Dharmalingham v Western NSW Local Health District

Dharmalingham v Western NSW Local Health District - [2015] NSWCATAD 74 - NSWCATAD 2014 case summary — Zoe

[3]

Procedure

This matter came before the Tribunal for hearing over five days. Affidavits of evidence were relied upon by the applicant and the respondent, which were adopted and admitted into evidence. Oral evidence was given by the applicant's and respondent's witnesses and documentary evidence also relied upon. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties sought to file written submissions. Leave was granted for the filing of submissions with a time-table set. The time-table was not complied with and final submissions were received on 22 November 2014
This matter was initially filed in the former Administrative Decisions Tribunal. The hearing was concluded on 22 August 2014 with final submissions filed on 22 November 2014. On 1 January 2014, the Administrative Decisions Tribunal was abolished and the jurisdiction to determine complaints under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 was assigned to the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, Schedule 3, cl 3(1). In accordance with Cl 6 of Schedule 1 to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, this application was a "part heard" proceeding.
The Tribunal heard evidence over 5 days from 7 witnesses whose Affidavits were adopted into evidence. There was additionally a significant amount of documentary material before the Tribunal. The Tribunal notes that in addition to the evidence, the written submissions from the parties (which were in parts in abbreviated form) totalled 184 pages. The Tribunal has therefore not referred all the material in this decision, the Tribunal has however had regard to all the material before us including the oral and documentary evidence and the written submissions.
The President of the Anti-Discrimination Board (The President) referred the applicant's complaint to the ADT. The applicant was subsequently granted leave to amend the scope of the complaint. He then sought to amend the scope of the complaint by filing a further amended complaint just prior to the commencement of the hearing, but it was not served on the respondent. At the commencement of the hearing the respondent was notified of the further amendments sought. By consent, leave was granted for a further limited amendment of the complaint to include a complaint of discrimination on the ground of disability on 12 February 2013, which was confined to that day only. The scope of the applicant's complaint (which is the matters referred by the President and matters where leave was granted to amend the scope of the complaint before the Tribunal) is therefore as follows:

[13]

Complaint about daughter in pharmacy - 27 September 2011

The applicant stated that shortly after he commenced work at Bathurst Hospital he advised David Wright that he had an 8 year old daughter and his wife was studying at Orange. He said that he would need to bring her to work in the mornings, until she catches the school bus. She would also sometimes need to come to work during the school holidays. David Wright advised that this was okay. In approximately April 2010 at a staff meeting, he told the staff of the approval from David Wright. On 27 September 2011, his daughter Preethi came to work with him and was in the pharmacy reception waiting area for about 20 minutes before she went to school.
On that day he received a phone call from Glenda Entwistle (Entwistle), the Director of Nursing. She advised him that she had received a complaint from a staff member about his daughter coming into the pharmacy. She wanted to make sure that his daughter was not entering the pharmacy area. He advised her that he had approval from his manager to bring his daughter to work and advised that she was in the waiting area and does not enter the pharmacy. He said that at no time had she entered the pharmacy. He said that the complaint was false and he felt very upset by the complaint.
The applicant's evidence was that at this time, his supervisor was Karnaghan, Director of Medical Services, who reported to David Wright, the General Manager. Entwistle had no supervisory role over his or the pharmacy department.
Later that day he had a conversation with Barnes and Ledingham during which he advised them that he had approval to bring his daughter to work and said if anyone had a problem with that to let him know. Ledingham expressed a concern and they went into his office to discuss it. She said that they are all paying child care fees and he was not. He advised her that if she had any special requests for bringing in children, then please let him know and he would approve. Subsequently, he had a conversation with Karnaghan during which she said that several other staff members were bringing their kids to work and she approved him bringing his daughter to work when he needed to.

[17]

The meeting of 12 February 2013

On Tuesday, 12 February 2013, the applicant observed that Barnes was wearing a purplish t-shirt. He approached her and said words to the effect: "Brooke, are you not wearing the uniform today?" She responded in a raised voice and said words to the effect that she had bee wearing the uniform for more than four years, "Is there a problem, Thens?" He responded that there was no problem, he just wanted to clarify. He then went back to his desk. At about 8:52 am he received an email from Barnes advising that she had a meeting with Charlton and would not be returning to work at the meeting. At about 9:50 am he went to David Wright's office and had a conversation with him during which he informed him of the conversation with Barnes earlier that day. At about 10:15 am, David Wright attended a meeting of pharmacy staff in the dispensary. Present was the applicant, Derek Kay, (Kay) a Pharmacist, Furner, Barnes and Ledingham.
He claims Barnes said in a loud voice, "What's wrong with my uniform Thens?" The applicant advised that he just wanted to clarify the uniform. She interrupted him and said, "I've been wearing this uniform for four years". David Wright then indicated to both Barnes and the applicant that this issue should be discussed in private.
The applicant says that at the end of this meeting he felt nervous and anxious, went to his office for a short period to try and calm down. At about 11:05 am, he went to the interview room and saw David Wright and Barnes talking to each other. He sat down and had a conversation with D Wright and Barnes during which D Wright asked Barnes about her concern. She responded in an angry tone asking why the applicant had questioned her about a uniform that she had been wearing for more than four years. The applicant said that his hands were shaking and he moved forward in his chair and placed his hands on his knees to minimise the shaking.
He said to Barnes he just wanted to clarify with her that the uniform she was wearing was the one he had approved six months ago. He said that he asked, "Are you not wearing the uniform today Brooke?" He said there was no motivation behind the question or no intention to upset her and he was sorry, he just wanted to clarify it.
Barnes then raised the subject that the applicant had argued with Kay that morning. The applicant's evidence was that he felt his "stomach churning" and found it difficult to say words he was wanting to say. His heart was pumping at a high rate and he felt stiff and hot. He felt deeply aggrieved that Barnes was raising an irrelevant and misleading allegation against him. He said to David Wright, "This is called making up the issues". David Wright raised his hand towards him and told him to stop. He said that Barnes and he then both stopped talking and David Wright asked him, "Are you apologising to Brooke" and he apologised to Barnes. David Wright asked Barnes if she was okay to go back to the department and she said she was and subsequently left. He then had a further short conversation with David Wright. He stated that at the end of the meeting it was his understanding was that the issue had been resolved.
On Monday, 11 March he attended a mediation about his complaint in the ADT. He then attended work on 12, 13 and 14 March 2013. On Friday, 15 March 2013 he attended work and at approximately 3:00 pm was handed a letter prepared by David Wright. The letter advised of an allegation of workplace conduct. He referred to the meeting of 12 February 2013 when he was alerted to issues that were occurring within the pharmacy department regarding the uniform of Barnes that day. He met with the applicant and Barnes as a consequence and attempted to resolve the issue. He wrote that during the meeting he had observed several behaviours that were potentially in breach of the NSW Department of Health Code of Conduct. He also wrote about concerns about interactions with Kay and Furner which had been raised by Suzanne Bourke, Acting Nursing Unit Manager at the hospital. He advised that an investigation into those issues would be undertaken by Western LHD Workforce to investigate the allegations made. He also noted that while the investigation was occurring, the applicant would be placed on leave with full pay effective immediately from Friday, 15 March.

[18]

Medical Evidence

The applicant's evidence was that he was admitted to the Emergency Department of Bathurst Base Hospital the evening of 15 March 2013. He provides copies of documents from the Area Health Service relating to his admission.
A Discharge Summary prepared by Dr Courtney McPhail Junior Medical Officer records that on 15 March 2013 the applicant presented with MH behavioural disturbance. Dr McPhail records the details of the history given and the presentation. He was diagnosed with Major Depression with situational crisis due to work related stressors. His diagnosis on discharge was Major Depression.
The applicant was seen by a Psychologist Ms Meagher in November 2011. On 4 January 2012 she diagnosed an Adjustment Disorder with Depressed and Anxious Mood. He provided Work cover Certificates and took time off in January 2013. He received counselling and was prescribed medications. The work place conflict was identified as needing to be resolved. The respondent arranged for him to see Dr Inglis Synott Psychiatrist on 7 February 2012 who also agreed that the workplace conflict needed to be resolved.
On 7 July 2012 the applicant saw a doctor in India who diagnosed emotional stress and anxiety. On 15 December 2012 the applicant saw Dr Chinnappa in India who diagnosed psychological and emotional problems. The applicant also relies upon a report from Dr Yuvarajen, psychiatrist, but he was not available to give evidence and was therefore unavailable for cross examination.
To address this the applicant replied upon a report from a consultant Clinical Psychologist, Mr Borenstein. Mr Borenstein was engaged to provide an expert report and was not a treating practitioner. Mr Borenstein refers to the material that he considered when preparing his report. Mr Borenstein told the Tribunal that he had regard to documents before him including the report of Dr Yuvarajen but undertook his own assessment of the applicant and formed his own opinion. He provided a history given by the applicant. He noted that the applicant's mother lived in India and died in November 2013 after a three year battle with kidney disease resulting in hypertension and CVA which came as a relief to the family. He acknowledged that if some aspects of the history presented were incorrect this would cast doubt upon his conclusions. He noted that he had not been told about the second and third investigations into the applicant's conduct.
Mr Borenstein acknowledged that if some aspects of the history presented were incorrect, this would cast doubt upon his conclusions. He noted that he may not have been told about the second and third investigations into the applicant's conduct, but was unsure.
In his report Mr Borenstein concludes with respect to the meeting on 12 February 2013, the applicant was in the "throes of an acute exacerbation of his chronic Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood". He expressed the view that the applicant's conduct and judgement during the meeting was negatively impacted by virtue of his acute symptoms of anxiety and depressed mood.

