Definition of injury > > (1) In this Act: > > "injury" means: > > (a) a disease suffered by an employee; or > > (b) an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, that is a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee's employment; or > > (c) an aggravation of a physical or mental injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee (whether or not that injury arose out of, or in the course of, the employee's employment), that is an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, that employment; > > but does not include a disease, injury or aggravation suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employee's employment. > > (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) and without limiting that subsection, reasonable administrative action is taken to include the following: > > (a) a reasonable appraisal of the employee's performance; > > (b) a reasonable counselling action (whether formal or informal) taken in respect of the employee's employment; > > (c) a reasonable suspension action in respect of the employee's employment; > > (d) a reasonable disciplinary action (whether formal or informal) taken in respect of the employee's employment; > > (e) anything reasonable done in connection with an action mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d); > > (f) anything reasonable done in connection with the employee's failure to obtain a promotion, reclassification, transfer or benefit, or to retain a benefit, in connection with his or her employment.

3. In Comcare v Martin [2016] HCA 43; (2016) 258 CLR 467 (Comcare v Martin), the High Court clarified the circumstances in which the exclusion at section 5A(1) could apply and set out the necessary causal connection considerations. At 480 [47] per French CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane and Nettle JJ:

...what is required to meet the causal connection connoted by the exclusionary phrase in s 5A(1) in its application to a disease within s 5A(1)(a) is therefore that the employee would not have suffered that disease, as defined by s 5B(1), if the administrative action had not been taken. That is to say, the causal connection is met if, without the taking of the administrative action, the employee would not have suffered the ailment or aggravation that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee's employment.

4. Consideration of whether administrative action was 'reasonable' does not require consideration of whether such action could have been undertaken differently, or in a better manner. It only requires that such action was reasonable in the circumstances: see Nguyen v Comcare [2018] AATA 1623 and Terbizan v Comcare [2018] AAT 3862.
5. A reasonable administrative action does not need to be the sole cause of an injury for the exclusion to apply: see Hart v Comcare [2005] FCAFC 16 as confirmed by the High Court in Comcare v Martin.
6. A psychological or psychiatric condition can only be compensable as an 'injury' within the meaning of the SRC Act where it is a 'condition that is outside the boundaries of normal mental functioning and behaviour', that is a 'clinically significant' condition': Comcare v Mooi [1996] FCA 1587; (1996) 69 FCR 439 (Comcare v Mooi). Such a condition has commonly become known as a 'Mooi condition'. It is not necessary that the condition be identified with the label of a recognised medical condition: Comcare v Mooi at 443-444 per Drummond J.

1. The Tribunal was provided with the following evidence:

(a) T-Documents dated 11 March 2025, which included (but was not limited to) the following: > > > (i) Statement of Nicole Dale dated 17 May 2024; > > > > (ii) Statement of Jenny Wells, dated 20 May 2024; > > > > (iii) Statement of Applicant (undated); > > > > (iv) Statement of Applicant's husband (undated); > > > > (v) Statement of Chrissy Peters dated 6 September 2024; > > > > (vi) Statement of Melese Jane Pilley dated 6 September 2024; > > > > (vii) Statement of Keira Jacobs dated 6 September 2024; > > > > (viii) Statement of Martina Szymczak (undated); > > > > (ix) Statement of Moiwana Bradley dated 16 January 2020; > > > > (x) Amended Statement of Moiwana Bradley dated 21 October 2024; > > > > (xi) Statement of Applicant (undated); > > > > (xii) Report of Ms Boskovic dated 15 March 2024; > > > > (xiii) Report of Dr Oliver dated 28 March 2024; > > > > (xiv) Report of Ms Boskovic dated 9 May 2024; > > > > (xv) Report of Dr Parmagiani dated 2 July 2024; > > > > (xvi) Report of Dr Ashwinder Anand dated 28 November 2024. > > (b) Joint Hearing Book dated 27 October 2025, containing: > > 1. Documents filed by the Applicant: >
> 1. Medical Certificate of Dr Mehwish Shaikh (General Practitioner) dated 17 February 2025; > 2. Undated correspondence from Caloundra Service Centre (received by ART on 29 August 2025); > 3. Statement of Ms Rachael Harrison dated 10 November 2024. >
> 1. Documents filed by the Respondent: >
> 1. Briefing letter to Dr Enrico Parmegiani for supplementary report dated 1 October 2025; > 2. Supplementary report of Dr Enrico Parmegiani dated 8 October 2025. >
> 1. Summonsed records: >
> 1. Extract of progress notes of Farrell St. Family Practice; > 2. Ana Boskovic.

2. The Applicant provided the following additional documents to those including in the T-Documents:

(a) "AAT Document"; > > (b) Copy of email sent from "Caloundra Service Centre" team to "Anthony" (Caloundra team email); > > (c) Email forwarded from Rachel Harrison "to whom it may concern" dated 10 November 2024; > > (d) Report from Dr Mehwish Shaikh to Services Australia dated 17 February 2025.

3. By email dated 2 October 2025, the Applicant informed the Tribunal that she wished to call Keira Jacobs, Melese Pilley, Martina Szymczak, Christine Peters, Moiwana Bradley and Rachel Harrison to give evidence at the hearing on her behalf. The Respondent informed the Tribunal that they required each of those individuals for cross examination, if they were to give evidence at the hearing. Ultimately only Ms Peters, Ms Harrison and Ms Szymczak gave evidence at the hearing and were cross-examined by the Respondent's counsel. The Applicant informed the Tribunal that she did not rely on the evidence of Moiwana Bradley and did not call Keira Jacobs. The Tribunal attempted to contact Melese Pilley three times during the hearing but was unsuccessful.
4. The Applicant required Nicole Dale, Jennifer Wells and Dr Parmagiani for cross-examination at the hearing. Nicole Dale was the Applicant's Manager and Jennifer Wells was the Applicant's Regional Manager. The Applicant cross-examined Ms Dale and Dr Parmagiani at hearing. The Applicant informed the Tribunal during the hearing that she had no questions for Ms Wells, so the Tribunal excused her attendance.

1. The following relevant factual background, derived from the material before the Tribunal, was not disputed by the parties:

(a) The Applicant started working for Services Australia (then Centrelink) around 35 years ago. In 2019 she started her "Leadership journey" and worked as a Service Delivery Team Leader (TL) at several locations, including Nambour, Noosa, Kawana Waters, Gympie and Caloundra. > > (b) In 2022 she commenced at Caloundra Service Centre as Front of House (FOH) TL. The journey time from her home to workplace was approximately 45 minutes, one way. > > (c) On 27 March 2023 the Applicant commenced as Back of House (BOH) TL at Caloundra and another individual became FOH TL at Caloundra. > > (d) In April 2023 the Applicant applied for an Australian Public Service (APS) 5/6 Leadership role. > > (e) In June 2023 the Applicant filled in for the FOH TL at Gympie for one week. The journey time from her home to workplace was approximately 1 hour, each way. > > (f) On 23 August 2023 the FOH TL Caloundra was transferred to the Kawana Service Centre. > > (g) In November 2023 the Applicant was telephoned by her Manager when she was on leave and informed that the APS 5/6 role outcomes were released. The Applicant was classified as "suitable" for the APS 5/6 roles. > > (h) In late January 2024/ February 2024 the FOH TL Caloundra 2024 was offered the APS5 gazetted role in Caloundra. > > (i) In February 2024 the Applicant requested 4 weeks' long-service leave from 4 March 2024 to 28 March 2024, which was approved. > > (j) In February 2024 the Applicant was asked by the Regional Manager to work at the Gympie Service Centre. The Applicant declined, but agreed to work at Gympie on her return from leave for "the short term". > > (k) On 25 March 2024 the Applicant sent the following text to her Manager at 10.09am: > > Just to let you know, having time off has made me reflect on the past months, family, and myself. I have decided not to take the Team Leader role in Gympie. Sorry to the other Managers for the inconvenience, but this has been weighing on my mind and cannot see myself fulfilling the role. I will be forwarding a Medical Certificate through during the week. I hope you understand. > > (l) On 25 March 2024 at 5.20pm the Applicant's Regional Manager had a conversation with the Applicant by telephone, where she was informed that she was successful in her application for the APS5 TL position. The Applicant informed the Regional Manager that she would not work at Gympie, intended to obtain a medical certificate, and would get back to her about the TL position. > > (m) On 28 March 2024 the Applicant attended her GP and was provided with a medical certificate for 3 weeks and a referral for psychotherapy. The Applicant provided her medical certificate to her Manager. > > (n) The Applicant has remained off work since she commenced pre-approved leave in on 4 March 2024.

2. The Applicant's psychiatric condition was given varying diagnoses by the doctors who examined her:

(a) On 28 March 2024, the clinical records of Farrell Street Family Practice recorded a diagnosis of "acute stress reaction"; > > (b) On 17 April 2024, the clinical records of Farrell Street Family Practice recorded a diagnosis of "adjustment disorder", and this was repeated in clinical records on 30 May 2024, 13 June 2024; > > (c) In the Certificate of Capacity dated 30 April 2024, Dr Brandon Oliver (GP) diagnosed "acute stress reaction"; > > (d) In a report dated 2 July 2024, Dr Enrico Parmagiani (consultant and forensic psychiatrist) diagnosed Major Depressive Disorder (MDD); > > (e) In a report dated 28 November 2024, Dr Ashwinder Anand (consultant psychiatrist) diagnosed MDD with prominent anxiety; > > (f) In a report dated 3 April 2025, Dr Mehwish Shaikh (GP) diagnosed MDD.

1. In response to a section 71 request by Comcare, the Agency stated:

In Ms Lang's claim for compensation, the date of injury is listed as 5 February 2024. Services Australia has no record of the incident being reported in person or via the agency's injury and incident reporting tool at the time of the alleged incident. The agency has no record of a report being lodged with the Respect team for unreasonable treatment. > > Services Australia would like to place emphasis on the date that personal leave as a result of the alleged workplace incident commenced. Ms Lang continued attendance at work from the stated date of injury of 5 February 2024 until 29 February 2024, then accessed pre-planned long service and annual leave from 4 March 2024 to 28 March 2024. > > Personal leave commenced on 2 April 2024 and Ms Lang remains unfit for work at the time of this statement. > > Ms Lang's direct line manager Ms Dale, states that she was made aware of Ms Lang's illness on 28 March 2024 via a text message with a medical certificate attached and subsequent phone contact.

2. That evidence was not disputed by the Applicant.

1. A number of issues arise from the parties' evidence of factual matters, which are not agreed.
2. The Applicant provided a Timeline document (T13.1) in the course of Comcare's consideration of her workers compensation claim, a Statement (T26.1) attached to her request for reconsideration of Comcare's decision, and a Statement (T30.1.3) attached to her application for review of the Reviewable Decision.
3. The Timeline document contained entries from March 2023 to April 2024 chiefly concerning the Applicant's interactions with her Manager and Regional Manager and how those interactions made her feel, including:

(a) an incident in November 2023 where she alleges her Manager "started yelling at me" (the November 2023 incident); > > (b) her failure to obtain the APS5 gazetted role in the Caloundra Service Centre, in February 2024; > > (c) the request that she transfer to the Gympie Service Centre for a period, in February 2024, and her responses (the transfer request).

4. The Statement attached to her request for reconsideration expanded on the November 2023 incident as a "particular event" which "impacted [her] life so significantly", and also expanded on the impact of the transfer request on her, as a symptom of her Manager "targeting her" making her "feel unsafe and vulnerable":

... my condition has nothing to do with being asked to work in Gympie and everything to do with when Nicole was yelling at me and treating me with disrespect.

5. The Statement attached to her application for a review of the Reviewable Decision expanded on other traumatic incidents the Applicant claims she experienced in her 35 years working for the Department, and her assessment of the causes of her declining mental health:

As stated in my doctors reports my medical condition is a result of long-term negative experiences at work. The basis of my original claim was the last negative interaction I could deal with particularly as it was from my intimal manager. From this point my mental health was declining, which I did not realise at the start, until I sought medical help. The promotion to manage another office, with new staff and customers, with my mental state, was something that I could not cope with. If I wasn't in a state of mental decline, of course I would have taken the promotion. > > At this point I would like you to take into consideration, the long-term effects of the negative interactions I have endured, the negative management style I have endured and how highly Emotionally disruptive I had found my last months working, and the major contributor of my current situation. The past months have been very emotionally, financially, mentally distressing dealing with the negative claim process, adding further to the decline in my mental health.

6. The Applicant relied on various statements as corroborative evidence.
7. The Respondent relied on Statements from each of the Applicant's Manager and Regional Manager to refute the Applicant's characterisation of her interactions with them, including to refute the Applicant's account of the November 2023 incident.

1. Despite the varying diagnoses given to the Applicant's condition, it was not disputed by the Respondent that the Applicant suffers from a psychiatric condition incorporating MDD.
2. The Respondent contended that the Applicant's MDD was a "disease" within the meaning of section 5B of the SRC Act. It was therefore undisputed that the Applicant's injury was contributed to, to a significant degree, by her employment with the Agency.
3. However, the Respondent contended that the Applicant's disease was excluded as a compensable injury under section 5A(1) of the SRC Act because it was suffered as a result of "reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employee's employment" (RAA).
4. The Respondent contended that the medical evidence, including the following excerpts, demonstrated that the Applicant's MDD was significantly contributed to by the Agency's request to transfer the Applicant to the Gympie Service Centre:

(a) Dr Parmegiani considered the Applicant's MDD was equally caused by an increased workload to which she was subjected after her colleague was transferred to another office and she had to undertake two roles; the conflict that allegedly occurred in November 2023 where the Applicant was told by her line manager to 'suck it up'; the announcement that another colleague was given a position as a permanent team leader in Caloundra (which the Applicant believed she was promised); and the request to begin working at the Gympie office.

(b) Dr Parmegiani reported the request that the Applicant begin working at the Gympie office constituted the final factor that caused her to experience the current symptoms of MDD.

(c) Dr Shaikh reported the Applicant's condition was suffered because 'she felt there was unfair treatment at work, being asked to relocate to Gympie, but did not feel it was appropriate. She was suffering anxiety, poor mood, and poor sleep'.

(d) The Applicant first received medical treatment following being notified of the transfer to the Gympie office and on 1 March 2024.

1. The Respondent also relied on the Applicant's nomination of her date of injury in her claim form, as "05/02/2024 1:01PM", as evidence that the request for her to transfer to the Gympie Service Centre was the significant contributor to her MDD:

'I nominated the 5 February 2024 as the date of injury. This is the date that I found out my new position was at the Gympie office'.

2. In the alternative, the Respondent contended that the evidence demonstrated that the Applicant's MDD was significantly contributed to by a failure to obtain a promotion.
3. The Applicant contended that the significant contributor to her development of MDD was unreasonable treatment by her Manager (Ms Dale) and Regional Manager (Ms Wells).
4. A number of issues thereby arise for the Tribunal's consideration and determination, in reaching the correct or preferable decision:

(a) Was the request for the Applicant to work in the Gympie Service Centre a significant contributor to her development of MDD? > > > (i) If so, was that RAA within the meaning of section 5A(1) of the SRC Act? > > (b) Was the Applicant's failure to obtain a promotion a significant contributor to her development of MDD? > > > (i) If so, was that RAA within the meaning of section 5A(1) of the SRC Act? > > (c) Or, was unreasonable treatment by the Applicant's Manager a significant contributor to the Applicant's development of MDD? > > (d) Should the Application for Review of Decision dated 25 September 2024 be affirmed, varied or set aside under section 105 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act)?

1. In her claim for workers compensation submitted on 8 May 2024, the Applicant stated that her condition was "Acute Stress Reaction", that she was injured by "unreasonable treatment" and that she first noticed her symptoms/injury on "05/02/2024 1:01PM". She denied having experienced a similar symptom, injury or illness previously.
2. Subsequently, in her request for reconsideration and in seeking review of the Reviewable Decision, the Applicant contended that she first started experiencing the symptoms of her psychological injury - described ultimately as MDD - significantly earlier, in March 2023, when the request by her Manager to the BOH TL:

...made me feel uncomfortable, upset stressed and angry as the Manager had spoken to BOH Team Leader in a way that was derogatory, condescending and non-professional on many occasions.

3. According to her Timeline submitted in the context of her request for reconsideration, by September 2023 "it was becoming a little stressful", in October 2023 "Staff were feeling unsupported, they were starting to not engage at work feeling stressed and upset, regarding not enough support from their line manager. This then put added pressure on me to make them feel supported and heard. I always felt like I was the meat in the sandwich", and then the November 2023 incident occurred, which I address below.
4. In the Timeline, the Applicant reported physical symptoms developing in December 2023 and then continuing in January 2024:

2023 December: Started to develop Rash on my chest and diarrhoea nearly every day. Which started to become a worry as I have never had any of these symptoms in the past. > > ... > > 2024 January: Manager returned from leave. I was anxious on the Managers return. My anxiety was heightened, my chest rash was getting more noticeable, and my bowel movements were getting worse. I would have to go to the toilet 2 or 3 times before the office opened, all the time worrying if was going to make the 45min trip to work without making a mess of myself.

5. The medical evidence does not support the Applicant's account in her Timeline of her physical symptoms. The Applicant sought treatment for a rash on her face, neck, chest and abdomen on 12 January 2024, with the clinical records reporting:

Had flu like illness since Christmas / Twin sister gave her PO Doxycycline / Onset of rashes - itchy and maculopapular over face, neck, chest and abdomen / No anaphylaxis symptoms / No other identifiable triggers to it / Strongly advocated not to take POabx that GP has not prescribed for her / Said flu like illness getting better / Rash still very itchy / Advised trial of 3 days prednisolone / Can also use PRN OTC antihistamines for itch ... > > Scattered blanching maculopapular rash - face, arms and chest > > ... > > Reason for visit: > > Pruritic Rash

6. There was no contemporary medical evidence linking the appearance of this rash over December 2023, and its reported continuation as at 1 February 2024, to her workplace or any stressors experienced by her. There was also no contemporaneous medical evidence of the Applicant experiencing bowel issues in the period prior to late April 2024, as she alleged in her Timeline.
7. The first reference to work-related stress is recorded on 1 March 2024 in the clinical records of Dr Brendan Oliver of the Farrell Street Medical Practice:

Needs to stop smoking / Stress at work recently / Now 6/52 off / Going to Perth with Mom / Plans to quit over break! / Encouraged. > > ... > > Reason for visit: > > Dyslipidaemia / Vitamin D deficiency

8. On 10 March 2024 the Applicant had her first appointment with psychologist Ana Boskovic of AB Counselling Services by telephone. Ms Boskovic recorded her assessment:

Situational stress / impacting on (wellbeing, holistically, health + mental health). Feeling she needs to give information re: future to Employer. Very unclear / overwhelmed / unable to make clear decision at this stage.

Stress / K10 = 35 (acute)! > > Advocacy: letter (GP) > > Basic needs being compromised, due to work pressure. Feels forced to drive to Gympie for work after 35 years of employment. Feels "Rushed out". > > Not work ready / overwhelmed / Unable to meet basic needs.

Workplace stress / Requesting stress leave / Anxiety / Mood affected / Poor sleep / Seeing counsellor - AB counselling services / K10 - 35 / Manager in Caloundra / Feels unfair treatment at work, Being asked to work in Gympie / Unsure options / Currently long service leave - April 2nd > > Discussion: > > DASS21 / Review for MHCP for further counselling / 2 weeks stress leave would be appropriate initially / Encouraged speaking w/ HR for options incl ?workcover if needing prolonged leave > > Reason for visit: > > Workplace stress

11. In Ms Boskovic's records of her appointment with the Applicant on 10 April 2024, she recorded:

Remain highly strung out and 'triggered' by work environment (ie timeline). > > Is able to identify physical symptoms of anxiety more regularly + is starting to manage with psych strategies. > > Eating: no appetite / confusion/ forgetful / sleep / dreaming...

12. There was no reference in Dr Oliver's clinical entries, or in Ms Boskovic's notes, to symptoms of a stress-induced rash. There was no reference to any stress-induced bowel issues until 16 April 2024 in Ms Boskovic's notes, and 30 April 2024 when Dr Oliver recorded (emphasis added):

Workcover (ComCare) > > Ongoing Anxiety / Labile / Gastro sx > > Continuing to see psychologist > > Reason for visit: > > Worker's compensation

13. The Respondent submitted that the Applicant had attended her GP on a number of occasions prior to February and March 2024 and had not made any complaints of stress symptoms at the time.
14. On the basis of the contemporaneous medical evidence before the Tribunal, I find that the Applicant first began experiencing symptoms of work-related stress in February 2024, prior to her going on leave for an extended period of approximately 4 weeks. While she was away from work these symptoms increased. The Applicant was due to return to work after her period of pre-arranged leave on 2 April 2024 but was instead certified unfit for work on 19 March 2024 and remained unfit for work from that date.
15. Ms Boskovic's record of the Applicant's mental state on 15 March 2024 indicates that as at that date, the Applicant's psychological symptoms were significant and impactful enough to constitute a psychological condition 'which went outside the boundaries of normal mental functioning and behaviour' (a Mooi condition), as is required to give rise to liability under the SRC Act: see Comcare v Mooi.
16. The relevance of the date of compensable injury is in determining what was or were the significant contributing factors to the Applicant's development of MDD. As outlined above, the Applicant contends that this was the unreasonable treatment she experienced from her Manager, Ms Dale. The Respondent contends that this was the Agency's request for the Applicant to transfer to the Gympie Service Centre for a period, or her failure to obtain a promotion. I will consider each alleged contribution in turn.

1. The Applicant's evidence of unreasonable treatment by her Manager was as follows:

Moving forward staff still had ongoing issues with the FOH Team Leader, from October so I went and had a word with the Manager. Manager stated harshly to me that the FOH Team Leader was doing an amazing work, if they have concerns, get the staff member to see me, not you, they will just have to suck it up! Which I did. Every time a staff member came to my desk, manager was off her seat over to me, asking what did they want? or what was that about? It was about work. > > This was making me feel uncomfortable, anxious, stressed feeling like staff concerns were not being heard. Manager would say you are getting too close to them, I said "no I am doing my job". > > 2023 November - From this day forward every judgement call I made supporting staff with customers enquiries/decisions was questioned. If I said something Manager would always say the opposite. Manager would say one thing to me but do the other. Talking down to me like I was a child, like a powerplay control over me. I have been working for the agency for 35 years and have never felt so incompetent and unworthy. > > One afternoon I was sitting at my desk working, Manager walked over and basically started yelling at me about a staff member. Manager was standing behind me I was facing the computer, I did not turn around, I was quite a lengthy serve of words. Manager said "right" and I said "yes". At the time there was the FOH Team Leader sitting across from me, a staff member behind me at a desk and a staff member in front of me at a desk. They all heard what the Manager was saying. 2 staff members looked at me dumbfounded. I was humiliated and upset/angry, but I did not say anything. Staff came up to me later and wanted to make a complaint, but I said no. I didn't need more upset or conflict."

2. The November 2023 incident was described in the Applicant's Statement in more detail:

There was an incident where the Manager Nicole Dale began yelling at me, misdirecting her frustration because she was upset with a front of house staff member. She wanted immediate action to address a team member whom she perceived to be not be carrying out his duties, at the Front of House. Please note I was the back of house Team leader and instead, of addressing the issue with the front of house leader who was responsible for managing front of house, Nicole made the decision to single me out, yelling and humiliating me in front of my subordinates and the front of house team leader, who's responsibility it actually was. > > She was standing behind my right shoulder yelling at me, I was frozen and unable to move or address this completely unprovoked and misdirected attack, however at the conclusion of the lengthy tirade, Nicole yelled "right" and I replied with a simple "yes". I could feel myself about to cry, it was a mixture of complete humiliation, as there was an audience of subordinates. > > ... > > Christine Peters who was facing my desk, looked at me dumbfounded after Nicole had turned her back and marched back to her desk, and mouthed are you okay, I nodded but I was not okay. > > Following this unprovoked attack concerned staff that had witnessed the incident approached me to check on my welfare. Martina approached me and offered, to make a complaint on my behalf to report her unprovoked vicious misdirected attack. I was concerned this would have a negative impact on my team so I declined her kind offer, as I didn't want this to cause friction between the team and management. > > Melese approached me later that day, and asked was I Okay, I revealed to Melese that I felt stressed humiliated and upset I was not Okay, but again I did not leave work because of the potential impact this could have on cohesive office environment that I had built. > > Keira informed me while back filling my role, that staff had been talking about the incident that took place, relayed the incident, and how unprofessional the Manager, Nicole was towards myself.

3. Following the November 2023 incident, the Applicant described her communications with her Manager as "being spoken to again like a child" and "continued to talk condescending towards me over the next weeks", "communication was making me feel anxious and unworthy", and "feeling of getting not understood and disregarded".
4. In the Timeline and her written Statement, the Applicant compared her treatment by Ms Dale with that of the FOH TL. She complains that that Ms Dale spoke positively about the FOH TL, when the Applicant believed that the FOH TL had "so much less experience" than her, and was not communicating as well with their staff. The FOH TL was offered the APS5 gazetted role in Caloundra, which is the role the Applicant wanted. I address this further below.
5. In support of her evidence about Ms Dale's treatment of her, the Applicant provided a number of statements from other individuals:

(a) Scott Squire addressed a statement "To Whom it May Concern", in support of the Applicant's Comcare claim (T26.2). Mr Squire is the Applicant's husband, and his statement closely mirrors the Applicant's account of events and her reported symptoms from her Timeline, provided to Comcare in support of her request for reconsideration. To the extent that the Applicant relies on that statement, I place very limited weight on its contents, as a result of the close relationship between the Applicant and its deponent. > > (b) Statement of Chrissy Peters dated 6 September 2024 (T28.1). Ms Peters' statement refers to an incident where she heard voices raised and saw Ms Dale speaking to the Applicant in an 'abrasive, loud and rude' manner. Under cross examination Ms Peters admitted to speaking with the Applicant prior to preparing her statement and described the reason for the Applicant's request for her to provide a statement as "she was applying for compensation against Nicole". Ms Peters admitted having a social relationship with the Applicant. Ms Peters could not recall exactly when the incident she gave evidence about took place but recalled seeing the Applicant "terribly upset". I give Ms Peters' statement limited weight because of her personal relationship with the Applicant and find, in any event, that it contains no useful evidence confirming or refuting the incident as described by the Applicant, because of its lack of specificity. > > (c) Statement of Melese Jane Pilley dated 6 September 2024 (T28.2). Ms Pilley's statement states "I do not recall this incident but have heard things from other Services officers / Cindy herself. I do not recall this day I don't have a great memory". In the circumstances, and in the context of Ms Pilley being unavailable for cross-examination at hearing, I place no weight on her Statement. > > (d) Statement of Keira Jacobs dated 6 September 2024 (T28.3). At hearing the Applicant informed the Tribunal she did not rely on Ms Jacobs' statement. > > (e) Statement of Martina Szymczak (undated) (T28.4). Ms Szymczak's statement included evidence of her opinion of Ms Dale's management style and her recollection of an incident where Ms Dale yelled at the Applicant. Her statement also includes her personal grievances against Ms Dale, her claims of bullying and harassment, and allegations of breaches of the Code of Conduct by Ms Dale. Under cross-examination, Ms Szymczak confirmed that she had heard Ms Dale "belittle" the Applicant, but admitted that she was not listening in close enough to hear the conversation between the Applicant and Ms Dale, and could not recall when the incident took place. In circumstances where Ms Szymczak's evidence of the incident is vague and her statement indicates a clear personal vendetta against Ms Dale, I give her evidence very limited weight. > > (f) Statement of Moiwana Bradley dated 16 January 2020 (T28.5); Amended Statement of Moiwana Bradley dated 21 October 2024 (T30.1.2). The Applicant informed the Tribunal at the hearing that she did not rely on Ms Bradley's evidence. > > (g) Statement of Ms Rachael Harrison dated 10 November 2024. Ms Harrison's statement was provided via email to the Applicant's husband, "to express my support for Cindy". It contained her opinions and feeling towards Ms Dale, and her opinions of the Applicant as a manager. Under cross-examination Ms Harrison accepted that she did not witness any particular events or incidents between the Applicant and Ms Dale. I give Ms Harrison's evidence limited weight in the circumstances.

6. The statements provided by the Applicant, other than her own, contain very little relevant evidence to the facts in issue. There was no direct corroborative evidence of the incident alleged by the Applicant to have occurred between her and Ms Dale on 10 or 11 November 2023. There was some evidence which cast Ms Dale's management of staff generally in a negative light, but I place limited (or no) weight on that evidence for the reasons outlined above.
7. The Respondent relied on the evidence of Ms Dale to refute the Applicant's allegations about Ms Dale's management of the Applicant.
8. Ms Dale stated:

My recollection of the events Cindy outlines in her statement are as follows. > > Cindy approached and said that multiple staff members had advised her that they felt the front of house team leader was micromanaging them. I had asked Cindy what staff had approached her and Cindy would not respond and advised me it did not matter. I reminded Cindy of the appropriate channel for staff to follow if they had concerns. I reminded Cindy that as a leadership group we needed to be a united front I do not recall stating to Cindy that staff would need to suck it up. > > I do recall saying to Cindy that I believed the team leader was doing a great job and that if staff did not raise any concerns with myself there is nothing that I can follow up. > > I have been trying to create a consistent leadership group within the Service Centre and had had multiple conversations with Cindy about her relationships with certain staff. I have personal text messages from Cindy where she has agreed that she is too close to certain staff and saw herself as second mother to a few of them. > > I also do not recall that I would go over to see Cindy after every staff contact however as I was building a consistent approach with the team leaders I would check in with both the front of house team leader and Cindy regularly. > > ... > > Cindy outlines an incident in Nov 2023. This alleged incident does not align with my usual leadership style and I am always very mindful of who is near when having conversations with team members. > > As Cindys line manager it is my role to address performance or behavioral concerns however.

9. Under cross-examination by the Applicant, Ms Dale said that she could not remember an incident where she stood behind the Applicant and yelled at her.
10. The Applicant submitted that the 'other witnesses' to her treatment by Ms Dale were in fear of their jobs from the Regional Manager. The remainder of her submissions, which I address below, were in relation to her perceived ability to fulfil her role, her failure to get the promotion she sought, and the request for her to work in Gympie.
11. I do not accept the Applicant's evidence, except where it is supported by objective contemporaneous evidence, of which there is none regarding any alleged incident in November 2023. This is because, under cross examination, the Applicant was unwilling to make reasonable concessions if her responses impacted on the case she was presenting to the Tribunal, about Ms Dale's management of her. She denied all stressors other than those relating to Ms Dale, even when faced with evidence of objectively stressful life circumstances at the time which she had previously attributed to her mental health issues, such as her ageing mother.
12. The statements relied upon by the Applicant as corroborative of her complaint regarding Ms Dale's treatment do not persuade the Tribunal, due to their vagueness and the deponents' close relationships with the Applicant. It is telling that one deponent, Ms Peters, described the Applicant's claim for compensation and these proceedings as being "against Nicole". Their lack of objectivity does not assist the Applicant's case and, as I have described above, I place little weight on their evidence as a result.
13. There is no evidence that the Applicant raised any issues regarding Ms Dale's conduct towards her until after she had made this claim for compensation. There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal upon which I could make a finding, on the balance of probabilities, that the Applicant suffered mistreatment by Ms Dale. Even if I accepted that Ms Dale "yelled" at the Applicant on one occasion in November 2023 (which I do not, for the reasons expressed above), this does not support the Tribunal finding that this incident was a significant contributing factor towards the Applicant's development of MDD. There is simply no medical evidence prior to March 2024 of the Applicant suffering or reporting any psychological symptoms.
14. I accept that the Applicant's roles as a TL in the Agency's Caloundra Service Centre (and other Service Centres) would have been a high pressured, stressful working environment. However, the lack of medical evidence of any psychological symptoms, or the Applicant reporting any psychological symptoms prior to March 2024, informs my conclusion that whatever stress the Applicant experienced in the course of her work up until that time, was not affecting her ability to function in that role. She was coping well with the work, and in the role and, as she herself gave evidence, had coped well in that work environment for 35 years. Ms Dale had been the Applicant's Manager since 2022. It is clear that until March 2024, she was not so negatively impacted by her workplace that she experienced any reportable or notable psychological symptoms.
15. I therefore do not accept the Applicant's contention that her MDD was significantly contributed to by Ms Dale's treatment of her, including (but not limited to) any alleged incident in November 2023.

Transfer request and failure to obtain a promotion

1. The Respondent contended that the Applicant's MDD was significantly contributed to by the Agency's request for her to transfer to the Gympie Service Centre. The Respondent submitted that, alternatively, the Applicant's MDD was significantly contributed to by her failure to obtain a promotion.
2. On the evidence before the Tribunal, the two issues are linked.
3. The Applicant admitted that she did not wish to work in Gympie but submitted that this was not the issue which caused her psychological condition.
4. As noted above at [‎31], the medical evidence demonstrates that the 'trigger' for the Applicant suffering a Mooi condition which ultimately led to a diagnosis of MDD was the transfer request. Ms Boskovic, as her treating psychologist, identified the transfer request as the cause of her symptoms on 15 March 2024, in conjunction with "work pressure".
5. In her Timeline, provided to Comcare on around 10 May 2024, the Applicant described the transfer request and the promotion process as follows (emphasis added):

2024 February - FOH Team Leader was offered the APS5 gazetted role in Caloundra. I overheard this and was waiting for the manager to advise me. Manager didn't, so I went over and asked. Manager advised we haven't heard anything yet. But I knew they had. Later Manager came over and said yes FOH Team Leader has been gazetted as the APS5, then proceeded to tell me how amazingly good the FOH Team Leader is at her job, "not that you're not good Cindy but FOH Team Leader has just been awarded the Indigenous Apprentice Program of the Year, FOH Team Leader has lots of skills in other computer programs, and I am going to handover some of your work to FOH Team leader, because you are no good at doing excel or spreadsheets and like". Manager said to me "you ok, I said no," When I said this the Manager then said, "how do you think I feel, I haven't heard about the APS6 role, and I deserve it!" Manager then says, "I don't make the decisions it's not me." I said, "I am very deflated and upset, I am going for a walk outside." Regional Manager comes outside and asks, "are you ok Cindy, I said no I'm feeling, deflated, used and upset, you advised me that if I got suitable that I would get my current position". Regional Manager advised "you may or probably will, but there is only 1 position available at this point in time". I went back inside and continued with my work for next day's keeping to myself, my anxiety levels were high. > > 2024 February - Regional Manager asked me into their office, with my manager. Regional Manager asked me if I would like to go to Gympie for a period, they both new that I didn't want to go, they proceeded to tell me, that it would be a good opportunity for your leadership growth and opportunities at the APS6 role**. I advised them that the travel was too far at an hour drive each way and I need to be closer to my home for my family**. I felt that sick in the stomach to see this happen to me, as seen it happen to other Team Leaders. I felt like they tried to bribe me by saying maybe you see if a 9-day fortnight would suit to compensate for travel. I said I would consider going anywhere, as I have done previously, but Gympie is too far. They then said you are the closest one with the experience that can do the role. I said I would consider going for a month to help the team, they said no it will be longer than that. I told them I would think about it and left the room**. I felt very overwhelmed anxious and depressed at my treatment as a long term experienced Team Leader. I decided I did not want to go to Gympie and advised my manager**. > > Approximately week later Regional Manager comes back to me and asks, "if I would like to go the Gympie again", Regional Manager said "we have no one else and you are the closest". I said "I did say to you I can't go", and like I said before I would consider going for a short period to help out the team", Regional Manager said "what do you mean**, I said less than 3 months",** Regional Manager said "I don't know if I can do that". Regional Manager said "could you go and we can review in 3 months". > > I proceeded to ask about the other APS5 role that needed to be filled in Caloundra, Regional Manager said "have not heard anything regarding that position yet". Regional Manager said if you go to Gympie you will probably win the APS5 gazetted position" (no guarantee), I said" that's ok but I do not want the Gympie position". Regional Manager advised," no site is permanent they can move you anywhere". I advised Regional Manager that "I have been in the agency for nearly 35 years and I have seen lots of situations that has happened to other colleagues". Both Regional Manager and Manager disagreed and said "I don't think that's the case". I said "I would get back to them, and thanks for delivering this kind of news before I go on holidays". I felt so sick getting pressured again to go to Gympie, after I had already said "no". I really felt I had no choice but to say yes for the short term, but my general wellbeing was getting worse. > > 2024 February - The week before I was going on leave the Manager pressured me into contacting the Gympie Manager as I will be starting there when I return from leave. Manager wanted a farewell morning tea, I didn't want that as I wasn't leaving on my terms, I was leaving because I was requested to leave. Not that any of my staff new that. I was not sleeping; I was starting to have dreams regarding the workplace and situations that happened. My anxiety levels were high and still had my physical symptoms. > > 2024 March 25 - I Sent a Text to my Manager-10.09 am. > > Just to let you know, having time off has made me reflect on the past months, family, and myself. I have decided not to take the Team Leader role in Gympie. Sorry to the other Managers for the inconvenience, but this has been weighing on my mind and cannot see myself fulfilling the role. I will be forwarding a Medical Certificate through during the week. I hope you understand. > > ... > > 2024 April 12 - Manager tried to phone me not long after Medical Certificate was sent through but missed call. I then received a message from Manager. > > "Thanks for sending that through. I will code it. I am going to need you to call me at some point today though." > > I then gave Manager a call, Manager asked me if I was ok and can I do anything for you. I said no I am seeing my doctor and going to counselling. Manager then asked me was I going to take the Gazettal position in Gympie, I said" I am not work ready or in the right mindset to make any decisions at this point due to my mental and physical health". Manager said "do not leave it to long otherwise it might go to someone else. You just need to give Regional Manager a verbal yes. > > Later that afternoon I sent a verbal yes to Manager", Manager said "you can't tell me you will need to tell the Regional Manager". > > I then received a text from Manager saying "Are you going to Gympie? Or will you be taking more leave." I said I don't know; I think I will be having more leave; it depends on how I go with the doctors and counselling on Tuesday and Wednesday". I felt like the Manager was pressuring me to commit to the Gympie position.

6. By 16 April 2024, the Applicant was discussing her perceived mistreatment by Ms Dale with Ms Boskovic, according to Ms Boskovic's clinical notes. However, this is in the context of the Applicant describing her work environment to Ms Boskovic and does not, in my view, support a finding that this was the cause (or a cause) of her condition, or was being attributed in that manner by the Applicant or Ms Boskovic.
7. It is only following the decision by EML to recommend declining liability for the Applicant's injury on the basis of section 5A of the SRC Act, that the Applicant shifts emphasis from the request for her to transfer to Gympie as being the cause of her condition, to Ms Dale's treatment of her. This is outlined above at [‎24‎] and [25]. In her Statement submitted as part of her request for reconsideration, the Applicant stated:

It was noted in the report by A Stocks (09 August 2024) that I nominated the 5 February 2024 as the date of injury. This is the date that I found out my new position was at the Gympie office. By that point, my mental health had declined so much due to the documented bullying and harassment from Management, mainly Nicole that I could not cope with change. I could not cope with relocating to a new office, building rapport with a new team, providing experience and positive leadership skills as well as and the increased driving. I had been assured by Management that the new role was located at Caloundra. I concede that Nicole denies this and Jenny cannot remember stating in her statement "I do not recall". Regardless, the same report outlines that my mental health was beginning to decline as early as September 2023. I refer to My workers compensation claim where I noted that my injury was stress related because of unreasonable treatment at work.

8. The "A Stocks" report is the Decision declining liability and its reasons. The reasons for that decision do not find that the Applicant's mental health was "beginning to decline as early as September 2023" but make clear that this is a reference to the Applicant's evidence which was not accepted. The "unreasonable treatment", referred to in her workers compensation claim, was not attributed to Ms Dale's management of the Applicant or any other particular issue. In the context of the Applicant identifying the date of injury as 5 February 2024 because "this is the date that I had found out that my new position was at the Gympie office", I infer that the unreasonable treatment referred to by the Applicant in her workers compensation claim was, in fact, the transfer request.
9. The Applicant admits in her Statement that her failure to obtain the TL role in Caloundra and the request that she transfer to Gympie was "a contributing factor", but states that:

...as you can see from my statements and doctors reports this was not my grievance... my grievance was unreasonable treatment at work, and my inability to cope with change which was a direct result of the bullying as previously mentioned.

The reason why I could not take the transfer to Gympie was because of my mental and physical health. I couldn't possibly do it. I spent 3 years battling for promotion, I wanted it, but my physical and mental health couldn't do it.... I couldn't go [to Gympie] mentally, and start up a new team. I had worked at Gympie before.... I was a very good team leader. I just couldn't go to a new office. It wouldn't be fair for manager or staff.

11. The evidence demonstrates that the first the Agency knew of the Applicant's claimed workplace stress, or any related issues regarding her employment, was when she informed Ms Dale on 28 March 2024 that she would be providing a medical certificate.
12. Ms Dale prepared a file note of her conversation with the Applicant on 28 March 2024 (emphasis added):

Cindy sent scm text message: "Hey Nicole attached is a medical cert. I spoke about this to Jenny on Monday I will be in contact with you guys in next couple of weeks. Cin" I attempted to call cindy and she did not answer. I gave it half an hour and replied "thank you for sending that through to me, I will code it up. I am going to need you to call me at some point today though" > > Cindy called me later. I asked Cindy if she was okay she advised that she had a lot going on in her head. I said is there anything you need from me to support you she advised me that she just needs sleep. She has trouble sleeping at night and lays awake thinking about the staff, I asked Cindy in what way? She said just all of there problems, l have my own problems I don't need to be dealing with their problems, I told Cindy I was disappointed because she has never mentioned, or shown any signs of this prior to now. I knew that she felt sad about having to go to Gympie and leave the team but I had no idea that she felt overwhelmed about staff issues. I said to Cindy is it the job more that the fact that you have to go to Gympie and she said yes maybe. Cindy said that being away with her Mum also highlighted to her that her mum needed more support that what she realised and her mum is getting older and so is she. I said I understood that. I talked to Cindy about what support she has and she said that she is seeing a councillor and her GP so she is supported. > > Cindy has said she has always had to be the strong one in her family as her husband also suffers mental health issues and she is just finding it hard to cope with everyone else's drama and she needed to sort herself out. Cindy and I spoke about the positions at Caloundra and [xxx] winning a position before her, I again said to Cindy that as I advised her previously its just the way it happened and that is no ones fault or done to not give her a job but I advised cindy that she should talk to Jenny about the job offer that she had received. I advised Cindy that Jenny is going on leave and she can contact [xxx.] in her absence. Cindy asked me how long she had to decide. I advised Cindy I could not answer that and she should talk to Jenny. Cindy asked who was going to replace her and I asked her if that mattered Cindy said I am not jealous of [xxx] or anyone. I said to Cindy again I was disappointed with how she left and for the staff not getting a chance to say good bye to her and she said she couldn't cope with that l again said that I understood however sometimes we need to put our feelings aside to be a leader and not let it show how we feel. Cindy said it cant be about them and needs to be about me. I said okay I understand your not doing well. I again asked Cindy if there was anything I could do for her she said no she just needs to sort herself out and would be in touch.

13. Under cross examination the Applicant described, not "feeling safe" with Ms Dale to tell her about her issues, not trusting her, and not wanting to "give her the satisfaction of telling her about my physical or mental health issues". Despite this, the Applicant agreed that she spoke to her about two personal issues during the conversation with Ms Dale on 28 March 2024, being her mother's declining health and her husband's mental health issues.
14. Ms Well's statement, which the Tribunal accepts on the basis that the Applicant did not require her for cross examination, relevantly stated the following:

(a) On 16 May 2023 she wrote to all staff, as Region Manager, encouraging them to express their interest for leadership positions in the region. Staff who expressed interest, which included the Applicant, were provided with a suite of resources to support their coaching and development in leadership roles. > > (b) She does not recall a conversation with the Applicant where she allegedly told her that she would "get their gazetted roles" if rated suitable. > > (c) Applications for APS5/6 roles were advertised on 16 July 2023 and outcomes advised on 13 November 2023. > > (d) In January 2024 she was advised to proceed with verbal offers for certain roles. The position the Applicant had applied for was not one of those roles. This resulted in some people being offered promotions in a "first round" and others missing out. She stated: > > I was unable to let people know that positions had been missed and we were seeking approval for a second round of offers to be made as I am not the Delegate for the process and was not in a position to promise promotions to people. I did on several occasions, touch base with the affected staff (including Ms Lang) to see if they were OK and to try to allay their fears about not winning positions. > > (e) Approval to offer a 2nd round of promotions was not received until 22 March 2024. > > (f) She stated, in relation to the request for the Applicant to work at the Gympie Service Centre (emphasis added): > > Ms Langs line manager and I spoke with Cindy in mid February about the need for a team leader in our Gympie Service centre and I asked Cindy if she would consider the opportunity given her experience and proximity to Gympie. Ms Lang was not enthusiastic about the move and rather than issue a direction for Ms Lang to change work locations, her line manager and I discussed the flexible working arrangement options available to Ms Lang and highlighted the opportunity for her to further develop her leadership skills and experience by supporting a new team. > > Ms Langs Manager suggested that there may be potential for Ms Lang to renegotiate her work pattern to allow for a Planned Day off once a fortnight. This was something that Ms Lang used to have in her work pattern that could not be accommodated in the Caloundra Service Centre due to increasing staff and customer numbers. > > Ms Langs current home address indicates that the Gympie Service Centre is 57.9kms distance which is 12 kms further than her current trip to Caloundra Service Centre. I felt this to be within reasonable proximity to exercise the requirement to work in different sites where needed. > > At no time, was Ms Lang being bribed to agree to the relocation. > > I promised Ms Lang that we would review the arrangement at the end of June 2024 and assured her that no moves were permanent. Ms Lang agreed to transfer to the Gympie Service Centre on her return from leave on 15 April 2024. > > (g) She telephoned the Applicant on 25 March 2024, while the Applicant was on leave, in relation to her application for the APS 5/6 role. She stated: > > I attempted to phone Ms Lang on 25 March 2024 as the second round of APS5/6 offers had been approved. Ms Lang returned my call at 5:30pm. When I made the verbal offer of promotion to Ms Lang, she asked me if Nicole had given me a message today. I indicated Nicole had not given me any message. > > Ms Lang advised me that she was not in a good place and had not been sleeping. The time away with her Mum had made it clear that she was becoming very frail and needed Ms Langs extra support. Ms Lang advised she would need to think about the offer and would get back to me. I advised I was going on leave but she could call me any time if she needed. > > Ms Lang did not indicate to me during this conversation that she was seeking medical attention or a medical certificate, and did not advise that she was not intending to return to work the following week.

15. Where the Applicant's evidence contradicts with Ms Dale's or Ms Wells', I prefer their evidence, because of the reasons outlined above at [‎62] and because the Applicant chose not to cross-examine Ms Wells, her cross-examination of Ms Dale did not traverse the issues regarding the transfer request or the Applicant's initial failure to obtain the position she wanted, and Ms Dale's evidence was supported by a contemporaneous file note.
16. I have added emphasis above where the evidence, from both the Applicant and Ms Dale and Ms Wells, demonstrates that the Applicant's primary concern prior to her going on sick leave and ultimately making the claim for compensation (the subject of these proceedings) was the transfer request and her failure to obtain the permanent position she wanted at the Caloundra Service Centre, which was instead offered to the FOH TL. The Applicant's evidence, as emphasised above, demonstrates that her concern about the transfer request was that the distance was too far for her to drive each day, in circumstances where she felt family pressure due to her mother's increased frailty. This is supported by the context in which she came to this conclusion, while she was on leave travelling with her mother, and the telephone conversations she had with both Ms Wells and Ms Dale around 25 March 2024:

I advised them that the travel was too far at an hour drive each way and I need to be closer to my home for my family.

17. The medical evidence supports these conclusions, including the medical evidence discussed in relation to the "onset of injury" above at ‎[40]‎ to [50].
18. In his report dated 2 July 2024, Dr Parmegiani diagnosed the Applicant with MDD which became clinically significant in around March 2024, while the Applicant was on holidays in Western Australia with her mother. Dr Parmegiani reported the following factors contributed to the Applicant's condition: an increased workload to which she was subjected after her colleague was transferred to another Service Centre and she had to undertake two roles; the conflict that allegedly occurred in November 2023 where the Applicant was told by her line manager to 'suck it up'; the announcement that another colleague was given a position as a permanent team leader in Caloundra (which the Applicant believed she was promised); and the request to begin working at the Gympie Service Centre. Whilst acknowledging he took the Applicant's reported history "at face level", Dr Parmegiani considered that each of these matters were equally responsible for the onset of the MDD, although the transfer request was the 'final factor'.
19. However, in a supplementary report dated 8 October 2025, once he had the opportunity to review the Applicant's treating GP and psychologist's clinical records, Dr Parmigiani stated:

Given that the general practice notes make no mention of psychological symptoms before the 19th of March 2024, it stands to reason that the onset of the diagnosable psychiatric condition corresponded with the request for her to work in the Gympie office. > > There had been prior stressful events in her life, some related to her work and some to factors outside of it, but in my opinion, she would not have progressed to develop clear symptoms of major depressive disorder had she not been asked to transfer to the Gympie office.

20. Dr Anand provided a report dated 28 November 2024 which contained his opinion that the onset of the Applicant's condition was in 2023, coinciding with increased work responsibilities and a hostile work environment. However, Dr Anand was not provided with the contemporaneous clinical records of the Applicant's treating GP or psychologist and was not provided with any evidence of the events described by the Applicant to him, other than her own reported history. I therefore prefer the report and supplementary report of Dr Parmagiani and the opinions contained therein to those of Dr Anand.
21. Dr Shaikh provided a report dated 17 February 2025. In response to "questions pertaining to Ms Lang's eligibility for an invalidity retirement certificate" he referred back to the transfer request, as reported to Dr Oliver on 19 March 2024, as the impetus for her psychological symptoms and condition, and that the claims process had played a significant role in worsening her mental health (emphasis added):

On 19/03/2024, Ms Lang attended a consult with my colleague, Dr Oliver. She felt there was unfair treatment at work, being asked to relocate to Gympie, but did not feel it was appropriate. She was suffering anxiety, poor mood and poor sleep. She was seeing a counsellor at AB Counselling Services. Has consistently been recommended by the psychologist to extend her leave due to her mental health. Has had ongoing poor sleep and high anxiety. Denied any prior mental health history. She has since developed gastrointestinal symptoms in the form of diarrhoea, which she attributes to her stress. Her sleep is accompanied by dreams about having to go back to work and people asking why she's not at work, which further increases her anxiety. > > In May of this year, she was started on a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, escitalopram to help manage the depression and has felt benefit feeling more calm. She has been seen by an independent medical examiner who confirmed major depressive disorder as noted on 16/08/2024, with workplace events being a significant contributing factor. The case was initially rejected, after which she submitted an appeal. The appeal process has played a significant role in worsening her mental health. She continues to see her counsellor on a regular basis and is compliant with her medication.

22. I therefore agree with the Respondent's submission that the Applicant's MDD was primarily caused and significantly contributed to by the transfer request and, additionally, by the Applicant's failure to obtain the permanent position and promotion she wanted as the TL at Caloundra, which instead went to the FOH TL.

1. The question of whether the transfer request and the Applicant's failure to obtain the position/promotion she wanted was RAA must then be determined.
2. The Respondent referred to Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Reeve [2012] FCAFC 21 which considered section 5A of the SRC Act when it was first introduced. At [70]:

The Explanatory Memorandum gave a number of reasons for the amendment that replaced the definition of "injury" in s 4(1) with what became s 5A. One of these reasons were used by the Tribunal as an integral part of its construction of "reasonable administrative action". This was the following explanation of the objectives of the amendment: > > "It was the original intention of the legislation to ensure that there is a close connection to employment as the cause, aggravator or contributor of a worker's disease or injury, before eligibility for workers' compensation can be established. > > A further objective, through the exclusionary provisions, was to ensure that the wide range of legitimate human resource management actions, when undertaken in a reasonable manner, do not give rise to eligibility for workers' compensation." > > (emphasis supplied)

3. In Comcare v Martin the High Court noted that the purpose of the exclusion contained in section 5A of the SRC Act is to 'ensure that the wide range of legitimate human resource management actions, when undertaken in a reasonable manner, do not give rise to eligibility for workers' compensation' and to prevent claims 'being used to obstruct legitimate management action by excluding claims where an injury (usually a psychological injury) has arisen as a result of' such action. At [47] to [48]:

Having regard to the text and structure of ss 5A and 5B, and consistently with the statutory purpose of the exclusion in s 5A(1), what is required to meet the causal connection connoted by the exclusionary phrase in s 5A(1) in its application to a disease within s 5A(1)(a) is therefore that the employee would not have suffered that disease, as defined by s 5B(1), if the administrative action had not been taken. That is to say, the causal connection is met if, without the taking of the administrative action, the employee would not have suffered the ailment or aggravation that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee's employment. > > The causal connection giving rise to the exclusion from the definition of injury is met where the disease suffered by the employee is a mental condition or an aggravation of a mental condition suffered by the employee in reaction to a failure to obtain promotion, including in reaction to a perceived consequence of that failure to obtain promotion. The nature of the perceived consequence - whether personal or professional, direct or indirect, real or imagined - is beside the point.

4. In these proceedings the Respondent's conduct was undoubtedly administrative action of the type envisaged by section 5A of the SRC Act, and the causal connection clarified in Comcare v Martin is met, because the evidence demonstrates that Applicant would not have suffered from her injury, but for that administrative action. Dr Parmagiani explicitly states that "she would not have progressed to develop clear symptoms of major depressive disorder had she not been asked to transfer to the Gympie office", confirming that the transfer request was the cause of her condition.
5. In the Reviewable Decision, the following was stated about the reasonableness of the Agency's administrative actions:

When assessing the evidence before me, it supports that you became aware that your colleague was awarded the role of a gazetted Team Leader at the Caloundra Office which was your desired position and location as part of your application for the role and you shortly commenced a period of pre-scheduled leave on 4 March 2024. > > I note Ms Wells reported that she and Ms Dale reached out to you in mid-February 2024 in relation to the Gympie Service Centre position and noted you were not enthusiastic, leading to them providing further information about the role including the flexible working arrangements to provide you with a fair assessment of the opportunity. > > Ms Wells noted that the distance to Gympie Service Centre was 12 kilometres further than your current trip to Caloundra Service Centre and that she felt this to be within reasonable proximity to exercise the requirement to work in different sites when needed. It appears that both your managers attempted to provide further information to you surrounding the flexible arrangements of the role to ensure you could make an informed decision after you advising that you did not have any initial interest to undertake this role. You then agreed to the role and then decided to withdraw after thinking about it in greater detail. > > There is no evidence before me to indicate that it was unreasonable for your leadership team to request you to relocate to Gympie Service Centre, as a team leader position was available and that when you expressed your concerns, they attempted to provide you with solutions to enable you to engage in the relocation successfully. I note they also agreed to review the situation in approximately three months' time. > > In the absence of any evidence that supports your leadership team was unreasonable in regards to informing you that you were not successful in your application at the Caloundra location yet there was an alternative role available in Gympie, and with regard to your general practitioner consultation notes that extensively document the sole stressor of your employment initially being the potential transfer to Gympie, I consider this falls squarely into the provision of section 5A(f) being anything reasonable done in connection with the employee's failure to obtain a promotion, reclassification, transfer or benefit, or to retain a benefit, in connection with his or her employment.

6. I concur, and adopt those reasons, with the addition that Dr Parmagiani's supplementary report confirms the GP's contemporaneous medical evidence. The Applicant made no submission during these proceedings to the effect that the transfer request was unreasonable. Nor did the Applicant dispute that she believed it unfair and unreasonable that the FOH TL - who she believed was not as experienced as her and did not manage their team as well as she managed hers - was offered the gazetted role in Caloundra which she wanted. Ms Wells' evidence about the transfer request and promotion process, and Ms Dale's evidence about the transfer request, was unchallenged.
7. Ms Wells' and Ms Dale's evidence supports the Tribunal finding that the request for the Applicant to transfer to the Gympie Service Centre for a period of time was reasonable. The Applicant was given time to consider, to discuss, and was assured that the position was not permanent and would be reassessed after a short period. Their evidence of the careful discussions they had with the Applicant, including Ms Wells' explicit decision not to direct the Applicant, but instead to discuss flexible working arrangements with her to assist her, demonstrates that this reasonable administrative action was taken in a reasonable manner.
8. I therefore find that the Applicant's injury is not compensable pursuant to section 5A(1)(f) of the SRC Act.

1. The Tribunal's task is to determine the correct or preferable decision on the evidence and submissions before it.
2. The Respondent's Reviewable Decision of 25 September 2024 determined that liability for the Applicant's injury is excluded under section 5A(1) of the SRC Act as it is suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner.
3. I have come to the same conclusion, for the same reasons. The correct or preferable decision is therefore to affirm the Respondent's Reviewable Decision.

1. The Respondent's reviewable decisions of 25 September 2024 is affirmed.