Craig v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 81

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: Craig v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 081 PARTIES: Craig, Courtney (Appellant) v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (Respondent) CASE NO: WC/2012/248 PROCEEDING: Appeal against decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) DELIVERED ON: 12 May 2014 HEARING DATES: 15-18 January 2013 18 February 2013 (Appellant's written submissions) 12 March 2013 (Respondent's written submissions) 14 March 2013 (oral submissions) MEMBER: Industrial Commissioner Knight ORDERS : 1. The Appeal is dismissed. 2. The decision of Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) is confirmed. 3. The Appellant pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to this appeal to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission. CATCHWORDS: WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF REGULATOR - AGGRAVATION OF A PRE-EXISTING PSYCHIATRIC CONDITION - DEPRESSION, BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDER, BULIMIA - A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTING FACTOR - REASONABLE MANAGEMENT ACTION - Where the Appellant sought workers' compensation for a personal injury described as an aggravation of a pre-existing psychiatric condition - Whether employment is a significant contributing factor - increased workload - unsupportive supervisor - inappropriate comments from co-worker - Where there was inconsistent use of treating medication - Where Bulimia was never really -- 1 of 28 -- 2 controlled - Where workload occurred in peaks and troughs - Where difficulties arose between Appellant and co-worker - Where supervisor worked with both parties to allocate duties - Where sick leave was taken but no work-related injury diagnosed - Where a new supervisor commenced employment - Where contractors did not adhere to LCO processes - Appeal dismissed. CASES: Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 s 550, s32, s 32(1), s 32(5), s 32(3), s 32(4), Qantas Airways Limited v Q-COMP and Michelle Blanch (2009) 191 QGIG 115 WorkCover Queensland v BHP (Qld) Workers’ Compensation Unit (2002) QIC 27 Croning v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1997) 156 QGIG 100 Davis v Blackwood (2014) ICQ 009 at (51) Q-COMP v Hohn (2008) 187 QGIG 139 Bowers v WorkCover Queensland (2002) 170 QGIG 1 WorkCover Queensland v Kehl (2002) 170 QGIG 93 Delaney v Q-COMP (2005) 178 QGIG 197 Svenson v Q-COMP (2006) 181 QGIG 626 Misevski v Q-COMP (C/2009/29) - Decision - http://www.qirc.qld.gov.au Christine McHours v Q-COMP (C/2012/12) - Decision - http://www.qirc.qld.gov.au APPEARANCES: Mr J. Dwyer, Counsel instructed by M+K Lawyers for the Appellant. Mr S. Gray, Counsel directly instructed by the Respondent. Decision [1] This is an appeal by Ms Courtney Craig (the Appellant / Ms Craig) pursuant to s 550 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act) against the decision of Q-COMP's Review Unit dated 20 June 2012, which set aside a decision of WorkCover Queensland dated 5 December 2011 to accept the Appellant's application for compensation. Q-COMP substituted a fresh decision to reject Ms Craig's application for compensation in respect of a psychiatric or psychological disorder said to have arisen during the course of her employment as a Human Resources Administrator at Ausenco Services Pty Ltd, when based at the Kestrel Mine. [2] Since the hearing of the appeal, the Act has been amended and Q-COMP has since been abolished. As and from 29 October 2013, the Act provides that Q-COMP is replaced by Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) (the "Regulator"). Thus the Regulator is the Respondent in this appeal. -- 2 of 28 -- 3 [3] The basis for the decision by the Regulator was that the Appellant did not sustain an "injury" within the meaning of that term in s 32 of the Act, relying on the determination that the Appellant's injury arose out of "reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way" which excluded Ms Craig's condition from the definition of "injury" within s 32(1) of the Act. Grounds of Appeal [4] The grounds of appeal upon which the Appellant relies are as follows: "That the Regulator erred in fact and law in deciding that the injury suffered by the worker arose out of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer in connection with the worker's employment." [5] A Statement of Work Events (Exhibit 24) filed in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (the Commission) on 12 October 2012 identifies the stressors which contributed to the Appellant's injury as being: (a) increased workload; (b) unsupportive supervisor; and (c) comments by co-worker. Burden of Proof and Issues for Determination [6] Except for those matters conceded by the Regulator, Ms Craig carries the burden of proof in this appeal. To succeed in this matter, the Commission must be satisfied Ms Craig has proven on the balance of probabilities that:  her personal injury, namely an aggravation of her pre-existing psychiatric condition is one arising out of, or in the course of, employment;  her employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury; and  the injury is not removed from the definition of injury by virtue of s 32(5) of the Act. [7] Section 32 of the Act relevantly provides as follows: "32 Meaning of Injury (1) An injury is personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury. … (3) Injury includes the following - (a) a disease contracted in the course of employment, whether at or away from the place of employment, if the employment is a significant contributing factor to the disease; -- 3 of 28 -- 4 (b) an aggravation of the following, if the aggravation arises out of, or in the course of, employment and the employment is a significant contributing factor to the aggravation - (i) a personal injury; (ii) a disease; (iii) a medical condition if the condition becomes a personal injury or disease because of the aggravation; (4) For subsection (3)(b), to remove any doubt, it is declared that an aggravation mentioned in the provision is an injury only to the extent of the effects of the aggravation. (5) Despite subsections (1) and (3), injury does not include a psychiatric or psychological disorder arising out of, or in the course of, any of the following circumstances - (a) reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer in connection with the workers' employment; (b) the worker's expectation or perception of reasonable management action being taken against the worker; (c) action by the Authority or an insurer in connection with the worker's application for compensation." [8] The Regulator concedes that at the relevant time, the Appellant was a worker and that she had sustained a personal injury, namely an aggravation of a pre-existing psychiatric condition. Relevant Evidence [9] The Appellant gave evidence in support of her case. [10] Ms Craig commenced working for Ausenco as a casual filing clerk in 2008, eventually moving to a part-time role until she was made redundant in February 2009. She was subsequently offered another role as an HR Administrator which involved working on-site from August 2010 at the Kestrel Mine (where Ausenco had successfully tendered to manage the Greenfield and Brownfield aspects of a mine extension project) on a standard fly-in, fly out (FIFO) roster. [11] Ms Craig's FIFO roster was designed for 10 days of work, followed by four days off, with a ten hour shift duration which included two hours of overtime. Ms Craig initially returned to her parent's home in Brisbane for her four days, off but she later relocated to Emerald where she resided with her boyfriend. [12] Dr Julian Boulnois, a psychiatrist, and Ms Craig's General Practitioner, Dr Tom Mulcahy, provided medical evidence for the Appellant. [13] Two former co-workers, Ms Fiona Hunter and Mr Alan Curphy, were also called by the Appellant. -- 4 of 28 -- 5 [14] Ms Hunter was employed by Ausenco from late January 2011 until 25 August 2011. She undertook administrative duties for the accommodation team located at the Kestrel mine and also provided administrative support to Ms Craig and Ms Grainger with respect to the training and labour onboarding tasks they were required to undertake. [15] Mr Curphy was engaged by Ausenco from August 2010 until August 2011 in a Health, Safety, Environment and Community Manager role. [16] The two witnesses called by the Respondent were involved in the management of the Appellant. [17] Ms Kate Rowland is currently a Senior People and Performance Advisor with Ausenco, but was directly responsible for the management of Ms Craig and a number of other HR positions based at the Kestrel mine between August 2010 and March 2011. [18] Mr Mark McDonnell is a Senior Human Resources Advisor for Downer EDI. Prior to holding this role, he was a Human Resources Advisor with Ausenco. Mr McDonnell took over from Ms Rowland in mid-March 2011, assuming responsibility for the management of Ms Craig and a number of other human resource related roles at the Kestrel Mine. The Injury [19] The evidence of Ms Craig in respect of her psychiatric condition is that she had been suffering from bulimia, borderline personality disorder and depression since she was sixteen years old. [20] Ms Craig described the outward signs and symptoms of the condition as bulimia which involved regular throwing up, purging, binging, restrictive eating and excessive exercising, as well as self-harm which included cutting, punching and burning herself. [21] Now twenty-five years old, the Appellant confirmed she had been experiencing these symptoms as a regular and ongoing feature of her life since they began, with their severity varying or peaking based on the circumstances occurring in her life at any one time. [22] Treatment for Ms Craig's condition included therapy and anti-depressants. [23] Dr Boulnois, a psychiatrist, gave evidence Ms Craig's condition would formally be classified as a borderline personality disorder, describing Ms Craig as being a young lady with a normal intellect but on an emotional level as a "child living in an adult world". [24] In his report dated 2 February 2013 (Exhibit 22), Dr Boulnois described Ms Craig's psychiatric difficulties as being "singularly long standing and to say the least significant and severe". -- 5 of 28 -- 6 [25] Dr Boulnois' evidence was Ms Craig's symptoms were consistent with borderline personality disorder and included: "-- Short term gain rather than long term investment; inability to keep and hold on to long term relationships; unstable emotional responses to what are perceived to be stressful situations; sometimes frequent visits to psychiatrists. Some of these folk frequently take overdoses. Not in this situation. In this situation there was evidence of an eating disorder that would be part of the same symptom complex. There's also self harm; I see evidence from the first letter you quoted from of self cutting and things like that. But basically these folk do not cope because they appear to be so terribly young that the most minor event often seems to trouble them enormously. Often they say they suffer from stress, which basically means a change has occurred in their life which they appear to have no capacity to actually handle. At other times, I should say, intellectually they handle things extremely well. Some people in this situation are able to put on extraordinarily good performances. But when it comes to the difficulties of life, particularly on an emotional level, they tend to, in everyday terms I fear, fall apart." (My emphasis) (T2, P13, L1-20) [26] Ms Craig provided examples of circumstances where her bulimia became more severe including an occasion when a friend died and when she had difficulties with a previous Manager in a hospitality role she had held for a number of months. [27] Dr Mulcahy, the Appellant's long standing general practitioner since 2004, recalled having to prepare numerous medical certificates and letters over the years to get Ms Craig out of exams and assignments due to the impact of stress on her psychiatric condition. [28] Dr Mulcahy's evidence was Ms Craig was very vulnerable to stress and further, when her stress or anxiety started to get out of control she would resort to self harm, binge eating and vomiting, the two symptoms she had exhibited for ten years. [29] In response to questions around the impact of her roster on her psychiatric condition, Dr Mulcahy stated: "--Oh, look, I think that would be a - to answer your question, she's a - she's very enthusiastic, very intelligent young lady and she would take it on, but if the demands became more than she could cope with, then those two things that I just said would start to happen, and she would be aware that - that there was cause and effect." (T1, P28, L30-36) [30] Ms Craig's evidence is her bulimia symptoms, which involved her binging and purging on site, increased in the period between October to December 2010 as a result of an increased workload, but that she did not report these events to her GP, Dr Mulcahy, at their scheduled appointment in late November 2010. [31] Ms Craig confirmed she had commenced a new relationship at around the same time she saw her GP in November 2010. -- 6 of 28 -- 7 [32] In patient records tendered as an exhibit in the proceedings (Exhibit 23), Dr Michael Rice made the following notes in relation to a consultation with Ms Craig on 3 October, 2010: "living near Emerald: fly in/fly/out for 2/12 more impatient left Efexor script @home on Efexor long-term psychology hasn't worked out sometimes Efexor not really working lost some weight this year ?15kg in 3/12 deliberate ongoing bulimia, never really controlled" (my emphasis). [33] Dr Mulcahy confirmed he saw Ms Craig for a consultation on 26 November 2010. In patient records tendered as an exhibit in the proceedings (Exhibit 23), Dr Mulcahy recorded the following comments: "HR Officer at Capella with new boyfriend and having a great time". [34] Dr Mulcahy was unable to recall if he had a conversation during the 26 November 2010 consultation with Ms Craig about her work hours. He also conceded he was unable to say with any certainty as to whether Ms Craig's work hours would have been a significant contributing factor to any emerging symptoms of bulimia in December 2010. Certainly, there was no record of any such conversation in the patient medical notes submitted for this hearing (Exhibit 23). [35] Ms Craig's evidence was there had never been a period where a doctor had told her she was no longer required to take anti-depressants for her condition, however she conceded there were periods of time where she had chosen not to taken her medication for financial reasons. [36] In an email dated 21 April 2011 to her Manager, Mr Mark McDonnell, in relation to a separate work matter (Exhibit 9), Ms Craig confirmed she was not taking her anti- depressants at that point in time. [37] In his report dated 14 July 2011 (Exhibit 21), Dr Boulnois noted: "Courtney it would appear is entirely unable to remember the majority of medications, she has taken...or rather she hasn't really used it, for she has taken it as and when she felt it appropriate so to do…as we know this medication is supposed to do good things for a number of parameters where depressive symptomatology is concerned...Courtney lays claim to all of such, and claims that no medication has ever done the right thing by her, and studiously refused to accept my argument that if she doesn't take medication correctly that is highly likely to be the case." [38] Under cross-examination, Dr Boulnois agreed with the proposition that a failure by Ms Craig to take her medication on a consistent basis would aggravate or have a serious impact on the aggravation of the underlying personality disorder (T2, P17, L20-50). -- 7 of 28 -- 8 [39] Ms Craig confirmed she stopped taking her medication at various times during the period she was employed by Ausenco as an HR Administrator: "MR GRAY: So you're saying as of December - well, when did the doctor increase the dosage of your medication?-- That was December. So you're saying you couldn't afford to take the medication at that time?-- We - I'd just relocated to Emerald, so I was no longer FIFO, and having to pay the high rental expenses, you know. You relocated, you were living with your boyfriend?-- Yes. And you were making somewhere in the order of $4,000, $5,000 net per month?-- Yes. All right. The doctor was telling you that you should be taking the medication; that's correct?-- That's correct. And you understood that the medication was to actually moderate your feelings, how you were - when you were feeling bad, to help you with that?-- When I spoke to Dr Boulnois, I explained to him I was having problems with it, and I didn't feel it was working. Sorry, I'm talking about - because you say in this email?-- Mmm-hmm. This is in April 2011?-- Yes. This is before you saw Dr Boulnois?-- Yes. You were aware the reason the doctors were prescribing you this medication was to help with trying to deal with your ongoing depressive problems, you knew that?-- Yes. And the doctors were telling you to take the medication to help with those symptoms?-- Yes, that's true. And you weren't taking the medication; that's correct?-- There were circumstances which prevented me from taking my medication. Yes. But you also understand that by not taking the medication, that can also bring about your symptoms; you understand that, don't you?-- Yes. All right. Because you'd seen Dr Michael Rice on the 3rd of October 2010. You told him that you'd been living near Emerald and you were flying in, flying out for two months. That you were a little bit more impatient, you told him that?-- Mmm-hmm. And you told him that you'd been on Efexor long term, but psychology hasn't worked out and the Efexor is not really helping sometimes?-- Yes. .... -- 8 of 28 -- 9 And at that time, the 3rd of October, you weren't complaining about the number of hours that you were working?-- No. And in fact, when you saw Dr Mulcahy on the 26th of November 2010, you told him that you were having a great time; that's correct?-- Yes, I did. You told him you were a HR officer at Capalaba - sorry, Capella, with new boyfriend and having a great time?-- Yes, but I was - I'd just started that relationship, and he knew I'd been up there, so - but Michael Rice wasn't my regular doctor, so I didn't feel comfortable disclosing certain information to him. You understand, don't you, when you see the doctor, you disclose the information so that they can treat you properly?-- Yes, but----- That's correct? You told him that you had ongoing bulimia which had never been really controlled?-- Yes. (my emphasis) You told him that you had lost weight this year, 15 kilograms in three months?-- Yes. And that that was deliberate?-- Yes. So you had no problems in telling him all those things?-- No, I didn't." (T1, P60 L12 - T1, P61, L40). [40] Ms Rowland recalled Ms Craig had mentioned to her in 2008 when she first worked for Ausenco that she was seeing a psychiatrist. Over time, she became more aware of Ms Craig's condition, particularly with respect to her purging. [41] Ms Craig confirmed she did not disclose the existence of her disorder to Mr McDonnell until 9 June 2011 when she sent him an email (Exhibit 10) referring to her "eating/personality disorder and depression" confirming the need for her to book fortnightly appointments with a visiting GP from Rockhampton. [42] The Appellant's evidence is her symptoms of purging and self-harm increased between June and August 2011 and that she continued to experience stress as a result of her workload during this period. [43] Dr Boulnois' evidence under cross-examination was that Ms Craig made no comment or complaint to him with respect to her work hours, her manager and any lack of support she may have been experiencing when he met with her in early July 2011. He also agreed with the proposition that he did not think Ms Craig had an injury relating to employment at the time he met with her in July 2011. The Role, LCO's and the Hours of Work [44] Ms Rowland gave evidence Ms Craig was offered the FIFO HR Administrator role at the Kestrel mine after a colleague of hers at Ausenco who was managing Ms -- 9 of 28 -- 10 Craig at the time suggested she would be a good fit. Ms Rowland indicated Ms Craig was happy about being offered the role. [45] Ms Craig was engaged on a standard 10 days on, 4 days off FIFO role with an average 10 hour duration for each shift. Ms Rowland's evidence was the shift duration was less than other projects she was aware of where a 12 hour shift duration was fairly standard part of the roster. [46] Notwithstanding the complexity of the Ausenco payroll system which recorded hours in a way that resulted in a four or five week pay period depending on the time of the year, Ms Rowland was relatively confident Ms Craig's time sheet records incorporated two hours of overtime per day and weekly travel time. [47] Ms Craig's role involved the administration and coordination of labour onboarding (LCO's) on behalf of Ausenco for various employees and contractors involved in the construction project at the mine. [48] Depending on the nature of the work being undertaken by an employee or the contractor entering the site, Ms Craig was required to verify worker competencies and qualifications, and to work with other HR staff to coordinate training and relevant induction processes for all new starters at the site with the exception of Rio Tinto, Ausenco and any underground roles. [49] Under cross-examination Ms Craig confirmed the paperwork associated with the LCO's was generally completed and submitted by the contractors, which she was subsequently required to process. At times, the processing of the LCO's could be held up when contractors submitted the paperwork late or without all the necessary details. [50] Ms Rowland gave evidence the paperwork included employee details such as emergency contacts, address details, medical clearances and other personal information which was relevant in terms of mobilisation onto the site and adhering to Rio Tinto standards with respect to site access. [51] A typical LCO would take anywhere between 15 and 30 minutes to process with the number of applications varying from week to week depending on the progress or stage of the project. Mr McDonnell estimated the number of LCO's was variable from week to week, citing examples of anywhere between 1 and 12. [52] Ms Craig, Ms Rowland and Mr McDonnell all confirmed the LCO process and accompanying work levels were characterised by peaks and troughs depending on a range of factors predominantly associated with the stage of the project. [53] In December 2010 and January 2011 a series of floods across Queensland created a circumstance where many contractors and employees were unable to reach the mine which resulted in the LCO work for this period disappearing, followed by a surge in processing requirements when workers were able to return and recommence construction. During the flooding Ms Craig was not able to return to the site. -- 10 of 28 -- 11 [54] Ms Craig confirmed she would have regular discussions with her Manager, Ms Rowland, along with weekly meetings to discuss the project manning schedules and project stages in so far as it related to the LCO process and expected workload. [55] Likewise, when Mr McDonnell took over the management role in mid-March, he would hold a weekly meeting with Ms Craig either in person or over the phone to discuss relevant LCO processing and work-related matters. [56] Ms Rowland could not recall a time when Mr Curphy had raised any concerns about under-resourcing in the HR Department. Change to LCO processing [57] Ms Rowland confirmed she received a verbal request in late August 2010 to take on some additional labour onboarding work from Rio Tinto (their client). In response, Ms Rowland took steps to obtain information from her Rio Tinto equivalent about any additional workers who would be mobilising to site during the project to determine what impact this would have on the existing workload of her team, including LCO processing and whether an extra resource would be required to assist with the peak work periods. [58] Ms Craig's evidence was her workload with respect to processing LCO's increased around October 2010 when she started processing LCO's for a number of other contractors previously being managed by Rio Tinto. [59] Ms Rowland's evidence is that whilst she did secure approval from Rio Tinto to recruit an additional resource, the additional mobilisations and therefore change in LCO workload did not commence "from day dot". [60] In this regard, an email sent from Ms Michelle Mason to Ms Rowland (Exhibit 25), when she was putting together the supporting material for a request to Rio Tinto in early September 2010 for an additional resource, includes a forecast of possible mobilisations and demobilisations to the mine site; pointing to additional mobilisations occurring in mid September 2010, late December 2010, and July 2011. [61] A further document (Exhibit 26) setting out manning forecasts reveals a peak of 52 in the week commencing 27 September 2010, declining to 41 by the end of October 2010 and then even more rapidly by the end of November to 19. By 3 January 2011 the manning levels were forecast to be 15. [62] It is unclear on the evidence whether these numbers reflected new starters on the site and therefore warranted a full LCO process to be undertaken and/or what proportion of the listed manning numbers had already been through the LCO process and were simply included as part of the ongoing forecast. [63] Ms Rowland's evidence was the forecasted manning levels were utilised by Ausenco staff to get a better understanding of future numbers for the purposes of forward planning, providing examples of how they were used by Ms Hunter to identify accommodation requirements and Ms Craig in the LCO process. -- 11 of 28 -- 12 [64] Ms Rowland confirmed her catch-ups with Ms Craig included questions to Ms Craig such as "How are you going?", "How's the workload going?", "Anything I can do to assist?", and "Any problems on the site?". [65] Ms Rowland's evidence was Ms Craig would raise concerns about contractors failing to submit their paperwork on time or with adequate details. It was not uncommon for some contractors to submit information at the last minute. [66] In response, Ms Rowland took steps to speak with Rio Tinto and other contractors to ensure deadlines were adhered to and the LCO requirements were effectively communicated (Exhibit 11). [67] Under cross-examination, Ms Craig acknowledged Ms Rowland took steps to ensure contractors were notified of cut-off dates for the submission of relevant LCO documentation to assist her with the processing. A New Resource [68] Ms Rowland explained it was necessary to obtain approval from Rio Tinto to obtain another resource or part-resource to assist with the additional onboarding responsibilities. Her evidence was it would have been very difficult to fill a part- time position given the location of the role, so she took steps to identify how she could fund or partially fund a new resource from the existing contract scope, identifying some surplus hours (and therefore funds) from project positions which were not being utilised at the time. Ms Rowland subsequently sought permission from Rio Tinto to cover the remaining cost of the new role so she was able to create a full-time position. [69] The request for a scope variation was initially knocked back but later approved by Rio Tinto in late September 2010. [70] At or around the time Ausenco agreed to take on the additional work, Ms Rowland recalled speaking to Ms Craig to let her know she had submitted a change notice and to confirm it was her intention to recruit another resource to assist with the potential increase in work. [71] Ms Craig recalled that at some point she was advised that steps were being taken to recruit an additional resource to assist with any additional workload associated with the extra LCO obligations. Ms Craig's evidence is that she subsequently made a couple of follow-up enquiries before Christmas 2010 about the new resource. [72] Under cross-examination Ms Craig acknowledged Ms Rowland advised her in December 2010 of steps that were being put in place to bring in an additional resource to assist with processing. She also acknowledged the requirement for Rio Tinto to approve the appointment of an additional resource and the subsequent need to find someone to fill the role. [73] Ms Rowland's evidence was that Ms Hunter, Ms Turner and Ms Blee were all asked to provide additional support and assistance to Ms Craig from time to time to address the peaks and troughs that occurred with the LCO process. -- 12 of 28 -- 13 February 2011 - Sick Leave [74] Ms Rowland confirmed Ms Craig had let her know in early February 2011 that her parents requested the Appellant attend a psychiatrist's appointment in Brisbane on Wednesday, 9 February 2011, but indicated she had not inquired further as to the reason for the appointment. [75] Under cross-examination, Ms Craig confirmed she texted Ms Rowland on 6 February 2011 advising she had made an appointment to see her GP with the intention of seeking a medical certificate to cover her for Tuesday and Wednesday off work so she was able to attend a psychiatrist's appointment her parents had made for her on Wednesday 9 February 2011. [76] By email on 11 February 2011 (Exhibit 12) Ms Craig sent Ms Rowland a medical certificate covering her for her absence on Tuesday (8 February 2011) and Wednesday (9 February 2011). [77] Ms Rowland was unable to recall any incident at work which had resulted in Ms Craig taking sick leave. [78] Dr Mulcahy's recollection of his appointment with Ms Craig on Monday 7 February 2011 was that she had reported a relapse of her eating disorder but he could not recall how long it had been going on for and that "there had been an incident at work, was my recollection, and - which was unrelated - I think she said was unrelated, but how they did - they did not help her at the time. That's my only recollection of that consultation", and later: "My only recollection was that she had self-harmed and that work had told her to go away and get herself sorted out. I don't recall what the stress from work was." [79] Under cross-examination with respect to reasons why he did not issue a Workers' Compensation Certificate at that time, Dr Mulcahy said, "No - I wouldn't have issued a WorkCover Certificate on what was presented to me at that time, no", and later: "It's not helpful to the worker to use WorkCover as a reason for dealing with stress." [80] In response to a query around whether she had had the chance to secure a return to work clearance from her GP, Ms Craig advised Ms Rowland Dr Mulcahy had confirmed it was not necessary. Ms Grainger, Distribution of Tasks and Cigarette Breaks [81] Ms Rebecca Grainger was subsequently engaged to assist Ms Craig with the LCO's and other HR administrative tasks, commencing her employment in February 2011. [82] Ms Craig gave evidence she recalled being unhappy with a number of work issues that were occurring with Ms Grainger on site in or around late February 2011 or early March 2011: -- 13 of 28 -- 14 "I spoke to Kate and said I wasn't happy with some of the things she was doing and the fact that we had a work plan set out and I didn't feel that she was providing adequate support (T1, P33, L20-40) [83] Ms Rowland acknowledged there appeared to be personality differences between Ms Craig and Ms Grainger. [84] Both ladies had raised issues with Ms Rowland related to the lack of clarity and delineation in their roles, with Ms Grainger indicating she felt as if Ms Craig was giving her all the "crap" work such as filing and photocopying. [85] In response, Ms Rowland took steps to hold a series of separate meetings with both Ms Craig and Ms Grainger to allocate responsibilities. [86] Under cross-examination with respect to the approach she had taken in so far as holding separate rather than joint meetings with both ladies to resolve the differences, Ms Rowland confirmed she saw no issue with managing the process in this manner stating she did not think "a manager was a good manager if they don't take the input of their staff into how they think they should be doing their role". [87] The allocation of tasks was subsequently confirmed in an email from Ms Craig to Ms Grainger on 9 March 2011 (Exhibit 13). [88] Ms Rowland confirmed Ms Craig had been in the role longer than Ms Grainger, which explained why Ms Craig had taken the lead in terms of sending out an email to Ms Grainger confirming their discussions in relation to how responsibilities would be allocated. Ms Rowland subsequently communicated a change to the duties to ensure Ms Craig understood she was also a back-up to Ms Grainger (and vice versa) in situations where one of them was off on R&R. [89] Under cross-examination Ms Craig confirmed Ms Rowland had discussed the tasks with herself and Ms Grainger and she had been happy with the way the tasks had been divided between the pair. [90] Ms Rowland recalled that once their respective responsibilities and roles had been communicated and confirmed there appeared to be no more problems between Ms Craig and Ms Grainger. [91] Ms Rowland gave evidence that at various times she took steps to ensure Ms Fiona Hunter, Ms Shannell Blee and Ms Natasha Brewer were available to provide administrative support with respect to LCO processing to the Appellant. [92] Ms Rowland also confirmed she had spoken to both Ms Craig and Ms Grainger about the extent and impact of cigarette breaks they were taking whilst on site. [93] Ms Rowland explained to the Commission that the only place it was permissible for workers to smoke on site was at the front security gate of the mine or down in the back paddock. Ms Rowland confirmed Ms Craig and/or Ms Grainger could be gone for anywhere between half an hour to an hour often requiring another staff member -- 14 of 28 -- 15 to drive them. Ms Rowland had asked both Ms Craig and Ms Grainger to limit their smoke breaks in order rto reduce their time away from their work whilst on shift. [94] Under cross-examination Ms Craig confirmed Ms Rowland had occasion to speak to her about the cigarette breaks she was taking and the time she was spending during work with her boyfriend Wayne, who was engaged in a security role at the front gate where smoking was permitted. A New Manager [95] Mr Mark McDonnell took over from Ms Rowland in March 2011. Ms Craig confirmed Mr McDonnell would travel to the site every couple of weeks. [96] Mr McDonnell's evidence was that one of the first things he did in his new role was to gain an understanding of the role requirements of his team, particularly in so far as they related to mobilisation of contract labour onto the project. [97] Mr McDonnell set up a weekly meeting with Ms Craig every Tuesday which would take place either in person or over the phone. He recalled finalising position descriptions for both Ms Craig and Ms Grainger after obtaining their input to better assist with their understanding of who was responsible for various tasks. [98] During this process he inadvertently removed a training task from Ms Craig's role. Mr McDonell's recollection was Ms Craig was unhappy about this and asked that it be re-inserted into her position description. [99] At the completion of the position description review process, Ms Craig asked Mr McDonnell to review her current salary level. Mr McDonnell agreed and submitted a proposal to his own manager and the Ausenco remuneration manager for an increase, however the request was rejected on the basis the increase was not warranted. [100] Under cross-examination Ms Craig confirmed she was aware Mr McDonnell had recommended she receive a pay increase around April 2011. [101] Mr McDonnell was quite clear that he communicated the outcome of the salary review request to Ms Craig at the time he received the decision (in or around April 2011) whereas Ms Craig was of the view she was not told until 2 August 2011 which was the day she left her role and did not return. [102] Ms Craig confirmed Mr McDonnell offered to give her a break from the LCO administration role in about April 2011, but that she had indicated she was happy to stay in her existing role. Mr McDonnell's recollection was Ms Craig's response to the offer was a "flat out refusal, just didn't want to entertain it". [103] Ms Craig agreed Mr McDonnell worked with her to try and find ways to streamline the role to make it easier for her while he was her Manager. [104] Mr McDonnell was quite clear Ms Craig had not raised concerns with respect to her workload or work hours, but confirmed she had raised issues directly with him about Ms Grainger and the number of cigarette breaks she was taking. -- 15 of 28 -- 16 [105] In an email to Mr McDonnell on 21 April 2011 (Exhibit 8), Ms Craig complained about the number and duration of cigarette breaks being taken by Ms Grainger. Other complaints in the same email included Ms Grainger and another employee leaving early and playing hangman during the day. [106] Mr McDonnell recalled he was in an induction at the time he received the email from Ms Graig. He did not respond until later that night. His annual leave over the Anzac/Easter period was commencing the following day and he asked Ms Craig if it was okay if they caught up when he returned. He did not refer the email to any other managers whilst he was on leave. [107] In the same email Ms Craig confirmed that "biting her lip is a hard thing to do" as she was not taking her anti-depressants and requested that she be given the equivalent amount of time off and be able to leave early of an afternoon. [108] Ms Craig's evidence is that in the end it was she who approached Ms Grainger to try to resolve the problems. In this respect, an email to Mr McDonnell on 20 May 2011 (Exhibit 9) Ms Craig confirmed she did not require Mr McDonnell to take any further action. [109] Mr McDonnell was of the view it was good to see employees who had some prior conflict addressing the issues between each other rather than always talking to HR or their supervisor, though he did confirm he had held discussions with both Ms Grainger and Ms Craig on his return from leave with respect to the issues that had been raised. Mr McDonnell confirmed he did not discuss the outcome of his interactions with Ms Grainger about the cigarette breaks with Ms Craig. [110] Ms Craig confirmed she was aware Mr McDonnell had taken steps to formalise a process to bring Ms Hunter on board to assist with processing and administration and to assist the Appellant with some challenges she was having with a contractor, the same contractor who had employed Ms Craig's boyfriend and who was attempting to cut corners with the LCO process. [111] In an email dated 9 June 2011 (Exhibit 18), Ms Craig thanked Mr McDonnell for his support and the various points he had set out explaining how he intended to address a number of challenges with the contractors. [112] Mr McDonnell was of the view Mr Curphy did not raise any issues with respect to the LCO workload with him. [113] In response to an email from Mr McDonnell to Ms Craig dated 26 May 2011 (Exhibit 16) raising concerns about an increasing number of mobilisations to site and inquiring as to whether the Appellant had the necessary support, Ms Craig confirmed that although she had not been able to view the full numbers due to errors in the spreadsheet, she did not see the workload being an issue given Ms Grainger was on site. [114] Mr McDonnell stated he had held a number of off-line discussions with other workers in relation to the upcoming mobilisations. -- 16 of 28 -- 17 [115] In a separate email on the same day (Exhibit 17) Ms Craig also submitted a list of duties to Mr McDonnell for Ms Fiona Hunter to undertake in order to provide additional assistance to the HR Team and in particular to the LCO process. The duties included LCO coverage whilst Ms Craig was on R&R, filing and collation of induction packs and data entry. [116] Ms Vicki Leeson was copied into the email on 26 May 2011 (Exhibit 17), where Mr McDonnell set out some parameters within which Ms Hunter would provide assistance and requested Ms Leeson speak to Ms Hunter about the tasks. [117] Mr McDonnell's evidence was the tasks were eventually formalised into a second work schedule document (Exhibit 28) which he forwarded to Ms Leeson to give to Ms Hunter to sign. [118] Ms Hunter agreed she provided support to the HR team from time to time, but was of the view these arrangements were never formalised. [119] Whilst Mr McDonnell was able to recall some concerns raised by Ms Craig in relation to Ms Hunter's work schedule, his recollection was Ms Craig did not raise any concerns as to whether she would have adequate support with Ms Hunter coming on board after the second work schedule was prepared. [120] Mr McDonnell gave evidence that the main challenges raised by Ms Craig with respect to the LCO process included paperwork not being completed correctly, contractors attempting to bypass the LCO process and enrol directly in training courses, and one particular contractor contacting Ms Craig after hours in an attempt to secure preferential treatment on the basis that Ms Craig's boyfriend was an employee of the contractor. [121] Steps taken by Mr McDonnell to address these challenges included multiple discussions with Mr Curphy about the process, suggesting to Ms Craig he (Mr McDonnell) be included on emails (Exhibit 15) to give him a better understanding of any difficulties, requesting Ms Craig escalate the matter when she was not getting a desirable response from Mr Curphy (Exhibit 14) and reinforcing the correct LCO processes with wayward contractors (Exhibit 17) in weekly contractor meetings. Comments by co-worker - Ms Blee [122] Ms Craig confirmed she had disclosed details of her symptoms including self-harm to a fellow work colleague, Ms Blee, outside of work hours with whom she exercised and occasionally socialised with. It was not uncommon for Ms Craig and Ms Blee to joke around and call each other "bitch" at work, in jest. [123] Under cross-examination Ms Craig confirmed her relationship with Ms Blee deteriorated when she was "uninvited" to a party Ms Blee was holding earlier in 2011. [124] Ms Craig's evidence is that on 1 August 2011 whilst they were both in the office, Ms Blee said, "just because you cut yourself to deal with stress doesn't mean you're more stressed than I am". The comment was made by Ms Blee to Ms Craig after -- 17 of 28 -- 18 Ms Craig had said she did not appreciate the way Ms Blee had been treating her in the weeks and months beforehand. [125] Ms Blee made the comment standing next to Ms Craig's desk. Ms Craig's evidence was that she was sitting on the floor filing some paperwork and they had both raised their voices during the discussion. [126] Mr McDonnell's evidence is that he was sitting approximately six metres away at a desk with his back to Ms Craig and Ms Blee on the day the comments were made. He recalled hearing raised voices for a short period but did not think too much of it given both ladies were naturally loud and it was only for a brief moment. [127] Ms Craig did not appear to be in a distressed state but he recalled her leaving a bit earlier than normal. Mr McDonnell's evidence is he only became aware of the interaction between Ms Craig and Ms Blee later that day when Ms Leeson spoke to him. [128] Ms Craig's evidence was that she continued to work for the rest of the day but might have left early. She was concerned that other people within the office may have heard Ms Blee's comments and that Mr McDonnell did not intervene in the incident with Ms Blee on the day. She returned the next day where she had a discussion with Mr McDonnell about Ms Blee's comments. [129] Mr McDonnell confirmed he caught up with Ms Craig the following day to see how she was and to determine what, if any action (including formal) she wanted him to take with respect to the comments made by Ms Blee. [130] Mr McDonnell's recollection was Ms Craig was annoyed by Ms Blee’s comments and wanted him to speak to her about it. He subsequently met with Ms Blee, advising the comment was inappropriate. Mr McDonnell's recollection was Ms Blee agreed with his view. [131] Ms Craig agreed with the suggestion Mr McDonnell had advised her at that time that he had not heard Ms Blee's comments on the previous day, that he communicated he did not condone the comments and had asked Ms Craig if she was okay and whether or not she wanted any formal action to be taken with respect to the comments that were made. [132] Under cross-examination, Ms Craig confirmed her conversation with Mr McDonnell on the last day she attended work also involved discussions around her being paid more money to pick up additional work that would otherwise be performed by another support person. "And your response was, 'If you're going to get some more support, just pay me the salary of that person.'?-- That conversation is out of context because it was taken - it was the same - it was the 2nd of August, and it was the day after Shanell had made her comment, and I'd confronted him about his lack of intervention, and so I was upset by that point he mentioned it. So was it the 2nd of August you were saying, 'Pay me more money and I'll do more work.'? Yes." (T1, P65, L40-50) -- 18 of 28 -- 19 [133] The patient notes made by Dr Mulcahy following a consultation with Ms Craig on 16 August 2011 (Exhibit 23) recorded the following: "workplace stresses have come to a head self harming and bulimia long discussion appears change of job would make a big difference d/w Karin Chadbone". [134] Ms Craig lodged a claim for compensation on 2 November 2011. The claim was initially accepted by WorkCover, but subsequently rejected following a review by the Regulator. Consideration and Findings Is the injury one arising out of, or in the course of employment and is Ms Craig's employment a significant contributing factor to the injury? [135] The Appellant contends the medical evidence supports the contention the three identified stressors, namely increased workload, an unsupportive supervisor and comments by a co-worker, contributed significantly to the aggravation of the Appellant's pre-existing condition. [136] The Respondent submits the significant contributing factor to the aggravation of Ms Craig's personal injury was her failure to take her required medication and further, that her employment was merely the background or setting in which the condition manifested itself. [137] In support of that submission, the Regulator points to a number of decisions of the Commission. [138] In Qantas Airways Limited v Q-COMP and Michelle Blanch1 President Hall said: "…It is important to bear in mind also that the adjective 'significant' qualifies the expression 'contributing factor'. The notion of 'contribution' in itself requires some linkage between the employment and the injury…" [139] As to whether an injury is one arising in the course of employment, in WorkCover Queensand v BHP (Qld) Workers’ Compensation Unit2 President Hall said: "…The critical case is Kavanagh v Commonwealth (1960) 103 CLR 547. The case concerned a worker who had ruptured his oesophagus as a result of vomiting at work. By a majority the High Court held that it was enough that Mr Kavanagh's vomiting fit occurred while he was 'at work'. Dixon C.J. (at 557) and Fullagar J. (at 559) expressly repudiated the view that an accident would not occur 'in the course of employment' if the workman could equally well have sustained the injury had he not been at work at all. I accept, of 1 Qantas Airways Limited v Q-COMP and Michelle Blanch (2009) 191 QGIG 115 2 WorkCover Queensland v BHP (Qld) Workers’ Compensation Unit (2002) QIC 27 -- 19 of 28 -- 20 course, that a mere 'temporal' relationship between the injury and the work is insufficient…" [140] In Croning v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland3, de Jersey P held that the employment needs to be a "real effective cause" of the injury and not merely the setting or background in which the injury occurs. [141] Mr Dwyer, Counsel for the Appellant takes issue with the Respondent's reliance on Croning4 submitting that the principles contained in that matter do not apply in Ms Craig's circumstances and at the time of the commencement of her employment in August she did not have any symptoms and that they did not emerge until early December 2010. [142] The difficulty I have with this submission is that on the evidence it is clear, as confirmed by both medical witnesses called by the Appellant that Ms Craig has had a long and severe psychiatric condition where she has suffered from bulimia, borderline personality disorder and depression since she was sixteen years old. [143] Ms Craig confirmed that in her appointment with Dr Michael Rice on 3 October 2010 she advised the GP she had ongoing bulimia which had never really been controlled. [144] On her own evidence, Ms Craig provided examples of instances where the bulimia would return at various stages in her life. Dr Mulcahy provided examples of instances where he was required to write multiple letters and certificates to get her out of exams, because that kind of stress would make her anxious and unwell again. [145] Ms Craig, Dr Boulnois and Dr Mulcahy all confirmed anti-depressants formed part of the treatment for Ms Craig's condition. [146] During the course of the hearing Ms Craig conceded there were a number of times she had stopped taking her medication for various reasons. [147] Ms Craig confirmed she had stopped taking her medication in December 2010 for financial reasons. In an email sent to Mr McDonnell on 21 April 2011, Ms Craig confirmed she was not taking her medication at that time. Likewise, in a consultation with Dr Boulnois in July 2011 Ms Craig confirmed she was not taking her medication. [148] In his report dated 14 July 2011 (Exhibit 21), Dr Boulnois noted: "Courtney it would appear is entirely unable to remember the majority of medications, she has taken...or rather she hasn't really used it, for she has taken it as and when she felt it appropriate so to do…as we know this medication is supposed to do good things for a number of parameters where depressive symptomatology is concerned...Courtney lays claim to all of such, and claims that no medication has ever done the right thing by her, and studiously refused to accept my argument that it she doesn't take medication correctly that is highly likely to be the case." 3 Croning v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1997) 156 QGIG 100 4 Croning v Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (1997) 156 QGIG 100 -- 20 of 28 -- 21 [149] Dr Boulnois agreed with the proposition that a failure by Ms Craig to take her medication on a consistent basis would aggravate or have a serious impact on the aggravation of the underlying personality disorder (my emphahsis) (T2, P17, L20-50). [150] Dr Boulnois' evidence included examples of the symptoms associated with Ms Craig's condition which included unstable emotional responses to what are perceived to be stressful situations and the fact that basically "these folk do not cope because they appear to be so terribly young" (from an emotional perspective) and that "the most minor event often seems to trouble them enormously". [151] The Appellant contends that among other things, Ms Craig's increased workload contributed significantly to the aggravation. [152] Whilst I accept that it may well have been the case there were a number of weeks where there was an increase in LCO processing work in October 2011 and Ms Craig may well have worked some additional hours, the difficulty I have with this submission is that it is clear the entire nature of the LCO work was characterised by peaks and troughs throughout the course of Ms Craig's employment depending on the stage of the project. [153] The evidence provided to the Commission with respect to LCO processing and manning levels is such that it is impossible to determine with any real certainty what the exact or even estimated LCO numbers were prior to October 2010 and what might have constituted a significant increase in any one month after this period, particularly in the two months leading up to December 2010 which was the period where Ms Craig claims her bulimia became worse. [154] At best we have Ms Craig's evidence that there was an increase in October 2010 and also in mid-2011, but other than this there is limited evidence before the Commission detailing a jump in numbers. Manning levels were tendered during the proceedings, along with emails setting out projected forecasts for future mobilisations previously managed by Rio Tinto, but they contained limited specifics around the number of actual LCO's that would be required in any one week or month. [155] Further, the timing of the forecasted mobilisations for a number of the contractors was set down for late-December (Exhibit 25), but Ms Rowland’s evidence was that the floods of December 2010 and January 2011 occurring in central Queensland prevented contractors and Ms Craig herself from entering the site. There is evidence to suggest the LCO numbers ramped up after this period, however again no specific details or comparisons highlighting the extent to which they increased. By this time Ms Grainger had also commenced in her HR Administration role. [156] Ms Craig, Ms Rowland and Mr McDonnell all confirmed the LCO process was characterised by peaks and troughs. I accept that at times the peaks would have resulted in a situation where Ms Craig would have been required to undertake more work. -- 21 of 28 -- 22 [157] I also accept Ms Rowland's evidence that, notwithstanding Ausenco formally took over the additional LCO processing work in or around early October 2010, any associated increase did not necessarily commence from "day dot". An email to Ms Rowland from her equivalent at Rio Tinto in September 2010 highlighted the variable nature of the mobilisations in the period between mid-September to December 2010. Again, there is limited evidence before the Commission around the total LCO numbers. [158] Compounding the difficulties associated with a lack of evidence in support of the increased workload, is the fact there is no diagnosis of any injury by Dr Mulcahy as at 26 November 2010. In fact, Ms Craig's GP has highlighted in his notes at the time of their appointment that she was now an "HR Officer at Capella with new boyfriend" and "having a great time". [159] Further, whilst it is clear Ms Craig sought a sick leave certificate from Dr Mulcahy in order to cover a period of absence in early February so that she was able to attend a psychiatrist's appointment in the same week, there is no evidence to suggest the injury or condition complained of to Dr Mulcahy in the appointment on 7 February 2011 arose as a result of any workplace stressor, with Dr Mulcahy confirming under cross-examination that he "...wouldn't have issued a WorkCover Certificate on what was presented to me at that time, no". [160] Dr Boulnois also confirmed Ms Craig did not complain of any work related stressors such as workload or an unsupportive manager, and did not diagnose a workplace injury at the time of his consultation with the Appellant in early July 2011. [161] It was only after Ms Craig had left her employment with Ausenco and had been successful in her initial claim for workers compensation with WorkCover that Dr Boulnois prepared any reports that dealt with the issue of workplace stressors (Exhibit 22). In this regard, Dr Boulnois accepted and carefully outlined the history as reported to him by Ms Craig at the time of the appointment understandably accepting, in the context of an already approved claim, that Ms Craig's condition was an aggravation of her previous condition. [162] Notwithstanding Ms Blee's inappropriate comments on 1 August 2011, there is no evidence to indicate Ms Craig was suffering from any injury as at 2 August 2011. In fact, the Appellant confirmed during the proceedings that she had offered to do more work if she was paid more money in the context of a discussion around salaries with Mr McDonnell on 2 August 2011. [163] Putting to one side the increased workload stressor and examining Ms Craig's claims with respect to an unsupportive manager contributing significantly to the aggravation of the Appellant's condition, the evidence overwhelmingly supports a contrary view. [164] Ms Rowland in particular was clearly very supportive and encouraging of Ms Craig. She was complimentary in her evidence about the Appellant's performance and output both before and during the time Ms Craig held the HR Administrator role at the mine. Mr Rowland's emails with respect to Ms Craig's illness in early February 2011 reveal a manager who was both compassionate and caring. I also accept that in the period immediately following the notification that Ausenco agreed to absorb the -- 22 of 28 -- 23 additional LCO processing from Rio Tinto that Ms Rowland took steps to advise Ms Craig of the consequences and make arrangements for additional resources. The Appellant has conceded as much in her evidence. [165] There was a lot of focus during the proceedings on the manner in which both Ms Rowland and Mr McDonnell handled what were essentially personality clashes between Ms Craig and Ms Grainger, particularly in relation to what steps were taken to fairly manage distribution of duties and also address Ms Craig's complaints about Ms Grainger's work ethic and the manner in which she undertook her work. [166] It is clear Ms Rowland responded to Ms Craig's concerns by engaging both ladies in discussions around how the various responsibilities would be shared. The discussions were then followed up with an email from Ms Craig confirming the delineation of responsibilities. [167] It is common ground Ms Craig made a number of complaints in relation to the number and duration of cigarette breaks being taken by Ms Grainger. Though I note, both ladies were spoken to by Ms Rowland in relation to the time being wasted whilst on their cigarette breaks given the distance between the office and area where workers were permitted to smoke on site. [168] In late April 2011, Ms Craig also made some further complaints to Mr McDonnell about the duration and number of cigarette breaks Ms Grainger was taking. Notwithstanding some delay in responding to her complaints over the Easter/Anzac holiday period, I am satisfied he did take the time to speak to Ms Craig about her concerns. [169] I am less convinced as to whether he held a formal discussion with Ms Grainger in relation to his expectations around the cigarette breaks before Ms Craig was able to resolve the situation of her own accord. [170] Notwithstanding this, it is clear on the evidence before the Commission that Mr McDonnell was a receptive and considered manager who valued the input of Ms Craig and took steps to address challenges or issues raised by her during the course of her employment. [171] In addition to working with her to identify better processes to overcome a number of the difficulties she experienced with contractors during the LCO process, the evidence before the Commission demonstrates he worked closely with Ms Craig to address challenges where needed and communicated his willingness to step in and provide support if and when it was required. [172] Whilst the Appellant took issue on occasion with the engagement and communication techniques Mr McDonnell and Ms Rowland utilised when addressing Ms Craig's concerns and/or resolving the difficulties between herself and Ms Grainger, there is no evidence before the Commission to support the contention that the techniques utilised and/or the outcomes achieved were unsupportive of Ms Craig and therefore contributed significantly to the aggravation of her condition. [173] If anything, the evidence supports the conclusion Ms Craig was happy with the distribution of duties between herself and Ms Grainger. Further, where Ms Craig -- 23 of 28 -- 24 had any outstanding concerns her email communication at the time indicates she was more concerned with the manner in which Ms Grainger approached her work (that is, her work ethic) rather than the toll Ms Grainger's actions might have taken on the Appellant's workload. [174] Both Mr McDonnell and Ms Rowland also held weekly meetings with Ms Craig either in person or over the phone with respect to upcoming manning forecasts and workloads. The evidence supports a finding that both managers took the time to inquire about any challenges Ms Craig was experiencing in relation to workload, processing LCO's and/or her engagement with contractors in so far as it may have been impacting her capacity to perform her role. [175] Whilst it may not have always been perfect, I am also satisfied both Ms Rowland and Mr McDonnell also took steps to identify other sources of support for Ms Craig during peak LCO processing periods. Whilst I accept the peaks of the LCO process may well have required more work from Ms Craig at times, the evidence before the Commission does not support a finding that any increase contributed to the aggravation of Ms Craig's condition. Further, neither Ms Mulcahy or Dr Boulnois provided a diagnosis of a workplace related injury during the period August 2010 until early August 2011. [176] I also accept Ms Hunter, Ms Turner and Ms Blee were all requested on occasions by one or both of Ms Craig’s supervisor’s to provide Ms Craig with support and/or coverage with respect to LCO processing over the course of her employment. [177] In particular, Exhibits 17 and 28 reinforce the steps taken by Mr McDonnell to lock in the administrative support of Ms Hunter for a number of days per week in mid- 2011. It is a little less clear if the formal work schedule prepared by Mr McDonnell was ever signed by Ms Hunter, but it is clear from Ms Hunter’s evidence that at the very least she made herself available to assist Ms Craig during this time. [178] The Appellant has submitted the comments of Ms Blee on 1 August 2011 also contributed significantly to the aggravation of the Appellant's pre-existing condition. [179] The challenge with this submission is Ms Craig's evidence indicates she held a conversation with Mr McDonnell the following day where she indicated she was prepared to continue working and in fact take on more work, provided her salary was increased. [180] In this context, it is difficult to now accept that Ms Blee's comments had such an impact that they could be characterised as significantly contributing to the aggravation of Ms Craig's condition. [181] Given the above, I am not satisfied that employment and in particular work overload, an unsupportive manager or the comments from Ms Blee either individually or collectively were a significant contributing factor in the aggravation of Ms Craig's pre-existing condition. [182] In my view, the evidence before the Commission, particularly that of Ms Craig in relation to her failure to take her medication, in conjunction with confirmation by Dr Boulnois that a failure to take her medication on a consistent basis would -- 24 of 28 -- 25 aggravate or have a serious impact on the aggravation of the underlying personality disorder (my emphahsis), of which one of the symptoms included "even the most minor event” seeming to trouble them enormously, supports the conclusion that it is more likely than not that Ms Craig’s failure to take her medication on a consistent basis was a significant contributing factor to the aggravation rather than the employment itself. [183] The evidence supports the conclusion Ms Craig's bulimia has never really been in control (Exhibit 23) and to that extent, in combination with the findings above with respect to the taking of her medication it is difficult to come to any other conclusion other than that this is a situation where in many respects the Appellant’s employment, whilst no doubt requiring more of an effort from Ms Craig during the peaks associated with the LCO process, was more a setting or a backdrop in which the pre-existing condition played itself out. Is the injury removed from the definition of injury by virtue of section 32(5) of the Act? [184] Even if my finding that employment was not the significant contributing factor in the aggravation of Ms Craig's pre-existing condition is incorrect, I am satisfied the injury is removed from the definition of injury by virtue of the operation of s 32(5)(a) of the Act. [185] In the absence of any other diagnosis of a workplace injury in the period Ms Craig was engaged as an HR Administrator, the only likely conclusion that can be drawn with respect to the timing of the "injury" complained of and which is the subject of these proceedings is that it occurred on or around 16 August 2011 when a medical certificate was issued by Dr Mulcahy with a diagnosis of "relapse of depression, with eating disorder and self harm". [186] Whilst the mere occurrence of reasonable management action does not necessarily insulate a disorder from characterisation as an "injury"5, the Commission's role is to embark upon an enquiry as to whether the psychological/psychiatric injury arose out of, or in the course of, reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. [187] As Martin J recently stated6: "The task of the Commission when applying s 32(5) does not involve setting out what it regards as the type of actions that would have been reasonable in the circumstances. There may be any number of actions or combinations of actions which would satisfy s 32(5). The proper task is to assess the management action which was taken and determine whether it was taken in a reasonable way. Sometimes that may involve considerations of what else might have been done but that will only be relevant to whether what was done, was, in fact reasonable." [188] Whilst each case must be determined on its own facts, in support of its submission that the stressors listed by the Appellant are removed from the definition of injury through the operation of s 32(5)(a) of the Act, the Regulator points to a number of 5 Davis v Blackwood (2014) ICQ 009 at (51) and Q-COMP v Hohn (2008) 187 QGIG 139 6 Davis v Blackwood (2014) ICQ 009 at (47) -- 25 of 28 -- 26 decisions of the Commission, see Bowers v WorkCover Queensland7, WorkCover Queensland v Kehl8, Delaney v Q-COMP9, Svenson v Q-COMP10, Misevski v Q-COMP11 and Christine McHours12. [189] In the circumstances where the Commission determines the workload complained of by the Appellant was "management action" for the purposes of s 32(5), the Appellant has submitted that the actions of Ms Rowland were the only management actions to be considered in that they were fundamentally unreasonable. [190] Mr Dwyer, Counsel for the Appellant contends Ms Rowland agreed to take on the additional work of Rio Tinto in October 2010, knowing the additional work would leave Ms Craig's area short staffed. [191] In the event the Commission determines the "injury" was sustained in August 2011, the Appellant submits that the management action as a whole (and when considered individually) was both unreasonable and unreasonably implemented. [192] For the following reasons and when considered in a global sense, the stressors listed by the Appellant in so far as they relate to management action are excluded from the definition of injury for the reasons set out below. Increased Workload [193] The issue of increased workload is directly connected to management action. [194] Many of the steps taken by Ms Rowland, and later Mr McDonnell to address workload and LCO processing matters have already been identified earlier in this decision. [195] From the very beginning, when Ms Rowland became aware of the additional LCO processing requirements it is clear she took steps to engage with Ms Craig to discuss the implications and advise of her intention to identify an additional resource. [196] Whilst I accept Ms Grainger was not engaged immediately and there were certainly some hold ups with respect to filling the role, I am satisfied Ms Rowland took steps to advise Ms Craig about the steps she was taking and that she was taking positive steps to providing additional support for Ms Craig where it was required. [197] Whilst the exact number of LCO's and the associated manning levels are not entirely clear for the period between October 2010 until February 2011, I accept Ms Rowland's evidence that the LCO process was characterised by peaks and troughs. Exhibit 25 demonstrates the variable nature of the mobilisations to site. Exhibit 26 also reveals that the manning levels at the site from late November 2010 drastically dropped off to a point where there were only 15 present in early January 2011. 7 Bowers v WorkCover Queensland (2002) 170 QGIG 1 8 WorkCover Queensland v Kehl (2002) 170 QGIG 93 9 Delaney v Q-COMP (2005) 178 QGIG 197 10 Svenson v Q-COMP (2006) 181 QGIG 626 11 Misevski v Q-COMP (C/2009/29) - Decision - http://www.qirc.qld.gov.au 12 Christine McHours v Q-COMP (C/2012/12) - Decision - http://www.qirc.qld.gov.au -- 26 of 28 -- 27 [198] It is also clear Ms Rowland took steps to allocate resources and provide Ms Craig with assistance when requested. The solutions and the timing may not have been perfect but it is clear Ms Rowland was responding to Ms Craig's concerns and working with her to identify a path forward. [199] It is also important to consider the environment in which Ms Craig, Ms Rowland and later Mr McDonnell were working. That is, a remote mine site in central Queensland where the normal recruitment practices and labour supply that metropolitan workers and managers take for granted everyday are not so accessible. [200] Ms Rowland appointed Ms Grainger and when it became clear there were some differences between the ladies with respect to roles and responsibilities, she took steps to meet and discuss the roles and responsibilities which subsequently led to Ms Craig distributing a work plan to the group. [201] Mr McDonnell formalised the position descriptions of both Ms Grainger and Ms Craig following his appointment. [202] Emails sent through to him with respect to Ms Craig's concerns about Ms Grainger's work ethic were acknowledged. In the short time he was away on leave it could be said that there would have been some benefit in him asking another manager to speak to Ms Craig however I do not consider the delay particularly fatal in so far as determining whether or not his management of the situation was unreasonable. [203] In the end, Ms Craig was able to sort out her difficulties with Ms Grainger by approaching her directly which in my view is a perfectly acceptable outcome in an workplace environment where Mr McDonnell held the position that it was healthy for employees to sort out their own differences where possible. [204] I also accept Mr McDonnell took steps to engage Ms Craig in a process where Ms Hunter's assistance to the HR group and the Appellant in particular was formalised to the extent a work schedule was developed. Whilst the document may never have been signed the documentary evidence on balance suggests all parties, including Ms Hunter were aware of the duties and days on which they were required to be performed. [205] I agree with the Respondent's submissions that this is not a case where the Ms Craig's managers sat back and ignored her requests and/or issues raised in their respective meetings about various challenges. In this regard I find the management action with respect to increased workload was reasonable and taken in a reasonable way. Unsupportive Supervisor [206] Mr Dwyer, Counsel for the Appellant submitted Ms Craig was not supported appropriately by Mr McDonnell. In particular, these comments extend to not only workload challenges but the comments made by Ms Blee on 1 August 2011. [207] Many of the actions taken by Mr McDonnell with respect to providing additional resources or support for Ms Craig have already been dealt with. -- 27 of 28 -- 28 [208] In particular, it is clear Mr McDonnell worked closely with Ms Craig in an attempt to traverse their way through the difficulties that would arise when contactors submitted incomplete paperwork or attempted to bypass the LCO process altogether. [209] The evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion Mr McDonnell put in place a series of steps or processes to deal with some of the challenges. He overtly made himself available to Ms Craig suggesting she include him on emails so he could obtain a better understanding of the specific issues she was raising and also requested she escalate matters where she was not receiving a desirable response. [210] In addition to these actions, Mr McDonnell also took steps to recommend Ms Craig receive a salary review in circumstances where she had worked for less than a year. Although the proposed increase was refused by more senior staff, in my view these are not the actions of an unsupportive supervisor. [211] On balance, in a FIFO construction project environment located in a remote area and characterised by multiple contractors with changing project schedules and mobilisations, the management action taken by Mr McDonnell was reasonable and taken in a reasonable manner. Comments by co-worker [212] To the extent Mr McDonnell's handling of the subsequent discussions held with both Ms Craig and Ms Blee could be considered management action, both Ms Craig and Mr McDonnell confirmed he took the issue up with Ms Craig the following day, asking what, if any, action she wished him to take in a formal sense. [213] I accept Mr McDonnell raised his concerns about the appropriateness of Ms Blee's comments with Ms Blee, and to this extent consider the action taken by Mr McDonnell following his conversation with Ms Craig to be reasonable and taken in a reasonable manner. [214] For all of the foregoing reasons the appeal is dismissed and the decision of the Regulator is confirmed. [215] The Appellant is to pay the costs of the Regulator. In the event agreement cannot be reached between the parties the Regulator has liberty to apply. [216] The Commission orders accordingly. -- 28 of 28 --