Weekly payments of compensation and the cost of benefits payable under Division 2 of Part VI of the Act are not to be paid from the date of this decision.

Entitlement to compensation - Reasonably arguable case - Psychological illness - Administrative action.

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988;

ss 81A; 25(1A).

St Helens Oysters Pty Ltd v Coatsworth [2007] TASSC 90;

Tassal Operations Pty Ltd v Lese [2021] TASSC 22;

Skilled Group Limited v Anning [2015] TASSC 18;

Burrage v Rural Press Limited [2013] TASSC 43.

The decision has been anonymised for the purpose of publication.

1. The worker is a nursing director employed at the North West Regional Hospital in Burnie. She has made a claim for compensation for a stress condition formally diagnosed as an adjustment disorder with anxious mood which led to her ceasing work on 19 December 2024. In her claim form she asserts that her illness arose in these circumstances:

I am feeling overwhelmed and unsupported by my workplace. This has been for a period of 18 months despite numerous requests for assistance and support from my line managers over this period. > > Constantly worried about project progress and trying to support my team through losing team members/no funding but more work being required. > > Extreme worry about NWRH staff being damaged further.

2. The employer does not dispute that the worker suffers from a psychological illness. However, it seeks to dispute to pay her compensation on one ground only, namely that the worker's illness has arisen substantially from "reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner by the employer in connection with the worker's employment (s 25(1A)(c), Act)".
3. In its referral the employer cites that the evidentiary material upon which it relies comprises a workers compensation medical certificate dated 15 January 2025 and a statement of Ms Namidja McKenzie, an acting chief people officer in the employ of the employer.
4. The issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether, upon the reason for dispute asserted by the employer, a reasonably arguable case exists concerning its liability to pay compensation to the worker.

1. A reasonably arguable case will exist if "it is reasonably arguable on the material available in relation to the claim or identified deficiencies or weaknesses in the claim that, following a contested hearing it may be rejected". See Evans J at [10] in St Helens Oysters Pty Ltd v Coatsworth [2007] TASSC 90. The employer's case need not be strong or compelling but it must at least be reasonably arguable. See Tassal Operations Pty Ltd v Lese [2021] TASSC 22 at [8]. The employer has the onus of demonstrating the existence of a reasonably arguable case. See Skilled Group Limited v Anning [2015] TASSC 18.

1. The employer's reason for its dispute of the worker's claim has not been fully articulated in the referral beyond the parroting of s 25(1A)(c) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1998 (the Act). Nor is the reason obvious from a reading of the evidence relied upon by the employer, principally the statement of Ms McKenzie. However, it is my understanding from the submissions made by the employer's counsel that it does not challenge the worker's assertion that over a period of 18 months she was overwhelmed and unsupported despite her numerous requests for assistance and support over that period. Instead, it asserts that it is reasonably arguable that the worker's illness is not attributable to events over that entire 18-month period but instead arose as a consequence of her dealings with Ms McKenzie in the two months prior to lodging her claim. This leads me to set out those parts of Ms McKenzie's statement pertinent to this submission. She says:
   • That Ms McKenzie became acting chief people officer on 17 October 2024 and from that date the worker reported to her.
   • That the worker headed a project team tasked with the development of best practice rostering practices for the nursing workforce.
   • That Ms McKenzie had regular catch-up meetings with the worker. At an early stage it was evident to Ms McKenzie that the project being undertaken by the worker "wasn't being supported."
   • At an early catch-up meeting it was revealed that a consultant had been brought in to undertake a review of rostering in the north and north-west. Ms McKenzie says that the worker was upset that she had not been consulted on this engagement. Ms McKenzie acknowledges that whilst "best practice would say that she likely should have been briefed about the scope of the consultant's work, I do not consider it unreasonable that this did not occur."
   • At another of the catch-ups Ms McKenzie informed the worker of her intention to "bring an expert Program Manager in for a fixed period of time to build the appropriate project documentation and to recommend project governance structure, as these were clearly missing." Ms McKenzie says that the worker responded with words to the effect, "that's a kick in the guts." She was assured that the retention of a Program Manager did not mean that her role was being replaced but instead ensured that she had the "project management support, including identifying what resources were required for successful completion."
   • There was a final catch-up on 17 December 2024. Ms McKenzie's evidence of this meeting is that "we discussed again the fact I wanted to get a program director in to build the documentation, governance and resourcing plans. She asked me again what this meant for her role. I said that the purpose of this work would be to provide project management expertise, not to replace her, but until I had a full view of what work was required to complete the project, I could not be certain what I would need in the medium to longer term ([the worker's] contract is due to expire in May). I told her that this work would inform what roles were required, including hers. I committed to involving her in the process and discussing what her role would look like if it would be required post May 2025. The meeting ended amicably."
   • At that same meeting Ms McKenzie says, "I asked [the worker] what her role was in the project. I do not believe I asked this in an accusatory manner, it was simply in the context of her explaining to me the roles of each of her team. Furthermore, given the small size of her team (at the time 4HC) and the fact she admittedly was not project managing the project, I believe this was a legitimate and reasonable question, delivered in a reasonable way."

1. The employer does not dispute the worker's assertion that she suffers from a psychological illness as diagnosed by her doctor. Nor does it assert that her illness is not attributable to her employment. Rather, it is its case that, reasonably arguably at least, the worker's illness arises from her interaction with Ms McKenzie and the issues raised at their catch-up meetings. Those issues, the employer says, constitute reasonable administrative action on its part, taken in a reasonable manner and hence provide it with immunity against the worker's claim via s 25(1A)(c) of the Act.
2. An analysis of Ms McKenzie's statement shows that over a two-month period she raised three issues with the worker at their catch-up meetings which, on the employer's account, were not positively received by the worker. These were the revelation that a consultant had been brought in to review rostering, the decision to hire a Program Manager and the questioning of the worker upon her role in the project team which she headed. It is my opinion that each of these matters, arguably at least, constitute administrative action. See Burrage v Rural Press Limited [2013] TASSC 43. Further, it is my opinion that each action was, arguably at least, reasonable and taken in a reasonable manner. This is so notwithstanding Ms McKenzie's acknowledgement that it would have been preferable for the worker to have been briefed upon the hiring of the rostering reviewer.
3. Pertinent to my consideration of this matter is the apparent temporal connection between the worker's final catch-up with Ms McKenzie and the lodgement of her claim. That catch up was on 17 December. The worker consulted her doctor on the following day, and he certified her to be immediately totally incapacitated for work. These facts buttress to a degree the employer's assertion that the worker's illness, arguably at least, is attributable to the worker's catch-up meetings with Ms McKenzie and the issues raised at those meetings.
4. In the foregoing circumstances I have come to the view a reasonably arguable case determination should be made. This is so because if the evidence of the employer, most particularly that of Ms McKenzie was accepted following a contested hearing, the employer may be able to avoid liability for the worker's claim by operation of s 25(1A)(c) of the Act.
5. It follows from my reasonably arguable case determination that orders should be made in accord with s 81A(c) and (d) of the Act.