Employers and workers have compo responsibilities

Contrasted with the principle that an employer has to justify cessation of workers compensation payments are three cases pointing to the obligations on workers to substantiate a legitimate claim for compensation.


These cases are from the Tasmanian jurisdiction, but the principles involved apply broadly across jurisdictions.

Employer has to justify cessation of payment

This appeal concerned the question of whether it is the employer or the worker who bears the onus of proof in relation to the justification for cessation of compensation payments.


Justice Estcourt of the Tasmanian Supreme Court noted that given the statutory entitlement to make such a reference was bestowed by s81A(5) upon an employer who wishes to dispute liability to continue to pay compensation to a worker in respect of an injury, one would have thought that it was quite clear that the onus would lie with the employer who seeks to establish facts justifying the cessation of payments, but “obviously, to the appellant at least, who on this appeal contends to the contrary, the matter is not so clear”.


The court rejected the employer’s arguments. Even though the employer may dispute a continuing liability to pay by disputing the employee’s foundational entitlement to compensation, it remains that the employer is seeking to prove that the employee is “no longer entitled” to the payment of compensation and so carries the onus to establish this.


On any view, the worker did not bear the onus of proof upon the hearing of the employer’s reference to the tribunal by reason of the operation of the principle of common law that “he who seeks must prove”.


Skilled Group Limited v A [2015] TASSC 18 (14 May 2015) 

Worker’s inaccurate view of email – reasonable employer action

The Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal reached the conclusion that, although some issues – in particular the meal allowance and time off in lieu of overtime – may have in some way conditioned the worker to form an inaccurate view as to the nature and intent of a work email, it was the receipt of an email and her interpretation of it that caused the worker to suffer her injury (disease) in circumstances.


The email from her manager informed her that he was not, at that stage, prepared to complete a mentoring report on her. He then went back over her employment history noting all events that had occurred which she believed reflected poorly on the employer and may have concerned her at the time at which they occurred.


The worker’s evidence gave the impression of someone significantly affected by the receipt of this email.


This email was part of the completion of a mentoring component of the training course undertaken by the worker. The reason for the email, the content of the email and the actual intention expressed in that email were all reasonable actions that were administrative in nature and were taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the worker’s employment. Her injury (disease) which was an illness of the mind arose substantially from this aspect of her employment and as such compensation was not payable.


C v Community & Public Sector Union (Ref No. 125/2014) [2015] TASWRCT 16 (12 May 2015)

Actual communication of injury by worker required for notice

the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal noted case authority stating that a worker who merely expresses dissatisfaction, dismay or even distress to an employer concerning her working conditions or the behaviour of her employer or co-workers, does not thereby put her employer on notice of a potential claim for compensation and does not provide the requisite statutory notice of injury or disease.


On the day of the assault in issue here the worker consulted Dr A. The evidence indicated that she was diagnosed to be suffering a stress condition which had resulted from Mr B’s misconduct.


On 2 December, the employer, via Ms K, was aware of the assault within 30 minutes of its occurrence. Shortly afterwards it was aware, again via Ms K, that the worker had absented herself from the workplace and was emotionally distressed. It agreed that she should remain off work for that day. That afternoon the employer received Dr A’s first certificate which indicated the worker to be in need of medical treatment for an unidentified condition.


These matters together, in the tribunal’s view, should have made it plain to the employer that the worker was suffering from a medical condition attributable to the assault: “In the circumstances Ms K’s assertion to the contrary defies belief.”


However, those authorities cited did not make it arguable that the employer did not receive actual notice of the worker’s stress condition until 8 December when it received the workers compensation medical certificate. Although prior to that time the employer was aware that the worker was distressed, such observations “cannot form part of a notice . . . nor can observations that the employer ought to have made but did not make . . .”, quoting Friends’ School Inc v Edmiston [2014] TASSC 68, where Chief Justice Alan Blow found observations an employer made or ought to have made of a worker’s injury “cannot form part of a notice given to the employer”.


In the result, the tribunal came to the view, for the reasons stated, that the employer may arguably be able to avoid liability for the worker’s claim on the basis that it did not receive proper notice of the worker’s injury as soon as practicable; and the tribunal concluded: “I determine accordingly.”


Steel-line Garage Doors Pty Ltd v C (Ref No. 188/2015) [2015] TASWRCT 10 (18 March 2015)

Contact Us

Zenergy News

Zenergy Upcoming Leaders Forum

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.

Groping dismissal highlights raised bar of consent

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."

Zenergy Team Outing

22 Apr, 2024
An Afternoon of Fun and Fierce Competition: Our Team's Lawn Bowls Adventure

Zenergy Safety Ladies' Lunch

16 Apr, 2024
Empowering Women in Safety: Insights from the Zenergy Safety Ladies' Lunch

Client Focus – Snowy Hydro

16 Apr, 2024
By Jason O’Dowd. Recruitment - Health Safety Environment & Quality

Safety blitz to prevent deaths and injuries from construction falls

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: