Bajon v Q-COMP [2009] QIRC 69 (2009) 191 QGIG 223

[Extract from Queensland Government Industrial Gazette, dated 26 June, 2009, Vol. 191, No. 7, pages 223-250] QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - s. 550 - appeal to commission Eva Bajon AND Q-COMP (WC/2005/14) DEPUTY PRESIDENT BLOOMFIELD 18 June 2009 DECISION This decision relates to an appeal by Eva Bajon (the Appellant) pursuant to s. 550 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act) against a decision of the Review Unit, Q-COMP (Q-COMP) dated 16 November 2005 in which Q-COMP confirmed an earlier decision by WorkCover to reject a claim for workers' compensation by the Appellant. In doing so Q-COMP determined that the matters alleged by the Appellant as being productive of her psychological injury were excluded by the operation of s. 32(5) of the Act on the basis the relevant management action was both reasonable and taken in a reasonable way. Relevant Legislation Section 32 of the Act provides: "32 Meaning of Injury (1) An injury is personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if the employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury. … (3) Injury includes the following - … (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. … (5) Despite subsection (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 worker's 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.". In determining whether a worker has suffered an injury for the purposes of the Act it is necessary to consider four questions: (a) has the worker suffered a "personal injury"? (b) did that personal injury arise out of, or in the course of, employment? (c) was employment a significant contributing factor to the injury? (d) if the injury is a psychiatric or psychological disorder, did that disorder arise out of, or in the course of, reasonable management action for the purposes of s. 32(5)? Nature of the Appeal The appeal to the Commission is by way of a hearing de novo. It is the Appellant who bears the onus of proof on the balance of probabilities (see State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Q-COMP and Beverley Coyne 172 QGIG 1447). Background The Appellant was employed as the Manager of the Polish Club (the Club) from November 2000 until 15 February 2005, when she was allegedly unfairly dismissed from her position. She decompensated on that evening and was seen by her General Practitioner, Dr Hess, on 18 February 2005. Dr Hess referred her to a psychiatrist, Dr Tom Bell, who saw her on 1 March 2005. Dr Bell diagnosed the Appellant's condition as an Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood which he attributed, based upon what the Appellant told him, to her "unfair dismissal" and several other work-related events. -- 1 of 27 -- 2 Evidence 1. Introduction These proceedings were unusual for a number of reasons. One, the majority of witnesses were of Polish origin and Polish, rather than English, was their first language. Two, most of the relevant discussions between the parties involved were conducted in Polish and the capacity of several witnesses to convert their memory of those discussions back to English, especially the Appellant herself, was sometimes difficult. Three, the accents of a number of witnesses made their evidence difficult to understand and the transcript reflects this situation with many gaps and misspelt, or incorrect, details (especially names). Four, on a number of occasions the Appellant launched into her natural tongue in mid-sentence which necessitated the Polish interpreter being called upon to hurriedly translate what had been said. Even then, the interpretation was often presented in the second person, rather than the first person, and tended to be a summary of what had been said rather than a direct translation. Five, because of language issues (such as those described above) and, presumably, the difficulty of recalling events nearly four years previously, most evidence-in-chief was presented by way of statements which had been taken (on behalf of WorkCover) by a licensed private investigator in or around April 2005. Six, because these "statements" were taken by a third party, and were obviously developed from questions put to individual people at that time, they contain a great deal of hearsay material which would not otherwise be admissible. Further, because this hearsay evidence was often intertwined with information within the direct knowledge of the individual witness it was sometimes difficult to separate the admissible material from other alleged “facts”, which were generally only a recounting of information provided to that witness by a third person. Seven, most of the correspondence between the relevant parties, the minutes of the Polish Club and reports prepared by the Appellant for the Club's Committee, respectively, were all in Polish. Translations of these documents into English led to several disagreements about the meaning of several of the original Polish words and whether the English translation was a proper reflection of that meaning. This point was highlighted in a number of documents where different interpreting services had been retained to translate the same document. While the general thrust, and intent, of the documents was similar, the translations were far from identical. One particular example, which assumed particular importance in the course of the trial, was the Polish word "zawieszenia", used in a letter sent to the Appellant by the Club’s President at the time, which one interpreting service said meant "suspend" (as in “we will suspend your employment”) while Mr Grynglas (the gentleman utilised to provide interpreting services during the trial) said it meant "cease" (as in “we will cease your employment”). Finally, most of the Club's minutes, including reports and attachments to reports referred to in those minutes, from around the relevant time had gone missing. Replacement minutes were sourced from a variety of places (it seems the majority of these came from the Appellant herself) but the bona fides of these replacement documents was queried by several of the witnesses - including one witness who indicated that while she would normally have taken the minutes at several of the meetings in question at least one set of minutes presented to her for identification was not in the same structure she would traditionally use. Further, some of the reports and attachments referred to in the "replacement"* minutes were not available. Accordingly, the abbreviated information in the minutes about what was in the respective report and/or attachment was of only limited assistance. (*By using this word in inverted commas I do not intend to suggest the minutes tabled are not bona fide. I simply use the term to highlight the minutes came from a source other than the one where they would normally be expected to be located.) 2. The Scene The "Polish Club" is located in Maree Street, Milton. It is also known as "Polonia" and “the house”. The Club is owned and operated by the Polish Association of Queensland Inc. (the Association) which has a Committee of Management, elected by popular vote each year in around August. The Club premises are located in a light industrial and small office building environment in a street which runs off Park Road in Milton. It apparently has a coffee shop which is open to the general public, a restaurant and several bars at which alcohol is served. It also has a number of function rooms of different shapes and sizes. The Club is open between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on weekdays and at other times during the weekend, which were not disclosed in the course of the trial. The Club is also used to hold events for the Polish Community on a number of days and evenings during the year and hosts a regular "market day". The Club's facilities are also hired out to individuals and groups for the purposes of holding meetings, presentations, weddings, birthdays and the like. Many such events are held in the evenings and the Appellant was expected to open and close the Club as part of her duties. The Club employs a full-time salaried Manager, at least one "permanent casual" and a number of other casual employees who work during the week-day trading hours and at evening/weekend functions and events. A number of retired members of the Committee and respected members of the Polish Community also attend the Club on a regular basis to perform a range of clerical and administrative functions on a voluntary basis. Several of these people gave -- 2 of 27 -- 3 evidence and the nature of their duties and the times they attended the Club is recorded below. The Club also leases a number of parking spaces to individuals, local businesses or people who work in those businesses. 3. The Main Participants The Appellant (Mrs Bajon) - became the Manager of the Club on 7 November 2000. Before that she was the Treasurer of the Association and a Member of the Committee of Management. At the time she commenced employment as the Manager the Appellant had never worked in the hospitality industry and had no experience concerning the sale of alcohol in a licensed premises or the control and running of a dining facility. At the time of her termination she was paid a salary of $500 per week plus a travelling allowance of $52 per week. Ms Alina Chojnacka - President of the Association at the relevant time. Had occupied this role for the previous six years. Before that she was Vice President for one year. Mr Marek Gierkowski - the Chairperson of a body which is separate from the Committee of Management and which is described as the Internal Audit Committee. This body is also known as "the Audit Committee" or the "Audit Commission". At the relevant time he had been a member of the Audit Committee for approximately three years. The role of the Audit Committee was to conduct periodic stock takes and undertake other independent audit tasks - including auditing the financial records - from time to time. One such task was to audit the finances of the Club when a Manager left its employ. The Audit Committee also presented a report to the Members of the Association at each Annual General Meeting. Mr Leszek Wikarjusz - Treasurer of the Association at the relevant time. After having been on the Committee of Management of the Club for two years in the early 1990s he returned to the Committee in 2001. He then became the Vice President in 2003 before taking on the role of Treasurer in August 2004. 4. The Support Participants Mr Sebastian Bajon - the son of the Appellant. He worked as a casual bar attendant, for between 3 and 15 hours per week, for approximately 2 years prior to the termination of his mother's employment on 15 February 2005. Ms Janina Banaszak - member of the Committee for four or five years until August 2004. For the last 12 months of that time she held the position of Treasurer, and was the Assistant Treasurer for 3 or 4 years prior to that. Although the statement taken by the WorkCover investigator from Ms Banaszak in April 2005 records her as saying she was on the Committee of the Club until August 2004 she claimed, in her verbal evidence, that she was still on the Committee at the relevant time, albeit she was overseas between mid November 2004 and 28 February 2005. Ms Irena Bielawska - the Appellant's mother. Ms Maria Beata Borowska - Secretary of the Association at the relevant time, having occupied that role for six of her sixteen years as a member of the Committee of Management. She performed voluntary work at the Club for several days each week. She also took the minutes of meetings of the Committee of Management from time to time. Ms Krystyna Gwizdalla - actively involved in the activities and affairs of the Club for many years. She was a member of the Committee of Management between 2001 and 2003 and was Treasurer during part of that period. At the relevant time she was a volunteer bookkeeper and attended the office once or twice each week between the hours of approximately 10am and 3pm. One of her roles was to reconcile the bar takings. Mr Marek Kuszak - employed as a casual bar person at the relevant time. He was also a member of the Committee of Management and became acting Manager of the Club after the Appellant's termination. (Now living near Perth. Did not give evidence.) Mr Paul Listwan - Vice President of the Association at the relevant time. (Did not give evidence as he was on an extended overseas trip at the time of the hearing.) 5. Key events and issues from the Appellant's prospective August 2004 - A new Committee of Management for the Club is elected. Mr Wikarjusz, previously the Vice President, becomes Treasurer. The relationship between the Appellant and Mr Wikarjusz, which had always been friendly, allegedly began to change. 6 September 2004 - Mr Wikarjusz phoned the Appellant on her mobile telephone, while she was driving her Mother to a doctor's appointment, and spoke to her in a rude, aggressive and demeaning way about her decision not to re-engage a woman Mr Wikarjusz had allegedly recommended. Some $300-$400 had allegedly gone missing during the first shift this woman had worked as a bar attendant and the Appellant had decided not to re-engage her. Mr Wikarjusz demanded -- 3 of 27 -- 4 the Appellant apologise to, then re-employ, the woman and criticised the Appellant's ability as a Manager, describing it as "shit-all" (or words to that effect). He also stated it was no wonder other employees were leaving the Club because she did not know how to train or deal with staff. This conversation was conducted in Polish and was overheard by the Applicant's mother, Mrs Bielawska, on the Appellant's car phone, which was on loudspeaker. The Appellant alleged that from around this point onwards her relationship with Mr Wikarjusz changed. He started telling her what to do in a very strong manner and also started putting her down, saying critical things to her about once each week. He also allegedly emphasised he was the Treasurer and the Appellant had to do the things he said. 20 October 2004 - At a Committee meeting held on this date (unfortunately no minutes are available) a decision was apparently taken that the President, Ms Chojnacka, should write a letter to the Appellant asking her to address a number of matters of apparent concern to the Committee and to come to the next Committee meeting on 26 October 2004 with her proposals to address those issues. This letter (translated by the International Language Company), dated 22 October 2004, reads as follows: "At the Committee meeting on 20 October 2004, the decisions made since the beginning of the new term were reviewed. These decisions were aimed at improving the management of the Polish House (PH) and they were expected to be gradually implemented. A new list was prepared as below for the urgent attention of the Polish House Manager. 1 Display of the current price list of alcoholic drinks and other drinks for all customers, including prices for Association members. 2 Presentation of the business plan. 3 Maintenance and housekeeping of the Polish House (making arrangements for cleaning of the PH building, external and internal). 4 All cheques to be presented at the bank on the day following receipt. 5 Cash over $500 should also be paid to the bank on the day following receipt. 6 Bartender reconciliation - handover of cash register should be conducted both at the start and at the end of a shift. 7 The Manager should prepare cash transaction accounts and support this record with receipts, explaining the appropriateness of expenditure. 8 The Manager should regularly report on business contacts made and concentrate more on marketing. 9 The Manager should regularly inspect the building and the grounds of the Polish House. The bitumen in the parking area still requires urgent replacement; grass is not being mowed regularly, etc. The next meeting will take place on 26 October 2004 at 6pm. Please take the issues described above into your urgent consideration and present their resolution at the next meeting. On behalf of the Committee, Alina Chojnacka.". 26 October 2004 - The Appellant attended this meeting of the Committee of Management as requested. The Minutes of the meeting (translated from Polish into English by Ms Krystyna Gwizdalla, who holds a NAATI accreditation) show the Appellant provided the following responses in respect of the matters raised in the letter of 22 October 2004.  Price lists are displayed on the bar bench, the notice board on the wall by the bar downstairs and on the kitchen window.  The cleaner has been changed.  Mowing of the grass has been handed over to a different business, which will mow twice each month, with weeds to be regularly exterminated.  It is not possible to take cash above $500 nor cheques to the bank on the following day because a sizeable cash float is required for Friday and weekend functions. Banking is carried out every Tuesday.  The barpersons receive $200 in the cash register before starting work and check this money. At the end of the day the daily takings are counted. It is not always possible to do this before the bar person ends his shift, which might be before the actual bar closes. Every transaction is checked weekly by Ms Gwizdalla who notes the rare mistakes. -- 4 of 27 -- 5  Cash payments are made for a maximum of $100 and every payment is entered in the petty cash book. A receipt is raised for each cash payment which is signed by the recipient. More often than not payments concern bar supplies and small expenses for maintenance and office requirements.  The surface of the lower level of parking space requires repair or replacement; the cabinets in the upstairs and downstairs toilet are in a very bad condition; some steps need to be replaced on the outside stairs; the metal boarders on the inside stairs are not hard enough and heels sometimes get caught. In relation to a "business plan" (Item 2 in the 22 October 2004 letter) the Appellant advanced 4 proposals as follows: 1. Bar profit Profits for consecutive years Year 2000 $34,937 2001 $32,584 2002 $28,973 2003 $26,242 2004 $22,110 - Increase the number of functions - Increase the frequency of hall hire - Restaurant to open on all weekdays during lunch time 2. Hall hiring - Advertisement of our services on our internet page - Arrangement to link our page with other similar ones - Advertisements in newspapers - Contact with agencies organising weddings - Contact with newly established church organisations 2. (sic) Parking - Installation of security gates (would enhance security and increase the number of rented spaces by 3) - Increase weekly charge from $22 per week to $33 per week, which would increase annual income by approximately $13,500 3. (sic) Other income - Rent the billiards room ($135 per week) - Extension to the Club buildings and introduction of a Polish Delicatessen (with annual rental of $400 per week, or $28,000 per annum) Unfortunately, the minutes do not record the Committee's reaction to the Appellant's report or whether any decisions were taken in respect of the matters raised by her. The only possible item in the minutes relevant to the Appellant's report to the Committee is the one which follows her report and which is recorded in the following terms: "11. A heated discussion ensued on the subject of improving Club ambiance and what is change and achieve (sic) for the Club to become more attractive.". (The numbering of this agenda item is unusual. There were three agenda items considered before moving to the report of the Appellant. The Appellant's report covered the nine items in the earlier letter. The numbering of this agenda item as "11" might just have been an error, similar to the errors in the numbering of the proposals advanced in the Appellant's "business plan"). 11 November 2004 - Thieves gained entry to the Club's premises by forcing open a fire-door/exit, causing extensive damage. Other damage occurs inside the Club. The Appellant begins the process of making an insurance claim and effecting the necessary repairs. The tradesman the Appellant engaged (with the approval of the insurance company) did a very poor job and the door could not be properly secured. The Appellant attempted to contact the tradesman to complete the task but his phone was disconnected. She could not locate any other tradesman who could do the task because it was approaching Christmas. Mr Wikarjusz complained to her on a daily basis about the door not being secure, even though she explained the problem to him, and he allegedly threatened to raise the issue of the door repair with the Committee. The Appellant said that whereas she had always felt strong, confident and assertive, she began to feel unsure of herself because of the pressure from Mr Wikarjusz. -- 5 of 27 -- 6 24 December 2004 - The Appellant commenced a period of annual leave, running until 27 January 2005. On 5 or 6 January her son was driving past the Club and noticed it was open. The Appellant rang the President but she allegedly didn't know why the Club was open or what was happening. The Appellant then rang the Club and Mr Kuszak, who answered the phone, told her that Mr Wikarjusz decided to open the Club because people were asking to buy beer. The Appellant felt surprised and upset that the Club had been opened without her knowledge and expressed the view she should have been told because she was responsible for the stock. 28 January 2005 - After returning to Brisbane from her annual leave the previous day the Appellant opened an email from Ms Chojnacka. It contained an attached letter, dated 18 January 2005, which "had a whole lot of complaints about me and said that unless there was drastic improvement before the next Committee meeting on 1 February, my contract as the manager would be suspended. When I read this I felt sick. … all that weekend I felt sick with a headache … the next Committee meeting was scheduled for 1 February (4 days later). This letter had been sent to me while I was on holidays. I had absolutely no opportunity to put in place anything that was detailed in the letter because I was not working. The management committee knew very well that I was not working. The letter also referred to issues that had been raised with me in a letter from Alina Chojnacka dated 22/10/04 but I had already responded to these issues …" (paragraph 3.1 of Appellant's statement to WorkCover, dated 7 April 2005). The letter from Ms Chojnacka read (English translation by the International Language Company): "Having carried out financial analysis of the past four years we have concluded that the Polish House revenue is low and the business is making a loss. Following a discussion at the Committee meeting on 11 January 2005, a statement was made in relation to the insufficient management practices of the Polish House Manager, her lack of responsiveness to the requests and instructions of the Committee and lack of implementation of the Polish House operational plan. In particular, the Committee was concerned that the list of specific recommendations has not been addressed (a letter dated 22 October 2004). For a long time now we have observed customers' dissatisfaction; direct customer complaints are regularly received by the individual Committee Members. Several negative comments were received for example after the last New Year Eve's party on 31 December 2004. In particular, shortcomings were reported with regards to event promotion, availability of information and table reservations, as well as the organisation of the function itself (such as unavailability of chilled non-alcoholic beverages). We are still waiting for:  Correct cash register reconciliation and an implementation of the current price list  Correct way of counting hours worked, as per approved guidelines  Manning of the telephone during the Polish House opening hours and the installation of an answering machine after hours  Assuring sufficient promotion of upcoming events in the Polish community  Assuring better advertising of hall hire, etc.  Improved marketing activities  Sourcing suppliers of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages for the Polish House at more favourable terms  Provision of sufficient stock for the bar before an upcoming event in advance. We are asking you to urgently (before the next Committee meeting) address the issues listed in this letter and present a satisfactory, detailed operational plan for the Polish House. The next meeting will take place on 1 February 2005. The Committee has decided that unless the organisational and financial performance of the Polish House drastically improves, we will be forced to suspend the contract with you, Ewa Bajon, the current Manager of the Polish House. President of the Polish Association in Queensland, A. Chojnacka.". 3 February 2005 - Meeting of the Committee of Management, attended by the Appellant (the date of the meeting was apparently moved at the request of the Appellant - see Ms Chojnacka's evidence later). The Appellant alleged that while she was giving her report in response to the issues raised in the letter of 18 January 2005 Mr Wikarjusz kept interrupting her saying "stop gloating … stop praising yourself.". The Appellant said the issues raised were petty, like there not being enough cold soft drinks on the night of the Sylvester (New Year's Eve) Ball. She told the Committee there had been enough drinks, but Mr Wikarjusz, Mr Listwan and Mr Majewski kept interrupting her saying that there weren't. The Appellant opined that these events caused her to realise Mr Wikarjusz had gained support from other Members of the Committee. -- 6 of 27 -- 7 The minutes identify the Treasurer's report as "Attachment A" and the Appellant's report about the New Year's Eve Ball as "Attachment B". However, neither of these documents was available. The minutes (translated by Mr Grynglas) contain the following record of the Appellant's presentation to the Committee and the Committee's reaction: "7 (a) After reading the letter Eva Bajon tried to explain the lack of time for proper management of the club because she must also care about cleaning, carrying supplies etc. After discussion about various misgivings on cleaning, varying prices in bars, lack of telephone service, lack of order and so forth the management decides that: 1) Fixed prices must be strictly adhered to. 2) The amount of time spent outside the Club during working hours must be strictly controlled. 3) Using the Log Book 'time control'. 4) Keep the constant Club opening hours it means from 10am til 3pm from Tuesday til Sunday (working hours). 5) Permanent control over the phones and Mr Leszek Wikarjusz to improve the finances asked Eva Bajon as follows: i) A list of contacts with enterprises advertising the hire of the Club Hall minimum of 20 ?? per week. ii) Finding suppliers of alcohol at lower prices iii) She has to check the cost of hall hiring in other ethnic clubs (Italian, German, Greek, Russian). (b) The bar doors which got damaged on 5 October 2004 were wrongly changed. By what rule the insurance accepted the 'quote' for the repair job and how many quotes were there and where are they. The doors should be fixed according to the insurers request. We are asking for 3 quotes. We will not pay for the last repair job. (c) Keeping up the cleanliness of the Club: (Wikarjusz, Majewski, Kuszack) during the holiday break periods the gentlemen doing the alcohol check found the club a terrible mess namely: 1. Open milk bottles 2. Spoiled wine in bottles 3. Unwashed glasses 4. Empty bottle cartons 5. Dirty shelves. (d) After stocktaking of the bar it was found there was $9,000 ???. About 40 bottles of "Bdanska" (vodka). Why was it allowed to keep such a quantity of unpopular alcohol? (e) Computers: from 3 February 2005 access to computers have only the people working at the club and approved by management. (f) Work organising: the management found a bad organising of work and lack of interest in club improvement. Because of this the manager has to present a list by 15 February 2005 to Wikarjusz as follows: i) Duties of the Manager and the plan of work ii) List of clients contacted during the year with the names of companies and phone numbers. 8. Conclusions: (a) Put a neon sign "Bar Open" outside the club (b) Should the bar be opened on Mondays (c) Short summing up of every meeting by the Manager and a copy for every member (d) Fixing up the veranda and providing new curtains.". Sometime during the course of the meeting the Appellant was told she should prepare a written response for the next meeting on 15 February 2005. This was the first time she had been asked to provide a written report to the Committee, rather than a verbal one. The Appellant said she was stressed at having to prepare a written report for the next meeting because she felt the Committee had little understanding of the amount of work she was putting into the Club and felt unappreciated. The two weeks were "an emotional rollercoaster". She had days on which she was physically sick and others when she had to work less time than normal. She had to take one day off work and felt under enormous pressure. She also felt the Committee was unrealistic in its expectations in that they wanted her to "magically increase the profits and perform impossible feats in minimal time." (paragraph 3.7 of Statement to WorkCover). -- 7 of 27 -- 8 15 February 2005 - Meeting of the Committee of Management, attended by the Appellant. The Appellant started to present a written report, as requested at the meeting of 3 February 2005, but she was called out of the meeting by a client of the Club before completing her presentation. The written Manager's report, of 2 pages only, covered the following topics, in order: 1. A 7 line report regarding feedback on a wedding held at the Club on 5 February 2005 and a suggestion that a client feedback survey be designed. 2. A 3 line report that a software company hired the hall in the Club on 8 February 2005 for a promotion meeting which was attended by 20-30 persons. The Report said a good impression had been made and the company would come to the Club three (3) times a month, or more. 3. A 5 line report that 68 tickets had been sold to a Valentines function, which made an estimated net profit of $774. 4. A 3 line report that the Appellant entered into negotiations with a group to hire the Club's hall on a Wednesday, being the only available day left in the week. 5. A 3 line report that a gentleman, after several negotiations, had decided that he would organise Polish dances in the Club once each month. 6. A 6 line report that the Appellant had invited a Choir "of international repute from Poznan" to perform at the Polish Club instead of at a nearby church hall on 13 March 2005, with tickets to be sold at the entrance by a member of the Choir. 7. A 4 line report that the Appellant had invited an author to the Club to promote a book he had written about Polish/Jewish relations during the war. 8. A 3 line report about sending a letter, promoting the Club, to 28 businesses in the Milton area. 9. A 5 line report that there was a serious problem caused by the metal border on the second step of the Club's staircase which the Appellant had seen people trip on several times. She reported the most dangerous event occurred just before Christmas when a woman tripped while going down the stairs. 10. A 2 line report that the prices for hall hire were now placed in two (2) spots in the Club, near the Library and on the Notice Board. 11. A 2 line report that every telephone call is answered and "taped conversations" (presumably messages) are entered into the phone book, dated and timed. 12. A 14 line report on the cost of hall hire in four other Clubs (the Italian, German, Czech, and Greek Clubs, respectively). 13. A 3 line report about having contacted a company which made illuminated "VB" and "Premium Light" signs, with the company to establish what they could do and to ring back. 14. A 2 line report about an attached list of dates for Polish celebrations during 2005. This was still being assessed and other dates were to be added - including for the General Meeting and the Polish Spring Festival. 15. A single line report that the Appellant had started a log book of the Manager's work, which was available for inspection. Attached to the Manager's report was:  A copy of the letter sent to 28 business in the Milton area advertising the availability of the Club for functions.  A "financial analysis" (in Polish) for each of the financial years 2000-2001; 2001-2002; 2002-2003; 2003- 2004; and 2004-2005.  A list of events (in Polish) for 2005. When the Appellant attempted to return to the meeting to continue her presentation she was "shooed away" while the Committee held further discussions. At around 9 p.m. she was invited back into the Committee meeting by the Secretary, Ms Borowska. The Appellant said she was then informed by Ms Chojnacka that the financial position of the Club was unsatisfactory and she had a choice - she could either give up her position as Manager by supplying the Committee with her letter of resignation, in which case she would be granted the best wishes and good name of the -- 8 of 27 -- 9 Polish Community as well as excellent work references, or she would "be forcibly removed from (her) position in a disgrace, without positive references." (paragraph 4.1 of statement to WorkCover). The Appellant asked the Committee for a "standard two week period" during which she could account for all stock, assets and cash as well as introduce and tutor the new Manager. Mr Wikarjusz allegedly replied by yelling out to her that the Committee had decided to fire her, the decision would take effect immediately, and he would not waste any more time on the matter. The Appellant said she did not hear or absorb anything the people on the Committee were saying to her after this point (paragraph 4.2 of Statement to WorkCover). The Appellant's version of events after she was offered the choice to resign or be terminated is recorded in her statement to the WorkCover investigator, as follows: "4.3 After my dismissal, the meeting finished. I was sitting in my chair in the office next to the meeting room shaking and in shock. Les Wikarjusz, Paul Listwan and Chris Majewski came and stood over me and forcefully demanded that I open the safe immediately so that they could count the money. I opened the safe and someone pushed past me to get boxes out. As I was leaving, I was walking down the stairs. Les Wikarjusz raced up to me and shouted in my face, 'The keys', demanding that I give them to him. After I left, I heard that they were saying that I had deliberately tried to leave with the keys. I actually had very little idea of what I was doing. 4.4 I was in complete shock. I practically lost control of several senses. When I got home, I began to vomit heavily. During the night, I was unable to lie down to sleep. I spent most of the night pacing around the living room, intersected with short, infrequent periods of sleep. 5.1 The next day (16/02/05), I had piercing pains in my stomach, back and neck. I couldn't hold a pen to write. I constantly had to run to the bathroom with bouts of vomiting and diarrhoea. I lost complete track of time and the world seemed distorted. At around 11.30pm, I asked my husband to put our youngest son to bed. He replied that our son had already been sleeping for two hours and that I had been sitting at the table with an empty expression for over three hours. 5.2 The next day (17/02/05), I felt worse. I could not eat or drink at all. I would rush to the bathroom and vomit within seconds. My husband pleaded with me to let him take me to the hospital. I asked him not to so instead, he called our family doctor (Dr Hess), and made the earliest appointment that I could get for the next day at 10.00am. 5.3 I saw Dr Hess the next day (18/02/05) and she gave me a prescription for anti-stress and relaxation-inducing medicine (Frisium). She also gave me a referral to a psychiatrist, Dr Tom Bell. She told me to start writing down my experiences and emotions every day so that I could tell them to the specialist. I felt better after taking my first Frisium tablet. 5.4 The same day, I wrote to the Management Committee of the Polish Club protesting against my release from employment. I also stated in the letter that I was suffering from a medical condition and attached a medical certificate stating that I was unfit for work from 16/02/05 until 02/03/05. I sent these to the club at approximately 3.00pm. A copy of this letter is included as an attachment to my statement. 6.1 The next day (19/02/05), I received word by phone from Mark Gierkowski that on Friday, 18/02/05 at 6.00pm, a meeting took place between the Management Committee members and the Internal Audit Commission. I experienced a new shock when I was told that around $1000.00 was missing from the club's accounts. I have a degree in accountancy and I kept the books very well. I knew this was impossible. 6.2 On 21/02/05, I received a letter by email at 10.10pm, dated 18/02/05, though sent on 20/02/05, from Alina Chognacka (sic), informing me of my termination of employment. I felt numb and in shock. I was hardly capable of processing thoughts. I was walking around the household not knowing what I was doing.". 22 February 2005 - The Appellant received a call from Mr Gierkowski inviting her to a meeting at the Polish Club at 5.30 p.m. in the hope of settling all financial accounts. The Appellant said she felt incredibly stressed during the day, after hearing about the missing money and receiving the email regarding her termination of employment, and took two Frisium tablets about 3.30 p.m. to calm herself down. When these had no effect she took a further two Frisium tablets at around 4.30 p.m. Her husband drove her to the Club because she was fearful of driving in the state she was in. Upon arrival at the Club the Appellant was invited into the main office and met with Mr Gierkowski, Ms Chojnacka and Mr Paul Listwan. Ms Chojnacka was sitting at the computer in the first room of the office. The Appellant was invited to sit at the table in the second room with Mr Gierkowski and they began to go over the financial records and documents. The Appellant said she was feeling extreme pressure, was entirely disassociated and could not concentrate on Mr Gierkowski's calculations. -- 9 of 27 -- 10 At one point, she allegedly heard Mr Listwan say to Ms Chojnacka "it doesn't look formal enough … The Club's letterhead should be added.". A short while later Mr Listwan approached her and offered her a piece of paper. He promised everything would be perfectly fine as long as she signed the letter. The Appellant said that in her state she didn't read the letter and just signed it. Soon after Mr Listwan and Ms Chojnacka left the Club. Mr Gierkowski asked Mr Kuszak, the acting Manger, to open the Club's safe so he and the Appellant could count the cash. However, Mr Kuszak allegedly replied saying he would do no such thing because he had received an order that the Appellant could not be in the office unless two other members of the Committee of Management were there as well. The Appellant said she left the office straight away and that is the last she can remember about what happened. 23 February 2005 - The Appellant said she was told by her husband that Mr Kuszak had telephoned him the previous evening to ask him to come and pick her up from the Club. Her husband allegedly found her sitting alone, in the dark, on the sidewalk in front of the Club. Once in the car she fell asleep. During the day the Appellant first read what she had signed the previous evening, being a copy of her "willing resignation" dated 15 February 2005. She felt disbelief and complete shock when she realised what had happened. She sat in a corner holding herself and shaking. 27 February 2005 - After attending morning mass at the Polish church she was shocked to hear, outside the Church, there were rumours spreading around the entire Polish Community to the effect she had been dismissed from her position as Manager because of a discovery she had been embezzling the Club's money. One person allegedly came up to her and asked how much money had she really taken, saying "I've heard the sum is now around $10,000". Another person allegedly approached her and said "You guys are going to take everything from the Club, aren't you?". 28 February 2005 - The Appellant allegedly spoke to Mr Gierkowski who informed her that the amount of cash in the safe was accounted for, and there was actually a small surplus. No money whatsoever was missing. The Appellant said she felt slightly contented but was not relieved because she knew rumours would continue to escalate around the Polish Community. 1 March 2005 - The Appellant saw Dr Bell, a Psychiatrist, for the first time. He diagnosed her condition as an Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. In a report to WorkCover, dated 24 March 2005, Dr Bell wrote: "The only stressors of which I am aware, are those directly associated with her work. She tells me that she was 'unfairly dismissed' on 15.02.05. She had been the Manager of the Polish Club and states that she was asked to attend a meeting at which she was summarily dismissed by the President of the Polish Association of Queensland. This came as a severe shock to her and she was very considerably distressed immediately after the meeting and ever since. Some time later, she was directed to surrender all keys. She then discovered that the Association had had the locks to their premises changed. She was told that she was not allowed to enter the premises under any circumstances. She was then accused of having misappropriated funds. She adamantly maintained that she had done no such thing. She believes that she was then tricked into signing a letter of resignation. She did sign a document, but remembers afterwards that it had no letterhead and the document was in regard to someone else. She has subsequently tried to rescind this 'resignation'. She has made several phone calls to office bearers of the Association, only to have the phone 'hung up'. Two weeks later, she attended church, at which a number of the office bearers were in attendance. She was ostracised. When she asked if she could have a meeting with them, she was rudely dismissed and told that they had no time for any further dealings with her. As far as I am aware, there are no stressors apart from this work-related situation.". Other issues - The Appellant also said, in her verbal evidence, she started to receive threatening phone calls a few days after her dismissal, as well as threatening letters in the mail. However, when pressed on this point by Mr Clarke, Counsel for Q-COMP, the Appellant couldn't remember when the phone calls started. She also confirmed that no mention was made of these calls in her statement to the WorkCover investigator, which she signed on 7 April 2005. It eventually turned out that the letters (Exhibits 36 and 40) were received in September and October 2005, well after the Appellant's decompensation. -- 10 of 27 -- 11 6. Recollections of the Participants called by the Appellant Mr Sebastian Bajon - In a statement signed on 28 November 2008 (Exhibit 14) Mr Bajon gave hearsay evidence about money which had gone missing during the course of a shift worked by the woman allegedly recommended by Mr Wikarjusz. In the course of this statement he expressed a view about the appropriateness of re-engaging the woman and a conversation with his mother who allegedly informed him Mr Wikarjusz had aggressively insisted the woman be allowed to continue work and she would have no say in the matter. Mr Bajon also allegedly witnessed a very heated discussion between Mr Wikarjusz and his mother regarding employing this woman to work as a cleaner at the Club. He recollected his mother was opposed to the idea because the woman had just broken her leg and she did not wish herself, or the Club, to be held accountable for any incidents which might occur whilst the woman was injured. He also alleged his mother told Mr Wikarjusz he could make a complaint to the Committee of Mangement if he wished, as a result of which Mr Wikarjusz stormed out of the room and slammed the door behind him. Mr Bajon alleged that after this time he noticed the relationship between his mother and Mr Wikarjusz change. Whereas they were quite friendly and amicable before the above event Mr Wikarjusz became "openly vicious" towards his mother, in that he would have arguments and disagreements with her in front of other Club employees and customers. Mr Bajon also recounted a conversation he allegedly overheard between Mr Wikarjusz and Mr Majewski while working at the Club. "They were discussing the fact that it was evident that the combined force of my mother and Alina Chojnacka (the president of the Club's Management Committee) was a formidable and powerful one at the Club, and that it would be impossible to get rid of both at the same time. I then overheard Leszek say that my mother would have to be taken care of first, and Alina soon afterwards." (paragraph 21 of Exhibit 14). Shortly after the above exchange, he allegedly witnessed another conversation between his mother and Ms Chojnacka during which he allegedly heard his mother explain to Ms Chojnacka that if they both supported each other they could stand strong, but if they didn't his mother would be forced out of the Club with Ms Chojnacka to follow soon after. Mr Bajon also gave further hearsay evidence about a conversation he allegedly had with Mr Kuszak not long after his mother's dismissal. In this conversation Mr Kuszak allegedly informed him that Mr Wikarjusz, Mr Listwan and two other Members of the Committee had threatened to resign from the Committee, during the 15 February 2005 meeting, if his mother was not dismissed from her position. In addition, Mr Kuszak allegedly said the money which had gone missing at the time of his mother's dismissal "was supposed to be missing". Mr Kuszak allegedly said (in words to the effect): "It's done like this - some cheques are hidden, the money does not add up, and the Manager gets fired. After some time the cheques are found … though by then the Manager is already gone, simple as that.". Mr Bajon said there were many rumours in the Polish community regarding the missing money and that his mother had somehow been involved or had even stolen it. This had caused her, and his whole family, great distress and impacted upon his mother's reputation. He claimed to have personally witnessed people gossiping about his mother and the money and turning away from her and the family when they visited the Polish church. Ms Janina Banaszak - Ms Banaszak said when she became Treasurer (in or around August 2003) she advised the Appellant to watch out for Mr Wikarjusz because there was always something he was not happy about with her performance. He was always "fault finding" and had a lot of complaints. He raised problems such as bar sales dropping and said he believed the Appellant was not doing enough to bring people into the Club. Mr Wikarjusz also believed if there were not many customers in the Club then the Appellant should serve in the bar and undertake her other duties as well. Ms Banaszak opined the Appellant was a very busy Manager and got very little assistance from the Committee. She organised dances and events at the Club, however not many people went. The Appellant always appeared very busy, even to the extent of mopping the premises at times, along with performing all of her other duties. The Appellant got the blame for everything, including the grass not being property mowed "when this was out of her control". All these complaints came from Mr Wikarjusz. The Appellant generally attended the Committee meetings. Therefore she was present when Mr Wikarjusz raised his complaints and would have been aware of what the problems were and what was being said. The Appellant also responded verbally to Mr Wikarjusz in regards to many of the complaints or issues raised. No formal written warnings were issued to the Appellant while the witness was on the Committee. Ms Banaszak's statement to the WorkCover investigator, dated 20 April 2005, (Exhibit 13) also contains a great detail of hearsay evidence as a result of discussions she held with the Appellant and Mr Kuszak. However, I have not -- 11 of 27 -- 12 considered this material because it is simply not admissible. Another statement prepared by Ms Banaszak "To whom it may concern", dated 9 September 2005 (Exhibit 12), also contains matters which are not relevant to the issues I am required to decide. Ms Irena Bielawska - Ms Bielawska was a witness to a 10-15 minute mobile phone call from Mr Wikarjusz to her daughter on 6 September 2004 (see above). A detailed account of this conversation was contained in Exhibit 10 (a statement by Ms Bielawska to Q-COMP dated 18 September 2005), said to have been prepared from notes made on, or around, the date of the actual conversation. However, these notes were said to have subsequently been destroyed. In summary, Ms Bielawska said Mr Wikarjusz spoke to her daughter in a very aggressive and unfriendly tone and told her it would not be her decision who would be working at the Club, because it was not her private business to do as she pleased, and that he had promised the other woman that she could work and that she would be working whether the Appellant liked it or not. Her daughter told Mr Wikarjusz she was very sorry but the woman would not be working at the Club and if Mr Wikarjusz had a problem with that he should make a complaint to the Committee of Management. Ms Bielawska said she had witnessed Mr Wikarjusz talking to her daughter in the corridors of the Club on several occasions. After every one of these conversations her daughter would always seem very distressed and agitated. Ms Bielawska also said that after her daughter's dismissal from the Club she bore witness to, and heard of, many different rumours - among them one that her daughter had been dismissed as a result of problems accounting for Club money she had been responsible for. Ms Bielawska also said the Appellant had to change her home phone number as a result of receiving many threatening telephone calls. Ms Maria Beata Borowska - In a statement to Q-COMP dated 29 September 2005 (Exhibit 9), Ms Borowska said she heard around $700 was missing from the safe in the week following the Appellant's dismissal and this information was "openly and freely passed around to anyone who would care to listen.". She said she heard this version of the story from Mr Kuszak but other Members of the Committee of Management "likewise freely passed this story on to others as well as discussed it openly amongst themselves.". Ms Borowska opined the above rumour quickly spread outside the confines of the Committee of Management into the Polish community, where the amount of missing money rose just as quickly as the rumours spread from $700 to $1,000 to $10,000 and more. In her statement to WorkCover, Ms Borowska said (paragraph 5) the Appellant was dismissed at the Committee of Management meeting on 15 February 2005 "… in an unfair manner in my opinion. As a personal witness present at the proceedings, I can attest to the following events and words said as an example:  Lesek Wikarjusz making several loud and hurtful proclamations, among them, that Eva either leaves the Polish Club, or he does.  Eva having her keys to the Club, as well as the safe, snatched from her hands in a very aggressive and forceful manner.". Ms Borowska also alleged that in the months leading up to her dismissal the Appellant always seemed fearful of Mr Wikarjusz "who would always treat her in a very intimidating and bullying manner. I recall how fearful Eva would become and (she) would even resort to rushing to some task such as mopping in order to avoid Lesek whenever she saw him arrive at the Club. He was always angry when the white tiled floors would not be absolutely spotless (at all times), and his brusque manner, was not only intimidating but demeaning as well." (paragraph 6). Ms Borowska was also critical of the decision taken by "Lesek Wikarjusz and the Committee" to devise a bar float docket where the Appellant would need to sign out the amount of float for the day as Manager then walk to the bar and sign it again as the "bar person" who received the float. At the end of the day she would have to do the reverse. Ms Borowska opined that this was a ridiculous and demeaning task for the Appellant. She also said this process had been discontinued as at September 2005. The witness's statement to Q-COMP also contained the comment that the Committee of Management had decided the Appellant was not allowed to enter the office unless there were 2 Members of the Committee present. The witness opined, in her statement to WorkCover, this was "a blatant attempt to further demean Eva after she had been dismissed from her position, as well as spoil her name further within the Polish community" (paragraph 8). However, when the issue of the alleged requirement to have 2 Committee Members present was explored in cross-examination (transcript pg 2-44 to 2-46) it became apparent that the allegation was without foundation, as was another allegation to the effect the Committee Members had been directed, "most likely (by) Lesek", not to talk to the Appellant. Ms Borowska said she was the person who wrote up the minutes of the meeting of the Committee of Management held on 11 January 2005. When taken to various items in the minutes and asked whether what was recorded had been discussed, Ms Borowska responded by saying it must have been because that was what was recorded. She also agreed -- 12 of 27 -- 13 that the Committee had held concerns about the profitability of the Club for some time and that was "definitely the case" in January 2005. She also said the state of the Club's financial position in February 2005 was "poor". Ms Borowska also said she would occasionally open the Club, because no one was around and people were waiting outside. She would also serve clients at the bar when no one else was there and would write down what had been purchased on a piece of paper because she wasn't confident to use the till and didn't know the prices. She said there should be a price list for the customers and for the people who served but sometimes it wasn't there (transcript p2-22). She agreed that at the time of the 11 January 2005 meeting it was "most likely" there was no proper price list in the bar (transcript p2-23). She also agreed (transcript p2-23):  the Committee was concerned at the amount of time the Appellant was spending away from the Club;  the Committee had mentioned "many times during the meetings" that the Appellant should put in place a log book of her times of coming into and leaving the Club;  there was a concern about the answering of the phone in that "either nobody would answer or (the) answering machine wasn't switched on". Ms Borowska also agreed there was a lot of dissatisfaction within the Committee about the Appellant's performance as Manager and this had been the case for some time. She also agreed there were a number of issues where the Committee considered the Appellant's management to be wanting (transcript p2-25). In response to a question about whether there had been a "building groundswell of dissatisfaction" in the Committee of Management with the Appellant's performance as Manager the witness answered "that's right … the minutes manifest that. Yes, yes.". The witness also indicated the Appellant had been asked "many times" by the Committee to explain what she was doing (transcript p2-35). Ms Borowska also confirmed the Appellant told the Committee, after Ms Chojnacka informed her a decision had been made to terminate her contract, that she had been thinking about the unpleasant situation with work for some time and had decided to put in a resignation soon after the Easter holidays. Ms Krystyna Gwizdalla - Ms Gwizdalla indicated she could not comment on anything which occurred in the Committee meetings since 2003 as she had not been a Member of the Committee since that time. The majority of information contained in her statement to WorkCover, signed on 20 April 2005, contained hearsay material provided to her by the Appellant. However, in terms of direct evidence, the witness said she and the Appellant checked the figures from the bar takings on the day when the woman allegedly recommended by Mr Wikarjusz worked and found there was money missing. In her statement to WorkCover, dated 20 April 2005, Ms Gwzdalla said: "40. It has been all over the Polish Community that there was a lot of unaccounted money at the (Club) from when the (Appellant) was Manager. I have even been told by Committee Members that there was a lot of money which was not accounted for when the Claimant was Manager. I do not want to name the name of this Committee Member.". When she was asked to name the Committee Member referred to she indicated she could not remember this person's name. She also indicated it was close to a couple of months after the Appellant's termination and "it was just a hearsay, nothing.". She also agreed the allegation put to her was that there was money missing, not that the money had been stolen by the Appellant, saying "No, and its never appeared in the books that money went astray." (transcript p2-101). 7. Recollections of the Main Participants called by the Respondent Ms Alina Chojnacka - Ms Chojnacka indicated that after Mr Wikarjusz became Treasurer he started looking into the finances of the Club and, as a result of this, had been asking the Appellant a number of questions - as were other Committee Members. The Appellant never complained to her about Mr Wikarjusz, although she did recall her making a comment, in an offhand way, that he appeared to be picky. She did not pay much attention to this comment and did not notice any change in the working relationship between the Appellant and Mr Wikarjusz. One of the matters identified by Mr Wikarjusz was the lack of evidence of takings over the bar, especially during functions. This was because tapes from the cash register weren't readable. Other concerns also began to surface. People began to complain that the Club wasn't open when it was supposed to be open; the price of room hire was changed from the quoted price at the last minute when people came to pay; people were being charged different prices for drinks because the casual staff didn't know how much they were supposed to charge; there was a lack of receipts for cash payments, and so on. The Appellant was also buying soft drinks in local shops, instead of having them delivered, when she could have been spending time on advertising or approaching new clients. -- 13 of 27 -- 14 These and other concerns were discussed at the Committee meeting on 20 October 2004 and it was decided to write a letter to the Appellant (see above) asking her to address them. Ms Chojnacka said the Committee did not expect everything would happen overnight but progressively the Committee would get some responses to the matters raised. The Appellant was also asked during a number of Committee meetings why she had not had the door, which had been damaged during the break-in, fixed to make it a secure door. The Appellant responded by saying she had obtained a number of quotes and she was following these up. Ms Chojnacka recalled that when the Committee asked the Appellant for a copy of the quotes she said they had been thrown out. The door was only fixed after the Appellant was dismissed. The Appellant phoned Ms Chojnacka on or around 5 January 2005 to enquire why the Club was open and to ask why she had not been informed. Ms Chojnacka told the Appellant the Committee had arranged for a stocktake to be undertaken while the Club was closed and to satisfy some members who were asking to purchase beer. During this conversation, or another one around the same time, Ms Chojnacka also told the Appellant the Committee was going to meet on 11 January as there were a number of important things they wished to discuss. The Appellant asked if she was required to attend but was told there was no need. When the Committee of Management met on 11 January 2005 everyone was completely dissatisfied with the organisation and conduct of the New Years Eve event, with the minutes describing it as a "fiasco". Particular criticism was raised about the lack of advertising for the event and the absence of any announcement about how those intending to come to the function might purchase tickets during the Manager's absence, on annual leave, in the week prior to the event. There was also significant criticism made about the lack of cold soft drinks and a shortage of other drinks which people might reasonably have expected to have been able to purchase (e.g. mineral water). Ms Chojnacka said she took some guests from Adelaide to the event and she felt ashamed. It was not a very nice evening and not many people attended. After discussing a number of other concerns about the Appellant's performance as Manager, including her alleged failure to address many of the matters raised in Ms Chojnacka's letter of 22 October 2004, the Committee resolved that the President would write another letter to the Appellant asking her to come to the next scheduled meeting on 1 February 2005 with her suggestions as to how the financial position of the Club could be improved. The Appellant phoned her on the day of this Committee meeting, or on the next day, to ask how the meeting went. Mr Chojnacka told the Appellant "she was going to get a letter, not a really nice letter, but a letter…" (transcript p.3-75, line 56) which would be sent to her via email. Ms Chojnacka said the first letter in October 2004 was informal and advised the Appellant of a range of matters she was expected to action within a reasonable time. However, because most of these issues had not been addressed by the time of the 11 January 2005 meeting "(t)he letter of 18 January was a bit more tough and advised the Claimant to show cause why her contract should not be terminated. The reason for this was as the Claimant always had an excuse and never presented the results or the answer which we asked for. The Committee was not making any progress with the Claimant." (paragraph 35 of Ms Chojnacka's statement to WorkCover, dated 22 April 2005). Ms Chojnacka opined that the Appellant had ample time to develop a response to her letter of 18 January 2005 before the next meeting because most of the issues were from October 2004. However, when the meeting took place on 3 February 2005 (it had been moved back several days at the request of the Appellant, who wished for more time to prepare) the Appellant was not really prepared and presented a written business plan which was handwritten and very scrappy. The Committee decided it was not good enough and asked the Appellant to bring to the next meeting a business plan and a list of customers. Ms Chojnacka recalled that all of the Committee Members had questions of the Appellant at this meeting because what she brought to the meeting was not satisfactory. On 15 February 2005 the Committee met again. Ms Chojnacka recalled the Appellant started to present her business plan and supplied a list of customers as requested. She recalled the list was very short and nothing like the Committee had expected. Equally, the business plan wasn't what the Committee had expected. When the Appellant was called out of the meeting, to attend to a client, the Committee members discussed what the Appellant had put forward and what it should do next. Ms Chojnacka said the Committee had been getting to the point of dismissing the Appellant prior to this meeting "as we were requesting ever basic things from her which were not occurring. The (Appellant) always had excuses, however you cannot have excuses for months ongoing." (paragraph 47 of statement to WorkCover). As a result of the discussion, Ms Chojnacka decided to put the issue of the Appellant's continued employment to the Committee for decision. She recalled 11 people attended the meeting and 1 member abstained from voting. However, all other members voted to dismiss the Appellant. After discussion about how this should be effected it was resolved to offer the Appellant the opportunity to resign of her own accord, rather than be presented with a letter of termination. In either instance the Appellant was to be paid 4 weeks' salary. Ms Chojnacka opined that prior to the meeting she wasn't really prepared to terminate the Appellant's contract, although she knew the issue had to be discussed. However, during the discussion the Committee decided that it really should -- 14 of 27 -- 15 terminate the contract and she was convinced that was the right way to go. She came to this conclusion because she couldn't see there was any chance of the Appellant becoming a better Manager, capable of fulfilling the Committee's expectations and improving the organisation. (transcript pages 3-76 and 3-77). The Appellant was asked to come back into the meeting. Upon her return she attempted to continue to present her report. However, Ms Chojnacka interrupted her and said it was very hard to have to tell her this, but the Committee had decided to terminate her contract of employment. Ms Chojnacka told the Appellant she had the choice to resign herself, with good references, otherwise the Committee would have to terminate her contract in the normal way. The Appellant responded by saying she was going to resign after Easter anyway. Ms Chojnacka advised the Appellant the decision was effective immediately. The Appellant asked "why so quickly" and asked to have two weeks. Ms Chojnacka told the Appellant it didn't matter anyway as the Club was going to pay her 4 weeks' salary. Ms Chojnacka asked the Appellant to hand her keys back to the Club and recalled Mr Wikarjusz added "and the safe". Ms Chojnacka could not recall Mr Wikarjusz saying anything else to the Appellant during this part of the meeting. The Appellant was asked when she would bring in her letter of resignation and she said "tomorrow". Ms Chojnacka rejected the Appellant's contention she was told she would be "forcibly removed from her position in disgrace," saying she attempted to deal with the Appellant in as positive a way as she could given the circumstances. At no time did she indicate to the Appellant her image would be tarnished. Ms Chojnacka also recalled Mr Wikarjusz asking the Appellant, during the meeting, to open the safe so that monies could be counted and the Appellant agreeing to this request. She also recalled Mr Wikarjusz advising her he was going somewhere with the Appellant, the Appellant asking him if he needed the key and him saying "yes". Ms Chojnacka also recalled that after the meeting finished she offered the Appellant a drink at the bar while she waited for her husband to pick her up. She recalled the Appellant sat alone at the bar for most of the time although a number of people did go up to her. The Appellant did not bring in her resignation on the next day as promised. On Thursday 17 February 2005 Ms Chojnacka phoned the Appellant at home and asked about documentation she was supposed to bring into the Club as well as the letter of resignation. The Appellant advised she would bring these in. However, on the following day (18 February 2005) the Committee received a letter from the Appellant saying she did not agree with the termination. There was also a doctor's certificate stating the Appellant had been ill since 16 February 2005. As a result of this development Ms Chojnacka discussed the matter with some other Committee Members and it was agreed that a letter of termination should be sent to the Appellant because she had not brought in the letter of resignation as previously agreed with the Committee on 15 February 2005. The letter of termination was sent on 20 February 2005. Mr Gierkowski contacted Ms Chojnacka on 22 February 2005 and advised her the Appellant had agreed to resign her position. Arrangements were then made to meet with the Appellant at the Club that afternoon. Ms Chojnacka said that on the afternoon of 22 February the Appellant, Mr Listwan, Mr Gierkowski, together with two other Members of the Audit Committee, and herself were present at the Club. Ms Chojnacka asked the Appellant if she had agreed to sign a letter of resignation and she said "yes". Ms Chojnacka handed across a letter of resignation which the Appellant read and signed. It was then realised the letter was not on a letterhead so another copy was printed and the Appellant signed the second copy. Ms Chojnacka said the Appellant tried to be sarcastic towards her, asking if she should introduce herself again as it did not appear to the Appellant that Ms Chojnacka was talking to her like she normally did. Ms Chojnacka said she did not respond to this comment, but conceded she was acting more formally towards the Appellant under the circumstances. However, apart from this issue, she noticed no change in the Appellant's behaviour or demeanour compared to the way she usually acted or appeared. Ms Chojnacka also recalled meeting with the Appellant, at her request, about one week later, at which time the Appellant asked who had prepared the letter of resignation. Ms Chojnacka replied "I did". Ms Chojnacka also rejected the Appellant's claim she had told her, during the course of this meeting, "if you had any sense of personal honour, you would stop showing your face around Polonia.". Ms Chojnacka also could not remember any conversation along the lines suggested by Mr Sebastian Bajon to the effect the Appellant had said to her that if they supported each other they could stand strong, but if they did not the Appellant would be forced out of the Club with Ms Chojnacka being forced out soon afterwards. Mr Marek Gierkowski - In a statement to WorkCover, signed on 22 April 2005 (Exhibit 16), Mr Gierkowski said he had spoken to the Appellant not long after her termination on 15 February 2005. She told him she was dismissed without notice, effective immediately. She also told him she offered to remain at work to clear up the books, and things like that, but was advised not to worry about it. She also told him she had told the Committee it was her intention to resign after Easter 2005. -- 15 of 27 -- 16 Mr Gierkowski said he spoke to the Appellant within 3 or 4 days after she was dismissed and informed her there was money missing, about $1,000. This conversation occurred at his place of work when she came to see him. He also advised her the Audit Commission had been brought in to count the money. He asked her to come in to the Club and meet with him in an attempt to work out where the money was. She was more than happy to meet with him about the finances and they agreed to meet, from memory, a couple of days later. However, the money was found "maybe the following day". What had occurred was money had been placed into a different spot in the safe which the Audit Committee did not know to look for. He recalled this money had been handed to Mr Kuszak by the Appellant and placed in the wrong place in the safe. He also recalled contacting the Appellant on the same day and telling her the money had been found. However, she already knew about it because she had been in contact with Mr Kuszak. Nonetheless, he asked her to come into the Club anyway to go through the books and she agreed. When the Appellant came in to the Club on 22 February 2005 he and the other Members of the Audit Commission had just met in another room. Present were the Appellant, Alina Chojnacka, Paul Listwan and himself. He recalled the Appellant was upset with Alina Chojnacka and asked him if he knew her. He calmed the Appellant down and spoke to her about it being in her best interests not to push anyone to do anything against her. He also told her no one was trying to do anything against her. Later on the Appellant said she had decided to resign. This comment was made to Ms Chojnacka, Mr Listwan and himself. The Appellant said she would write a letter of resignation. He could not recall whether it was Ms Chojnacka or Mr Listwan who offered to write the letter for her. The Appellant agreed and a letter was prepared. He recalled Mr Listwan typing. The first resignation the Appellant signed was without a letterhead. Later on she signed another copy on letterhead. The Appellant was present at the Club for "probably (a) couple of hours if not longer because there was a problem to bring the letterheads on the computer." (transcript p3-40). During this time he and the Appellant went through a number of questions he had about the books as a result of the earlier meeting of the Audit Commission. She was able to answer his questions and to clear up something which the Audit Commission found which was different to normal (transcript p3-37). The Appellant "was definitely aware she was signing a letter of resignation. It was also most definitely the (Appellant's) choice to resign her position. The (Appellant) was not pushed to resign at all and she was even friendly at this point in time." (paragraph 51 of WorkCover statement). He had known the Appellant for a long time and had been with her on "hundreds of occasions". He knew her reactions and, in his opinion, "she was for me as normal as I know her." (transcript p3-25 and 3-27). Two (2) or 3 days later the Appellant telephoned him and told him it was her intention to recall her resignation as she was not able to receive dole payments because she had resigned. He suggested she talk to the Committee Members about payment of time in lieu but recalled she was not happy to talk to the Committee as she only wanted to talk to Ms Chojnacka and Mr Listwan. Mr Gierkowski said he attended the same church as the Appellant and socialised with the same group. He recalled there were rumours about the reasons the Appellant left the Club's employ. He told those who asked that because the Club was not making any profit the Committee decided to appoint a new Manager. He did not hear anything about any missing money until he heard it directly from the Appellant. She told him a couple of weeks after she was dismissed she had heard rumours about her taking money from the Club. Mr Leszek Wikarjusz - Mr Wikarjusz provided a statement to WorkCover and signed it on 5 May 2005. In it he said there were performance problems with the Appellant prior to August 2004, although she had not been issued with any formal warnings prior to that date. Problems were raised with the Appellant through Committee meetings and he also met with her one-on-one about some issues. The problems related to such matters as the hygiene of the Club and maintenance issues, such as uncut grass and rubbish outside the building. Mr Wikarjusz recalled that in the financial year prior to the Appellant's termination the Committee asked her to present ideas on how she was going to run the Club. He also asked her during Committee meetings to prepare a business plan and provide a list of regular customers, along with her ideas on how she proposed to organise the small conference room. The Committee also asked the Appellant to follow correct cash control procedures, such as cash being counted by the barperson before and after the shift, to ensure it balanced. However, the Appellant was not doing this although a dozen copies of the bar reconciliation the Committee wanted to be done had been printed and left in the bar (transcript p4-85). The Committee also wanted receipts submitted for cash payments. Mr Wikarjusz said if he was at the Club and saw something which needed to be attended to he may have pointed this out to the Appellant. This was because the quality of presentation and the way the Club was seen by others was of concern to him. The Appellant never complained to him about his practice of pointing out things for her to address. The Club was burgled around November 2004. The Appellant advised the Committee she had three quotations to replace the door which had been damaged during the break-in, but when he spoke to the insurance agency they advised there was only one quotation. When the Committee raised this with the Appellant she admitted there was only one -- 16 of 27 -- 17 quotation received. There were many discussions within the Committee about getting the door replaced. The Appellant had many excuses about not having it fixed, such as not being able to contact tradesmen or have them come in to do the work. Mr Wikarjusz admitted speaking to the Appellant many times about the door, as it was a big concern to him because the Club was not secure, but denied threatening the Appellant by saying he would take the matter to the Committee. He said the Committee was well aware of the problem concerning the door from the day of the break-in. The door was not replaced until after the Appellant was dismissed. The Club was opened in early January 2005, not by himself but by other Committee Members, with the full knowledge and permission of a number of Committee Members. Mr Wikarjusz attempted to contact the Appellant to advise her the Club was to be opened but was not able to contact her. Before the Club was opened it had to be cleaned because there was rubbish everywhere from the New Year's Eve Ball, including dirty glasses and half empty bottles of wine, drinks and milk, some of them with insects inside. After the Club was cleaned a stocktake was undertaken before the Club was opened. By the time of the 11 January 2005 meeting the whole Committee was tired of constantly reminding the Appellant about her duties. She always had a series of excuses to the effect she was going to do something later or that she was doing something more important. This was at a time when the bar takings were shrinking and the Club was spending more than it was earning. He was also concerned the Club's investment account was not accumulating funds as it should if the Club was to assure its future (transcript p4-91). At the meeting on 3 February 2005 the Appellant presented her report about the New Year's Eve event. There was then some discussion about the letter Ms Chojnacka sent on 18 January 2005. The Appellant attempted to explain the lack of time she had available to manage the Club in that she had to clean and arrange the work of the staff. After discussion about a number of issues the Appellant was asked to keep a log book of her time spent outside the Club and she agreed to do this. Mr Wikarjusz advised the Appellant of the need to improve the financial situation and asked her to prepare a business plan, a list of contacts for the companies who were associated with the Club and a list of a minimum of 20 companies to contact for advertising. She was also asked to attempt to find new suppliers. Mr Wikarjusz said he spoke to the Appellant in a normal conversational tone during this meeting and let her have her say. He did not recall having interrupted her, but conceded it might have happened, and did not recall telling her to stop gloating and praising herself. Mr Wikarjusz also opined the Appellant always had a lot of excuses about being busy doing other things, which also appeared not to be getting done, whenever she was asked to do something. At the meeting on 15 February 2005 the Appellant tabled a list of events for 2005, a list of the income for the Club from 1999 to 2005 and a list of the clients of the Club. This latter list was very amateurish and very small. Mr Wikarjusz told the Appellant her financial analysis was not competent but did not recall her response. He recalled the Appellant was called out of the Committee meeting for Club business but believed the Appellant had completed her response to the Committee by this time. After she left, the Committee discussed the Appellant's performance and it was agreed nothing had really changed. The Committee then discussed what it should do. The President, Ms Chojnacka, suggested the Committee take a vote on the matter. Of the 10 Committee Members present, 8 of them voted for the Appellant to be dismissed. It was also agreed by everyone present the Appellant would be "dismissed instantly and paid 4 weeks leave in lieu." (paragraph 59 of WorkCover statement). When the Appellant returned to the Committee meeting she was given the option of resigning her position, with a reference, or being terminated. He could not recall who told her she was to be dismissed. The Appellant said she would write a letter of resignation and hand this to the Committee. She also said she wanted to work until Easter but he responded by saying he did not believe it would be good practice for that to occur. The Appellant then asked for another week and he told her he did not agree to that. She then asked to work 3 days and he advised her "that would not happen" and she would be paid 4 weeks in lieu of notice. He also asked her to return certain Club paperwork which she had at home, and advised her she would have to hand over the keys to the Club. Mr Wikarjusz said he did not yell at the Appellant at all during the meeting. He may have made a comment to her about wasting time, but did not recall having done so. At the end of the meeting he asked the Appellant to open the safe and count the money together with Mr Listwan, Mr Majewski and himself. He asked for this to occur in a normal conversational tone. The Appellant stood up and went to the bar, where she counted money, and then to the safe. Everything was documented and the Appellant signed off on the figures accounted for. She did not object to doing any of this. The Appellant went down the steps and he walked behind her as there was another bar downstairs. He did not know where she was going, or what she was doing, but walked behind her to give her time to give him the key. When she was half way down the steps she turned around and asked him, sarcastically, if he wanted the key and he said "Yes". The Appellant then walked up several stairs and forcefully handed him the key. The Appellant then went to the upstairs bar and had a few glasses of wine while she waited for her husband to pick her up. Mr Wikarjusz totally refuted the Appellant's allegation that he confronted her on the stairs and shouted in her face "the keys!". -- 17 of 27 -- 18 Mr Wikarjusz said the reason for the Appellant's termination was because the Committee had repeatedly asked her for documentation such as a business plan but the Appellant never produced this. "The Club was going bankrupt and the (Appellant) was not doing anything in an attempt to assist the financial situation." (paragraph 64 of WorkCover statement). Mr Wikarjusz recalled there was some discrepancy with the money at around the time of the Appellant's departure. He said it was very difficult to calculate the money as the Appellant had a petty cash cheque which she had not cashed. The Committee asked Mr Gierkowski and the Audit team to check the books, but he was not involved in that process. It was never discussed within the Committee that the Appellant had taken any money from the Club at any time. He did not know where the rumours started because they were completely untrue. His response to anyone who had asked about the Appellant leaving the Club was that "she had decided to change careers". In relation to the woman he had allegedly recommended to the Appellant, Mr Wikarjusz said he heard this woman was looking for work and he knew the Appellant was frequently short of staff so he gave her the woman's phone number. He later heard there was some money missing, on her second day of work, and agreed he had spoken to the Appellant on her mobile phone about this matter although he didn't believe it was through a car speaker phone. He didn't remember raising his voice during this phone call but conceded it was possible. He also denied using any swear words. He indicated he was very upset at the time because the person was a new migrant to the country and if it was alleged "… you are taking money or you've stolen money it could stay with you for years and ruin your reputation forever." (transcript p4-81). Mr Wikarjusz also denied pressing the Appellant to retain this person in employment. Mr Wikarjusz agreed he had asked the Appellant to consider employing the woman as a cleaner even though she had broken her leg, saying he had canvassed the idea of the woman's husband filling in for her if she couldn't perform her duties. However he denied "strongly insisting" the Appellant employ the woman, saying it was her decision whether she did so or not. He also denied he was "openly aggressive" towards the Appellant in the Club and speaking to her in a loud and demeaning voice. 8. Medical Evidence Dr Tom Bell - Dr Bell wrote three (3) reports in relation to the Appellant. The first of those, dated 24 March 2005, concerned inter alia the nature of her condition and the identified stressors. The relevant extracts from this letter are set out (above) in the summary of the Appellant's evidence (see entry for 1 March 2005). The second report, dated 9 November 2005, to the Appellant's solicitors, expresses the opinion: "… that on 22.02.05, being in a state of severe emotional shock, and having taken 4 Frisium tablets she would not, in my opinion have been in a fit or competent state to understand the content and effect of documents provided to her on that date by her employer, the Polish Association.". The third report, also to the Appellant's solicitors, is dated 27 May 2008. In this letter Dr Bell advises that in addition to being diagnosed with chronic Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, the Appellant has developed an additional problem which is worthy of a secondary diagnoses, namely Conversion Disorder. He also opines both these conditions are "solely and directly attributable to the highly stressful events in her workplace which occurred in February 2005.". Dr Bell said he was still treating the Appellant at the time of the hearing and she was still very distressed by her condition. She continued to suffer physical manifestations of anxiety, which included very poor concentration and a short-term memory. He also said that when he first saw her, on 1 March 2005, he wasn't quite aware of the extent of the ostracization of the Appellant by members of the Polish Community. He opined that that event had certainly played a big role in the continuation of the Appellant's condition. However, this ostracization was peripheral as far as he was concerned, the main focus was, and remained, the manner by which she had been dismissed. "… it's the humiliation of what's happened to her, the way it's happened to her, just the emotional shock of being suddenly thrust into that situation. … the accusation of misappropriating funds, of course, is another thing which has had a major effect on her." (transcript page 3-53, lines 48-52). Under cross-examination, Dr Bell confirmed his reference to "the manner in which she had been dismissed" was a reference to the fact the Appellant had been dismissed without any warning, as was his reference to "being suddenly thrust into that situation". Dr Bell also indicated that, insofar as the operative stressors were concerned, the Appellant's summary dismissal (i.e. dismissal without notice) was pre-eminent. Other stressors were:  becoming aware of the locks being changed and being told she was not allowed to enter the premises under any circumstances; -- 18 of 27 -- 19  being accused of having misappropriated funds;  being tricked into signing a letter of resignation;  being ostracized by the Polish Community; and  the "gossip business". Of these stressors the first 5 (including the termination) were attributable to events in the workplace. The sixth, the "gossip business", came later. Dr Bell also said his opinions regarding the development of the Appellant's condition were based upon the information given to him by the Appellant being both accurate and truthful. Importantly, he confirmed he had no way of knowing whether the Appellant took 4 Frisium tablets, as she alleged, on 22 February 2005. Impressions of the witnesses and general comments about their evidence General Comments - Very few of the witnesses professed to have any independent recall of the relevant events, which occurred almost 4 years previously. Most of their recollection was drawn from reading copies of minutes, letters to the Appellant and statements taken by the WorkCover investigator in April and/or May 2005. The only witnesses who professed to have any independent recall of the matters at issue were the Appellant, her mother and her son, respectively. Further, because of the passing of time and the absence of other documentation from the relevant period, which had gone missing (see above), the ability of witnesses to refresh their memory was restricted. As such, I have relied more on each witness's general recollections of events than I would normally have done in order to get a "feel" about the truth, or otherwise, of their evidence, considered in the context of other witnesses' evidence and the available documentary material. The Appellant - Given her apparent mental state at the relevant time the Appellant's alleged recollection of some specific events was, to put it simply, quite remarkable. However, on other matters she was very vague, or professed an inability to remember. I gained the impression she had re-visited selected events in her mind so often over the last 4 or so years - factoring in her own perceptions about her treatment and the perceived behaviour of others around her - that these "re-enactments" had become her stored memory, which she genuinely believed was accurate. However, some of her recollections do not sit well with the evidence of a number of other witnesses, including Ms Borowska, Ms Chojnacka and Mr Wikarjusz but most importantly, from my perspective, Mr Gierkowski. I also gained the impression the Appellant exaggerated some of the alleged actions of Mr Wikarjusz towards her and downplayed the bona fides, and relevance, of a number of the clear concerns which the Committee of Management had about her performance. She seemed to be of the belief that if she proffered a response to a matter raised with her by Mr Wikarjusz or the Committee that should have been enough to satisfy his/their concern. A case in point was the repair to the fire-door, damaged during the break-in where the Appellant did not seem to appreciate the Committee might have had genuine and legitimate concerns it was still not fixed after 3 months. Finally, there was the Appellant's evidence about Exhibit 34. This Exhibit comprised a purported copy of the Appellant's hours and wages records from the week ending 4 July 2004 until the week ending 12 September 2004, including the cheque numbers associated with the payment of wages in the respective weeks. However, whereas the genuine hours and wages record showed the Appellant receiving a travel allowance of $52.00, total earnings of $552.00 and net earnings of $465.00, Exhibit 34 showed her comparable earnings as $100.00, $600.00 and $513.00, respectively. When questioned why she had prepared the second document, showing a higher level of earnings, the Appellant claimed she had prepared it one evening while she was sitting in her office waiting to close the Club. She alleged she had been, in essence, "doodling" while thinking about what it would take to allow her to apply for income protection insurance, which was only available to persons earning in excess of $30,000.00 per annum. The Appellant's evidence about the nature of this document, and the circumstances under which it had been prepared, was completely implausible. To put it bluntly, she was being untruthful. The document had clearly been prepared by the Appellant with the intention of demonstrating to the insurance company she was earning in excess of $30,000.00 per annum. I also did not think the Appellant was being truthful about the number of quotations she had obtained to have the fire-door fixed after it was damaged during the November 2004 break-in at the Club. Nor do I think she was being truthful about her alleged inability to remember a conversation in which she told Mr Gierkowski she wished to withdraw her resignation because she could not access the dole. These are just three (3) examples of concerns I have about her evidence. All things considered, I have decided to treat the Appellant's evidence with a great deal of caution. Where her evidence is supported by documents and/or other witnesses I have been prepared to accept it. However, where her evidence conflicts with other witnesses I have generally accepted the evidence of the other witnesses. Mr Sebastian Bajon - I did not find Mr Bajon to be a particularly credible witness. Although he was an alleged witness to several critical events at the relevant time, he does not appear to have made any statements to WorkCover in 2005, nor to the subsequent review proceedings before Q-COMP. His evidence in these proceedings was primarily provided -- 19 of 27 -- 20 in the form of a written statement, signed on 28 November 2008. The majority of the information contained in the statement is hearsay but it does record details of two (2) conversations Mr Bajon allegedly witnessed. The first of these alleged conversations is one between Mr Wikarjusz and Mr Majewski in which they allegedly discussed "ousting" the Appellant, as Manager of the Club, and Ms Chojnacka, as President of the Club's Committee of Management. The second alleged conversation was one between his mother and Ms Chojnacka in relation to standing firm against Mr Wikarjusz and Mr Majewski. At the time of hearing Mr Bajon's evidence I thought it was somewhat "convenient" that he had been in a position to hear such conversations, given his relatively infrequent attendance at the Club and the importance of the subject matter in the overall scheme of things. I also thought it strange that he had not stepped forward in 2005. These concerns, together with the fact that each of Mr Wikarjusz and Ms Chojnacka categorically rejected any suggestion the alleged conversations occurred, causes me to reject Mr Bajon's evidence on these points. For similar reasons, I reject his (hearsay) evidence about the alleged conversation with Mr Kusack to the effect the missing money "was supposed to be missing". The evidence has a ring of convenience, as well as implausibility, about it. Ms Janina Banaszak - Ms Banaszak had clearly established some personal friendship with the Appellant as a result of her frequent attendances at the Club and previous role on the Committee. In those circumstances she was reluctant to offer any criticism of the Appellant's performance as Manager. However, she clearly had some issues with Mr Wikarjusz, who replaced her as Treasurer in 2004, and plainly did not agree with some of the views he held about how the Appellant should have undertaken her duties. In the end result though, nothing turns one way or the other on any of Ms Banaszak's evidence. Ms Irena Bielawska - Ms Bielawska, who gave all of her evidence in her native tongue, clearly identified with her daughter's circumstances and seemed determined to assist her daughter as much as she could. In general, I thought her evidence to be quite credible, although she appeared somewhat prone to exaggerating the odd point here or there. This was particularly so concerning her observations of her daughter's interactions with Mr Wikarjusz, with Ms Bielawska's views about him being, quite obviously (and quite naturally), influenced by her daughter's attitude towards that gentleman. Ms Maria Beata Borowska - It was difficult to know what to make of Ms Borowska's evidence. In her September 2005 statement to WorkCover she was quite supportive of the position adopted by the Appellant. However, when she was cross-examined on a number of matters involving the Appellant's interactions with the Committee of Management, Ms Borowska agreed the Committee had a number of concerns about the Appellant's performance which, she said, had been the situation for some time. Like several of the other witnesses, Ms Borowska did not seem to have a very high opinion of Mr Wikarjusz. I gained the impression from reading her statement to WorkCover and listening to her evidence, that she, at a personal level, disagreed with some of the views and actions of Mr Wikarjusz and, for this reason, was happy to join with others who might wish to criticise him for one reason or another. This "bias" clearly shows in her evidence. However, other than this aspect, I thought she honestly answered other questions put to her about the Appellant's performance as Manager and the Committee of Management's discussions. Ms Krystyna Gwizdalla - Apart from confirming the Appellant's evidence that money had gone missing during a shift worked by the woman recommended by Mr Wikarjusz, Ms Gwizdalla could not shed any additional light on any of the other matters before the Commission. If anything, she resiled from one allegation contained in her original statement to WorkCover, in April 2005, about being told there was a lot of money not accounted for when the Appellant was Manager of the Club. Ms Alina Chojnacka - Ms Chojnacka presented as a straightforward, no-nonsense sort of person. Although she had very little independent recall of the events of 2005, her memory was "revived" by reading certain of her letters to the Appellant during the relevant period, as well as by reading the available minutes. From time to time additional recollections of the relevant events came to her mind as she was asked particular questions or as she started to recall events she had been taken to by her examiner. While Ms Chojnacka's general attitude and behaviour seemed to suggest she did not wish to be involved in the present proceedings, I gained the impression she was doing her best to recall the relevant events and to give an honest recollection about them. As such, I have accepted the general thrust and content of her evidence, albeit that, at times, it might have been lacking in detail or slightly inaccurate because of a lack of complete recall. Mr Marek Gierkowski - Having regard to my ultimate decision concerning the date of, and reason for, the Appellant's decompensation it is not really necessary to reach any conclusions about the evidence given by Mr Gierkowski. However, in the event my decision to only consider the appropriateness of the relevant management action in relation to -- 20 of 27 -- 21 events up to, and including, 15 February 2005 (see below) is incorrect I have decided to record my impressions of Mr Gierkowski and his evidence as below. Mr Gierkowski's memory of events was, at times, somewhat different to the information contained in his statement to WorkCover in April 2005. However, this was more to do with the sequence of events rather than the actual events themselves. Because of this I have decided to generally rely upon Mr Gierkowski's statement to WorkCover to determine the actual sequence of events rather than his memory of that sequence some 4 years later. Putting aside the issue of the witness's recollection of the sequence of events, I thought Mr Gierkowski was a very credible witness and have placed great reliance upon his evidence. At the relevant time he was very good friends with the Appellant and was also a person the Polish Community thought capable of acting independently of the Committee of Management when it elected him to a position on the Audit Commission. His involvement in the events in and around February 2005 seems to have been in the capacity of an "honest broker", trying to do the best he could for the Appellant, the Club and the Polish Community, respectively. I am satisfied on my consideration of Mr Gierkowski's evidence that:  the Appellant visited him at his place of work on either 16, 17 or 18 February 2005, when he informed her there was approximately $1,000 missing, or unaccounted for, at the Club.  he asked her to come into the Club to meet with him, and the Audit Commission, in an attempt to reconcile the finances. They agreed to meet for this purpose a couple of days later, most probably on Tuesday 22 February 2005.  however, the money was reconciled before the Appellant was due to meet Mr Gierkowski at the Club. More likely than not the missing money was found, and the books reconciled, during the Audit Commission meeting on 22 February 2005 (see Mr Gierkowski's evidence of the date of report of the Audit Commission at transcript pg 3-36).  Mr Gierkowski phoned the Appellant to inform her that the missing money had been found but asked her to come into the Club, nonetheless, to answer certain questions he had about the books of account. The Appellant agreed and came to the Club late in the afternoon on 22 February 2005.  when the Appellant came to the Club to meet with Mr Gierkowski, Ms Chojnacka and Mr Listwan were also present. The Appellant was somewhat aloof towards Ms Chojnacka, undoubtedly because she was still angry about her dismissal. In the course of going through the books with the Appellant Mr Gierkowski spoke to the Appellant and asked her to "settle down". He also asked the Appellant to consider whether it would be in her best interests to resign her employment, as she had indicated to the Committee the previous week.  I am satisfied that the Appellant then informed Mr Gierkowski, Mr Listwan and Ms Chojnacka that she wished to resign her employment, as a result of which either Ms Chojnacka or Mr Listwan typed up a letter of resignation.  the Appellant signed this resignation in the full knowledge of what it was. She later signed a second copy on letterhead after being asked to do so. Again, she fully realised that what she was signing was a resignation.  I do not accept the Appellant's evidence that she wasn't aware of what was happening at this meeting because she had taken four frisium tablets immediately prior to coming to the meeting. I am satisfied, on the evidence of Mr Gierkowski and Ms Chojnacka, that the Appellant was very aware that what she had freely agreed to sign was a resignation. In particular, I record that she was not "tricked" into signing the resignation. Mr Lesek Wikarjusz - Mr Wikarjusz is a large well built man and speaks with a very loud and deep voice. Like Ms Chojnacka he also presented as a "no-nonsense", straight to the point, sort of person. His physical size, general demeanour and voice are characteristics which could also make him quite intimidating to a number of people. However, I was quite impressed by Mr Wikarjusz as a witness and the way he responded to the questions put to him, especially by Counsel for the Appellant. I have, despite the criticism of him by several witnesses, decided to accept essentially all of his evidence. Mr Wikarjusz was clearly concerned about the financial position of the Club and was trying to do something to address that situation. He was also clearly concerned about the way the Appellant was contributing to the Club's demise by the way (he believed) she was approaching her role. His attempts to get the Appellant and other members of the Committee of Management to address some of the things which he thought would help the Club go forward clearly did not resonate well with some other members of the Committee of Management, nor with the Appellant. However, the fact that other people might have been prepared to let matters "drift along", whereas Mr Wikarjusz and some members of the Committee wished to address them, does not mean it was inappropriate for Mr Wikarjusz, as Secretary, to agitate in the Committee for certain matters - including the Appellant's performance as Manager - to be addressed. -- 21 of 27 -- 22 FINDINGS 1. Date of Decompensation On the basis of the evidence presented there seems to be little doubt, or argument, that the Appellant decompensated on the evening of Tuesday 15 February 2005. Dr Bell subsequently diagnosed the Appellant as having an Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. 2. Did the Appellant's injury arise out, or in the course of, her employment? Dr Bell, who first saw the Appellant on 1 March 2005, opined there were five operative stressors contributing to the Appellant's psychiatric condition at that time. These were:  her "unfair, summary, dismissal" on 15 February 2005;  becoming aware of the locks to the Club being changed and being told she was not allowed to enter the premises under any circumstances;  being accused of misappropriating funds;  being tricked into signing a letter of resignation; and  being ostracized by the Polish community. Dr Bell opined that the main focus of the Appellant was, and remained, "… the manner in which she had been dismissed … it's the humiliation of what's happened to her, the way it's happened to her, just the emotional shock of being suddenly thrust into that situation (of being summarily dismissed)". The accusation of misappropriation of funds had also had a major effect on her, as had her alleged ostracisation by members of the Polish community - although this had come later. The interesting thing about Dr Bell's evidence is that four of the five nominated stressors in the development of her condition, as it was diagnosed on 1 March 2005, relate to events which occurred after her decompensation on 15 February 2005. As such, they appear to relate more to the magnitude of the Appellant's decompensation, rather than the actual decompensation itself. As a reinforcement of this point Dr Bell indicated the severe shock the Appellant suffered as a result of her (alleged) unfair, summary, dismissal was pre-eminent amongst the stressors. On the basis of this evidence, and the implicit concession in the oral and written submissions of Counsel for the Appellant that it was the circumstances leading up to the Appellant's dismissal, and the circumstances surrounding the dismissal itself, which led to the Appellant's decompensation, I have excluded from consideration in my determination of this Appeal the four operative stressors which relate to events which occurred after the Appellant's decompensation on 15 February 2005. However, in the event I am wrong in taking this course, I have dealt with the four stressors which relate to events after 15 February 2005 in the Footnote, at the conclusion of this decision. In the light of Dr Bell's evidence that the pre-eminent stressor was the manner in which the Appellant was dismissed on the evening of Tuesday 15 February 2005, and the emotional shock of suddenly being thrust into that situation, there can be no doubt that the Appellant's injury arose out of, or in the course of, her employment. 3. Was employment a significant contributing factor to the Appellant's injury? Counsel for Q-COMP, Mr Clark, disputed that the Appellant's termination could have come as a "severe shock" to her given she conceded in evidence she was looking to resign her employment sometime around Easter, just five weeks later. Mr Clark also said Dr Bell's identification of the alleged stressors, and his ultimate diagnosis of the Appellant's condition, depended upon what he was told being accurate, reliable and credible. However, Mr Clark said, what he was told was not supported by the facts but, rather, what the Appellant came to either deliberately, wrongly, negligently or mistakenly believe had happened in the workplace. On this basis, the Appellant had not established the necessary causal connection between events in her workplace and her decompensation. As stated a number of times previously, the evidence of Dr Bell was that the main focus of the Appellant, in terms of her decompensation, was the manner of her dismissal, the humiliation of what had happened to her, the way it had happened to her and the emotional shock of being thrust into that situation. While the Appellant might have been contemplating resigning her employment at some stage in the future she had not taken the actual step of doing so and her termination, in all of the circumstances, clearly did come as a shock to her. As such, I have concluded there is the necessary causal connection between events in the workplace, most especially the events of the evening of 15 February 2005, for me to conclude that the Appellant's psychiatric condition arouse out of, or in the course of, her employment. -- 22 of 27 -- 23 4. Is the injury excluded by the effect of s. 32(5)? Counsel for the Appellant, Ms Hay, strongly argued that the manner in which the Committee of Management of the Club handled the events leading up to the decision to terminate the Appellant's employment, as well as (in particular) the manner in which the termination was undertaken, was not reasonable management action and/or was not taken in a reasonable way. Without being exhaustive, Ms Hay argued:  it was inappropriate for Mr Wikarjusz to telephone the Appellant on her mobile phone, in non-working time, and yell abuse at her because she took appropriate action in relation to a member of staff he had recommended.  it was not reasonable for the Treasurer, Mr Wikarjusz, to act in an intimidating and demeaning manner towards the Appellant, in the presence of staff and customers, after the above incident.  there was no evidence to support the assertions of Ms Chojnacka and Mr Wikarjusz that the Committee of Management had concerns about the Appellant's performance prior to October 2004.  the Committee of Management was sending inconsistent signals to the Appellant about its expectations. Ms Chojnacka indicated that she expected the Appellant to gradually implement matters raised with her by the Committee, whereas Mr Wikarjusz expected them to be implemented immediately.  if the senior Members of the Committee of Management were unable to agree on the Appellant's work priorities, how was she expected to work out what was required of her?  the Committee of Management knew the Appellant had no prior experience in the conduct of managing a Club, such as the Polish Club, yet they expected her to perform her duties at an extremely high standard equivalent to a private corporation with many resources.  the Committee of Management never sat down with the Appellant on a 1:1 basis to discuss her performance. When the Committee did communicate with her it was in front of the full Committee meeting.  members of the Committee of Management gave evidence they did not understand how the Club operated on a day to day basis yet they were giving directions to the Appellant about how she should conduct its affairs.  the Appellant had responded to the issues raised by the Committee in the 18 October 2004 letter from Ms Chojnacka and it was inappropriate for the Committee to suggest those matters had not been addressed at the time of the 11 January 2005 meeting, or later.  the Appellant liaised with the insurer following the break-in and engaged the tradesman whose quotation the insurer had accepted. The repair work had commenced, but was not completed by the time the Appellant went on holidays. After her return from annual leave she didn't have an opportunity to take any further steps in relation to the repair of the door before she was dismissed.  the President, Ms Chojnacka, conceded the Committee had "probably", at the 3 February 2005 meeting, given the Appellant "a reasonable expectation" she would be given a fair hearing at the 15 February 2005 Committee meeting and then given an opportunity to implement her suggestions arising out of the operational plan which she was to present to that meeting.  the Appellant had less than two weeks, after her return from annual leave, to implement the measures outlined in the President's letter to her dated 18 January 2005. This was clearly an insufficient period of time to address the issues raised.  rather than being given an opportunity to finish her report, after being called out of the 15 February 2005 meeting to attend to a client, the Appellant, instead, was presented with an ultimatum. Either she resigned her employment, in which case she would receive good references, or she would be dismissed with no references and in disgrace.  the evidence was that the Appellant was a very hard working lady who often worked above and beyond the hours required of her because of her love of the Club.  the accumulation of the above circumstances, especially not being allowed to deliver her report before being informed of her dismissal, is the reason why the Appellant was so shocked and distressed when she was dismissed from her employment. Ms Hay emphasised that the Committee did not give the Appellant sufficient time to address the large range of issues they wished her to address before they dismissed her. Further, it was simply not possible for the Appellant to turn around the financial position of the Club in the period between late October 2004 and her dismissal on 15 February 2005. It was not surprising, in all those circumstances, that the Appellant decompensated shortly after being informed of her dismissal. None of the witnesses who gave evidence disputed the fact that the Appellant was a devoted employee who put considerable energies into the affairs of the Club. However, what is disputed is the way she managed her time and how successfully she might have undertaken her role as Manager. In this respect, the Appellant's evidence suggests she was focused on performing relatively unimportant tasks at the expense of other more major, and clearly more important, aspects of her role. For example, she said she would often try to save money by going out and purchasing beer, on petty cash, at local hotels and liquor stores when it was on special. She indicated she would repeat this task on a number of occasions because the -- 23 of 27 -- 24 petty cash limit for each item of expenditure was $100. There was also evidence she was purchasing soft drinks from supermarkets and the like. In addition, she complained about having to carry boxes of beer, wine and spirits up the stairs after it was delivered to the Club by delivery drivers. She also gave evidence about mopping around the Club to ensure it was clean. These are tasks which should have either been delegated by the Appellant (in the case of the cleaning) or simply not undertaken. The Committee of Management ultimately instructed her to source proper suppliers to deliver the items she was leaving the Club to purchase. The time she was spending in performing such menial, and unnecessary tasks, was at the expense of focusing on other more relevant and more important issues concerning the overall operation of the Club, some of them relatively innocuous on their face, but nonetheless important in the way the Club presented and operated. The Club was not open when it was supposed to be open, the telephone was not being answered and the answering machine was not being turned on, the grass outside the Club was not being mowed, there were no price lists in the bar and people were being charged different prices by different staff members and so on. (See the evidence of Ms Borowska in particular). This growing list of matters of concern, or the "building groundswell of dissatisfaction" as it was put by Mr Clark in a question to Ms Borowska, led to the Appellant's performance being discussed at the Committee of Management meeting(s). It reached the stage where, at its 20 October 2004 meeting, the Committee of Management resolved that a letter be written to the Manager, by the President, setting out its list of concerns and asking the Appellant to address them. This letter (dated 22 October 2004 (see above)) asked the Appellant to attend to a number of matters of detail and also asked her to present a business plan to the Committee. While the Appellant disputed the validity of some of the matters on the list, particularly whether or not there were current price lists of alcoholic drinks, I am satisfied on the evidence of Ms Borowska, Ms Chojnacka and Mr Wikarjusz there was no up to date and consistent pricing lists in the Club at that time. The validity of several other matters of concern raised by the Committee is aslo borne out by the Appellant's response to them, delivered verbally at the 26 October 2004 Committee of Management meeting. In her report to the Committee she advised that the cleaner had been changed and the responsibility for mowing transferred to a new business. Although responding to the other issues raised by the Committee there is no suggestion the Appellant actually implemented any of the Committee's requirements, most particularly bartender reconciliations at the start and end of each shift. Indeed, the Appellant's evidence makes it clear that she believed she had good reasons not to implement the other matters raised in the letter to her. While the 22 October 2004 letter is the first formal record of any concern the Committee of Management might have had with the Appellant's performance I am satisfied, based upon my assessment of the evidence of Ms Borowska, Ms Chojnacka and Mr Wikarjusz, that the Committee had a number of concerns prior to this time which were raised with her during the course of earlier Committee meetings. The fact that the Committee resolved at this meeting to formalise its concerns suggests that the Appellant had not addressed the matters raised with her prior to that time to the Committee's satisfaction. There are no minutes of any of the Committee of Management meetings held between 26 October 2004 and 11 January 2005. Despite this absence, there is no suggestion that any issues were raised, in a formal sense, with the Appellant during this period. Nonetheless, there was a great deal of discussion about the Appellant's performance as Manager at the Committee of Management meeting held on 11 January 2005. From the evidence, it is clear that the impetus for this discussion was the Committee's complete dissatisfaction with the Appellant's planning, promotion and organisation (including clean up) of the New Years Eve party. In addition, the introductory sentence of the President's letter of 18 January 2005 to the Appellant shows the Committee was concerned about the financial performance of the Club and the fact it was making a loss. The letter asked the Appellant to respond to a number of concerns previously raised with her and asked her to urgently present a detailed operational plan for the Club. Finally, the Committee indicated "unless the organisational and financial performance of the Polish House drastically improves, we will be forced to suspend/terminate the contract with you …". Although she was scheduled to respond to the matters raised in the President's letter of 18 January 2005 at the next Committee of Management meeting, held on 3 February 2005, the Committee agreed that the Appellant be allowed to bring her business plan/operational plan to the next scheduled meeting, to be held on 15 February 2005. By this time it should have been clear to the Appellant that the Committee of Management was concerned not only about the way she was performing her role as Manager but also about the financial position of the Club. [Indeed, in her report to the Committee on 26 October 2004 the Appellant had identified the declining bar profit for the five financial periods between 2000 and 2004, respectively, which showed that the bar profits had successively reduced from just under $35,000 in 2000 to just in excess of $22,000 in 2004]. Further, because of the warning at the end of the 18 January 2005 letter, the Appellant should also have been on notice that her continued employment was at risk unless the issues of concern to the Committee were addressed quickly and appropriately. -- 24 of 27 -- 25 However, instead of coming to the 15 February 2005 meeting with some plan to address the organisation and financial performance of the Club, the Appellant came to the meeting with a list of events for 2005, a list of the income for the Club from 1999 to 2005 and a list of the clients of the Club. This information was described by Mr Wikarjusz, quite rightfully in my view, as "very amateurish". Rather than presenting a plan for the future the Appellant presented a two page report which only dealt with a number of matters of little or no consequence in the overall scheme of things, such as the choir from Poznan being invited to perform at the Club and an author coming to the Club to promote a book he had written. Not surprisingly, in my view, the Committee decided that "enough was enough" and the Appellant was not the right person for the job. Not only did she seem to lack any appreciation of the need to take the Club forward, because of its precarious financial position, she had consistently failed to attend to and address the many, many matters raised with her by the Committee and/or which she should have been reasonably expected to have been able to attend to without being prompted. One such matter was her failure to arrange the repair of the fire-door damaged during the 11 November 2004 break-in (I note, in passing, that the minutes of the 3 February 2005 meeting show the fire-door was damaged on 5 October 2004. If that date is correct it makes the position of the Appellant even less tenable). To make matters worse, the Appellant had arranged for the fire-door to be "boarded up" to make it secure, following the failure of the initial tradesman to fix it properly. This showed a complete lack of appreciation of the importance of the repair and a lack of appreciation of the risk that simple boarding up the fire-door posed. The Appellant's failure to have the repair completed in a timely and appropriate manner cannot be justified by a claim she could not find a tradesman to do the job. Contrary to the submissions of Ms Hay that the Appellant should have been allowed time to implement her business plan, there was nothing which the Appellant took to the 15 February 2005 meeting, in the sense of some plan for the future, which she could have implemented. Rather, the Committee was faced with the situation where the Appellant, as Manager, was clearly out of her depth and taking the Club backwards. It could either allow that situation to continue or choose to take some action to do something about it. The Committee decided by overwhelming majority that it needed to take some decisive action to go forward. That action necessitated replacing the Appellant as Manager of the Club with some other person. Having made that decision the Committee needed to decide how it should inform the Appellant. It discussed the matter and agreed the Appellant should be given the opportunity to resign her employment, with good references. The alternative was that the Appellant would simply be dismissed from her employment. In either case she was to be paid the appropriate pay in lieu of notice. The Appellant was called back into the meeting and was informed of the Committee's deliberations and decision. She was offered the choice of resigning or having her employment terminated, with four weeks' pay in lieu of notice to be provided in either case. I reject the Appellant's evidence she was told she would "be forcibly removed from (her) position in a disgrace, without positive references" if she did not resign. I also reject her contention Mr Wikarjusz yelled out to her that the Committee had decided to fire her after she asked for a "standard" two week notice period to account for all stock, assets and the like. I am satisfied on the evidence of Ms Borowska, Ms Chojnacka and Mr Wikarjusz that the Appellant indicated she would tender her resignation and also indicated she had been thinking about leaving the Club for some time because of "the unpleasant work situation". I reject the Appellant's contention she was pushed out of the way by Mr Listwan and Mr Majewski when they went to the safe in order to count money. I also reject her contention Mr Wikarjusz shouted in her face demanding that she hand over the keys. After considering all of the evidence, and submissions, I have concluded that the decision taken by the Committee of Management to terminate the Appellant's services, during the course of its meeting on 15 February 2005, was a reasonable management decision, supported by the events leading up to that decision being taken as well as by the financial predicament of the Club. I am also satisfied that the manner of communicating that decision to the Appellant involved reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable way. While the Appellant, through her Counsel, might complain she had a reasonable expectation of being allowed to complete her report after she returned to the Committee of Management meeting on that evening, I am not satisfied that the Committee's failure to let her do so constituted unreasonable management action. In my view, it would have been far worse for the Committee, having arrived at the decision to terminate the Appellant's services, to have let her continue to present her report before informing her of its decision to terminate her employment. The report which the Appellant was intent upon giving was a further demonstration, in my view, that she was focused on the miniature of the Club's affairs rather than the "big picture". With respect to her, her report did not constitute a business plan, or operational plan, for the future direction of the Club. It was merely a report on activities over the proceeding few weeks. Nothing was to be served by letting her continue to present it. -- 25 of 27 -- 26 In respect of a business plan, the Appellant held a university degree in accountancy and acknowledged she understood what a business plan was, as a result of research and some discussions with Mr Wikarjusz. Despite being aware of what it was she was being asked to produce the Appellant consistently failed, over more than four months, to produce anything like a business plan to present to the 15 February 2005 meeting. In addition, Mr Wikarjusz gave evidence (which I accept) that he sat down with the Appellant on several occasions to discuss with her what it was he was looking for her to produce. As such, there can be no suggestion she did not understand what it was she was being asked to bring before the Committee. While the Committee's decision to terminate her employment at the 15 February 2005 meeting might have come as some shock to the Appellant, as might the Committee's refusal to let her have some grace period to account for stock, assets and the like, there was nothing unreasonable about the Committee's decision that the employment relationship should cease as at that moment. Nor was there anything unreasonable or inappropriate about the way the Committee's decision was communicated to the Appellant. In all of the circumstances I have decided that the Appellant's injury, which arose out of or in the course of her employment where work was a significant contributing factor, is withdrawn from the definition of injury in the Act by the effect of s. 32(5). For the foregoing reasons I dismiss the Appeal. I uphold the decision of Q-COMP dated 16 November 2005 and determine that the Appellant's claim to WorkCover is one for rejection. Footnote In the event that I am wrong in my decision to only consider matters up to, and including, 15 February 2005 in determining whether the Appellant's injury is excluded by the effect of s. 32(5), I also deal with the other stressors, in the development of the Appellant's condition, as identified by Dr Bell. 1. Becoming aware of locks to the Club being changed and being told she was not allowed to enter the premises under any circumstances. There is no evidence whatsoever that the locks of the Club were changed after the Appellant's dismissal. There is also no evidence upon which I could reasonably rely to show that the Appellant was told she was not allowed to enter the Club under any circumstances. Rather, the evidence on this point indicates the Appellant was welcome to attend the Club as a customer but she was just not permitted, as was the case with any other person who was not authorised to do so, to enter the office or other restricted parts of the Club. As such, there is no factual basis to underpin this (alleged) stressor. 2. Being accused of misappropriating funds Under cross-examination the Appellant agreed she had never been accused of misappropriating funds by Mr Gierkowski or any other member of the Committee of Management. She simply acknowledged that she had been informed that there was money missing, in the sense that the finances didn't reconcile. As such, this (alleged) stressor is also without foundation. 3. Being tricked into signing a letter of resignation I have found, above, that the Appellant freely offered her resignation following a discussion with Mr Gierkowski, Ms Chojnacka and Mr Listwan on the afternoon/early evening of Tuesday 22 February 2005. I am thus satisfied that the Appellant was not "tricked" into signing a letter of resignation. 4. Being ostracized by the Polish community If there was any ostracization by members of the Polish community this was unrelated to any action of the Committee of Management of the Association, or any individual Committee member. Rather, the evidence is that the members of the Committee of Management who heard any such rumours did their best to correct the record and to stop such rumours spreading. In any event, Dr Bell indicated in his evidence that this stressor related to events which occurred "much later" than the pre-eminent stressor, which concerned the events of the evening of 15 February 2005. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to consider the effect of s. 32(5) of the Act in relation to any of these other stressors, either separately or in conjunction with the pre-eminent stressor, because none of them relate to management action, or the reasonableness of any management action. I reserve the issue of costs. -- 26 of 27 -- 27 The Commission determines and orders accordingly. A.L. Bloomfield, Deputy President. Hearing Details: 2008 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 December 15 December (Oral Submissions) 18 December (Transcript Available) Released: 18 June 2009 Appearances: Ms P. Hay, Counsel, instructed by Harmers Workplace Lawyers, for the Appellant. Mr C. Clark, Counsel, directly instructed by the Respondent. Government Printer, Queensland The State of Queensland 2009. -- 27 of 27 --