[24]

General

MacRae's evidence was that after the applicant arrived and commenced work, things went reasonably well for the first few months. She states that in about April 2010, the applicant started to change a lot of the systems that were in place and then frustratingly changed them back again. She stated that he appeared to become angry about small things and started micromanaging everyone in the pharmacy. She gave examples. The first example was when Barnes purchased some polo neck t-shirts. The applicant came to her and asked her if she had seen Barnes' uniform and stated it was wrong. She claimed that he said that she looked like a pharmacist and people might think that she is a pharmacist. His reaction appeared to be out of proportion to the issue, since the v-neck shirt was in the NSW Health catalogue and appeared to be an acceptable uniform. The same shirt was worn by many other non-clinical staff throughout the hospital. The applicant continued to be upset about it.
She suggested that Barnes be reimbursed from petty cash as she had already paid for the t-shirts. The applicant then sent an email to David Wright. In that email, he claims MacRae that gave wrong directions and staff had paid for the uniforms. Consequently MacRae had requested that, due to her "misleading direction", the staff member be reimbursed. He made a request for the reimbursement of the payment through petty cash. MacRae denied giving Barnes the wrong directions, but claims she made no comment at the time hoping the issue would "blow over". She alleges that the applicant said to her, "We are pharmacists and we need to keep the others down or they will start playing games".
She gave an example of another incident. When she returned from an overseas holiday, she was unwell with a gastric complaint. Although unwell, she came to work with the intention of telling the applicant personally and seeing how she felt at work. Before she reached the pharmacy, she ran into Jenny Davis (referred to as Davis), the Infection Control Officer at the Hospital. She asked MacRae some questions and then told her not to go into the pharmacy, but to go straight to emergency for treatment. Davis said that she would notify the applicant.
MacRae went to emergency and was treated for a gastric illness and did not return to work for several days. When she returned to work, she received an email from the applicant, requesting that she report in writing why she had not notified him that she was sick. He wrote that at around 12 o'clock, a Registered Nurse from the Emergency Department rang and informed him that she was in the Emergency Department and later a medical certificate was passed on to him from the Emergency Department. He asked why she could not have notified him earlier. He said he thought this was the second time this had happened with sick leave communication.
MacRae responded in writing via email communication that she had been directed by Davis not go into the Pharmacy Department. She said that she felt that she should follow the direction of the Infection Control Officer in a situation as it was likely that her illness was contagious and originated in Thailand. Upon arrival in the Emergency Department, she deteriorated and was not able to do anything, let alone make a phone call for several hours. She was placed in the isolation room while she stabilised. She tried to the get to the department on her discharge, however, collapsed in the doctor's station after which she contacted the applicant. She says that she believed that Davis, the staff health nurse, had advised him about her situation. She noted that she thought a previous incident had been discussed at length and had been resolved.
MacRae's evidence was that that in general discussion in the pharmacy afterwards, she became aware that the applicant knew what triage category she had been accorded when she attended the Emergency Department. She became suspicious and accessed her medical records to see if they had been accessed. She observed that the applicant had accessed her medical records without her permission. She reported this breach of privacy to Karnaghan, who is the Director of Medical Services. She claims that the applicant became more aggressive and controlling in his behaviour towards her from that time onwards.
Her evidence was that the applicant would often say inappropriate things to her in the workplace. She gave an example of one occasion where he said: "If you go to the gym for more than three months you will lose some weight". On another occasion he said: "You baked a cake, but you are trying to lose weight but you baked a cake". In response to those comments, she asked him not to discuss her weight in the workplace.
She acknowledged that she refused to sign the Code of Conduct when the applicant asked everyone to sign it. She said she signed it when she commenced employment. She acknowledged that by March 2011, her relationship was very bad with the applicant.
MacRae was asked about whether or not the applicant had ever asked her to wear skirts and she said that he had not. She was asked about a complaint letter she wrote about the applicant on 30 January 2012. She could not recall how long the complaint was but acknowledged that it was 11 pages. She was asked whether or not there were 46 issues she raised against the applicant and she said there were quite a lot of issues. She was asked whether or not any of the complaints were sustained and whether or not one finding was sustained and she could not recall but said that some were sustained but she did not have a copy of the letter.
The applicant referred to the statement of Karnaghan annexed to the President's report. Karnaghan wrote that she had monitored the applicant in the workplace and found him to be an excellent pharmacist and a very diligent head of department. MacRae disagreed with this. MacRae conceded that when the applicant first commenced employment that she would be late three to four days per week. She agreed she would be up to five minutes late a few times per week. She was asked about the applicant trying to implement changes, she stated that he was always trying to implement changes. She said that she was often trying to clarify the changes which was seen to be resistive.
Karnaghan had supported the applicant making the changes in circumstances where MacRae had concerns that the changes were not necessary. Karnaghan wrote that her interpretation of her concerns is that she did not like change and did not want to be managed and came across as having a "princess complex". She initially consistently emphasised that he was the head of department and it was his responsibility to run the department and if there were things she did not understand, she needed to ask him. MacRae disputed that she was "bucking" against the applicant's authority. She acknowledged that, at times, she did become unprofessional. She acknowledged she and Ledingham smiled at Copson's jokes. In relation to the racial background of the department, she said that the applicant's behaviour was unacceptable. She denied that the applicant's race was anything to do with her difficulties in the workplace.

[33]

The meeting of 12 February 2013

Barnes' evidence was she had been off work for a couple of months on personal leave. She had returned to work only a few weeks prior to this date. On that day, she was wearing a lilac top which she had been wearing for years, before she went off on personal leave. She had been wearing the top fairly constantly since she had returned from personal leave. On this particular morning, she had just arrived at work when the applicant got up from his desk, walked over to her and said in a confronting tone, "Why are you not in uniform?" and she responded: "I am in uniform". She showed the applicant the emblem from the manufacturer which was just inside the sleeve of the shirt. He shook his head and returned to his desk and she asked, "Is there a problem?" She indicated there was not. Barnes said that she was upset by the incident and she had only been back at work a short time and it appeared to her that the applicant would start "nit picking and controlling" in the workplace again. A meeting had been arranged a few weeks beforehand. She had asked for a meeting with Human Resources to find out the progress of a grievance complaint made by her prior to her return to work and this was the first opportunity to speak to them about it. The meeting was pre-arranged and not in response to the conversation of that morning. Her evidence was that, as far as she was aware, this was the first time that the General Manager of the hospital had attended a pharmacy department meeting. She said it was also unusual because Ledingham came into work on her day off.
Barnes states that David Wright said words to the effect, "Does anyone have any issues to discuss?" She responded by saying that there had been an issue that morning about her uniform. The applicant then started speaking and he raised his voice. She said she did not recall exactly what was said. She did recall David Wright saying words to the effect that it was not appropriate to discuss it at that time and they would have a private discussion after the meeting.
At the conclusion of the meeting she went into a separate meeting with David Wright and the applicant. She said that she disputed the applicant's versions of events that he asked her whether or not she was in uniform. She said what was said to her was, "Why are you not in uniform?" He responded that he was her manager and entitled to ask and he thought she was in the "maternity uniform". She asked why she would be in the maternity uniform and then said that she felt that he was just in a bad mood that day as he had had a go at her as soon as she walked in the door. She also said that he "had a go" at Kay as well. He responded by saying, "That is a lie, tell the truth". At that stage of the meeting she became upset.
She claimed that the applicant was leaning forward in his chair and speaking at her without listening. He was talking over the top of her in an overly assertive manner. She said that she was intimidated and confused as to why a trivial uniform issue should be a matter of such importance and began to cry. The applicant kept talking despite her emotional upset. At that point, David Wright raised his hand towards the applicant and said, "Stop, that's enough". The applicant kept talking at her in the same manner and she continued to cry. She said that she did not recall the applicant apologising. She left the interview room and the applicant and David Wright continued for a further five minutes or so.

[44]

Duff

Sandra Duff ( Duff) gave evidence that she is the Director of "Workforce and Culture" for the respondent, the Western NSW Local Health District. She states that she has been employed by the Department of Health for 21 years and in her current position since 2012. She is responsible for providing high level strategic and operation advice in the area of human resources, workplace culture, risk management, learning and development and workforce systems.
It was Duff's evidence that it was a term of the applicant's employment that he sign an acceptance agreement, acknowledging the receipt of the Code of Conduct and Agreement to Abide by the Policies and Procedures of NSW Health Greater Western Area Health Service Division. The offer of employment also indicates that he was required to become familiar with and abide by the NSW Health Department's Code of Conduct. He signed the acceptance of agreement dated 24 December 2009. At the time of his appointment, he was directly reporting to Dr Jo-Anne Karnaghan, Director of Medical Services. When she left, he reported to Dr Clayton Spencer, the Incoming Director of Medical Services. In or about September 2012, he commenced reporting to David Wright, General Manager, Bathurst Health Service. The change of reporting was agreed to for a number of reasons including that the applicant requested that he report to Wright as a result of a second investigation being conducted. It was considered beneficial to all concerned for the applicant to report to somebody that he already knew. As head of department, the applicant was responsible for managing MacRae, Barnes, Ledingham and Furner. The were employed in the Pharmacy Department at the time of his employment and continued to be employed. On or about 31 May 2012, Kay was employed as a pharmacist and replaced MacRae while she was on leave.
Duff gave evidence that on or about 8 October 2011, MacRae and Barnes submitted grievances against the applicant concerning breach of privacy. It was alleged that he had accessed their medical records and that the access was not made in the course of his clinical duties. A formal investigation was conducted by Karnaghan and Tiffany Charlton, Human Resource Consultant, Workforce and Culture for the respondent, into the allegations made by MacRae and Barnes. Both allegations were sustained, meaning that there was sufficient evidence that the alleged conduct occurred.On 9 February 2012, Ms Lyn Weir, Director of Operations for the respondent, sent a letter to the applicant setting out the findings of the investigation. The letter also set out recommendations including an extensive team re-building program to be instituted by the Medical Administration and Human Resources in early 2012 and constituted a first formal warning to the applicant.
On or about January 2012, MacRae and Barnes submitted further grievances against the applicant. The allegations included incidents which, in their view, amounted to systemic bullying, harassment and inappropriate workplace behaviour by the applicant for the period January 2010 to December 2011. At the time the allegations were made, the alleged breaches relating to the first investigation had yet to be determined. It was therefore decided that at the conclusion of the first investigation, the second set of allegations would be reviewed. The applicant then made allegations of inappropriate workplace behaviour against MacRae and Barnes. Duff stated that she approved an investigation to be undertaken into the allegations by an external consultant. Ms Annette Simpson conducted the investigation which commenced on or about early March 2012. Ms Simpson interviewed each of the pharmacy staff individually and set out her findings of her investigation in a report dated April 2012. Duff summarises the complaints as follows: Ostracism in the workplace - Barnes; Staff uniforms - over controlling and intimidation Barnes and MacRae; Sick leave - over controlling and intimidation Barnes and MacRae; Radio - over controlling and intimidation Barnes and MacRae; Staff talking and socialising in the pharmacy - attempts to isolate staff Barnes and MacRae; Query to union regarding back pay - intimidation and aggression Barnes; Part time working arrangements - bulling and intimidation Barnes; Communication - lack of or poor - Barnes and MacRae; MacRae's appraisal - intimidation of MacRae
The complaints of the applicant against Barnes and MacRae were summarised as follows: Alleged errors in dispensing by Barnes; Not heeding manager's directive to keep socialising to a minimum - Barnes; Not happy to accept the applicant as manager - MacRae; Inappropriate comments made to cleaning staff about manager - Barnes and MacRae
The Simpson report found that allegations made by MacRae and Barnes of inappropriate workplace behaviour against the applicant in that he bullied or attempted to bully them were sustained. The report found that the allegations made by the applicant were vexatious. The applicant received a second formal written warning.
Duff also refers to a letter from Scott McLachlan Chief Executive of Western NSW Local Health District to the applicant. He reviewed the investigation report and supporting documentation. He was satisfied that all NSW Health Policies had been applied and that the applicant had been afforded the opportunity to respond to the allegations made against him and to comment upon the findings. He also noted that the applicant had raised concerns in his letter that he believed that he had been victimised for making a complaint with the ADB or proceeding with the discrimination complaint with the ADB. Mr McLachlan writes that upon review of the documentation made available to him, it was clear the external investigation conducted by Simpson took place some months prior to the respondent receiving the complaint from the ABD. He observed that as the applicant acknowledged in his letter, the proceedings with the ADB are not related to the internal investigation into his workplace conduct. It was, therefore, appropriate that the investigation was finalised without reference to the ADB proceedings and there was no evidence to support his claim that he had been victimised as a result of his complaint to the ADB.
A number of recommendations were made as a result of the findings including a change to the reporting line and consideration of an additional support in the form of an appropriate coach mentor which were made in order to build his capacity in people management and leadership aspects of his role. He had discussed those recommendations with David Wright.
Duff states that on about 1 May 2012, the applicant lodged a complaint with the President of the Anti Discrimination Board. In about December 2012, the ADB advised that the matter had been referred to the former Administrative Decisions Tribunal.
She referred to a grievance notification by the applicant in respect of Kay and Furner. It involved applicant attempting to manage Kay. Furner had been present and had became upset about the applicant's conduct. The applicant complained that he felt harassed by Kay and Furner. Entwistle responded to the applicant's complaint. She found that it was an appropriate conversation between health professionals. She found no evidence that the applicant was harassed.
The situation was that there was ongoing workplace conflict within the Bathurst Health Services Pharmacy Unit. Allegations had been made by the temporary pharmacist, Kay, in relation to clinical processes, practices and systems. Allegations had been made against the applicant by David Wright, General Manager, Bathurst Health Service and also Brooke Barnes, Pharmacy Technician, Bathurst Health Service, relating to inappropriate workplace conduct on or around 12 February 2013. There were previous sustained findings against the applicant in February 2012 for accessing the medical records of Barnes and MacRae. There were further sustained findings of inappropriate workplace conduct and bullying behaviours in January 2013 against Barnes and MacRae made by an external investigator the findings and outcome confirmed by the Manager of Workforce and the Chief Executive. The applicant had made allegations against Barnes and MacRae that were investigated during the investigation and were not sustained. The applicant was given a formal warning for the second occasion.
There was a change of the reporting relationship from the Director of Medical Services Bathurst Health Service to the General Manager Bathurst Health Service. The General Manager considered the possibility of sourcing an appropriate coach or mentor for the applicant. The applicant had been reluctant to accept this recommendation. The progress of the Anti Discrimination matters was noted. It was noted that the current situation was that employees working within the pharmacy unit had ongoing workplace conflict and sustained incidences of bullying behaviours by the applicant. Employees within this unit have expressed their ongoing ability to continue working within the environment, both to management and to an independent party. There were potential and significant risks associated with stress claims within the unit with an estimated cost in excess of $850,000.00 if all parties involved had workers compensation claims upheld. There was possible continued escalation of workplace issues resulting in increased sick leave, absence leave and possible decline in the unit's ability to perform clinically. Relocation of the applicant to Orange Health Service working as a supernumerary pharmacist was explored. However, other employees within the Orange Health Service Pharmacy Unit had advised that due to previous dealings with the applicant they would be unable to work with him. There were ongoing concerns about the interactions and people management capabilities of the applicant. There was a requirement to engage an investigator to investigate the recent allegations.
Duff's evidence was that on or about March 2013, a Risk Assessment was conducted in relation for the purposes of assessing individual and organisational risks associated with the allegations complaints process. This was in accordance with NSW Health Policy and Processes used in the decision making process as to whether to place the applicant on special leave. The Risk Assessment was undertaken in conjunction with the General Manager David Wright and herself. It was based on assessing the risk to all parties once the applicant became aware of the allegations made against him by Barnes and Wright. The Risk Assessment identified there was a risk to the individuals, both Barnes and Dharmalingham. Based on significant history that this risk may have a clinical and workers compensation risk to the organisation. Accordingly, a decision to stand the applicant down was made. He was advised and placed on special leave on 15 March 2013.
A copy of the Risk Assessment in relation to the applicant dated March 2013 and signed by Sandra Duff on 2 April 2013 was provided. In conclusion under the heading "General Risk Assessment" the following concerns were noted. There were concerns relating to the well-being of all employees working within the Bathurst Health Service Pharmacy Unit while another investigation is undertaken. There were significant risks from a risk management aspect, both on the clinical ability for the unit to function and possible workers compensation risks. There were concerns relating to the ongoing ADT matter. There was an inability to find alternative work locations for the applicant. There was a need for an external investigator to undertake the recent allegations. It was recommended that the applicant be placed on leave with pay immediately.
Duff refers to the third investigation in or about March 2013. A complaint was made against the applicant by David Wright, General Manager at Bathurst Base Hospital and Brooke Barnes. The allegations concerned a meeting that took place on 12 February 2013 between David Wright, the applicant and Barnes regarding the uniform Barnes was wearing that day. Wright alleged he had observed several behaviours that were potentially in breach of the NSW Department of Health Code of Conduct. He alleged the applicant spoke to Barnes in a manner that lacked respect and was potentially intimidating. Barnes alleged that the applicant approached her in an inappropriately rude manner on 12 February 2013 in relation to her uniform and later in a meeting with David Wright. Barnes alleged the applicant was argumentative, inappropriate and spoke over the top of her and this caused her to become distressed.
Duff approved an investigation to be undertaken into the allegations by an external consultant, Mr Richard Elligett, Human Resource Manager of Orange PPP Spotless. He set out the findings of his investigation in a report, dated 8 August 2013. The applicant was provided with a written statement through his legal representative in connection with the investigation but declined to be interviewed on the advice of his medical practitioners. The report found that the applicant spoke and behaved in an aggressive and intimidating manner towards Barnes and, in doing so, breached the NSW Health Code of Conduct. She provided a copy of a letter from herself of 19 September 2013 to the applicant and also a copy of the findings of the third investigation in a letter, dated 7 November 2013. She advised that taking into account the results of that investigation and the previous investigation and formal warnings, she was going to recommend to the Chief Executive, Mr McLachlan, that the applicant's employment be terminated.

[50]

12 February 2013

Furner gave evidence that the applicant said to Barnes, "Brooke, why are you not wearing your uniform today?" She was present on that occasion. Barnes advised the applicant that she was wearing her uniform. She displayed the manufacturer's logo indicating it was departmental approved garment. She said that she had been wearing the uniform for more than four years and said, "Is there a problem?" The applicant responded that there was no problem. Her evidence was that the applicant spoke to Barnes in a very abrupt and assertive manner. She was taken aback by the exchange. In relation to the meeting, her evidence was that the applicant said at one point, "You know you can come to me with any problems that you have". Barnes said, "Well what was wrong with my uniform?" The applicant was quite agitated in responding. She observed that David Wright intervened and request the issue be dealt with in a separate meeting. She observed that there was a separate meeting at the close of the staff meeting. Barnes returned from the meeting visibly upset which she described that she was in tears, her face looked strained and unhappy.
Furner stated that she had worked with the applicant for about three years. She had noticed that for some reason unknown to her the applicant treated her differently to the other staff members. She states that the best way to describe it was that she was a " favourite". She said that when she arrived at the pharmacy in the morning they would all say "Good morning" to the applicant but the applicant would only respond to her saying "Good morning Julie". She states that he would pointedly not respond to other staff members. This made her feel uncomfortable. She worked just the same as the other staff members and she considered that the applicant's behaviour was unjustified.
Furner agreed that the applicant was an excellent Pharmacist, but stated that his communication skills were poor. Her evidence was that the applicant had treated her with respect and had never bullied or harassed her and had never been rude to her. She stated that he had never treated her directly badly, but she had seen poor behaviour at times towards others. Furner also clarified what she meant by the applicant's limited or poor communication skills. She said that this had nothing to do with his English, it was the way in which he tried to get his point across.

[52]

The meeting of 12 February 2013

David Wright gave evidence that he attended a staff meeting on 12 February 2013. He had attended the staff meeting on that date at the request of the applicant. His evidence was the main reason was to clarify and explain to staff that the applicant would be reporting directly to him and to discuss staff behaviour. He said that it was apparent to him that there was tension within the department. The interaction between the applicant and the staff was noticeable. When staff raised concerns, the applicant was very defensive. The staff were not accepting of initial answers of the applicant. He said that it appeared to him there was a lack of trust between the staff and the applicant. He spoke at the meeting about the Department moving forward and the support the hospital would provide. This appeared to be accepted by the entire team including the applicant and he felt that the meeting was successful. During the meeting, Barnes raised the issue of her uniform. The applicant's response was inappropriate. He closed down this discussion because he considered it inappropriate in the staff meeting. He told them they would have a separate meeting at eh conclusion of the staff meeting.
In the separate meeting, Barnes raised the issue of the uniform in what he describes as a respectful manner with a calm demeanour. She was not angry. He stated that he observed that Barnes was wearing an official uniform provided by the hospital, albeit from several years ago. It displayed the corporate logo and was a uniform she had obviously worn for the last number of years. It was tidy but well worn. He felt that she appeared to be neat and tidy and the uniform was worn appropriately. The applicant tried to explain his reasoning and particularly that the uniform she was wearing was an older style and not the current uniform. He said it was apparent that Barnes was becoming upset and agitated and he observed that she had tears in her eyes and her facial expression was strained and unhappy. As the discussion progressed, the applicant's reaction and tone of voice became more agitated. He began to speak loudly, his voice more raised than usual and quickly. He displayed agitation and leant forward. He said that the applicant became overbearing in his manner and was very inappropriate. His evidence was that it was the worst confrontation of a senior staff member to a junior member that he had ever seen. His evidence was that he tried on several occasions to bring the applicant back to the main topic and to diffuse his agitation, however, he did not seem to listen to him. He considered his manner unacceptable. He directed the applicant to stop.
At the end of the meeting, which was no more than 10 minutes, Barnes was upset and crying. She left the meeting. The applicant wanted to raise issues and he repeated that staff members must show courtesy and respect. He repeated the statement two or three times and the applicant then apologised. His evidence was that the applicant's behaviour was well outside the boundaries of acceptable workplace behaviour and he felt personally "a bit rattled". He stated that he had concerns about the applicant not having a filter on his emotions or what he considered to be appropriate behaviour.
In the following month, he had discussions with a number of parties about how to proceed with the applicant. It was his view that he thought it unwise to allow the applicant to remain in his usual workplace. This included taking into account the efficient operation of the pharmacy, the occupational health and safety risks to staff and whether or not an alternative position could be found for the applicant pending an investigation. He states that he recalled speaking to Orange Hospital and the manager indicated that some of her staff had some problems dealing with the applicant and were not prepared to have him in their pharmacy department.
Wright gave evidence that he made a decision on 15 March 2013 to place the applicant on special leave. His evidence was that he was aware that a mediation had occurred in respect of a complaint before the ADT a few days previously. His evidence was that the proceedings had no bearing on his decision to place the applicant on special leave. He gave evidence that he was unaware that the applicant had any disability. He was aware that the applicant previously had some restrictions, however, at the time of his decisions, there were no restrictions upon his duties. He said that there was never any request to accommodate the applicant in respect of any disability. He had met with the applicant in the week or two prior to his decision and strategies to assist the applicant were discussed and there was no request for any need to accommodate a disability or disabilities.
David Wright was asked about his supervision of the applicant. From January 2013, he directly supervised the applicant. Previously, he was the supervisor of the applicant's supervisor who was Karnaghan from April 2010 to 2012. Following that, Spencer and then the applicant from January 2013. Wright acknowledged that the applicant was an excellent Pharmacist and diligent in his duties. David Wright acknowledged that he had no training at Bathurst Hospital in respect of dealing with NESB issues. David Wright agreed that he spoke to the applicant about altering his tone and manner. He conceded that the applicant responded by stating that he was from India and this is how he spoke. David Wright responded by saying that it was not an issue of accent. He said that he had suggested that the applicant consider moving to other positions, because the situation at Bathurst was quite difficult and it would give the applicant an opportunity to work in an environment without tension. This would enable him to continue to work.
David Wright acknowledged that he was the only other person present in the meeting with the applicant and Barnes. He acknowledged he was the only objective witness present. He acknowledged that despite this, he also made a complaint on behalf of Barnes and commenced an investigation. David Wright said that he contacted Barnes because he wanted to test and confirm his observations that she was offended. He then prepared a draft letter and sent that to Human Resources for review.
David Wright said that he was advised by "Workforce" to place the applicant on special leave. He denied the decision was incorrect and said that he was advised to place the applicant on special leave. He acknowledged the decision was made by himself and Duff. He acknowledged that the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) had not made the decision to suspend the applicant, but he had assumed that the CEO may have been involved. He said that the letter placing the applicant on special leave was provided for him to sign and he had acted on advice of senior people.
In relation to the Risk Assessment, David Wright was asked about which document he saw as the document in evidence was signed 2 April 2013 and it could not have been this document. His evidence was that he was advised to suspend the applicant by Workforce on 15 March 2013. He said that he saw a Risk Assessment document on that date. He said that whether or not it changed, he did not know. In relation to the figure of an $850,000.00 risk, he said that he did not calculate the figure, advice was taken from Judy Robinson. Wright's evidence was that he had spoken to Maggie Stevenson who was the Director of Pharmacy at Orange Hospital. He said that the Orange and Bloomfield Pharmacy had just merged and the situation was stressful and she was not willing to expose her department to further stress with the applicant.
In respect of the decision to place the applicant on special leave, David Wright was about the Risk Assessment and whether he took account of the fact that the applicant had made a complaint to the Anti Discrimination Board. He simply noted that that was a matter identified in the Risk Assessment.
David Wright acknowledged that he was the complainant in respect of the incident on 12 February 2013. He said that he did look for other work for the applicant prior to the decision being made to suspend him. He said the decision was made because within the time frame available there were possible stress claims within the organisation which was a risk and, as part of managing that risk, there was no other placement for the applicant. He agreed that a temporary move to Orange would have been a good possible resolution to the applicant remaining in the workplace. Dubbo was considered but it was thought to be too far. Parkes has a small pharmacy and it was not considered appropriate. Forbes and Mudgee were under the Local Health District but not under his management. He was questioned about approaching Sue Bourke to provide allegations against the applicant. He said that he was concerned there was a new issue and he asked her to put it in an email so he would have a formal document.

[53]

THE DECISION

This complaint involves allegations of discrimination in the area of employment on the grounds of race, disability, carers responsibilities and victimisation. In relation to the complaints the applicant claims that the respondent is vicariously liable for the conduct of the staff pursuant to section 53 of the ADA. While the respondent disputes liability generally, it does not dispute that section 53 would apply in relation to the conduct of staff, except in relation to any findings of liability of staff in relation to the telephone message incident.
The applicant and the staff of the respondent have previously been involved in numerous workplace complaints, grievance procedures and three separate formal workplace investigations.
The first investigation resulted in a finding that the applicant engaged in unauthorised access of the medical records of both Barnes and MacRae. It was the applicant's claim that the finding was flawed. This investigation was not within the scope of the complaint before the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not have material before us upon which we could make findings about the conduct of the investigation, nor did we have any jurisdiction to do so. If the applicant alleged that the findings were flawed, then this was a matter which should have been addressed in another jurisdiction. For the purposes of this complaint, we have evidence before us that an investigation was conducted by the respondent and that as a consequence the applicant was given a formal warning which was placed on his employment record.
In respect of the second investigation, the respondent engaged an external investigator, Ms Annette Simpson to investigate allegations made by Barnes and MacRae. That investigation took approximately one year. In conclusion Ms Simpson found that most of the allegations were not sustained. She did however find that some of the allegations were sustained and the applicant was found to have engaged in conduct constituting bullying. As a consequence the applicant was given a second formal warning which was placed on his employment record. The Tribunal did not have material before us upon which we could make findings about the conduct of the investigation, nor did we have any jurisdiction to do so.
The respondent engaged Richard Elligett to conduct a third investigation to investigate complaints made by David Wright and Barnes. The applicant contends that the process was fundamentally flawed. He contends that he was not given particulars of the allegations. The Tribunal notes that we have correspondence from Mr Singh repeatedly requesting detailed particulars of this complaint.
We do note that there are complaints before us in respect of this Tribunal's jurisdiction which involve the same or similar factual subject matter as that investigated by Mr Elligett. Part of the matters before us include a complaint that the decision to place the applicant on special leave on 15 March 2015 amounts to victimisation. The actual investigation of Elligett however does not fall within the scope of the matters before us. We have considered the material before us and made our own findings in respect of the matters which are before this Tribunal. This includes some matters where there may have been an over-lap in subject matter with past investigations.
The Tribunal has dealt with each of the specific complaints below. Because of the volume of the complaints and in order to avoid repetition, the relevant legal principles are not repeated in full in respect of all the individual complaints where they have already been referred to once.

[58]

Detriment

In considering whether the applicant suffered any detriment the Tribunal had regard to relevant decisions discussing the meaning of the term. If a person is subjected to a detriment by another employee in the workplace, then that conduct will constitute "any other detriment" in s 8(2)(c). The word "detriment" has its ordinary meaning of "loss, damage or injury" See Wollongong City Council v Bonella [2002] NSWADTAP 26. The detriment must be objectively determined and must be real and not trivial. See Sivananthan v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service NSWADT 44 .
In O'Callaghan v Loder [1983] 3 NSWLR 89; (1984) EOC 92-023 the phrase "subjecting … to any other detriment" in section 25 (2) (c) of the ADA was considered by the then DCJ Mathews. She stated, "I do not regard the expression "subjecting …to any other detriment" as meaning anything more that "putting under a disadvantage", but noted that the disadvantage must be a matter of substance. It was also noted that it was difficult to define and was a matter of fact to be determined in each individual case, but that the test was an objective one. It was not sufficient for an individual to believe that they have been subject to a detriment.
The applicant gave evidence that he is sensitive to comments about the colour of his skin and he found the comments hurtful. The applicant has presented no other evidence of any detriment he suffered in relation to this specific incident. The test as to whether a person has suffered any detriment is an objective one. It is not sufficient for an individual to believe that they have been subject to a detriment. As noted above the disadvantage must be a matter of substance.
There is no evidence that the comment made by Ledingham conveyed any negative comment in relation to the applicant's skin colour. Applying an objective test, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the comments which it is undisputed were made in the context of the applicant expressing he was feeling unwell, would have caused the applicant any detriment in his employment. Even if the Tribunal accepted that comment was repeated the following day and staff did laugh because the applicant claimed he could not look pale because he was black, the Tribunal is not satisfied that this of itself is sufficient to amount to a detriment.
The Tribunal has considered the issue of differential treatment and causation in the event we are wrong.

[59]

Differential Treatment

In order to establish a complaint of direct discrimination there are two further elements which must be proven. The first element is that there was less favourable or "differential treatment" compared to a person who does not have a disability, in circumstances that are the same or not materially different. This involves a comparison. The second element is that the differential treatment was on the ground of the disability and is referred to "causation". Therefore, in relation to his complaint of direct discrimination, the applicant must establish both differential treatment and causation in relation to the respondent's conduct.
In respect of the first element, which is the comparison, the Tribunal must consider whether the applicant was treated less favourably, than a person who was not of the Indian race would have been treated in circumstances that are the same, or not materially different. The meaning of the phrase, "in circumstances that are the same, or not materially different", was considered by the High Court in Purvis v Sate of New South Wales [2003] HCA 62 (Purvis). In Purvis, the High Court had before it a complaint of disability discrimination under the federal equivalent to section 49B. It was determined that the disability included the physical cause and the resulting behaviours and that the appropriate comparator is a person without the disability who engaged in the same behaviours as the person with the disability. The Court stated that "circumstances" referred to in the federal equivalent to section 49B "…are all of the objective features which surround the actual or intended treatment of the disabled person..." The Court went on to state that, " Once the circumstances of the treatment or intended treatment have been identified, a comparison must be made with the treatment that would have been given to a person without the disability in circumstances that were the same or not materially different."
In relation to this complaint, the applicant has provided no evidence of a comparator and submits that the Tribunal should have regard to a hypothetical comparator. In order for the applicant to establish that the respondent discriminated against him on the grounds of his race, when Ledingham made the comment that he was looking pale and staff laughed, the applicant must establish differential treatment. In respect of the comparison, the Tribunal must consider whether the applicant was treated less favourably, than a person who was not of Indian race would have been treated in circumstances that are the same, or not materially different.
As noted there was no evidence of an actual comparator. When there is no actual comparator the Tribunal can consider a hypothetical comparator. In this situation however, the issues of "differential treatment" and "causation" "merge" because the Tribunal can only reach the conclusion that the respondent treated the applicant less favourably than a hypothetical person not of the applicant's race, by determining that the disability was the reason for the treatment. See Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] UKHL 11; [2003] 2 All ER ER 26; Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service [2002] NSWADT 133 (Dutt). The Tribunal must therefore consider the issue of causation.

[60]

Causation

In Purvis, the High Court determined the meaning of the words "on the ground" in relation to causation meant, "a real, genuine or true reason" for the treatment. The Tribunal then considered whether there was any direct evidence that the real, genuine or true reason for the treatment was on the ground of the applicant's race.
There was no direct evidence that the comment was made on the ground of the applicant's race. The issue of what happens when there is no direct evidence has been discussed in decisions including Dutt, Edwards v Bourke Bowling Club Limited [2000] NSWADT 31 (Edwards) and Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness (2000) 49 NSWLR 262. Where there is no direct evidence, an applicant must rely upon inference. In Dutt the Tribunal noted that the authorities identify the flowing considerations in respect of drawing inferences to prove less favourable treatment:

a causal link, such as that which is necessary in proving direct discrimination, can be established by inference from the primary facts;
an inference must be reasonably drawn on the basis of primary facts;
an inference can be drawn from a combination of facts, none of which viewed alone would support that inference;
a fact relied upon as the basis of an inference need not be proved to the requisite standard of proof;
it is not enough that the inference is a mere possibility: it must be one of "probable connection" ;
the inference must be a logical one, and not supposition;
an inference cannot be made where more probable and innocent explanations are available on the evidence.

The Tribunal considered whether it was possible to draw an inference that the comment was made on the ground of the applicant's race.
It is undisputed that the comment arose in the context of a complaint by the applicant that he was not feeling well. While it may have been a poorly worded expression of concern, Ledingham has provided a plausible explanation for the comment. She was genuinely concerned for the applicant's health and she thought he looked poorly.
The Tribunal found Ledingham to be a credible witness. At times, particularly in relation to dates and locations she acknowledged that there were inconsistencies in her evidence and her memory was poor. The Tribunal does not find this to be unusual where many of the events of this complaint occurred up to 4 years previously and were not major incidents. On those occasions she gave her evidence in a frank manner and did attempt to resile from any inconsistencies and acknowledged she could have made an error. Unlike MacRae and Barnes, Ledingham was quite prepared to acknowledge the applicant's positive qualities. While she stated that she did witness behaviours which she considered to be inappropriate, particularly towards Barnes and MacRae and on one occasion herself, she made no grievance complaints about the applicant. Even in her comments to Elligett during the third investigation, she commented upon the applicant's positive qualities. She appeared genuinely concerned when questions were put to her by the applicant's counsel about his sensitivity in relation to his skin tone.
The Tribunal accepts that the true reason Ledingham made the statement was that she was concerned that the applicant looked unwell. The Tribunal finds that Ledingham has provided a plausible explanation for the comment and is unable to find that the comment was made on the ground of the applicant's race.
The Tribunal finds that the laughter was more likely in response to Ledingham's poor choice of words. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the ground of his race in relation to this incident.

[61]

What occurred

The Tribunal has noted that there are different accounts of what occurred on the day. The oral evidence of MacRae and Ledingham was not entirely consistent with their previous statements about whether there was any laughter and their recollections differed slightly. The applicant claims that MacRae mimicked his accent, however this was consistently denied by both MacRae and Ledingham. The applicant claims that Barnes and Ledingham laughed when he said the words, "product familiarisation program". There is also differing evidence about whether discussions were the following day or some time later. The critical issue however, is the claim that the applicant's accent was mimicked. It is also claimed that Ledingham asked the applicant if he spoke Tamil at home and she said that this was a reason he was difficult to understand.
The applicant kept relatively contemporaneous notes that related to the incident. On 8 April 2010 he made a record of the incident occurring on 7 April 2010 when he made file notes about a staff meeting on 8 April 2010. In those notes he records that Ledingham asked him to repeat the phrase and after he did so, she mentioned it was a "funny expression". She said that she wasn't able to understand the phrase in the staff meeting the previous day because he was speaking fast. She also asked if he spoke Tamil at home. She stated that this would be a reason he was difficult to understand. MacRae also stated that he spoke fast. He recorded that Ledingham had asked if he spoke the Tamil language at home and commented that this could be a reason he was difficult to understand. He recorded that he was upset but advised staff that he would slow down. On the following day on 9 April there was record of a further discussion and MacRae laughed again at the "familiarisation word".
The incident occurred approximately 4 years before evidence was given. It is therefore not odd that there are some inconsistencies in all the accounts. The Tribunal notes that the applicant kept a contemporaneous record that is also not entirely consistent with his own account. The applicant's evidence was that he was upset about the laughter at his use of the word and he recorded the comments. His contemporaneous file note is consistent with the account given by Ledingham, that she could not understand his speech because he spoke too fast and it was a funny expression. The applicant does not record that MacRae, nor any-one else mimicked his accent in the file notes. If staff had mimicked his speech this would have been very provocative and insulting. It would have been highly likely that the applicant would not only have recorded this specifically but taken immediate steps to deal with the issue. He does not record the incident until the following day after further discussion at a staff meeting. The record suggests that they found the actual words funny.
The Tribunal finds that Ledingham found the phrase difficult to understand, due to the applicant speaking quickly and did ask for it to be repeated. She asked if he spoke Tamil at home and when he said that he did stated that this was the reason the applicant was difficult to understand. The phrase itself is bureaucratic terminology and did not originate from the applicant. The Tribunal finds that the staff found that the phrase was of itself an odd sounding or funny phrase and they could not understand the phrase when the applicant spoke the phrase. The Tribunal finds that staff laughed at the phrase when spoken by the applicant on the day and also when it was repeated on subsequent days. The Tribunal is unable to find that any of the staff deliberately mimicked the applicant's accent in relation to the phrase.

[65]

Detriment

The decision of Tleyji v The TravelSpirit Group Pty Ltd [2005] NSWADT 294 (15 December 2005) was a decision of the former New South Wales Administrative Decisions Tribunal (the ADT) involving a complaint that an employee was directed not to speak in their native language from their work desk. The ADT found that a directive that a person could not speak in a language of their choice (their native language) from their work desk amounted to a detriment. Awad v Western Sydney Local Health District [2013] NSWADT 287 (13 December 2013) is another decision of the ADT which involved similar issues. In that matter there was no prohibition in relation to staff speaking in their native language or a language other than English. The ADT found that a request was made that staff be sensitive and considerate when speaking to colleagues in a language other than English. The ADT found that there was no detriment in respect of the applicant, who was from an Arabic background, being present at a meeting when staff were asked to be sensitive towards others when speaking in a language other than English.
In the circumstances here, the applicant was not prohibited from speaking to his wife in the Tamil language, nor was he directed to take calls elsewhere. The facts of this matter are that he discovered that a staff member had made a complaint about him and it was being investigated as part of a grievance complaint. The Tribunal finds that this is significantly different to the situation of being politely asked of be respectful of others.
The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Duff that the complaint having been made, it was the responsibility of the respondent to deal with the complaint as it formed part of the grievance complaint. The Tribunal finds however that the applicant would have suffered a detriment when he discovered that a complaint that he spoke his native language was part of a formal grievance procedure, irrespective of the outcome. His evidence was that he was distressed. It would have been very difficult for him to take calls to his wife and speak in his native language while this matter was ongoing.

[67]

Causation

The evidence is that the applicant does take calls from his wife on his office phone or in the dispensary. He speaks to her in the Tamil language. The respondent submits however that the comments must be taken in the wider context of the staff unhappiness because of the applicant's restrictions on their mobile phone use for personal calls in the work place. The respondent refers to the evidence of MacRae in particular. She is employed as a pharmacist and gave evidence that she felt humiliated by having to ask for permission to make a telephone call.
The Tribunal does not accept the submission that the comment should be seen simply as part of the wider work place dispute about phone usage. If this were the case, the complaint would have been along the lines that the applicant in fact takes personal calls himself, while others including senior clinical staff such as MacRae were not allowed to do so, or only in emergencies. This was not the nature of the complaint. The complaint of Barnes was that the applicant spoke the Tamil language on the telephone in front of her.
It was also common to the evidence of the staff, that none of them had received any training in issues relating to persons from a non-English speaking background while employed by the respondent. The Tribunal notes that the applicant's counsel referred to the evidence of Barnes to highlight what he submitted was her ignorance or prejudice towards persons from non-English speaking backgrounds. The applicant's counsel put a series of questions to Barnes about the accent of an Australian born staff member compared to the applicant's accent. In summary in respect of the Australian born staff member when asked whether he spoke with "a normal Australian accent" she repeatedly answered that he did not have an accent.
The Tribunal notes that this was a very conflicted work place. Allegations and counter allegations have been levelled by pharmacy staff against the applicant and by the applicant towards pharmacy staff. The respondent has investigated allegations levelled against the applicant as it is obliged to do. The applicant has however made a series of complaints that pharmacy staff have engaged in discriminatory conduct towards him. The respondent has failed to take steps to implement any training on this issue. The Tribunal does not accept the submissions that as the applicant was the Director of the Pharmacy Department he was responsible. This is a human relations issue.
It is common for persons, including co-workers, to speak in subdued voices so the content of their conversation cannot be over-heard and understood by others. The complaint of Barnes was about the applicant speaking in the Tamil language, which she considered to be offensive. The Tribunal does not accept that a more plausible explanation in relation to this comment is the general dispute about phone usage for the reasons identified above. The Tribunal further finds that there is a probable connection between the applicant's race and the comments. It is noted that the respondent had conceded that the comments could be construed as discrimination on the ground of race. The Tribunal finds that the comments of Barnes were made on the grounds of the applicant's race. The Tribunal finds that the respondent is vicariously liable for the conduct of Barnes.

[68]

What occurred

There is no dispute that the applicant received an offensive message on his mobile telephone on about 4 March 2011 stating, "You curry muncher. Fuck off back to India." The respondent's witnesses all denied any involvement in the incident, or knowledge of who left the message. The applicant claims that the respondent is responsible for the incident because his mobile phone number was readily available to all staff at the pharmacy because it was recorded on a piece of paper placed on the notice board. His evidence is that the incident occurred in the context of a week when he had workplace disputes with MacRae and Ledingham. It was submitted that the phone call was made at MacRae's "behest". The caller was a male person who was not a known member of the respondent's staff. There is no evidence as to who made the call. A search of Optus telephone records failed to identify who made the call.
The applicant's evidence that he saw his phone number placed on the pharmacy notice board was uncontested. The evidence of the applicant that he did not give his mobile phone number to any other person in Bathurst except his wife and pharmacy staff was also unchallenged by the respondent. The applicant submitted that the Tribunal should draw an inference that the call was made at the "behest" of MacRae.
The evidence is that on the Friday 4 March 2011 the applicant told MacRae she was not allowed to have her mobile phone on her desk and must leave it in her locker. She was told she could only use the phone in an emergency. The incident occurred in front of a cleaner. She acknowledged that she found this humiliating and she told her husband and parents. The message was received later on that Friday.
The applicant's own evidence indicates that there were other persons who were not employees of the hospital who had access to the dispensary, for example Copson. There was also no evidence presented about whether the cleaner who over-heard the mobile phone incident between the applicant and MacRae was an employee of the hospital. It was submitted that the applicant had a clearly identifiable accent and it is possible that he did receive a call on a wrong number.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the incident would have been extremely confronting, intimidating and hurtful for the applicant. The voice was unknown to pharmacy staff. Furner's evidence was that it was not the voice of the husband of MacRae. MacRae denied any knowledge or involvement of the event. This is a matter where there have been numerous incidents whereby the applicant has been in conflict with staff including MacRae. There were no other instances of an incident of this type occurring. Such a response is neither typical of nor consistent with other responses by staff in the Pharmacy Department to conflict with the applicant. In situations of conflict with the applicant, staff particularly MacRae, have responded by making a complaint about the applicant's behaviour.
The facts are such that it is possible that MacRae specifically instructed a third party to make this call. It is also possible that the call was a wrong number or some other person. The Tribunal could not be satisfied on the available evidence that an inference should be drawn that MacRae (or other staff member of the pharmacy) instructed a third party to make the call. Ultimately the Tribunal could not be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the call was made at the behest of MacRae or an employee of the respondent. The Tribunal therefore could not be satisfied that the incident amounted to discrimination on the grounds of race.

[71]

Differential Treatment and Causation

This incident occurred in the context of a fire evacuation drill. It was Ledingham's evidence said that she was frustrated and it was a statement of fact that she had difficulty understanding the applicant. An appropriate comparator would be a person not of the Indian race who could not be clearly understood when issuing directions in a fire evacuation, however there was no actual comparator nominated, so the issues of differential treatment and causation merge.
There was no direct evidence that the statement was made on the grounds of the applicant's race. In the decision of Yu V University of Newcastle (No2) [2012] NSWADT 201 (Yu) the Tribunal considered a similar situation. In Yu the Tribunal noted that the applicant must establish that a real or genuine reason for the use of the words "speak English" was his race. The Tribunal found that in the circumstances of Yu the words were said due to frustration with communication. The Tribunal drew a distinction between such a statement being made to a native speaking Chinese person and that of an English non-native speaking Chinese person who was difficult to understand. In relation to the latter such a comment would be on the ground of race, not communication difficulties.
The Tribunal considered whether in the circumstances it was possible that an inference could be drawn that the words were said on the ground of the applicant's race. The applicant claims he speaks good English. He does so however with a clear Indian accent and relevantly, the evidence is that he speaks very quickly. He documented in a file note staff complaints that that at times he speaks too quickly to be understood and he recorded he would speak more slowly. Ledingham provided an explanation for the statement. She often had difficulty understanding the applicant, particularly because he spoke quickly. On this occasion in the context of a fire evacuation she became frustrated and made a statement of fact. The Tribunal accepts that this was the reason she made the statement and finds that the respondent has provided a plausible more innocent explanation. The Tribunal is unable to find that there is a probable connection between the conduct and the applicant's race. The Tribunal is therefore unable to find that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the ground of his race in relation to this incident.

[76]

Differential Treatment and Causation

There was no actual comparator, so the issues of differential treatment and causation merge. The Tribunal considered the issue of causation. The Tribunal heard considerable evidence about this conversation and the issue of uniforms. The attire the applicant was unhappy with was three quarter length trousers and he considered that they looked unprofessional and preferred either trousers or skirts as being more professional. The female staff had been wearing the three quarter length trousers for some years prior to the incident. Their reasoning for doing so was that they were cooler than full length trousers in summer and also for modesty reasons when bending over or on the floor. When it was confirmed that they were part of the uniform the applicant accepted this.
What was very evident was that this issue formed part of an escalating control issue within the pharmacy, particularly relating to uniforms. The evidence clearly indicates that the applicant was attempting to control the work place environment to a significant degree. The Tribunal heard that this included but was not limited to the radio volume control being "marked", staff were not allowed to take private phone calls at work. On this occasion the applicant was questioning a uniform which had been worn for some time and was in the catalogue of approved uniforms.
There is no direct evidence that any such comments were racially based. The Tribunal considered whether it was possible to draw an inference that any misrepresentation of the facts to Karnaghan that the applicant wanted them to wear skirts was on the ground of the applicant's race.
The authorities are clear that the absence of an explanation cannot be relied upon by itself to provide the missing element of proof. See Department of Health v Arumugan (1988) VR 319 and Fenwick v Beveridge Building Products (1986) EOC 92 and Edwards v Bourke Bowling Club Limited [2000] NSWADT 31 (31 March 2000). It was common to the staff that that they found the applicant controlling and that there were ongoing issues in respect of his questioning their uniforms. The applicant was described as a "micro-manager". The Tribunal could not be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that any misrepresentation in relation to this issue was on the ground of the applicant's race.

[83]

The claim of Disability Discrimination 49B What constitutes discrimination on the ground of disability A person (the perpetrator) discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person) on the ground of disability if the perpetrator (a) on the ground of the aggrieved person's disability … treats the aggrieved person less favourably than in the same circumstances, or in circumstances which are not materially different, the perpetrator treats or would treat a person who does not have that disability … Section 4(1) defines disability as follows: 4(1) "disability" means: (a) total or partial loss of a person's bodily or mental functions or of a part of a person's body, or (b) the presence in a person's body of organisms causing or capable of causing disease or illness, or (c) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of a person's body, or (d) a disorder or malfunction that results in a person learning differently from a person without the disorder or malfunction, or (e) a disorder, illness or disease that affects a person's thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgment or that results in disturbed behaviour. 49A Disability includes past, future and presumed disability A reference in this Part to a person's disability is a reference to a disability: (a) that a person has, or (b) that a person is thought to have (whether or not the person in fact has the disability), or (c) that a person had in the past, or is thought to have had in the past (whether or not the person in fact had the disability), or (d) that a person will have in the future, or that it is thought a person will have in the future (whether or not the person in fact will have the disability).

The applicant claims that he had a disability and that his treatment on 12 February 2013 amounts to direct discrimination on the grounds of disability under the ADA. Section 49B(1) (a) of the ADA provides that a person discriminates against another person on the ground of disability if, on the ground of the aggrieved person's disability the person treats the aggrieved person less favourably than in the same circumstances, or in circumstances which are not materially different, the perpetrator treats or would treat a person who does not have a disability. Section 49A includes a past disability. Section 4A of the ADA provides that if an act is done for 2 or more reasons and one of the reasons consists of unlawful discrimination under the ADA against a person (whether or not it is the dominant or a substantial reason for doing the act) then the act is taken to be done for that reason.

[84]

Did the applicant have a disability at the relevant time

The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the applicant was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depression in January 2012. He has time off work initially as a workers compensation claim and then sick leave. His evidence is that he continued to take medication and to engage in stress relief measures throughout 2012. He sought medical treatment when travelling in India for symptoms in July 2012 and again in December 2012.
The applicant relies upon a report from Dr Yuvarajan. He also relies upon a report from Mr Borenstein to support a finding that he had a psychiatric condition on 12 February 2013. The respondent disputes the conclusions of Mr Borenstein because of claims including that he was not given a complete or correct history, he did not have all relevant documents and the respondent and Tribunal were not provided with documents upon which he based his conclusions. The respondent submitted the report of Dr Yuvarajan should be given little weight as he was not available for cross examination. Because of the findings below it was unnecessary to determine these issues.
The respondent acknowledges that after being placed on special leave that the applicant was diagnosed with a psychiatric condition in the form of Major Depression. It was the respondent's primary submission that the applicant did not have a genuine psychiatric condition at the time of the meeting of 12 February 2013 because the respondent had not been notified of this. It was claimed that this was supported by the delay in notifying the respondent that the applicant had a psychiatric condition at this time. The respondent asserts that they were not put on notice of this until the day of the commencement of hearing.
David Wright gave evidence that the applicant had not advised him that he had an ongoing psychiatric condition, nor sought any concessions in relation to any diagnosed psychiatric condition at the time of 12 February 2013. The applicant's own evidence was that during 2012 he took valium and engaged in stress relief measures. The Tribunal finds that the applicant had a diagnosed psychiatric condition in early 2012. He had returned to work after the time off in January 2012 and had continued to work full-time. The Tribunal finds that there is insufficient evidence to establish that the respondent was aware that the applicant had a diagnosed ongoing psychiatric condition as at 12 February 2013.
The definition of disability includes a past disability. The Tribunal finds that the respondent was clearly on notice that at the time of the meeting of 12 February 2013, that 12 months earlier the applicant had been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition. The Tribunal finds that this is a disability within the meaning of s.4 of the ADA.

[85]

What occurred

On 12 February 2013 the applicant questioned Barnes about her uniform. As a consequence, the applicant visited David Wright in his office and discussed the issue of Barnes' uniform that day. David Wright attended the staff meeting at the request of the applicant. During the meeting Barnes raised the issue of her uniform. A file note of David Wright recorded that Barnes had raised the issue of her uniform and her tone had been more angry than assertive. The applicant and Barnes were reported to have been talking loudly over each other. David Wright formed the opinion that the discussion should not be continued at a general staff meeting. Consequently he determined this issue would be discussed privately between the two parties involved after the conclusion of the staff meeting.
During the separate meeting there had been a dispute between Barnes and the applicant about the manner in which he raised the issue of her uniform and/or the tone of his questioning. Barnes then commented that the applicant was in a bad mood that day and that he "had a go" at both herself and Kay that morning. The applicant agrees that she stated that he had argued with Kay that morning. He claimed she was making up issues. In resect of what occurred in the separate meeting, there is a significant divergence as to what occurred after this.
It is the applicant's evidence that he was very distressed and aggrieved when Barnes raised what he considered to be an irrelevant issue during the staff meeting. His stomach was churning, heart rate increased and he felt hot and stiff. He told Barnes she was making up issues. David Wright told him to stop and he then apologized to Barnes. David Wright enquired if Barnes was alright to go back to the Pharmacy and she indicated that she was and then left. It was his evidence that at the end of the meeting, he understood that the issues had been resolved. It was also the applicant's submission that he was undergoing an anxiety attack.
David Wright's evidence and that of Barnes is the applicant became overly assertive and talked over the top of Barnes and would not stop, even when she started crying. David Wright tried to end the discussion, but the applicant kept talking. David Wright's evidence is that he was a bit "rattled" by the applicant's conduct, as it was the worst confrontation of a senior staff member to a junior staff member that he had ever seen and he considered it unacceptable.
The Tribunal accepts that in the context of a meeting purportedly about uniforms, that the applicant would have been a little confronted, if not distressed when Barnes raised the issue of him arguing with Kay. The applicant's evidence of his response is not consistent with that of Barnes, nor David Wright. While the applicant had been in dispute with Barnes over many issues, there is no probative evidence to suggest that up until this point, David Wright had not been impartial in relation to these disputes. David Wright's actions following the meeting are consistent with his version of events that he considered that Barnes was upset by conduct of the applicant and that he considered the applicant's conduct to be totally inappropriate. It was the evidence of David Wright that he tried to stop the applicant from speaking when he became agitated, but was unable to do so.
The Tribunal finds that there had been a dispute between the applicant and Barnes during the general Pharmacy staff meeting on 12 February 2013. Consequently he had intervened and directed that they hold a private discussion following the staff meeting. In that meeting the applicant became increasingly agitated following Barnes comment about an argument with Kay. The applicant responded to this by talking over the top of her in an overly assertive manner and saying she was making things up. He continued to do so even when she started crying and did not stop even when David Wright repeatedly directed him to do so.

[88]

Causation

There was no direct evidence that the applicant's disability, being his known past psychiatric condition, was the reason for the treatment of 12 February 2013.
The Tribunal considered whether it was possible to draw an inference that the conduct of David Wright on 12 February 2013 constituted discrimination on the grounds of the applicant's disability.
The applicant submits that the conduct of David Wright was devious and motivated by an improper purpose. It was submitted that this is demonstrated by his inability to recall that Barnes was angry in the general staff meeting, despite recording this in a file note. It was submitted that the last thing any responsible employer should have done, was invite the applicant and Barnes into a small room to talk about issues that were in conflict.
The Tribunal accepts that David Wright's recall was imperfect. His decision to hold a separate meeting may have been imprudent in the circumstances. The Tribunal does not accept that there is evidence to establish that he was motivated by an improper purpose, or that the real reason for his conduct was the applicant's disability. The Tribunal finds that David Wright has provided a plausible explanation for his decision to attend the staff meeting and to conduct a separate meeting with just Barnes and the applicant. He also gave evidence that he tried to stop the conflict from escalating in the separate meeting. He provided a plausible explanation for his concerns after his observation of the applicant's conduct and why he made a complaint about the applicant's conduct. He considered it to be very inappropriate and unprofessional. Whether or not his decision to hold the separate meeting was prudent in the circumstances, the Tribunal accepts that David Wright has provided a plausible more innocent explanation for his conduct which was the true reason for his conduct. The Tribunal is unable to find that there is a probable connection between his conduct and the applicant's disability. The Tribunal is unable to find that the respondent directly discriminated against the applicant on the grounds of his disability in relation to the events of 12 February 2013.

[89]

The Victimisation Complaint

The applicant contends that the decision to place him on special leave on 15 March 2013 amounts to victimisation.
S. 50 of the ADA provides: 50 Victimisation (1) It is unlawful for a person ( "the discriminator" ) to subject another person ( "the person victimised" ) to any detriment in any circumstances on the ground that the person victimised has: (a) brought proceedings against the discriminator or any other person under this Act, (b) given evidence or information in connection with proceedings brought by any person against the discriminator or any other person under this Act, (c) alleged that the discriminator or any other person has committed an act which, whether or not the allegation so states, would amount to a contravention of this Act, or (d) otherwise done anything under or by reference to this Act in relation to the discriminator any other person, or by reason that the discriminator knows that the person victimised intends to do any of those things, or suspects that the person victimised has done, or intends to do, any of them. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to the subjecting of a person to a detriment by reason of an allegation made by the person if the allegation was false and not made in good faith.
There are four elements which must be proven in order to establish a complaint of victimisation. Firstly the respondent must have caused the complainant to undergo or experience something. Secondly, the complainant must have suffered some consequential detriment. Thirdly, the detriment must have occurred on one of the grounds set out in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) of s. 50 (1) of the ADA. Fourthly, it must appear that the complainant did one of the things referred to in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d). In Shaikh v Commissioner, NSW Fire Brigades (1996) EOC 92-808 it was stated that, "victimisation occurs when the respondent causes the complainant to undergo loss or damage or injury based on the fact that the complainant has made a complaint or allegation within the meaning of section 50 (1)."
The meaning of "on the ground" in s. 50 (1) of the ADA has been considered in a series of decisions. It has been determined that as with a complaint of direct discrimination the phrase means that lodging a complaint must have been at least one of the "real" "genuine" or "true" reasons for the conduct. See Nicholls v Nicholls v Director General, Department of Education and Training (No2) [2009] NSWADTAP 20 approved in Jones v Trad [2013] NSW CA 389 at 98.

[92]

Causal connection between the applicant bringing proceedings against the respondent under the ADA and the decision to place the applicant on special leave

David Wright and Duff gave evidence about the respondent's reasoning for placing the applicant on special leave. The General Manager David Wright had personally witnessed conduct of the applicant on 12 February 2013 which he considered to be totally inappropriate for a senior manager. Consequently he was arranging an investigation following the events of 12 February 2013. The applicant had received two prior formal warnings in respect of his conduct in the work place. The conflict in the pharmacy was long-standing. David Wright therefore made enquiries about other recent incidents of work place conflict involving the applicant. He discovered that there had been a recent dispute with Derek Kay, a pharmacist who had previously declined to become involved in the work place conflict. The applicant had made a complaint about Kay which had been resolved. David Wright's evidence was that in discussion with Duff, it was determined to seek a "Risk Assessment" which was prepared by Charlton. Charlton then sought additional advice about workers compensation risks from Judy Robinson.
The Risk Assessment identified significant risks in terms of workers compensation claims and liabilities and also about the ability to maintain a functioning pharmacy. There was concern for the well being of all staff while another investigation was undertaken. There was an inability to find alternate work for the applicant. In the background it was noted that the applicant had commenced proceedings under the ADA which were before the ADT. The discrimination complaint involved allegations against Barnes, Ms Wright (MacRae) and Ledingham. It was also noted that it had been unable to be resolved by mediation. Under the summary of the General Risk Assessment, it was recorded that there were concerns relating to the ongoing ADT matter.
The Tribunal is satisfied that David Wright was concerned that there was a very real risk the pharmacy would "implode". David Wright's evidence is that it was factors identified in the Risk Assessment, coupled with the email from Bourke about an incident in January involving Kay and Furner which provided the impetus for placing the applicant on special leave. This culminated when Wright received advice that a proposal to relocate the applicant to the Pharmacy at Orange Base Hospital could not occur.
The evidence is very clear that the that there was a history of two prior formal warnings against the applicant and that by March 2013 the Pharmacy at Bathurst Hospital was becoming increasingly dysfunctional. The number of staff finding in conflict with the applicant was increasing. Complainants were consistent in what they described as his controlling and bullying personality. What was described by pharmacy staff goes well beyond the applicant's description of not allowing persons to finish sentences or tonal characteristics of his language. The evidence indicates that staff were humiliated or reduced to tears.
The evidence of David Wright and Duff was that they had regard to the Risk Assessment when deciding to place the applicant on special leave. The Risk Assessment is dated March 2013, but was actually signed by Duff on 2 April 2013. It was unclear if the Risk Assessment was in the final concluded form by 15 March 2013 when the applicant was placed on special leave. By 15 March 2013 a mediation before the ADT had occurred and had been unsuccessful in resolving the dispute. Neither Duff nor David Wright gave evidence that on 15 March 2013 the Risk Assessment did not include a similar reference to the ADT proceedings as a risk factor.
Having regard to that document, the inescapable conclusion is that the Risk Assessment identified that the respondent was concerned about the ongoing impact of the ADT matter. In the context of other factors identified, the Tribunal accepts that it was not a significant concern, but it was an identified risk. The respondent submits that it would have been odd if there were no reference to the ADT proceedings, which had to be referred to. The Tribunal accepts that the ADT proceedings would form part of the background. The Tribunal does not accept the submission in so far as it is suggested that the reference is simply factual. The Risk Assessment identified the ADT proceedings as an ongoing risk factor and there was no evidence from the respondent that it was not a factor in the decision to place the applicant on special leave. David Wright was specifically cross examined about the Risk Assessment. His evidence was that he acknowledged that the ADT proceedings were identified in the Risk Assessment and he had regard to the Risk Assessment. The Tribunal therefore finds that one of the real reasons or genuine basis for the decision was the fact that the applicant had brought proceedings under the ADA.
In summary the applicant had commenced proceedings under the ADA which at the time of the decision were before the ADT. A mediation had occurred a few days before the decision of 15 March 2013 and was unsuccessful. On 15 March 2013 the respondent placed the applicant on special leave. The Tribunal has found that this constituted a detriment. The Tribunal has further found that the complaint in the ADT was at least one of the real reasons for the decision to place the applicant on special leave. While we accept that the ADT proceedings may not have been significant, S. 4A of the ADA provides that that where an act is done for 2 or more reasons, and one of the reasons consists of unlawful discrimination, whether or not it is the dominant or a substantial reason for doing the act, then, for the purposes of the ADA the act is taken to be done for that reason. The Tribunal finds that the criteria for s 50 of the ADA have been met and consequently finds that the decision to place the applicant on special leave constitutes victimisation for the purposes of the ADA.

[93]

Remedy

The applicant claims damages. The Tribunal has a power to award damages if the complaint is substantiated. In considering what is the appropriate level of damages the Tribunal has regard to Wilcox J in Hall v Sheiban (1985) ALR 503 at 543, where it was noted that the task of determining the appropriate level of damages in a case of unlawful discrimination is difficult. "...damages for such matters as injury to feelings, distress, humiliation and the effect of the complainant's relationships with other people are not susceptible to mathematical calculation...To ignore such items of damage simply because of the impossibility of demonstrating the correctness of any particular figure would be to visit an injustice upon a complainant by failing to grant relief in a proven item of damage."
In Sharma v. QS Pty Ltd t/as KFC Punchbowl [2010] NSWADTAP 22 the Appeal Panel referred to decisions of Toll Pty Limited trading as Toll Express v Abdulrahman [2007] NSWADTAP 70, Planet Fisheries Pty Ltd v La Rosa [1968] HCA 62 (1968) 119 CLR 118 and Tupou v Scruffy Murphy's Pty Ltd & ors [ 2007] NSWADT 192. It was stated that the amount awarded depends on the "experience and good sense" of the Tribunal member. See Alexander v Home Office [1988] 1 WLR 968 per May LJ at 975. In Purvis it was noted that damages for a breach of the Act must be compensatory, not punitive therefore any damages must relate to the issues arising out of the incident and not seek to punish.
The applicant was successful in respect of parts of his complaint. The Tribunal has found that the respondent discriminated against him on the ground of race in relation to a complaint that he spoke his native language on the phone in front of others. This complaint formed part of a grievance investigation and it was the applicant's evidence that he was very upset. Additionally the Tribunal has found that he was victimised when he was placed on special leave with full pay during the third investigation into allegations of workplace misconduct. He presented to hospital that evening in a highly distressed state following the decision to place him on special leave. He was unable to work in his position as Director of Pharmacy for the period he was on special leave. We have determined that an award of $10,000 is an appropriate figure in the circumstances of this matter. The respondent is to pay $10, 000 within 28 days from the date of these orders.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (96 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (5)

Cited By (1)