Excuse for not joining rehab program rejected

An employee must have a reasonable excuse for refusing to participate in a workplace rehabilitation program – merely being dissatisfied with it is not an acceptable reason for non-compliance.


The Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia (AATA) found that it appeared that an employee’s main reason for refusing to participate was her preference to work four days per week instead of five.


Her case was also undermined by surveillance footage that indicated that she had exaggerated her symptoms, and some credibility issues with the evidence of other witnesses.

Facts of case


Catrina Oliver was employed as an executive assistant by the Department of Social Services (DSS). She was awarded workers’ compensation for inflammatory and sprain-type injuries, including carpal tunnel syndrome, to her left wrist. Over three years, she had surgery and several attempts to return to work, before taking maternity leave. Several different rehabilitation providers were used during this time.


The DSS referred her to an occupational physician, who reported that her condition was unlikely to resolve in the foreseeable future, but there were no objective medical reasons why she could not return to full-time work. The physician prepared a return-to-work plan that included graduated return to full-time work hours over three months, plus ergonomic adjustments to her workplace, limits placed on lifting weights and keyboard use, and use of voice-activated software. 


Ms Oliver claimed that the program was unsuitable because it caused her “unbearable pain and constant stress and anxiety”. She requested a new program that included the alternative of working four days per week instead of five, but the DSS refused. She requested that Comcare’s decision be reviewed, but it found in the employer’s favour, so she appealed to the AATA.


She claimed that the pain amounted to a reasonable excuse for refusing the program and that the voice-activated software was of limited help to her because of workplace background noise and its limited task capability. 


However, surveillance footage of the employee performing activities outside work, such as putting her children into her car with both arms, indicated that she was not suffering severe pain and had exaggerated her symptoms. The nature of her complaints about the program suggested that her real motive was a preference to work four days per week, which would also assist her childcare arrangements.


Comcare claimed that the medical evidence showed that its proposed rehabilitation program would not increase the level of pain when combined with the other proposed support measures.


The AATA questioned the credibility of some of Ms Oliver’s evidence and that of her witnesses.

Decision


The AATA found that the employer’s rehabilitation program was reasonable, based on a suitable assessment of Ms Oliver, appropriate and compliant with legislation. This finding took into account each of the following: potential to reduce future compensation payable, cost of the program, benefits to Ms Oliver’s employment, the potential psychological cost of not providing the program, the relative merits of alternative actions, and her attitude towards the program. Therefore, she was obligated to undertake the program.


The AATA’s decision was based mainly on the evidence in relation to her ongoing level of pain, as there was limited evidence available in relation to the “stress” claim.


The AATA upheld a previous decision to suspend her entitlement to workers’ compensation payments until she took part in the employer-provided rehabilitation program. 


The bottom line: A tribunal does not have to establish the reason why an employee chooses not to participate in an employer-provided rehabilitation program. Therefore, the employer’s claim in this case that the employee wanted a four-day week to suit her childcare responsibilities did not have to be considered. The tribunal has to decide whether the employee had a reasonable excuse for refusing to participate. The employee’s excuse has to be objective, not just rational. In this case, there was strong evidence that the employee had no reasonable reason for refusing the employer’s program, she just preferred her alternative of working fewer days per week.

Decision


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: