WORKERS COMPENSATION - adjustment disorder - relationship to work - exclusion provisions - reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner - decision under review affirmed
Mr Georges was born on 18 October 1972. Mr Georges completed his higher school certificate in 1990 and an associate diploma in electrical engineering in 1998.
In 1995, Mr Georges commenced working for Manpower on contract to Telstra. In April 1999, Mr Georges commenced working as a permanent employee with Telstra/NDC, the latter organisation being subsumed within Telstra in 2003.
Mr Georges moved to the Central Business District (CBD) in late 2000/2001 from Burwood where he had been undertaking work with Alarms Management Systems. Initially in his role at CORE in the CBD he worked on transmission equipment. In 2001/2002, CORE merged and Customer Wideband became the employing entity. Customer Wideband (Metropolitan) was divided in four operational regions (north, south, west and CBD), with the CBD region headquartered in the Dalley Street Exchange for two years (2002/2003) prior to moving to Haymarket Exchange.
Customer Wideband is divided into two work focus activities, namely, exchange and customer oriented work. Mr Georges worked on transmission equipment in exchange-based work until he was reassigned from the CBD to Regents Park on 15 May 2007. In his work program, while within the CBD, Mr Georges was required to move around the CBD, with such movement being determined by workload and manpower.
Following assignment to Regents Park (West Region), Mr Georges commenced a period of absence from work because of sickness on 27 June 2007. On 2 July 2007 Mr Georges completed a claim for compensation in which he nominated his injury/illness as anxiety and depression, both conditions being nominated in an accompanying medical certificate completed by Dr Banares on 2 July 2007.
In his compensation claim, Mr Georges nominated the following incident details:
[10]
Prior to coming to Regents Park I was ostracized due to an accident I had, and upon returning to work was interrogated and blamed for being at fault and causing the accident. The trigger occurred at Regents Park after being yelled at first in front of customers then co-workers which was humiliating and belittling.
[11]
On 11 October 2007, Mr Georges claim for compensation was denied, with the determination being affirmed upon reconsideration on 10 January 2008.
[12]
The relevant issues in this matter are:
(a) What is the nature of the disease/injury suffered by Mr Georges during his period of incapacity commencing on 27 June 2007?;
(b) What are the events/issues/incidents nominated as contributing to the disease/injury?;
(c) When did the nominated disease/injury become clinically significant as demonstrated by the time of clinical onset and effect upon capacity to work?;
(d) Was the disease contributed to, or the aggravation of such disease contributed to, to a significant degree, by his employment?; and
(e) Was the disease/injury suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of Mr Georges' employment?
[13]
In a document dated 13 August 2007 (T20), Mr Georges detailed the following facts/issues/events which he considered relevant to his claim for compensation:
He had first made application to undertake customer installation work in 1999 when he was working at Alarms Management Systems;
That, in 2000, when working at CORE at the Dalley Street Exchange in the CBD, his personal development discussion (PDD) with his team leader, Mr Jasmin, detailed him as a "dedicated, motivated and a team player";
That in 2001, when working at Kent Street Exchange, his PDD detailed that he "demonstrated good attitude, responds well to customer demand, focused, good team player and knowledgeable.";
That in February 2002, and without prior notice or discussion, was sent back to Dalley Street Exchange to undertake auditing of databases. Mr Georges indicated that he had no experience in customer side technology, with any experience attained relating to the exchange work. Mr Georges indicated that he received no further training and that, Mr Eggert, his team leader at that time, stated that it would only be for a three month rotation;
That throughout 2002 he continued to do audit work, which he found very stressful. He continued to inform management (Mr Eggert, Mr Rafferty) through the PDD program of his desire to undertake customer installation work. Further, in response as part of the PDD program Mr Georges records that Mr Eggert stated that "Ash needs to tighten his game." Mr Georges stated that the continued refusal to grant his requests caused him much stress and anxiety over this period, as he felt he was not in control over either his workload or career direction;
In March 2003, Mr Georges learnt that he had been nominated by Mr Eggert (Team Leader) and Mr Rafferty (Project Officer) to be made redundant. He believed that the two people nominated wanted to have him exited out of the company. A third person volunteered to be made redundant and was given his release. Mr Georges records that he sought assistance in his own time to deal with his stress and anxiety at this time and attended a forum to deal with his anxiety and communication breakdown, together with his feelings of worthlessness;
In February/March 2003, Mr Georges sought information about the guidelines and criteria for band four to band five promotion. All people within his section were advised of such, with most of the people being successful at interview assessment in June 2003. Mr Georges records that he was not successful, was not told the reasons why, but was scheduled for a further assessment, at which he was successful;
In early 2003, Mr Georges had been reassigned to undertake exchange work activities. In 2004, Customer Wideband moved from the Dalley Street Exchange to Haymarker Exchange, with Mr Kaluza replacing Mr Rafferty as project officer. Mr Georges believed that Mr Eggert was putting too much pressure on staff to achieve unrealistic goals. Mr Georges records that the staff had a meeting with Mr Kaluza concerning Mr Eggert's work attitudes;
In July 2004, Mr Georges suffered a laceration to his forehead, while undertaking a work activity to recover redundant optical fibres at the Haymarket Exchange. Mr Georges was working on the project with his team leader, Mr Bogdanovski, and another, and was without any personal protective equipment, such as a safety helmet. Mr Georges was taken to St Vincent's Hospital, where his wound was attended to. Mr Georges, following conversations with Mr Bogdanovski, minimised the latter's role in the accident, but remained concerned at Mr Bogdanovski's attempt to downplay the seriousness of the accident and that he had failed to provide and maintain a work environment that was safe and free from risk. On his return to work, Mr Georges felt Mr Eggert was blaming him for the accident, as Mr Georges had failed to observe the tray which caused the laceration. Mr Georges stated that in the face of discussions involving himself, Mr Eggert and Mr Bogdanovski, he felt helpless, although he does acknowledge that the findings of the investigation cleared him of any wrongdoing;
In July 2004, Mr Georges records Mr Eggert as replacing Mr Kaluza as project officer with Mr Bogdanovski as team leader. Mr Georges records that he felt bullied by Mr Eggert, as he had stood his ground about who was at fault with the accident, and also because of issues arising during the time he was employed auditing. Further, Mr Georges records that Mr Bogdanovski wanted to have him relocated on a permanent basis to cover up what happened on the day of the accident;
In August 2005, Mr Georges, having completed a quick reference sheet of equipment at Haymarket, and floor plans of where the optical fibre trays ran, posted the records on the local intranet in an attempt to make the workplace safer and more productive. Mr Georges felt his efforts over a twelve month period were not acknowledged and he felt unappreciated, and that he began doubting himself and his self worth. He describes himself as becoming depressed, numb and nervous. Such feelings were recorded as being reinforced by Mr Bogdanovski's attitude during discussions surrounding the completion of the personal review and development plan (PRDP). As a consequence, Mr Georges records that he felt there was a lack of communication and consultation, which made him feel left out and unimportant;
Throughout 2005, Mr Georges records that he continued to pursue his desire to move to customer premises work within the CBD. Mr Georges records that he had no response to his requests. Mr Georges records that "management knew I was unhappy and did nothing to implement concrete action." Mr Georges records that the stress began to be overwhelming, with him constantly losing focus, getting panic and anxiety attacks. During this period Mr Georges records that he attempted on a number of occasions to create a harmonious relationship with Mr Bogdanovski, but that he was brushed off;
In March 2006, Mr Georges records that he was sent on a job about which he had no experience and that he had to learn the whole operation in that time. Mr Georges records that he felt that he was being sent out on jobs that he had never worked on, expecting that he would fail as no training was provided; The job required setting up a wireless fidelity system at the new Westpac Headquarters in Kent Street. Mr Georges records that he undertook the job, and was asked if something was wrong as he was not performing at the expected level and his outcomes poor. Mr Georges records that because his mental and physical exhaustion arising from the environment in which he had been working was affecting his productivity in all aspects of his life, both at work and at home;
In July 2006, after returning from a three month overseas holiday, Mr Georges records that he again approached management seeking a transfer to customer premises work, with no response forthcoming. Further, Mr Georges records that his team manager, Mr Jackson, sought explanations for his poor performance at the Westpac project, with Mr Georges responding that there were some issues about him going to do the work and that he was not in the right frame of mind;
At this time, Mr Georges records that he had returned to Haymarket Exchange, that he constantly suffered bad headaches and had sleepless nights thinking about his predicament, with his memory suffering and his mood becoming more negative. Furthermore, Mr Georges records that there had been much staff movement over the past five years and his repeated requests to move to customer based work had been ignored. Mr Georges records that he felt that any effort to move out of a troubled section was blocked and any sense of control of his life within Telstra was taken away. Mr Georges also recorded that he felt that all Mr Bogdanovski wanted to do was to get him out of the section so as to prevent anyone finding out that he was present at the site of the accident in 2004, and that all overtime could be given to Elvis, a person of similar ethnic background to Mr Bogdanovski;
In December 2006, Mr Georges records requesting a redundancy package from Mr Wilson, Human Resources. Mr Georges cited his deteriorating mental health and the unfair allocation of overtime to Mr Markovski;
On 10 May 2007, Mr Georges records receiving a call from a Mr Cutting, a co-worker in CWB West Division that he (Mr Georges) was being reassigned to work at Regents Park. Mr Georges records that Mr Eggert and Mr Jackson had nominated him, that he was being forced from the CBD without consultation, and that he had found out about his transfer from someone in another section;
On 11 May 2007, Mr Georges records that he protested to Mr Jackson (Team Manager) that he did not want to be moved, that there were many other people in the city CWB that had never left the section and that he had been sent out numerous times, and that his nomination to move was a consequence of his complaints about overtime allocation. Mr Georges records that the weight of the relocation made him feel disorientated, very hurt and uncomfortable. Mr Georges records that such relocation would lose him a substantial amount of his income, that this would lead to great financial hardships, all matters having been discussed with Mr Jackson. Mr Georges records that having made known to Mr Jackson that he did not agree with the decision and opposed the move to CWB West, Mr Jackson sent him home at 10:30am, as Mr Georges records that he was so distressed;
On 15 May 2007, Mr Georges records that he was relocated to CWB, located at Regents Park, with Mr Cutting as his team leader and Mr Koukouras as the Team Manager. Mr Georges records that he lost 20 per cent of his pay as a result of the move and that he had been sent there without any training or experience working in customer premises. In his new work environment, Mr Georges noted that he found Mr Cutting to be a very abrupt and loud worker, who assumed that he (Mr Georges) knew the work and, when advised to the contrary, responded "what do you city people do?" Mr Georges records that he told Mr Cutting of the problems he experienced in the city and was advised that Mr Cutting did not want to hear about them. At this stage, Mr Georges records that he was suffering from headaches, low self esteem, difficulty in sleeping, constant muscle pain and feeling depressed both at work and at home;
In June 2007, Mr Georges records an event where he was asked by Mr Cutting to get a drum of cable from the storage area. Mr Georges records that he was unable to lift the drum into the back of his van because of the weight. Mr Cutting came to the storage area and lifted the drum into the back of Mr Georges' van, with Mr Georges explaining his inability on a lack of his body being conditioned after years in the city office. At the Penrith Exchange where the cable drum was required, Mr Georges records that his co-worker, Nigel, removed the cable drum from the back of the van and had lifted it up the stairs to the first floor of the exchange. Mr Georges records the cable drum as weighing 67 kilograms, being twice the legal weight for one person to lift;
In June 2007, Mr Georges approached his team manager, Mr Koukouros, indicating that he would like to write a letter to Mr Roman, General Manager, concerning certain people at Haymarket who had made his life very stressful and bullied him out of the section and ultimately trying to get him out of the company. Mr Koukouros suggested that he speak with Mr Hicks, a level five manager, who was to shortly visit Regents Park;
In his discussion with Mr Hicks, Mr Georges records that Mr Hicks advised him that he had asked Mr Jackson to nominate someone from CWB to be relocated to Regents Park, bearing in mind where the staff lived and the issue of extra travel time payments (ETT). Mr Georges records that he had requested of Mr Hicks to be reinstated somewhere where there was not such a drastic reduction in his pay, as it had altered his financial situation drastically, with his current pay not enough to cover the mortgage and other expenses. Mr Georges records Mr Hicks as responding in the negative and advising that Mr Georges should not have geared his mortgage based on ETT payments. Following further discussions with Mr Hicks, Mr Georges records that Mr Hicks agreed to his suggestion that he write a letter detailing the sequence of events that led to his relocation and the bad culture of his previous work environment;
On 19 June 2007, Mr Georges records that while working at Richmond Air Base, he was verbally abused in front of a customer, when Mr Cutting stated "this guy's only good for a door stop". Further, Mr Georges records that Mr Cutting continued to make further derogative comments referring to Mr Georges' lack of knowledge and experience, while in his belief no aspect of the job had been explained to him by way of pre-installation process briefing;
On 21 June 2007 Mr Georges records that he was instructed by Mr Cutting to get the 67 kilogram cable drum from his van, despite having told Mr Cutting that the cable drum was too heavy for one person to lift. Mr Georges records that he did do as he was instructed and that around this time he noted that he was continually forgetting things and having difficulty concentrating. Later on the same day, Mr Georges records an episode when he called upon Mr Cutting for assistance and experienced difficulty in securing such help;
A few days later in June, Mr Georges records an episode in which Mr Cutting was critical and abusive of Mr Georges for failing to have renewed his construction induction card and his attempt to borrow and use Mr Cutting's password to Multiman. Mr Georges records that he received such abuse in the presence of everyone at the depot and that Mr Cutting carried on in front of the office staff; and
Mr Georges records that his resultant feeling at that time was one of major stress, anxiety and depression and that there was nothing left to work and strive for. Mr Georges records that on 28 June 2007 he advised Mr Cutting by SMS that he was not coming to work as he was taking stress leave;
In a statement dated 13 May 2008 (exhibit A2), Mr Georges details the following:
The cause of his major depression was that he was taken out of his comfort zone due to the bullying, being lied to and disregard for him as a person, which in turn led to interpersonal conflict, this being the origin of all the problems during his time in city CWB at Haymarket;
He was under a lot of pressure whilst working in the audit role;
That he went from a person with glowing reports to a person wishing to be made redundant because of stresses imposed in the workplace;
The July 2004 workplace injury, the interaction with Mr Bogdanovski as a consequence of that injury and the subsequent interactions with Mr Eggert on returning to work following the injury was a cause of much stress;
The continued refusal to his requests to be moved to customer premises work or to another exchange;
That in March 2006 he was sent to do the job at Westpac without details or specifications of what the job actually entailed;
In July 2006, he was put on report by the team manager, Mr Jackson, for poor performance concerning the Westpac project;
On 15 December 2006, he asked to be made redundant, because of the constant daily stress;
On 10 May 2007, he received a phone call from Mr Cutting, a friend, telling him he was going to be relocated to Regents Park. Mr Georges records seeing Mr Jackson, his team manager, to ask him how and why I was being relocated, as the move was being finalised without consultation and agreement from him - this constituting, in his view, a breach of Telstra policy in relation to relocation;
On 11 May 2007, Mr Georges records that he again approached Mr Jackson to indicate that he wanted to submit a complaint resolution form to bring to management's attention all the things that had happened to him at Haymarket. Mr Georges notes that no such form was filled out, with him being told to go home at 10:30am;
In June 2007, he was verbally abused by Mr Cutting at the Richmond Air Base and at the Regents Park Telstra Depot;
In June 2007, Mr Georges records that he spoke with his team manager, Mr Koukouras about the problems he had experienced in city CWB, with the latter suggesting that he speak with Mr Hicks, the project development manager. Mr Georges records Mr Hicks as cutting the conversation short because he could not help;
That it was not the move to Regents Park which caused the conditions, but the bullying he experienced before he moved after the July 2004 accident, with this bullying continuing after the move;
That Mr Georges records that in his meeting with Mr Hicks, there was discussion about a major cut in his pay as a result of the move, the overtime issue and that Mr Georges could write a letter to him outlining the bad culture and stress he faced working in the city CWB; and
That his relationship with Mr Cutting had been, over an eight year period, commencing at work and extending to occasional social circumstances;
In oral evidence, Mr Georges detailed further material, namely:
The workings of the DPP program, with Mr Georges continuing to press for transfer to customer premises based work;
The necessity to move work rotations every three months within the CBD to maintain entitlement to extra travel time payments;
That exchange based staff moved frequently between exchanges, while exchange to customer and customer to exchange movements were less frequent, with one or two people moving annually between exchange and customer work out of a composite number of 20;
That he was nominated in 2003 for redundancy, and was told of this by an individual who volunteered for redundancy;
That in 2003, when assessed for promotion from band four to five, he was one of four out of 20 to 25 people who failed the initial assessment. Mr Georges stated that no feedback was provided in relation to the failure, but that he was successful on further reassessment undertaken shortly after his first assessment;
That he was nominated to undertake the Westpac project in 2006 which involved radio based work and when tasked to help out, he sought to receive some feedback about the task in the form of company standard documents, namely manuals. Mr Georges was informed that none were available and was advised "to just go out there and do it". Mr Georges stated that he undertook the work for four months and that on returning from leave he was given a warning by Mr Jackson for not performing;
That in December 2006 he applied for redundancy, as he had basically lost purpose in what he was doing. In particular, Mr Georges stressed the following:
The failure to respond to many oral and written requests to move from exchange work; and
Unfair treatment in that others were moved from exchange work to customer work.
That at Regents Park he went out on jobs with Mr Cutting without being given details of the job or any manuals;
That Mr Georges uses the term bullying to encompass a failure to keep him informed and communicate with him about what is going on;
That he received excess travel time for the time was with city CWB from 2002 to 2007 which amounted to between 20 and 25 per cent of his pay;
That Mr Markovski and Mr Bogdanovski were personal friends, with the former moving from customer to exchange duties a year before Mr Georges' transfer, with Mr Markovski being Mr Georges' one up senior. Mr Georges explained his concerns about the overtime allocation and the deviation from the 50/50 policy;
That he received notification of his transfer to Regents Park from Mr Cutting and, upon taking this issue up with Mr Jackson, the latter, while surprised at the manner in which Mr Georges had found out, stated that the transfer was in response to lack of workload in the CBD, that it was their intention to move people closer to their homes and develop their skills. Mr Georges stated that he again saw Mr Jackson the next day and stated that he wanted to make an official complaint - a complaint he did not make, as he was sent home at 10:30am. Mr Georges stated that while he could have made a complaint to the person above Mr Jackson, the thought of repercussions and making things more difficult for himself were considered;
In response to questions in cross-examination Mr Georges detailed the following responses:
That the content of the conversation with Mr Jackson on the Friday morning in May 2007 was for Mr Georges to make a complaint about things that had happened, and that he may not have been as particular during that conversation as noted in the document dated 13 August 2007. Further, Mr Georges agreed that his assertion in oral evidence that things were not above board in the CBD and that that was why he wished to make an official complaint was not consistent with what was stated in his document of 13 August 2007, be it for either his conversation with Mr Jackson on 10 or 11 May 2007;
That the first person he thought about making an official complaint to was Mr Ronin, but he ended up talking to Mr Hicks about it, and was invited to submit an email, but never did so;
That he had drawn issues of unfair treatment to management, as exampled by the overtime issue, the failure to be transferred to customer premises work, despite the limited opportunity for transfer;
That the specifics of his work at Regents Park were never explained to him, such knowledge of his duties arising from on-the-job experiences in his first week when undertaking customer premises work;
That in 2003, when he had been nominated for redundancy he did tell Dr Snowden that he wanted to stay in the job as he had not lost hope and really enjoyed what he did. Further, Mr Georges indicated that the work situation changed between 2003 and 2006, when he made a request for redundancy. Mr Georges cited the changes to include the denial of his requests to pursue customer premises work, the overtime issue and the workplace accident in 2004, and this had led to his belief that his relationship with Telstra had dissolved;
That in 2005 he sought assistance from his family doctor, Dr Mattar, in relation to his feeling of being so uncared for and unwanted together with symptoms of headaches and not sleeping properly. In response to questions that the clinical records of Dr Mattar did not indicate him seeking consultation for such symptoms in 2005, Mr Georges believed that it may have been Dr Pham or Dr Adams from whom he sought attention in 2005;
That his loss of ETT payments caused difficulties in his financial situation, but he was unable to remember whether his co-workers at Regents Park told him to stop talking about the loss of such payments;
That over the 10 years he had known Mr Cutting they had bantered with one another over their respective heights, but not when he was at Regents Park, he having advised Mr Cutting that he was very stressed;
That Mr Georges was of a view that if he had orally informed someone senior to him of his complaint issues, then further carriage of the complaint rested with those individuals;
That he had been mistaken when he initially told Mr Cutting that he had a current "green card", with the mistake arising from the fact that he did not need or use his own card while working in the CBD;
[14]
I have outlined in some detail the circumstances of Mr Georges' employment, which he contends constitute unfair treatment, with such a term encompassing behaviour towards him of bullying, abuse and harassment. Furthermore, I note that Mr Georges contends that the nominated unfair treatment issues contributed, to a significant degree, to the development of the anxiety and depressive disorder for which he has claimed compensation.
In order that the issues upon which Mr Georges relies be placed in focus, I shall particularise the issues in the following manner:
Having to undertake auditing work for 11 months in 2002 and without necessary adequate training and experience;
Failure of management to respond to his repeated written and oral requests to undertake customer installation work, with his initial request being made in 1999, with many, mainly oral requests made from 2002 onwards. This, Mr Georges stated, caused him much stress and anxiety;
In March 2003, Mr Georges learnt that he had been nominated for redundancy by his immediate managers. Mr Georges stated that this caused him stress and anxiety;
In March to June 2003, Mr Georges was unsuccessful at his first assessment interview for promotion, but was successful at a further assessment interview the next day;
In 2004, Mr Georges believed Mr Eggert, his team leader, was putting too much pressure on staff to achieve unrealistic goals, and he, with other staff, had a meeting with Mr Kaluza, Mr Eggert's senior, to discuss Mr Eggert's work attitudes;
In July 2004, Mr Georges suffered a workplace lacerated forehead injury, and became concerned that his team leader was trying to minimise his role and downplay the seriousness of the accident, and felt the project officer (Mr Eggert) was blaming him for the accident;
That by July 2004, Mr Georges records that he felt bullied by Mr Eggert (promoted to project officer) over the work injury and his time in audit in 2002;
That in 2005, Mr Georges felt that his efforts over a 12 month period to make the workplace safer and more productive were not acknowledged, which led him to become depressed, numb and nervous and feeling left out and unimportant;
That throughout 2005, Mr Georges continued to pursue his desire to move to customer premises work within the CBD, and with no response forthcoming from management, Mr Georges records that his stress began to be overwhelming, with loss of focus and panic and anxiety attacks;
In March 2006, Mr Georges was sent to assist with the setting up of a wireless fidelity system at Westpac headquarters in Kent Street. Mr Georges stated that he was sent to do the job knowing he would fail as no training was provided. Mr Georges records that it was observed that he was not performing at the expected level, which he attributed to his mental and physical exhaustion arising from the environment in which he had been sent to work;
In July 2006, upon return from a three month overseas holiday, when explanations were sought by Mr Jackson on his performance at the Westpac project, Mr Georges commented that there were some issues about him doing the work and that at the time he was not in the right frame of mind. At this time, Mr Georges records that he was suffering headaches, sleepless nights, memory difficulties and feeling more negative as a result of his predicament, particularly the failure of management to respond to his requests for transfer. This, Mr Georges records, left him with a feeling that he was not in control of his life and a further feeling that Mr Bogdanovski wanted him out of the section to prevent issues about the 2004 accident being made known and that he could allocate all overtime to a person of similar ethnic background;
In December 2006, Mr Georges requested a redundancy package from Mr Wilson, citing his deteriorating mental health and the unfair allocation of overtime to Mr Markovski;
On 10 May 2007, Mr Georges records receiving a call from Mr Cutting, a friend and co-worker in CWB West division that he, Mr Georges, was being reassigned to work at Regents Park. Consultation with his team manager, Mr Jackson, confirmed that he was to be reassigned, with Mr Georges contending that this was a relocation that had been finalised without consultation with him and, as such, was a breach of policy in relation to relocation. Mr Georges also records that during this meeting the reasons for his reassignment was a lack of work load in the CBD, to move people closer to their homes and develop their skills;
On 11 May 2007, Mr Georges met with Mr Jackson and he records that he stated that:
← He did not want to be moved, with there being many other people in the CWB that had never left the section, and that he had been sent out many times;
← His nomination for transfer was a consequence of his complaints about overtime allocation;
← That Mr Georges felt that the weight of the relocation made him feel disorientated, numb and uncomfortable, and that it would lead to great financial hardship;
← That he wanted to lodge a complaint about all things that had happened to him at the Haymarket Exchange; and
← That he did not make the official complaint as he was sent home at 10:30am because he was so distressed.
On 15 May 2007, Mr Georges records that he arrived at Regents Park and noted that at that time and in succeeding weeks:
← He lost 20 per cent of his pay (loss of ETT) as a result of the move;
← He had been sent without any training or experience working in customer premises;
← Mr Cutting (Team Leader) was abrupt and made assertions about Mr Georges' knowledge of the work;
← Mr Cutting had asked him to get a drum cable weighing 67 kilograms from the storage area. Mr Cutting came and lifted the drum into the van on his own, and at Penrith, Nigel, a co-worker, came and removed the cable drum from the van by himself and lifted it up the stairs to the first floor of Penrith exchange; and
← As a consequence of such treatment in the early weeks of his redeployment, Mr Georges then suffered from headaches, low self-esteem, difficulty in sleeping, constant muscle pain and feeling depressed both at work and at home.
In June 2007, Mr Georges met with Mr Hicks, a level five manager at the suggestion of Mr Koukouras, his team manager. In this interview, Mr Georges records that:
← Mr Hicks requested Mr Jackson to nominate someone from City Wide Band to move to Regents Park, bearing in mind where the person lived and the issue of extra travel time (ETT) payments;
← He requested that he be reinstated somewhere where there was not such a drastic reduction in his pay and indicated that his drastic reduction in pay was insufficient to cover mortgage and other expenses;
← Mr Hicks, in responding negatively to such a suggestion, advised Mr Georges that he should not have geared his mortgage based on ETT payments; and
← Mr Georges suggested, to which Mr Hicks agreed, that he ought to write a letter detailing the sequence of events leading to his move, including the overtime issue and the bad culture of his previous work environment.
On 19 June 2007, Mr Georges records that he was the subject of abuse at the Richmond Air Base by Mr Cutting and further that Mr Cutting made derogative comments about his lack of knowledge and experience, as well as never having the job explained to him by way of a pre-installation process briefing. A few days later in June, Mr Georges records an episode in which he was abused by Mr Cutting for not possessing a valid green card (construction site passcard) at the depot and further for not having a valid Multiman data access card and password, with such abuse being proferred in the front of the office staff. These two episodes, Mr Georges records, caused him major stress, anxiety and depression and on 28 June 2007 he advised Mr Cutting by SMS that he was taking stress leave and not coming to work;
In the previous paragraph, I have, where appropriate, nominated symptoms of which Mr Georges was complaining of at particular times. Further, I observe that Mr Georges' clinical situation has been assessed by three psychiatrists and one clinical psychologist. I note the following:
The report of Mr Latimer, a clinical psychologist, dated 19 June 2008 in which he notes he saw Mr Georges on 23 July 2007 and 13 August 2007. Mr Latimer considered Mr Georges to be suffering from an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. Mr Latimer records Mr Georges as detailing his experiences at work. From such an account Mr Latimer concludes that there has been a long period of bullying and victimisation in his workplace leading to chronic feelings of worthlessness, loss of motivation, sleep disturbance and agitation. Mr Latimer further observes that Mr Georges progressed to more acute symptoms consistent with psychological injury when abused by Mr Cutting. Mr Latimer considered that the adjustment disorder was highly likely caused by the workplace events;
The report of Dr Snowdon, a consultant psychiatrist, dated 18 September 2007, in which he concluded that Mr Georges suffered from major depression, single episode, without psychotic features, with only one of the symptoms, sleep disturbance having occurred prior to his transfer to Regents Park. Dr Snowdon also considered that Mr Georges had obsessive compulsive features present in his personality characteristics. Dr Snowdon considered, having observed evidence of much frustration by Mr Georges in failing to secure a transfer to customer facility work, Mr Georges' objection of reassignment to Regents Park as incongruous, in that he was being provided with work he had been requesting. Dr Snowdon considered the work event, which takes precedence in terms of injury causation, was the financial consequence of the transfer. Dr Snowdon also observed that if bullying had occurred at the CBD, such episodes had not been significant, given Mr Georges' reticence to leave the CBD. Dr Snowdon also considered the issue of bullying at Regents Park to be somewhat contradictory in that many of the issues about which he complained and about which he alleges he was abused had to do with matters relating to his CBD employment - an employment to which he would prefer to return;
In his oral evidence, Dr Snowdon, having had his attention directed to the opinions of two other consultant psychiatrists, namely Drs Gertler and Haik, concurred that their discussion of a diagnosis of adjustment disorder was quite valid, with he placing much emphasis on the severity of the depressive element of that disorder, with an end point at which the diagnostic criteria for major depression are met. Dr Snowdon confirmed that the work issues experienced by Mr Georges within the CBD were not of pivotal significance as he wished to return there, but was reticent to accept that such a desire to return might be explained as a desire to deal with issues that he believed led to his transfer (overtime issue). Dr Snowdon also confirmed that Mr Georges' sleep disturbances occurred before he went to Regents Park;
Having considered all the material before me, including the evidence of Mr Georges, the report and oral evidence of Mr Wilson, the report and oral evidence of Mr Hicks, the report and oral evidence of Mr Cutting, the written reports of Mr Koukouras and Mr McHale and the written and oral evidence of Drs Snowdon, Haik and Gertler and the written report of Mr Latimer, I am satisfied and so find on the balance of probabilities that:
Mr Georges did not exhibit any significant feelings of unhappiness over issues in the workplace until early 2002;
From 2002, Mr Georges expressed concern about his continued role in audit and the failure of his attempts to secure reassignment to working in customer premises;
Despite issues arising over an episode of contemplated redundancy in 2003, Mr Georges' desire was to continue with his career in CSB Wideband; and
Following the injury to his forehead in 2004, Mr Georges developed and maintained a feeling of unhappiness about his role in the workplace because of what he perceived to be unfair treatment (encompassing issues of bullying, intimidation, abuse, non-response from management, favouritism), namely:
Issues surrounding the forehead laceration injury;
The failure of management to acknowledge his work to make the workplace a safer environment in 2005;
The failure of management to respond to his requests for transfer to customer premises work up and until mid 2007;
The assignment to the Westpac facility in March 2006 and the repercussions arising from the less than expected performance;
His application for redundancy in December 2006, because of his belief of unfair allocation of overtime and his general dissatisfaction in the workplace;
That Mr Georges did receive advice from Mr Cutting in the first instance of his impending reassignment to Regents Park;
That Mr Georges was dissatisfied with his reassignment to Regents Park because:
- He believed it to be unfair;
- It caused him financial difficulties;
- He believed others could have been reassigned;
- It arose because of his voicing concerns about overtime;
On arrival at Regents Park, Mr Georges' state of unhappiness progressively evolved, as evidenced by:
- His continued complaints about his unfair treatment in the CBD over many issues;
- Increasing friction in interpersonal relationships in the workplace with both Mr Cutting and Mr McHale; and
- His response to what he perceived to be unfair treatment from Mr Cutting in relation to the absence of appropriate training and adequate pre-job briefing, as well as abuse that led to his absence from work.
Mr Georges, while clearly having periods of feeling unhappy arising from both issues and incidents in the workplace, the symptoms to which he referred prior to reassignment in May 2007, experienced stress, headache, unhappiness and difficulties with sleeping, symptoms not particularly well defined and not sufficient for the three psychiatrists (albeit Dr Snowdon's opinion being eventually at variance) to consider that he was suffering from a psychiatric condition prior to his reassignment in May 2007; and
In further findings of fact, arising from a consideration of the same material, I conclude on the balance of probabilities that:
Mr Georges did suffer from a psychiatric illness, namely, an adjustment disorder with features of both anxiety and depression;
Mr Georges' adjustment disorder was able to be diagnosed after his transfer to Regents Park and not before. That is to say that the adjustment disorder became clinically apparent after transfer to Regents Park;
There was insufficient evidence to permit a diagnosis of any psychiatric condition and, in particular, adjustment disorder to be made prior to such transfer; and
The stressors nominated as causative of the adjustment disorder were:
The reassignment to Regents Park, associated with a loss of extra travel time payments, which in lieu caused Mr Georges significant financial concerns; and
A deepening of Mr Georges' feelings of unhappiness arising from his perceptions of unfair treatment as evidenced by his continued and deepening preoccupation with events that had occurred in the CBD over many years, and which he perceived had been instrumental in his transfer and his perception that he was being unfairly treated by Mr Cutting and others in not providing him with sufficient training and pre-work briefings and being publicly abusive of him over situations that were not necessarily fair or his sole creation.
In arriving at the findings that I have made, I have paid particular attention to the evidence of the parties earlier nominated and the opinions of the three psychiatrists and Mr Latimer. Further, I would note that while there is some variance in both the history taken and clinical reasoning nominated in the reports of the three psychiatrists, in that neither Drs Haik nor Gertler had been informed by Mr Georges of either the loss of money on reassignment or the effect of such loss. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that on assessment of all the evidence I am satisfied that Mr Georges did suffer from an adjustment disorder, in which the two complicit stressors were as I have nominated.
In the light of such findings, I find on the balance of probabilities that both stressors nominated above occurred or arose from the nature and particular activities involved in Mr Georges' employment. In relying upon the evidence of the three psychiatrists, I further conclude on the balance of probabilities that both nominated stressors contributed to, to a significant degree, to the ailment, adjustment disorder, suffered by Mr Georges. In the light of such findings, I conclude that Mr Georges satisfied section 5B of the Act as regards satisfying the definition of a disease.
In addressing section 5A of the Act, I note that injury includes a disease suffered by an employee, except when a disease is suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employee's employment.
I further observe that subsection 5A(2) defines reasonable administrative action as including:
[15]
...
(f) anything reasonable done in connection with the employee's failure to obtain a promotion, reclassification, transfer or benefit, or to retain a benefit, in connection with his or her employment.
[16]
I observe that the Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word reasonable in terms of sound of judgment, sensible, moderate, not expecting too much, ready to listen to reason, within the limits of reason, not greatly less or more than might be expected, tolerable, fair.
I accept that the above definition provides adequate guidance upon which a decision-maker should assess a particular administrative action. I would also interpret that any assessment of reasonable in the context of reasonable administrative action must be taken on objective consideration of the administrative action taken or contemplated to be taken. Furthermore, I consider that the term "reasonable administrative action" implies a consideration of the reasonableness of the nature of the nominated administrative action, for in my opinion the fact that the action has to be taken in a reasonable manner in so far as it relates to an employee's employment, clearly implies that objective consideration of circumstances both leading to and creating the reasons for the administrative action to be undertaken and a consideration of circumstances that may flow as the consequence of such administrative action being taken. In such circumstances, where administrative action to be taken involves consideration of circumstances particular to the individual, implementation in a reasonable manner implies that the particular circumstances of the individual known to the employer and impliedly to the maker of the administrative action be considered. Further, the circumstances of the individual that could have become known by simple enquiry should be considered. I would also observe that administrative action in an organisation is rarely taken in isolation of a context that creates the need for administrative action. Such context may be derived from factors either external and/or internal to the organisation and the administrative action taken that relies upon such circumstances must document such, in order that administrative actions that flow appear to be grounded on detailed considerations. Similarly issues of timeliness and scope of the administrative action will be an issue for assessment. I conclude that, while the assessment of "in a reasonable manner" relates to the administrative action contemplated and does involve the possible consideration of a variety of circumstances, the underlying assessment standard must remain an objective assessment of all the material that has been collated or should have been collated. I would also recognise that particular administrative action as pertaining to an individual employee are usually taken in accordance with a corporate policy framework and administrative instructions - frameworks and instructions that have been created as a consequence of consultation with staff and others, and often as such provide the context within and the context of a particular administrative action is taken.
In formulating my task in assessing whether a reasonable administrative action has been taken in a reasonable manner, I examined the particular discussion of the same topic in Keen v Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Corporation[1998] SASC 7056; (1998) 71 SASR 42 and Mitsubishi Motors Australia Ltd v Lupuk[2004] SAWCT 130.
In this case, I have concluded that there are essentially two stressors, both work-related and both making a significant contribution to the adjustment disorder. I have already made particular findings as to clinical commencement of the disease and that prior to that time Mr Georges had feelings of unhappiness of varying degrees while working in the CBD. I recognise that such past experiences were very much a part of Mr.Georges' accrued feelings at the time of reassignment and were matters that interacted with subsequent events.
In considering the circumstances surrounding the reassignment from CBD to Regents Park, I observe the following:
That Mr Georges' unhappiness in the workplace would have been known to management and particularly his oft repeated request to be reassigned to customer premises work, and his request for redundancy;
That there was not enough work in the CBD to maintain the current workforce;
That the senior manager asked the team manager for a nomination, nominating criteria to be considered in making such a nomination (development of individual skill base, closeness to home, saving of extra travel time allowance);
Prior to finalising, the team manager liaised with the West region team manager, who spoke with his team leader to ascertain what he knew about the work attributes of Mr Georges;
Mr Cutting rang Mr Georges to let him know of what had and was transpiring;
Mr Georges spoke with his team manager the same day in an attempt to have his reassignment stopped, with the team manager apologising to him for the manner in which he had learnt of his reassignment;
That such reassignment, prearranged without consultation, was consistent with the terms and conditions of his employment and the custom and practice within CWB Wideband Metropolitan Division;
That further discussions were held with the team manager the following day, with the team manager terminating the discussion as Mr Georges was visibly distressed;
On the following Tuesday, Mr Cutting arranged for Mr Georges to be picked up and driven to Regents Park, where he was allocated a personal van for his use. Mr George returned to the CBD to collect his safety gear and equipment;
As a result of his reassignment, Mr Georges lost his extra travel time allowance that he had enjoyed while working in the CBD for some years and which constituted 20 to 25 per cent of his pay; and
Mr Georges became focused on his unhappiness with his work situation, complaining continually about:
His loss of money and financial difficulties;
Unfair treatment in the CBD relating to issues of bullying, unfair allocation of overtime, sent to do jobs without proper training and briefing and his longstanding desire to transfer to customer premises work; and
His desire to return to the CBD.
Apart from Mr Cutting advising his friend (at that time), Mr Georges, of his impending reassignment and an outcome that can occur despite the best of intentions of management, I conclude, in my objective assessment, that the administrative action to reassign Mr Georges was a reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner. In making such a finding, I have considered both the evidence of Mr Georges and the evidence of Mr Hicks, Mr Wilson, Mr Koukouros and Mr Cutting. Further, in so finding, I consider that the tip off by Mr Cutting to Mr Georges of his impending reassignment did not contaminate the reasonableness of either the administrative action, or the taking of such action in a reasonable manner, for it was both an action taken on an informal basis arising from friendship, and that it was not the intention of management for Mr Georges to be notified in such a way.
In addressing the second stressor, remembering that each of the two stressors contributed either equally (Dr Gertler) or the reassignment stressor with loss of pay was pivotal (Drs Haik, and in part Dr Snowdon), I note the following:
That Mr Georges was clearly unhappy and upset about his reassignment to Regents Park;
That Mr Georges repeatedly told everyone at Regents Park about his grievance over his reassignment, loss of pay and his unfair treatment over many years in the CBD;
That efforts were made to facilitate his introduction to his new place of work;
That Mr Georges became focussed on his grievances and this led to frustration, poor communication and lack of assistance from his co-workers;
Mr Georges continued to pursue a quest for grievance investigation, but at no stage during this period or for the immediate prior years in the CBD had he ever put his grievances in writing, despite being encouraged to do so. Mr Georges had a belief that others had a duty to follow through, once he had mentioned such to them;
That he developed a reputation with both Mr Cutting and Mr McHale of being an unhelpful worker who would continually badger them with his complaints; and
That Mr Georges considered Mr Cutting made detrimental comments at the RAAF Base Richmond, did not provide him with sufficient job briefings, expected him to do things which he could or should not do (lifting 67 kilograms cable drums) and abused him in front of staff on relation to his failure to have a valid green card and a Multiman computer access card;
My analysis of the outlined scenario would suggest that while the administrative action to employ him at Regents Park in the way that was planned was reasonable, the manner in which it occurred thereafter may have been not necessarily reasonable, as it is clear from the very narratives that are before me that Mr Georges was a troubled man in his employment as indicated by his dissatisfaction, his continued focus on earlier unresolved grievances, his failure to move on, his work performance, the severance of his friendship with Mr Cutting, and his interpersonal difficulties with his co-workers. All this was known to both his immediate management and Mr Hicks. There is much evidence to suggest that both management and his co-workers were frustrated by Mr Georges' desire to repeatedly air his many grievances about his past employment in the CBD and his loss of income, together with a growing dissatisfaction with his generally uncooperative attitude in the workplace. I also recognise that for whatever reason, Mr Georges, while apparently a great narrator of his grievances, was not a great detailer in writing of such grievances, the administrative norm within Telstra if the resolution of a grievance was to proceed.
Nevertheless, in all the circumstances I consider that during the stressor phase (employment activities at Regents Park) the reasonable administrative action (his employment activities) was not taken in a reasonable manner. In so stating I consider that Mr Georges was a troubled man in his employment in relation to the circumstances I have already outlined, that little was done to unravel the causes of his evolving unhappiness and that abuse or public criticism, albeit by a frustrated colleague and prior friend and undertaken for good reason, does little to resolve the mindset of a deeply unhappy worker, who is genuinely concerned, albeit clouded by misconceptions, of his lot in the workplace. In such circumstances, I find that circumstances surrounding the second stressor allow me to conclude that while the administrative action itself was reasonable, the action was not taken in a reasonable manner.
I am mindful that the term "reasonable administrative action" is defined within section 5A(2) of the Act and includes anything reasonable done in connection with the employee's failure to obtain a transfer, or benefit or to retain a benefit in connection with his or her employment.
I would observe that in this matter the workplace caused disease, adjustment disorder, arose as a consequence of two workplace stressors. I further observe that the two workplace stressors arose as a consequence of two distinct but related administrative actions. I note that the first administrative action involved a decision to reassign (transfer) Mr Georges to a different work location. Such reassignment (transfer), I note, resulted in Mr Georges failing to retain a benefit (extra travelling time payment) - a matter which has clear connection to his employment. As a consequence of my outline I conclude that the administrative action to reassign involves a decision to transfer and integral to that decision is the failure of an individual to retain a benefit. In such circumstances I conclude that the administrative action to reassign with loss of benefit falls for consideration within the exclusion provisions nominated in section 5A(1) and (2) of the Act.
In addressing the circumstances surrounding the second stressor (workplace abuse and unfair treatment), the administrative action to be considered is Mr Georges, with his particular behavioural profile at the time and the workplace environment. While Mr Georges continued to re-agitate his many grievances with earlier employments and the decision to reassign him to Regents Park with a failure to retain a benefit, the contribution of the workplace to his adjustment disorder at Regents Park was more particular and to do with issues within the work environment, namely, preparation and training for work, difficult interpersonal relationships with co-workers and abuse and unfair treatment by his team leader, together with his continued concerns about unfair treatment prior to transfer. While Mr Georges may have continued to be unhappy about earlier issues, including loss of ETT payments, these clearly resulted from an earlier and discrete administrative action in relation to his employment. In such circumstances I conclude that the administrative action which gave rise to the second stressor does not fall for consideration within the exclusion provisions nominated in section 5A(1) and (2) of the Act.
If I be in error in my analysis, as clearly section 5A(2) of the Act is not a limiting provision, and clearly that Mr Georges' loss of benefit continued to permeate his workplace environment as he perceived it to be, I would refer to a previous analysis in earlier paragraphs. There I conclude that even if the administrative action giving rise to the second stressor fell for consideration within the exclusion provision, it was my finding that what comprised the reasonable administrative action giving rise to the second stressor had not been taken in a reasonable manner.
As a consequence of my findings, I conclude that Mr Georges' adjustment disorder arose as a consequence of a reasonable administrative action involving both a reassignment (transfer) and a failure to retain a benefit taken in reasonable and other work related causes to do with his employment at Regents Park, together with his perception of unfair treatment prior to reassignment.
In such circumstances, it is evident and I so find that the disease, adjustment disorder, suffered by Mr Georges during his employment is not a disease or injury as defined by the Act. It matters not that other employment related causes may have contributed to the claimed injury, as clearly is the case in this matter (Hart v Comcare[2005] FCAFC 16; (2005) 145 FCR 29 considered and applied).
[17]
I certify that the thirty-seven (37) preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Dr J D Campbell, Member
Solicitor for the Applicant Ms K Hodgkinson, Wyatt Attorneys
[20]
Solicitor for the Respondent Ms E Baggett, DLA Phillips Fox
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Keen
Respondent/Defendant:
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Corporation
Legislation Cited (1)
Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988
Cases Cited (2)
(2005) 145 FCR 29
(1998) 71 SASR 42
That his duties at Regents Park involved customer based and exchange based duties on a 40 to 60 ratio;
That he had kept a diary since 1997 to assist with recording a lot of technical instructions associated with his work, with entries being made as close to the time that Mr Georges did a particular activity; and
That he returned to work in late May 2008 at CWB North.
That he had complained a lot to Mr Cutting about being unfairly treated;
That Mr Cutting did get upset when Mr Georges did not have a "Multiman Access", because it had been revoked, and that while Mr Cutting swore at him in relation to such, it was not unusual for Mr Cutting to swear in his presence, but there is an appropriate and inappropriate time to use such language; and
That while at Regents Park he was never put in a customer situation where Mr Georges was by himself, but he never received a basic overview of the job before departing to undertake such.
In final comment, Dr Snowdon concluded that Mr Georges had experienced issues within the CBD which gave rise to some symptoms, with the issue of Mr Georges' perception of such events requiring analysis. Such a set of circumstances continued when he went to Regents Park, culminating in the final confrontation at Regents Park;
Dr Snowdon concluded by suggesting that Mr Georges came to the workplace with obsessive or paranoid personality traits (more likely paranoid traits as that can distort perception) and, as a consequence of his interactions within the workplace, a maladaptive situation evolves. Dr Snowdon believed such a process occurred in Mr Georges' case well and truly before Regents Park, and probably after the forehead laceration injury in 2004. In relation to the later development of the adjustment disorder Dr Snowdon considered that the stressor was Mr Georges' frankly idiosyncratic interpretation of events that occurred at work, with clinical onset somewhere between 2004 and the transfer to Regents Park;
In a report dated 15 December 2008, Dr Gertler, a consultant psychiatrist, concluded that Mr Georges developed an adjustment disorder with anxious mood during 2006/2007 as a result of what he believed was bullying and humiliating treatment coupled with some intimidation. Dr Gertler considered the situation come to a head following his transfer to Regents Park, where he felt ill-prepared to do the work and where the level of criticism, bullying and humiliation became much worse. Dr Gertler also concluded that both the workplace transfer and alleged bullying contributed to Mr Georges' psychiatric condition, with it not being possible to determine the relative contribution of each;
In oral evidence, Dr Gertler stated that, while Mr Georges was not happy with situations at work, prior to 2006/2007, the situation came to a head in middle 2007 (May/June) when he was transferred to Regents Park with his symptoms becoming more overt, disturbing and displeasing to him. Dr Gertler believes the clinical onset of the disorder was when Mr Georges was at Regents Park;
Dr Gertler acknowledged that Mr Georges had not mentioned or made reference to a loss of 20 to 25 per cent of his salary as a consequence of his reassignment to Regents Park. Dr Gertler was also of the opinion that Mr Georges was not suffering from any psychiatric illness during the period up to the end of 2006, albeit that Mr Georges may well have had feelings of unhappiness. Dr Gertler further confirmed that he did not believe that Mr Georges was suffering from any psychiatric condition prior to his transfer to Regents Park. Dr Gertler also considered that the attitude of his co-workers at Regents Park was the precipitator of his illness, consequent upon several years during which Mr Georges had been unhappy with the way he was treated in the workplace;
In a report dated 12 June 2008, Dr Haik, a consultant psychiatrist, concluded that Mr Georges was suffering from an adjustment disorder, due to an unintentional reduction of income due to a loss of a travel allowance when transferred closer to his home and supplied with a vehicle. Dr Haik stated that Mr Georges failed to disclose at interview that his transfer to Regents Park had led to a 20 to 25 per cent reduction in his income because of loss of travel allowance. Dr Haik notes that Mr Georges sought return to the CBD, which was unavailable. Further, Dr Haik concludes that there is no good evidence that Mr Georges' complaints of employer and supervisor inadequacies or of victimisation or favouritism in his workplace had caused a psychiatric disorder; and
In oral evidence, Dr Haik stated that he was surprised that a former friend, Mr Cutting, was seen as talking harshly to or abusing Mr Georges, and wondered whether Mr Cutting's role in management may have altered Mr Georges' perception towards a prior friend. More particularly, Dr Haik did not consider Mr Cutting's remarks made about Mr Georges at the Richmond Air Base as having any significance in the development of his adjustment disorder, as such remarks had been part of their prior relationship - in which they exchanged banter with each other. Similarly, Dr Haik did not place particular significance on Mr Cutting's colourful and abusive comments in relation to the green card and Multiman issues as regards the development of Mr Georges' adjustment disorder. Again, Dr Haik formed such a view for similar reasons, including Mr Cutting's longstanding propensity to use somewhat intemperate language in their interpersonal transactions, and about which Mr Georges had not previously complained. Dr Haik also confirmed what he had earlier said in his report that Mr Georges did provide some evidence of paranoid traits, as evidenced by his relentless criticism of others, as well as a broad based series of accusations against many in the workplace both before and after his transfer to Regents Park.
It is noted that Mr Georges detailed that he sought treatment from his general practitioner in relation to stress and anxiety in 2005, but records of such were not available to the Tribunal, for want of which doctor he did actually see.