the recipient. The worker admitted touching the colleague but claimed this only occurred because the room was crowded. He said he did not intend to behave in a sexual manner and apologised to the colleague as soon as he found out she was upset. He claimed unfair dismissal and sought reinstatement in the FWC. Deputy President Binet found the worker's accounts of the incident were inconsistent, with the parts of the colleague's body that he touched changing in his various statements. She accepted the colleague's evidence that the worker groped her in an "intimate sexual location" and his conduct caused immediate and ongoing effects to her health and wellbeing. The worker could have waited until there was space for him to pass between the desks, requested the colleague to move from the gap or gently touched her arm to get her attention, the Deputy President said. "There was simply no justification for him to turn his back then have his hands at [the colleague's] buttocks level, touch her buttocks and consciously push her out of his way," she said. "I am not convinced that [his] conduct was intended to be entirely without a sexual nature," she concluded. She stressed that even if she was wrong on this point, this type of unwelcome touching could objectively be seen as being capable of making recipients feel offended, humiliated or intimidated. The Deputy President also slammed the worker's representatives for choosing "to follow a well-worn but discredited path of blaming the victim" by accusing the colleague of inviting the "accidental" contact by standing in the narrow walkway. "Women should be able to attend their workplaces without fear of being touched inappropriately," she said in dismissing the worker's case. "It is a sad inditement of the positive work that has been undertaken by employers, unions and regulatory bodies in the mining industry that young women like [the colleague] are still frightened to report incidents of harassment for fear of being ostracised."
22 Apr, 2024
An Afternoon of Fun and Fierce Competition: Our Team's Lawn Bowls Adventure
16 Apr, 2024
Empowering Women in Safety: Insights from the Zenergy Safety Ladies' Lunch
16 Apr, 2024
By Jason O’Dowd. Recruitment - Health Safety Environment & Quality
16 Apr, 2024
Safety blitz to prevent deaths and injuries from construction falls WorkSafe Victoria recently launched a statewide blitz to tackle fall risks on building sites, such as unsafe or incomplete scaffolds, inappropriate ladder use, steps, stairs and voids or falling from or through roofs. The initiative was launched after nine Victorian workers died in 2023 as a result of falls from height, including four in the construction industry. The number of accepted workers’ compensation claims from construction workers injured in falls from heights also increased to 441 – up from 421 in 2022 and 404 the year before. Construction continues to be the highest-risk industry for falls from heights, making up a third of the 1352 total falls from height claims accepted last year. Of the construction workers injured, 160 fell from ladders, 46 from steps and stairways, 31 from buildings or structures, 27 from scaffolding, and 13 from openings in floors, walls or ceilings. WorkSafe Victoria executive director of health and safety, Narelle Beer, said inspectors would be out in force with an extra emphasis on ensuring employers are doing everything they can to prevent falls. “As a leading cause of injury in the construction industry, falls from height is always a priority for our inspectors – but they will be making this a particular focus as they visit building sites over the coming weeks,” Beer said. “The safest way to prevent falls is to work on the ground. Where that’s not possible, employers should use the highest level of safety protection possible, such as complete scaffolding, guard railing and void covers.” Beer said WorkSafe Victoria can and will take action against employers who fail to ensure the highest level of risk control measures are in place to protect workers from falls. “A fall can happen in just seconds and it can turn your world upside down – so there’s no excuse for taking shortcuts when working at heights,” she said. The statewide blitz will be supported by fall prevention messaging across social media, newsletters and online, reminding employers and workers that fall can be fatal or cause life-changing injuries. Source: Australian Institute of Health & Safety (AIHS)
More Posts
Share by: