Cairns v Q-COMP [2007] QIRC 72 (2007) 185 QGIG 347

[Extract from Queensland Government Industrial Gazette, dated 17 August, 2007, Vol. 185, No. 16, pages 347-376] QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - s. 550 - appeal to Commission Michael Cairns AND Q-COMP (WC/2006/65) COMMISSIONER ASBURY 6 August 2007 Workers' Compensation - Psychiatric/psychological injury - Incidents relied on by the appellant exaggerated or did not occur - Finding that incidents were not significant contributing factors to injury - Finding that incidents did not establish causal or consequential relationship or connection between employment and injury - Finding that some incidents constituted reasonable management action reasonably taken - Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 s. 32(1) and s. 32(5) - Appeal dismissed. DECISION Background This is an appeal by Michael John Cairns under s. 550 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act) against a decision of the Review Unit of Q-COMP dated 28 August 2006. Mr Cairns was employed by AAPT Limited (AAPT) as a Sales Representative and later as a Business Sales Team Manager from 9 April 2005. Mr Cairns left the workplace on 16 January 2006 and did not return. On 20 January 2006 Mr Cairns lodged an application for compensation under the Act. The application stated that the nature of the injury was anxiety and stress; that it had occurred over a period of time; and that symptoms had first been experienced on 12 August 2005. Further, it was stated that the injury happened because of bullying, verbal abuse, neglect and assault and that the object or person involved in the event causing the injury was physical assault, mental and verbal abuse and intimidation. In a statement supporting his application for compensation, Mr Cairns made a number of allegations which were encapsulated by both WorkCover and later Q-COMP as follows:  in May - October 2005 Mr Cairns was harassed and threatened by another Manager (Mr SR) after assisting a staff member (Ms NT) who had been sexually harassed by that Manager;  in June 2005, Mr Cairns spoke to Sales Manager, Ms Belinda Clark, about a relationship with a sales representative and was harassed and threatened by Ms Clark;  in August 2005 at a work-related function at Couran Cove, Mr Cairns was physically assaulted by a staff member, Mr FL, after coming to the aid of another staff member who was being harassed by Mr FL;  August - October 2005, Mr Cairns was regularly harassed by Ms Clark to attend drinks after work on Fridays;  since early 2005, staff received the incorrect amount of pay, causing Mr Cairns distress at having to ask staff to work harder to meet targets; and  ongoing pressures and problems at work. In Mr Cairns' original statement to WorkCover, there were a number of specific matters under each of the general issues, which as Mr Cairns' claim proceeded, were developed as further allegations, and became issues in their own right:  rumours spread by Ms Clark and Mr SR about the events at Couran Cove and Mr Cairns' involvement in those events;  an email sent by Mr SR to Ms Clark in November 2006 after Mr SR ceased employment with AAPT, which Mr Cairns alleged was defamatory, and the refusal of AAPT's Human Resource Consultant Ms Musk to provide Mr Cairns with a copy of that email; and  action taken by AAPT to investigate alleged misuse by Mr Cairns of his corporate American Express card. WorkCover accepted Mr Cairns' application. In written reasons for this decision issued on 11 April 2006, WorkCover accepted that Mr Cairns was a worker under the Act at the relevant time; that he developed a psychological condition where his employment was a significant contributing factor; and that the exclusion to the definition of "reasonable management action" in s. 32(5) of the Act did not apply. On 10 July 2006, AAPT applied to Q-COMP for a review of WorkCover's decision to accept Mr Cairns' application for compensation. In a decision of 24 August 2006, Q-COMP set aside the decision of WorkCover and substituted another decision, namely that Mr Cairns' claim was one for rejection. It was accepted by Q-COMP that Mr Cairns had sustained a personal injury, and that his employment was a significant contributing factor. It was also accepted that there were a number of stressors which had contributed to Mr Cairns' psychological condition, and that there were instances of unreasonable management action, particularly Mr Cairns being pressured to socialise and issues related to -- 1 of 29 -- 2 salaries paid. However, the remaining stressors were found to constitute reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. In particular it was found that management of AAPT acted reasonably in addressing the incident at Couran Cove, and Mr Cairns' concerns about losing his job. Further, it was found that Mr Cairns became incapacitated for work after the meeting regarding credit card use, and that management action in relation to this issue was reasonable and taken in a reasonable way. It was concluded that Mr Cairns' condition did not satisfy the definition of injury contained in s. 32(5) of the Act. In the present appeal, there were no additional issues raised. It was contended that the issues identified by WorkCover and Q-COMP were stressors, the cumulative effect of which gave rise to Mr Cairns' injury. It was also contended that these stressors arose in the course of employment, and did not constitute reasonable management action. Further, the overall management of the workplace was said to have caused the injury. Issues for Determination It was not in issue that Mr Cairns suffered an injury, variously described in the evidence of medical practitioners as:  major depressive disorder of a continuing nature (Professor Nurcombe, Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry University of Queensland and a Forensic Psychiatrist in clinical practice - Report 21 March 2006 Exhibit 8);  major depressive episode and major depressive disorder (Ms Judi Pears, Psychologist - Report 13 February 2006 Exhibit 7); and  adjustment disorder with anxious and depressed mood (Dr Field, Psychiatrist in clinical practice - Report 27 June 2006 Exhibit 9). The focus of the appeal was on whether Mr Cairns is excluded from compensation by virtue of s. 32(5) of the Act, because the injury arose out of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. Section 32 of the Act provides in part: "(1) An injury is a personal injury arising out of, or in the course of employment if the employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury. ... (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) ...". The phrase "arising out of" requires proof of a causal or consequential relationship or connection between the worker's employment and the injury, but does not require a direct or proximate relationship which would be necessary if the term "caused by" was used: Lackey v WorkCover Queensland (2000) 165 QGIG 22. Where there is an event or interaction which is a significant contributor to an injury, though of lesser significance than other significant contributors, the causal test posited by the term "arising out of" is met: Q-COMP v Education Queensland (2005) 179 QGIG 491 at 492 per Hall P. In cases involving psychological injury for which compensation is claimed under the Act, there are typically incidents, events, interactions or dealings in the workplace, which are said to be stressors, and which are also said to provide the causal or consequential connection to employment, so that an injury can be said to have arisen in the course of employment. However, because s. 32(1) also requires that employment is a "significant contributing factor" to the injury, it has been necessary in those cases to assess each incident or "to tease out the transactions and series of events said to have brought about the injury": Delaney v Q-COMP (2005) 178 QGIG 197 per Hall P. In effect this process involves a determination of the significance or weight of each incident. For example, in Prizeman v Q-COMP (2005) 180 QGIG 481, the appellant based her claim for compensation on a number of incidents involving a certain manager, but only some of those incidents were relied on at the hearing of her appeal. President Hall observed that the Magistrate at first instance had considered the items separately and had then entered upon a global consideration of three incidents. Two of these incidents were found by the magistrate to be "blemishes". When the third issue was considered the magistrate found that "overall" the appellant had not proved that the incidents were anything other than reasonable management action. The President said that he was unable to conclude that the Magistrate's decision was not open to His Honour. -- 2 of 29 -- 3 Discrete incidents, which considered in isolation are minor, should be evaluated on a global basis when they involve events and courses of conduct which are: "...repetitive blemishes, joined by subject matter, time and personality in a discordant workplace, housing to the knowledge of the respondent's management, a worker who had decompensated once before in the face of workplace stress.". Delaney v Q-COMP (2005) 178 QGIG 197. Thus, where there is an incident, event, interaction or dealing, which is a significant contributor to an injury, and which provides a causal or consequential connection with employment, an injury will be found to have arisen in the course of employment notwithstanding that there are other incidents which are not significant or do not provide the necessary connection. Section 32(5) of the Act provides a mechanism by which an incident, event, interaction or dealing, which would otherwise bring in injury within the operation of s. 32(1), is withdrawn from the definition of "injury", on the basis that the incident is reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. In determining whether a particular incident is withdrawn from the definition of injury in s. 32(1) by virtue of the reasonable management action exception in s. 32(5), it is wrong to start by eliminating all work-related causes which might be characterised as reasonable management action reasonably taken, and inquire whether any remaining causes might be characterised as significant causes of the injury: Delaney v Q-COMP (2005) 178 QGIG 197. Instead it is necessary to identify all incidents, events, interactions or dealings to ascertain whether they provide a causal or consequential connection with employment so that the injury can be said to have arisen out of or in the course of employment, and if such a connection is found, to then determine whether any of those incidents can be relied upon to bring an injury within s. 32(1). In relation to s. 32(5) and its predecessors, President Hall has followed decisions to the effect that the term "despite" is synonymous with the term "notwithstanding", noting that the traditional approach to the construction of provisions introduced by the term "notwithstanding" is that the section should be first construed without that term, and then if there is anything in the other provisions of the Act inconsistent with the interpretation so arrived at, those other provisions must yield. In Q-COMP and Education Queensland (2005) 179 QGIG 491 at 492, the President held that: "It is not the concern to of s. 34(5) to nominate stressors which may be taken into account in determining whether a particular psychiatric or psychological disorder falls within the rubric of s. 34(1). The concern of s. 34(5) is to remove certain psychiatric and psychological disorders from the statutory definition of 'injury'. Where a situation arises where s. 34(1) 'ropes-in' a particular psychiatric or psychological disorder and s. 34(5) excludes the same psychiatric or psychological disorder, there is an inconsistency which because of the use of 'notwithstanding' must be resolved by allowing s. 34(5) to prevail.". In the present case, it is necessary to consider the incidents nominated by Mr Cairns as stressors providing the causal or consequential connection to his employment, to determine whether any of those incidents was a significant contributor to his injury. If it is found that any of the incidents was a significant contributor to the injury, it is then necessary to consider whether it was reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way, to determine whether the injury is withdrawn from the definition in s. 32(1) of the Act by the operation of s. 32(5). Evidence before the Commission In addition to Mr Cairns, evidence was given in support of the appeal by:  Mr Shane Peter Davis, employed by AAPT from August 2003 until December 2005, and employed as Sales Manager in the Brisbane Office of AAPT from around August 2005;  Professor Barry Nurcombe, Specialist Psychiatrist and Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry, University of Queensland;  Mrs Judith Anne Pears, Psychologist;  Ms Raelene Ellen Crockett, Telecommunications General Manager, employed by AAPT from June 2002 until December 2005 as Team Manager seconded as Sales Manager and assistant to the Call Centre Manager;  Mr Joshua Daniel Brian, employed by AAPT from April 2005 until January 2006 as a sales representative and a Team Manager from September 2005; and  Dr Peter George Field, Practicing Psychiatrist. Evidence for the second respondent, AAPT was given by:  Ms Belinda Maree Clark, Sales Coach and Sales Manager at AAPT from May 2005 until June 2006;  Ms Jane Elizabeth Dendy, previously known as Jane Lucas, Sales and Performance Coach AAPT Sydney, formerly Team Manager and Learning and Development Facilitator at AAPT Brisbane, from February 2005; -- 3 of 29 -- 4  Ms Melissa Kate Mitchell, employed by AAPT since September 2001 and currently Finance Manager for Incentives for AAPT from January 2003; and  Ms Joanna Musk, Human Resources Consultant, employed by AAPT since August 2005. There was considerable evidence about the conduct of a number of persons previously employed by AAPT, who were not called to give evidence. Given the nature of the allegations, those persons have been identified by their initials. As counsel for Mr Cairns submitted, it is rare that a case is decided based on facts and events as complex as those in this case. There were significant conflicts in the evidence of witnesses about the same events or whether events occurred at all. There were also conflicts between statements given by a number of witnesses to WorkCover and the evidence of those witnesses in the appeal. If Mr Cairns' version of events, and the evidence of witnesses supporting that version is believed, Mr Cairns was the victim of systematic harassment by work colleagues both in and out of the workplace, and AAPT failed to take any steps to deal with this harassment. If the evidence of Ms Clark and other witnesses for AAPT is accepted, then many of the incidents alleged by Mr Cairns to have been harassment did not actually occur, or if they did, have been significantly exaggerated by Mr Cairns. For these reasons it has been necessary to deal at some length with the evidence. May - October 2005 Harassment and threats by another Manager after assisting a staff member who had been sexually harassed by that Manager In his statement to WorkCover (Exhibit 21) Mr Cairns alleged that in May 2005, a Team Manager, Mr SR, had sexually harassed a staff member, Ms NT. That staff member had come to Mr Cairns for support and Mr Cairns advised her to go to management. Mr SR found out about Mr Cairns giving that advice to Ms NT, and began rumouring about Mr Cairns and putting him down to other staff. Mr SR threatened Mr Cairns in front of other staff. Mr Cairns reported this to the Centre Manager, Mr Shane Davis, the Sales Coach, Ms Belinda Clark, and his Manager, Ms Raylene Crockett. Mr SR denied it. "They" told Mr Cairns not to worry about it. Mr Cairns also said in his statement to WorkCover that the threats made by Mr SR were things like: "I run this centre and I can have you sacked whenever I want" and "I have worked for the 'Feds' before, in my last workplace and I can happily call someone I know and you can easily disappear and they'll never find your body.". Mr SR had also telephoned Mr Cairns at home one night and made threats. These had been overheard by Mr Dan Brian as Mr Cairns had used a speaker phone to take the call from Mr SR. Mr Cairns also said in his statement to WorkCover that considering he had told AAPT that the threats had become criminal, they had still done nothing about it. In his evidence to the Commission, Mr Cairns said that he had been concerned that Mr SR was very powerful and had made a lot of money from hiring staff from other telcos. Mr Cairns had also believed that Mr SR could carry out his threat. When Mr Cairns took his concerns to Ms Corrie he was told that he was performing well enough and should put his head down and get back to work. Mr Cairns said that he felt alienated in the workplace. Other staff would turn their backs and refuse to speak to him. Mr Cairns also had derogatory comments directed at him, such as staff referring to him as a rat and a snitch. This treatment had persisted. Mr Brian said in his evidence to the Commission that Mr SR had made derogatory and threatening comments about Mr Cairns and that he had been present when Mr SR told Mr Cairns that he could get him sacked at any time. This threat had been made in July 2005, about two days after a launch party. Ms Crockett confirmed in her evidence that in April or May, Mr Cairns told her that he had been verbally abused by Mr SR in relation to the complaint of harassment by Ms NT. Ms Crockett escalated that complaint by documenting Mr Cairns' concerns and sitting down with Ms Corrie to explain the situation. Mr Cairns agreed under cross-examination that when he had complained to Ms Crockett, he had been told that Mr SR denied the allegations. Mr Cairns also recalled that someone had told him that he was a good sales representative and should not worry about Mr SR. Mr Cairns also said under cross-examination that Mr SR had been his boss at his previous place of employment. Mr Cairns maintained that he had no problems or "run-ins" with Mr SR before he had advised Ms NT to take her allegations about harassment by Mr SR to management. In response to the proposition that essentially the situation was that Mr Cairns and Mr SR disliked each other and made derogatory comments about each other, Mr Cairns said that he disliked Mr SR and had made derogatory comments about him when complaining to Ms Corrie and Ms Musk. Mr Cairns agreed that he told Ms Musk that Mr SR should not be a Team Manager because he did "dodgy deals". Mr Cairns also said that he raised an issue with Ms Corrie about a practice of converting residential customers to business customers instead of acquiring new business. Ms Corrie had told Mr Cairns: "Why don't you mind your own business? You're getting your sales, just leave it at that.". Mr Cairns also raised this issue with Mr SR and told Mr SR that the practice was a fraud and a rip-off. Mr SR said that he knew Mr Cairns had already spoken to Ms Corrie and that if he did not shut up and pull his head in, he would be gone. At the end of May early June 2005, Mr Cairns reported to Ms Crockett that leads (or names of people to be contacted for potential sales) were being moved from his portfolio. Team Managers and staff above that level had access to leads. -- 4 of 29 -- 5 Under cross-examination, Mr Cairns agreed that this issue was rectified within a matter of weeks from the date he raised it. June 2005, Mr Cairns spoke to a Sales Manager about her relationship with a sales representative and was harassed and threatened by the Manager In his statement to WorkCover (Exhibit 21) Mr Cairns said that in June 2005, Ms Belinda Clark, Sales Coach, had a sexual relationship with a sales representative, Mr RV. Mr Cairns said that he spoke to Ms Clark quietly and away from everyone else, and told her that people were talking and Mr RV was very shaken up about it. After that, Ms Clark seemed to support Mr SR against Mr Cairns. In his evidence to the Commission, Mr Cairns said that he had told Ms Clark that in his view the relationship was inappropriate, that people on the floor were talking about it and that Mr RV had seemed upset and distraught. According to Mr Cairns, Ms Clark later approached him while he was with Mr Brian, and said: "How dare you judge me. You're no angel. You'd want to keep your mouth shut and pull your head in, if you know what's good for you.". Ms Clark had also threatened Mr Cairns but he could not recall the exact words of the threat. Mr Brian confirmed that he had heard Ms Clark say this, and said that he also thought that Ms Clark told Mr Cairns that this could be a career limiting move for him. Mr Cairns agreed under cross-examination that at the point he raised this matter with Ms Clark, he was within his probationary period, and Ms Clark held a more senior position than he did. Mr Cairns also agreed that he felt compelled to raise this issue with Ms Clark. In response to the proposition that it was none of his business, Mr Cairns said that he knew that other staff were talking about the issue. Further, Mr Cairns agreed that Mr RV had not indicated that he was an unwilling participant in the relationship, and that Mr RV had not asked him to approach Ms Clark. Mr Cairns also agreed that Ms Clark was not a Sales Manager at the time; that he did not report to Ms Clark; and that he was a star performer. However, Mr Cairns maintained that notwithstanding this, Ms Clark was in a position to threaten his employment. Ms Crockett said that at a celebration for the opening of the Brisbane Centre, she had observed Ms Clark and Mr RV in the garden outside a hall where a function was held and they were "canoodling, cuddling, kissing". Mr RV later told Ms Crockett that it was a one-off incident and he had a problem with Ms Clark ringing him and wanting to see him again. Ms Clark said that when she commenced employment with AAPT in May 2005, in the position of Sales Coach, no-one directly reported to her. Ms Clark had not been promoted to the position of Sales Manager until September 2005, when Mr Cairns had been promoted to Team Manager. Ms Clark reported to Mr Davis and Mr Cairns reported to Ms Clark. Ms Clark denied that she had a sexual relationship with Mr RV, or that she had any discussion with Mr Cairns about this matter. Under cross-examination, Ms Clark agreed that at the time this conversation was alleged to have occurred she had been a Team Leader and Mr Cairns a Sales Representative, which was a lower level position. The Couran Cove incident This incident involved an allegation that Mr Cairns was physically assaulted by a team member, Mr FL, after coming to the aid of a Team Manager, Ms Jane Dendy (then Ms Jane Lucas), who Mr FL was harassing. The incident occurred on 11 August 2005, during an evening function at a sales conference conducted by AAPT at Couran Cove. The function was held in a marquee. In his statement to WorkCover, (Exhibit 21) Mr Cairns said: "[Mr FL] had hold of Jane. He was very vocal and she was like stressed and freaking out. I went over to try and assist her. She asked for my help. She said: 'please help me. I can't control [Mr FL]'. I asked [Mr FL] twice to let her go. When he didn't I could see how strongly he had hold of her that I had to try to get between them so I was protecting Jane and holding [Mr FL]. He punched me in the back and the side. He then took off through the bush where he fell and injured himself. Jane got a staff member from the Island to help us drive [Mr FL] back to his accommodation. I had to physically restrain [Mr FL] while he was swearing and cursing me. I held on to him as he tried to jump out of the vehicle. We were taking him back to the accommodation and away from the drinking. He was like a man possessed. He was out of control. When we got back to the accommodation he tried to grab Jane again. I got between the two of them and pushed him inside his room. He started being very aggressive but now using sexual connotations as well. He actually said that if wasn't going to f.... Jane I should go so he could. We had asked the employee to wait outside. I sent Jane outside. I realised that I couldn't be rational with [Mr FL], so I basically tricked him. I said I would go and speak to Jane. I went outside and locked the door and we jumped in the vehicle and left. That night I reported it to the Centre Manager Shane Davis, and Raelene Crockett. The next morning I was summoned to a HR meeting. I told them the full story of what had happened. They were very interested in the information about [Mr FL]. They offered me no support or anything, just thanked me for my time.". According to the evidence of Ms Dendy and Ms Crockett, they went outside the marquee with Mr FL when he started to act strangely during the function. Mr FL had responded aggressively when asked by Ms Dendy and Ms Crockett whether he had taken drugs. According to Mr Cairns' evidence he approached to assist Ms Dendy because Mr FL had -- 5 of 29 -- 6 hold of her. Mr Cairns said he spoke to Mr FL a number of times, but he would not let go of Ms Dendy. Mr Cairns then tried to grab hold of Mr FL from behind. Mr FL struggled and as Mr Cairns tried to grab him, elbowed Mr Cairns in the chest and ribs. According to Ms Crockett, when Mr Cairns approached Ms Dendy and Mr FL, the latter became aggressive again and started saying things like: "get your dick out and bend over" and "mine's bigger than yours.". Ms Crockett also said when Mr Cairns stepped in and asked Mr FL to sit down and not to talk abusively, Mr FL struck out at Ms Dendy and grabbed her arm. He also stood behind Ms Dendy making sexual innuendos. Mr Cairns asked Mr FL to step away and tried to talk to him. Mr FL then became more aggressive towards Mr Cairns and started talking about how they could go back to his unit, and said that he had a bigger dick than Mr Cairns and they could just "get it on". Mr Cairns said that was not going to happen and told Mr FL to calm down. Mr FL became aggressive and started pushing Mr Cairns and trying to egg him on to have a fist fight. Mr FL was beating Mr Cairns "towards the chest.". Ms Crockett said that together with Mr Cairns and Ms Dendy, she tried to get Mr FL to move away from the marquee entrance and Ms Dendy asked Mr FL if they could go back to his unit. Mr Cairns said that he would go with them and that he would see that Mr FL was safe in his cabin and that the next morning they would talk about this and laugh it off. Mr Brian said that he had seen Mr FL grabbing Ms Dendy and had heard Mr SL talking loudly trying to seduce Ms Dendy. Ms Dendy was backing away. As Mr FL grabbed Ms Dendy, Mr Cairns restrained Mr FL who pulled back towards Mr Cairns. There was a bit of a scuffle, and Mr Cairns restrained Mr FL more and was able to calm him down. People were gathering at that point and Mr Brian had not seen much more. When asked to describe the scuffle, Mr Brian said that Mr FL was yelling and Mr Cairns was saying that Mr FL should calm down. When Mr FL grabbed Ms Dendy, Mr Cairns put his hand on Mr FL's shoulder and Mr FL swung a forearm into Mr Cairns' side torso. Mr Cairns stepped back and then immediately went back in and further restrained Mr FL. Under cross-examination Mr Brian maintained that he had seen an altercation between Mr FL and Mr Cairns and that it involved blows, pushing and shoving. Mr Brian also said that he had definitely seen Mr FL land at least one big blow, but did not know whether Mr Cairns was pushed or there was a big blow landed to him. Mr Brian also said that he definitely saw one punch - a forearm punch - but could not tell whether the rest were pushing or punching. According to Mr Brian if you land a blow on someone with either a forearm or a fist, it is a punch. Mr Brian first said that this was all he had seen, and then said that it was not just one punch, but a heavy altercation. Mr Brian said in the statement he made to WorkCover that Mr FL landed blows to Mr Cairns' chest, back and ribs (Exhibit 23). Ms Dendy rejected the proposition that Mr Cairns had come over because Mr FL was being aggressive and harassing her. Ms Dendy also said that when Mr Cairns approached her, Mr FL did not have hold of her, and she had not been upset and asking Mr FL to let her go. Further, Ms Dendy said that Mr FL had not been aggressive towards Mr Cairns. Ms Dendy said that Ms Crockett's evidence that Mr FL struck out at Ms Dendy and grabbed her arm and was making sexual innuendos was wrong. According to Ms Dendy's evidence, she and Mr Cairns thought it was appropriate to take Mr FL away from the marquee to a distance of about ten or fifteen metres. They sat down with Mr FL who was "chattering and shaking and shivering" and talked to Mr FL asking if he was alright and saying that they would help him. Mr Cairns asked Mr FL if he was on drugs and what he had taken, and Mr FL became aggressive and asked if they were going to kill him. Mr FL got up, ran away and said if Mr Cairns and Ms Dendy wanted to kill him, that they should come and get him. Ms Dendy said that she and Mr Cairns chased Mr FL and Mr Cairns caught him and grabbed him. When another Manager from Melbourne asked what was going on, Ms Dendy and Mr Cairns told him that the situation was under control. Mr FL then embraced Ms Dendy tightly and told her she was beautiful. Ms Dendy described the embrace as a strong bear hug from behind. Ms Dendy asked Mr Cairns to get Mr FL off her and Mr Cairns prised Mr FL's arms off Ms Dendy. Ms Dendy said that she did not feel threatened when Mr FL was embracing her, but did not want him to be that close to her. Ms Dendy also rejected Mr Cairns' evidence that Mr FL had elbowed Mr Cairns in the ribs and the side of the chest, or landed a forearm on Mr Cairns, and said that there was not a scuffle between Mr Cairns and Mr FL. After Mr Cairns got Mr FL's arms from Ms Dendy they had calmed Mr FL down by talking to him. Mr Cairns, Ms Dendy and Ms Crockett all said in their evidence that a Couran Cove staff member driving a golf buggy was stopped and was requested to drive Mr Cairns, Ms Dendy and Mr FL back to Mr FL's unit. Ms Dendy got into the front of the buggy with the driver and Mr Cairns sat at the back with Mr FL. Ms Crockett said that she left at the point the buggy was driven away. Mr Cairns said that as the vehicle was driven away, Mr FL tried to jump out of it and kicked Mr Cairns in the chin and body while doing so. Ms Dendy said that she did not see Mr FL kick Mr Cairns. Ms Dendy agreed that Mr FL did not want to stay in the golf buggy and had been held by Mr Cairns. Ms Dendy also said that she could not remember whether she had been watching what was going on in the back of the buggy for the entire time. -- 6 of 29 -- 7 Mr Cairns said that upon arrival at Mr FL's accommodation, Mr FL became more aggressive. He made comments about wanting to have sex with Ms Dendy, and threw a cup at Mr Cairns which had smashed on the wall just above Mr Cairns' head. Upon being unable to reason with Mr FL, Mr Cairns and Ms Dendy pretended that Mr Cairns had received a telephone call from management, and left Mr FL's accommodation. Ms Dendy agreed that when they went into Mr FL's unit, things got a bit scary and that she was frightened. Mr Cairns tried to calm the situation. Ms Dendy had gone into the toilet for a few minutes to splash water on her face and had come out so that she could leave. Mr Cairns had pretended to make a call and they had left. Ms Dendy agreed that Mr FL threw a cup as they were leaving, but did not know whether it was thrown at Mr Cairns as her back was turned. Ms Dendy also said that on the way back to the marquee, Mr Cairns did not say that he had been assaulted, punched or kicked by Mr FL. Mr Cairns said that upon leaving Mr FL's unit, he returned to the marquee and told Mr Brian, Mr Davis and Ms Crockett about the incident. According to the evidence of Mr Davis, Mr Cairns said that Mr FL physically attacked him and had shown Mr Davis red marks on his body. Mr Davis was asked if he had done anything in response to this complaint, and said that he had reported it to Ms Musk and Ms Melissa Strickland, a Human Resources Officer. Mr Brian also said that he had seen red marks on Mr Cairns' body later that night, and that Mr Cairns was hunched over and holding his side. The next morning a meeting took place between management of AAPT and Mr Cairns and Ms Dendy. Present at the meeting on behalf of AAPT were Ms Crockett, Ms Debbie Page, Mr Davis, Ms Musk and Ms Strickland. Notes of the meeting were taken by Ms Musk. Ms Dendy was shown a document (Exhibit 30) which she agreed was her statement taken the day after the incident with Mr FL, and which Ms Dendy considered to be accurate. Ms Dendy agreed that she was pleased that Mr Cairns had stepped in and used his force to break Mr FL's hold on her. Mr Cairns had not stated during this meeting that he had been punched or elbowed by Mr FL. Mr Cairns said in his evidence that he had not reported being assaulted or injured by Mr FL because Ms Musk and Ms Strickland had seemed more interested in what Mr FL had done to Ms Dendy and asked questions about whether Mr FL had taken drugs. When asked about his expectations of management in relation to this matter, Mr Cairns said that he had expected to be offered a medical examination, and that he would have been happy if this had happened. Mr Cairns said that when he left Couran Cove on the afternoon of Friday 12 August 2005 he received a telephone call from a colleague, who told him that Mr SR was telling people in the office that Mr Cairns was going to be sacked, to stop Mr FL from suing AAPT. Mr Cairns said that this caused him stress and that he suffered physical symptoms such as vomiting, diarrhoea and being unable to sleep. Upon returning to work after Couran Cove, on Monday 15 August 2005, Mr Cairns spoke to Ms Musk, Ms Crockett and Ms Davis about his concerns. Mr Cairns said that at this stage he was a nervous wreck and struggled through the week, leaving work early on a couple of days. The vomiting and diarrhoea continued throughout the week. Mr FL was dismissed from employment on Monday 15 August 2005. Ms Musk said that in the week following Couran Cove, Mr Cairns made allegations to her that Mr SR was spreading rumours that Mr Cairns was going to lose his job. Ms Musk said that she told Mr Cairns that this was absolutely ridiculous and that he had done a great job looking after Ms Dendy. Ms Musk also said that Mr Cairns had been commended and personally recognised by Mr Hood, the head of the business, for his conduct at Couran Cove. Mr Cairns sent Mr Brian an email on 18 August 2005, stating that Mr Davis had made it clear how he felt about people sabotaging the business for personal gain, and that Mr Davis did not like rumour mongers (Exhibit 19). Mr Cairns said he had known Mr Davis' views on these matters because Mr Davis had expressed them in a speech he had made to sales staff when he arrived in Brisbane. Mr Cairns agreed that he had spoken to Mr Davis about Mr SR and that Mr Davis was his friend. Mr Cairns also sent an email to Mr Hood at 11.54 a.m. on 18 August 2005 complaining about a report he had received that an unnamed Brisbane Team Leader had been out with staff and members of the business community, suggesting that Mr Cairns' employment would be terminated by Friday that week, due to the incident at Couran Cove. Mr Cairns stated in the email that he had checked with the Human Resources Department, and there was no record of a claim against him for Couran Cove or any other incident. Mr Cairns went on in the email to ask: "Is this just the ramblings of a man acting alone? Do I need to be made aware of any issue either past or present?". The email concludes by stating that Mr Cairns would leave the matter in Mr Hood's hands and would keep quiet about it (Exhibit 19). Mr Hood responded on the same day at 12.14 p.m., and stated that he had no recommendation from anyone with regard to terminating Mr Cairns' employment before or after the conference. That email concludes by stating: "With regard to the conduct and lack of professionalism of some of our sales staff, I can assure you that they are sadly mistaken if they think I will allow that to continue.". (Exhibit 19) Mr Cairns emailed Mr Hood again on 18 August 2005 at 12.18 p.m. and said: "Thanks Mark -- 7 of 29 -- 8 As I said...I will leave it well alone...I guess I am a little pissed off and shocked, I have never seen this type of thing before. I would like you to know that I won't respond to this here in the office or beyond.". (Exhibit 19) Mr Cairns agreed that by sending the emails he was seeking reassurance from someone fairly high in the management hierarchy, and certainly higher than Mr Davis. Mr Cairns also agreed that he felt better when he had received Mr Hood's email. In response to the proposition that Mr Hood's email was an obvious message that management was not going to tolerate Mr SR's actions, Mr Cairns said: "But they had previously" and that he continued to worry about it. Mr Cairns also said that he received a telephone call at home during the week commencing 15 August 2005, from Mr SR, during which Mr SR told Mr Cairns that: "You'd better watch it. You know I run this place. You need to shut your mouth. Not only will I get rid of you, you know that I worked for the Feds in my last workplace. You'll disappear and they'll never find your body.". The telephone conversation had been conducted by Mr Cairns on a speaker phone in the presence of Mr Brian. Mr Brian said that a voice he recognised as Mr SR's said: "Cairns, you're a fucking dog. I'm going to make sure your body disappears and they'll never find you again.". According to Mr Davis, Mr Cairns reported the telephone call from Mr SR to him. Mr Davis suggested that Mr Cairns speak to Ms Musk, and offered Mr Cairns some time off. On Thursday 24 August 2005, Ms Crockett took Mr Cairns and Mr Brian to lunch after Mr Cairns broke down at work. During that lunch meeting, Mr Cairns had been very emotional and had said that he was feeling sabotaged. Ms Crockett offered Mr Cairns counselling through a service provided by AAPT to its employees. Ms Crockett also said that before this lunch meeting she had heard some gossip about Mr Cairns, which had originated from Ms Clark. Ms Crockett sent an email to Ms Musk on Thursday 24 August 2005 stating that Mr Cairns had been struggling at work on that day and seemed upset (Exhibit 22). The email also said that Ms Crockett had taken Mr Cairns to lunch and that Ms Crockett agreed with Ms Musk's proposal that Mr Cairns should take some time off. Before being shown the email dated Thursday 24 August 2005 (Exhibit 22), Ms Crockett said that these events occurred on the Monday immediately following Couran Cove (15 August 2005), and that Mr Cairns had shown her red marks on his body on that day. After considering the email dated 24 August 2005 (Exhibit 22), Ms Crockett said that she had been mistaken as to the timing of the lunch. Ms Crockett said that she also held discussions with Ms Musk and told her that the allegations about Mr Cairns needed to be sorted out. Ms Crockett said nothing to Ms Musk about the role of Mr SR in these issues, but said that the gossip from Couran Cove had been as a result of Ms Clark leaking confidential information regarding her co-workers. Ms Musk said that she would investigate these matters. Ms Musk said that she could not recall this conversation and that it "potentially" did not happen. Ms Clark said in her evidence that she had not leaked information about what happened between Mr Cairns and Mr FL to anybody. Ms Clark also said that she had not heard any rumours about Mr Cairns relating to Couran Cove, but had heard that Mr Cairns had assisted and had jumped in and saved the day. Ms Clark also said that she was not aware that Mr Cairns had taken stress leave after Couran Cove but had known that Mr Cairns and Mr Brian took some time off and were promoted on returning to work. Ms Clark was not in charge of Mr Cairns at that time and had moved to another role. Mr Cairns took two weeks off work during which time he attended counselling through an employee assistance program provided by AAPT for staff. Mr Cairns described this as "stress leave". On returning from leave on 12 or 13 September 2005, Mr Cairns was promoted to the position of Team Manager. Mr Davis was involved in promoting Mr Cairns to the position of Team Manager and said that he told Ms Musk: "Look, whilst this guy has had some time off I think he's over all his issues, I'm prepared to give this bloke an opportunity". Mr Davis said that when he ceased to be Mr Cairns' direct Manager, things had fallen to bits. Mr Cairns had commission issues, he did not feel comfortable with Ms Clark, and the email from Mr SR to Ms Clark alleging fraud on the part of Mr Cairns had made him despondent. Mr Davis was asked if he had tried to do something about the issues between Mr SR and Mr Cairns, and said that he had discussions with Ms Musk, but there was not enough information or material to take the matter to the next level. Mr Davis said that he thought that Ms Musk had done a fantastic job, and that he was satisfied with her response in relation to this matter. Mr Brian said that at a social occasion at the Hamilton Hotel following the Stradbroke race day, within two weeks of the Couran Cove incident, Mr SR harassed a female colleague, Ms LM. Mr SR also made derogatory comments about Mr Cairns saying that he was going to make sure that Mr Hood and every other Manager knew that Mr Cairns should be sacked because Mr FL was going to come back and sue AAPT for unfair dismissal following the incident with -- 8 of 29 -- 9 Mr Cairns at Couran Cove. Mr Cairns was not present on this occasion. Ms Musk said that Mr Cairns approached her and told her that Mr SR had acted inappropriately towards Ms LM, and that this was not the first time that such an incident had occurred. Mr Cairns wanted Ms Musk to take the matter further. Under cross-examination, Mr Cairns said that he had found out about the incident involving Mr SR and Ms LM from Mr Brian, who had telephoned him at home. It was put to Mr Cairns that Mr Brian had told him about this incident because he knew that Mr Cairns hated Mr SR. Mr Cairns denied this and said he was fearful of Mr SR. It was put to Mr Cairns that despite being fearful, he had taken it upon himself to report Mr SR in relation to an incident which did not concern Mr Cairns, and which had occurred when he was not present. Mr Cairns responded to this proposition by saying: "yes". Ms Musk said in her evidence that she spoke to Mr Brian and Ms LM about the incident, having ascertained that Mr Cairns was not present when it occurred. Ms Musk then spoke to Mr SR and issued him with a warning about his behaviour to Ms LM in particular and about rumour mongering in the workplace in general. The warning was issued in the form of a letter dated 29 August 2005, stating that Mr SR was not to have further contact with Ms LM and was to display appropriate behaviour in the workplace at all times (Exhibit 32). Mr SR resigned his employment with AAPT in September or October 2005. Under cross-examination, Ms Musk said that Mr Cairns had not made a complaint to her about Mr SR. Ms Musk was shown a document which she confirmed were notes of a statement she had taken from Mr Brian: "Following on from a complaint made by Mick Cairns...". The statement related to the issue between Mr SR and Ms LM (Exhibit 37). Under cross-examination, Ms Musk said that Mr Cairns had spoken to her about this matter in the corridor and it had been a short conversation. Ms Musk maintained that Mr Cairns had not made a formal complaint about Mr SR's conduct toward Mr Cairns. Ms Musk had subsequently informed Mr Cairns that there had been a discussion with Mr SR, and that the issue with Ms LM had been closed. Ms Musk had not told Mr Cairns about the substance or the outcome of the discussion with Mr SR. Ms Musk agreed that the primary focus of the discussion with Mr SR was the incident with Ms LM. August - October 2005, regular harassment from Ms Clark to attend drinks after work on Fridays In his statement to WorkCover (Exhibit 21) Mr Cairns said that: "From August - October 2005, I was living on the Gold Coast. I would often give a work colleague a lift home because he lived at the Gold Coast to. I was not one to go along to the work drinks on Friday nights, as I'd seen too much trouble come out of them. Belinda Clark would ring me every Friday night and harass me, saying things like 'You think you're part of some boys club', its hurting you not to socialise with the staff' and 'You really should be socialising with the staff', trying to pressure me into going along for drinks with them.". Mr Cairns said in evidence to the Commission that Ms Clark was promoted to the position of Sales Manager in September 2005, and Ms Crockett was moved to another part of the business. As a result, Mr Cairns was reporting directly to Ms Clark on matters including the performance of his team and commissions. Shortly after becoming Mr Cairns' Manager, Ms Clark started to telephone him about not attending Friday afternoon work drinks. These telephone calls occurred during September and October. Under cross-examination, Mr Cairns said that the calls continued into November. During the telephone calls Ms Clark had said that Mr Cairns thought he was part of a boys club, and that if he did not get alongside her and attend the drinks, he was not supporting her. Ms Clark also said that if Mr Cairns did not attend the drinks then she would not support him; there would be no future for him; he would not be doing himself any favours and would be out on his ear. Mr Cairns said he did not attend the drinks because he had been promoted to Sales Team Manager and he did not see any good coming from attending drinks or that anyone was going to regard him more highly if he attended. Under cross-examination, Mr Cairns agreed that he had attended Friday drinks on some occasions and members of his team continued to attend. Mr Cairns also said that Ms Clark was using the drinks for the purpose of obtaining information about colleagues to use against them. According to Mr Cairns' evidence, Mr Davis and Mr Brian had been present in the car when he had received the calls from Ms Clark. Mr Cairns gave Mr Davis a lift to work on Fridays. The calls would usually be received between 4.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m., within the first fifteen minutes of Mr Cairns leaving the office. Under cross-examination Mr Cairns maintained that Ms Clark rang him every Friday afternoon to tell him that he should be at the drinks and that he was not going to have any future at AAPT if he did not attend. When asked whether Ms Clark said this to him every Friday, Mr Cairns said that it was almost every Friday, not every single Friday. Mr Cairns then said it was very frequently, and when asked on how many occasions, Mr Cairns said at least half a dozen. Mr Cairns said that he did not know on how many occasions other people had been present when he received the calls. Mr Cairns agreed with the proposition that Mr Davis had heard, on an occasion, Ms Clark in effect making -- 9 of 29 -- 10 threats to Mr Cairns about his job if he did not attend the drinks. Mr Cairns also agreed that Mr Davis had not said anything to Ms Clark during that telephone call. Mr Cairns agreed that in his evidence in chief and his statement to WorkCover he had said he felt threatened by Ms Clark for not attending the drinks, but had not raised the issue that Ms Clark was using the Friday afternoon drinks for some ulterior motive. Mr Davis said that he had been present in Mr Cairns' car on one occasion when he received a telephone call from Ms Clark. During that call, Ms Clark had said: "it's not a good career move, Michael, to do this.". Under cross- examination Mr Davis said that this probably occurred in October 2005 and Ms Clark had said: "if you don't come and have a drink with us, Michael, its not good for your career, it's a career threatening move". Mr Davis said that he had not commented at the time, but had later spoken to Ms Clark and told her that it was probably not a good idea for her to ring Mr Cairns after hours because it could land her in hot water. Mr Davis also agreed that he was in a position to do something about it if he thought that Ms Clark had said something inappropriate, and that he did not interpret her comments to Mr Cairns as a threat. Further, Mr Davis said that he had never heard any innuendo or rumours that the drinks were being used by Ms Clark to obtain information about workers at AAPT to use against them or to "get dirt on people". Mr Brian said that on one occasion he had been in Mr Cairns' car when he had received a telephone call from Ms Clark. Mr Brian had heard what Ms Clark said because Mr Cairns was using the speaker on his mobile phone. Ms Clark said: "Why do you keep blanking me for these drinks events? You need to know you need to be here to support me and the team. You are only hurting yourself and your future at AAPT by not coming, Mick". Mr Cairns responded by saying that he did not want to go, was not coming and did not want to be there. Ms Clark persisted but Mr Cairns had cut her off as quickly as he could. Ms Clark said in her evidence that she could only remember having telephoned Mr Cairns once about attending Friday drinks and denied harassing Mr Cairns about this matter. Ms Clark said that she rarely attended the drinks but on this occasion, Mr Cairns had pre-arranged drinks with his team and invited Ms Clark. Ms Clark had attended with Mr Cairns' team and he had not shown up. Ms Clark telephoned Mr Cairns to see where he was. Ms Clark denied that she said that if Mr Cairns did not attend the drinks he was not supporting her and she would not support him. Ms Clark also denied that she had said there would be no future with AAPT for Mr Cairns, that he was not doing himself any favours and that he would be out on his ear. According to Ms Clark if witnesses said this they were lying. Ms Clark denied that Mr Davis had spoken to her after she had made this phone call and that Mr Davis told her that it was not a good idea for her to make such a call. Incorrect payments to sales staff Mr Cairns was promoted to the position of Team Manager in September 2005 and in the same month Ms Clark was promoted to the position of Sales Manager, and Ms Crockett was moved to another part of the business. As a result, Mr Cairns was reporting directly to Ms Clark on matters including the performance of his team and commissions. Mr Cairns raised problems with the payment of commissions to his team members and himself with Ms Clark. According to the evidence of Mr Cairns, Mr Davis, Ms Clark and Ms Mitchell, there were problems with the payment of commissions to AAPT sales staff. With effect from 30 June 2005, there had been a change to the contracts of employment of sales staff, including Mr Cairns. The change was that while previously commission had been paid on a signed contract, it was now paid when the sale had been provisioned, or the client had been connected to the network. Issues had arisen from July or August, with lost paperwork, late payment or non-payment of commissions and customers not being connected. According to a number of witnesses, sales staff were openly discussing these problems. Mr Davis said that it was not that AAPT did not want to pay people, but rather there were structural problems because the size of the sales force was too big in proportion to the number of staff involved in connecting customers to the network. This meant that sales staff received less commission at certain times, causing friction at all levels, from Sales Representatives, Team Leaders and Sales Managers. Mr Cairns said that these issues created problems in terms of his relationship with management, and caused his focus to switch to the issue of why he had not been paid for the work he had done, rather than what work was ahead. Ms Mitchell gave evidence about the computer system for tracking sales and calculating commissions operated by AAPT. That system required information from hard copies of sales contracts to be entered into it. There was a process for verifying that information was complete and correct, before commissions could be paid. There was also a timetable published on the intranet each month, setting out dates for verification reports and typically establishing a three week window between the time sales for the previous month were closed, and the verification reports. During that window, sales representatives could ensure that the sales they had closed in the system were able to be verified by the documents provided by them. The time frame was that commissions on sales for one month, would be verified in the next month and paid in the month after that. -- 10 of 29 -- 11 Mr Cairns said that during December 2005 there was ongoing pressure to increase sales performance, and the centre was performing terribly. The team was told to shut up and perform, and as Team Manager he was expected to get the focus of the team off pay and onto hitting targets. Those instructions had come from Ms Clark. Ms Clark gave regular instructions in relation to performance every Monday morning. Mr Davis left AAPT some time in December saying that he had hurt his back or had a bad back. Mr Davis' position had been split between Ms Clark and Ms Meagan Dunbar. On or around 13 January 2006, Mr Cairns had a discussion with Ms Clark about incorrect payment of commissions. Mr Cairns conceded that during that discussion he had been rude to Ms Clark and had referred to a female staff member in Sydney as a slut. Mr Cairns said that he was ashamed of having made that comment. Mr Cairns said that he was under pressure at the time, and Ms Clark had resorted to ignoring him. In response to a question about whether Ms Clark had started to ignore him before or after the comments made 13 January 2006, Mr Cairns said that Ms Clark was pretty cold before that incident but was certainly so straight after it, and had turned away from Mr Cairns and did not want to speak to him. Mr Cairns said that the issues caused with payment of commissions problems with staff morale, with staff being negative and down because they could not make ends meet. Mr Cairns had offered to lend money to some staff members to help them get by. In December 2005, Mr Cairns had loaned $200 to two sales representatives and offered to lend money to a third, Ms PL. Mr Cairns also said to Ms Corrie in relation to commissions that if staff continued to be stolen from he would bring it to the attention of the media. During cross-examination, Mr Cairns said that none of his team members had complained about commissions in October 2005. Mr O'Flaherty and Mr Broughton had complained in November and Ms PL had not been paid her wages since commencing work. Mr Cairns could not remember how many people complained about this matter in December or January. Ms Clark said that mistakes on the part of sales staff in recording information could lead to delays in the payment of commissions. Mr Cairns had not been assigned a team until October 2005, so Ms Clark would expect that any problems with commissions being paid to Mr Cairns' team members would not emerge until December. Under cross- examination, Ms Clark agreed that payment of commissions to sales staff was an ongoing problem, but had not really been an issue until the first few months after she had been at AAPT. Ms Clark agreed that there were ongoing problems by September 2005, and outlined steps that she had taken to resolve those problems including arranging for a management representative from AAPT to fly up from Sydney to talk to staff. Ms Clark agreed that the issue was significant and she had felt like it needed addressing straight away. Ms Clark also agreed that there had been a provisioning problem and that AAPT could not make connections fast enough, which delayed the payment of commissions. While there had been targets and incentives, and those targets were high, Ms Clark said that AAPT was no different in this respect from any other sales environment. There were a small number of staff members not being paid properly and they were unhappy and complained to Ms Clark and to Team Leaders about this. Most people voiced their complaints in an appropriate manner. Ms Clark said that Mr Cairns was emotionally volatile and said that he always had issues with people he worked with and was difficult to get along with. Mr Cairns had always been this way and had not become more emotionally volatile at some particular point. Ms Clark could also remember Mr Cairns complaining to her that his sales representatives were not being paid on time. Mr Cairns' team was not meeting targets, but neither were the many other teams in AAPT at that time, and Mr Cairns was not subject to any performance management system because of that. Ms Mitchell said in her evidence that commissions payable to Mr Cairns' team members in December 2005 would have been earned in October. Exhibit 28 tendered through Ms Mitchell indicates that of the eight members of Mr Cairns' team, two were not entitled to be paid commission as they did not complete a full month of employment with AAPT; Mr Hodges was below the payment threshold for the month; Ms PL was a contractor and not entitled to commission and four had not completed one months' employment at that stage. In relation to Mr Cairns' comments about the female staff member who was responsible for calculating commissions, Ms Clark denied that she had shunned Mr Clark after this occurred. Ms Clark said that as the exchange had occurred on Friday 13 January 2006 and the meeting with Mr Cairns about his credit card use had occurred on Monday 16 January 2006, there would have been no opportunity for Ms Clark to behave in that way towards Mr Cairns because he had not been at work since 16 January 2006. Email From Mr SR to Ms Clark Mr Cairns said in his statement to WorkCover after Mr SR's resignation, Mr SR sent an email to Ms Clark making serious claims about Mr Cairns and Mr Brian. Mr SR claimed in the email that Mr Cairns was a thief who had breached fair trade practices and laws. Ms Clark had been promoted from Sales Coach to Sales Manager by this time. In May 2005 when the first allegation of harassment happened, Ms Clark and Mr SR had been close, and they had maintained a relationship after Mr SR left AAPT. -- 11 of 29 -- 12 In his evidence to the Commission, Mr Cairns said that about a week after Mr SR left employment with AAPT, Ms Clark told him that she had received an email from Mr SR making some fairly serious allegations about Mr Cairns, Mr Hood and Mr Brian, and that he would not want those allegations to get out. Ms Clark let Mr Cairns look at the email on the screen of her computer, but when he requested a copy, would not provide it to him. According to Mr Cairns, Ms Clark said that she had forwarded the email to Mr Hood and to another person, whose identity Mr Cairns could not recall. Mr Cairns said that he was concerned about the email and wanted the opportunity to defend himself. Mr Cairns felt that even though Mr SR had left AAPT, he was still going to use his relationship with Ms Clark to affect Mr Cairns at work. Mr Cairns also spoke to Mr Davis about the email, and was told to go to Human Resources. Mr Cairns spoke to Ms Musk and requested a copy of the email. There was a series of emails between Ms Musk and Mr Cairns wherein Mr Cairns requested a copy of the email and Ms Musk refused to provide it to him. On 10 November 2005 Ms Musk emailed Mr Cairns and Mr Brian stating the following:  that she was concerned about giving credence to the matter by making a big issue out of it;  agreeing with comments made by Mr Cairns and Mr Brian that the email was the baseless rantings of an ex- employee; and  both Mr Cairns and Mr Brian were valued employees of AAPT, and had 100% support from AAPT. Ms Musk went on in her email to say to Mr Cairns that the Privacy Act did not provide a basis for him to request a copy of Mr SR's email as he wanted the email for personal reasons. Further, Mr SR's email was not a part of Mr Cairns' employment file. Ms Musk also said that the email from Mr SR had been deleted and steps taken to ensure that this type of incident would not happen again. Ms Musk's email concluded by stating that: "we hold no value in anything we have received and do not wish to fuel any fires in relation to this matter.". (Refer Exhibit 11) On 10 November 2005, Mr Cairns responded to Ms Musk's email stating that he had "undertaken legal counsel to proceed against [Mr SR]" and maintaining an entitlement to be provided with a copy of the email on the basis that the information in it had affected him in the workplace and his career at large. Mr Cairns also pointed out that the document had been sent to his direct Manager and had then been transferred from one Manager of AAPT to another by email. Further Mr Cairns said that the email constituted bullying and was an extension of the bullying he had already suffered in the workplace at the hands of Mr SR over many months. Mr Cairns said that he was horrified at the lack of support he had been shown and questioned whether HR understood the effect this was having on his wellbeing (Exhibit 12). On 15 November 2005, Mr Cairns again sent an email to Ms Musk stating that in the absence of a reply to his email of 10 November, he wished to escalate the request for a copy of Mr SR's email, and sought advice as to who to direct this request to. Mr Cairns said in his email that the effect on him both mentally and physically still persisted, and in accordance with legislation he should be supported in his plea to "overcome this bully and his access to me, once and for all". (Exhibit 13). On 16 November 2005 Ms Musk responded to Mr Cairns advising that Mr Cairns had full support as an employee of AAPT, the email had been deleted and Mr Cairns would not be provided with a copy as there were no other copies in existence. Ms Musk concluded by stating that: "Your comments in relation to your health and well being are a concern to us. Please feel free to talk to myself or Belinda your manager, about how you are feeling as we wish to support you through this. I know we have had previous discussions concerning [Mr SR], however there is a big jump from where we left off and a formal accusation of bullying. I can confirm that if you wish to escalate this matter you should escalate to Mark Hood.". (Exhibit 13A) On 16 November 2005, Mr Cairns sent a further email to Ms Musk contending that Ms Musk had failed to protect his safety and well-being. Issue was taken with the suggestion that the next level of support was Mr Mark Hood rather than someone from HR. It was pointed out that the email from Mr SR had been forwarded to Mr Hood by Ms Clark and that his privacy had not been protected. Mr Cairns also referred to the employer's obligations under workplace health and safety legislation. Further, Mr Cairns stated that if he was not able to proceed against Mr SR with AAPT's assistance then he would be forced to pursue AAPT, and questioned why AAPT would want to put him into this position (Exhibit 14). Mr Cairns said in his evidence that he had never received a copy of the email, and honestly believed that Ms Clark was withholding it against him. It was put to Mr Cairns in cross-examination, that the real issue was that Mr Cairns wanted to get his hands on the email so that he could pursue Mr SR. Mr Cairns said that he had certainly wanted the email, but disagreed with the proposition that it had nothing to do with his work. It was put to Mr Cairns that he could not be concerned that he would lose his job when he had been told by the relevant human resources person, Ms Musk, to ignore Mr SR's "rantings", and that he and Mr Brian were valued employees. Mr Cairns said that it was Ms Clark and Mr SR who were threatening his employment, not Ms Musk. -- 12 of 29 -- 13 Mr Cairns was also asked why he had continued to be concerned, when he had been told by Human Resources that no credence was being given to the email; that it had been deleted; and that his job was 100% safe. Mr Cairns said that Mr SR was still ringing other people on the floor at that point, and the matter had not been put to rest, although Mr SR was not an employee of AAPT at the time. It was put to Mr Cairns that given Mr SR left AAPT in late September 2005, and had made some vague suggestion about the security of Mr Cairns' job in an email in November, Mr Cairns could not have been genuinely concerned that his job was at risk. Mr Cairns said that he was concerned, but more with what Ms Clark would do with the email than about Mr SR. Mr Cairns said that Ms Clark had told him that she was going to show the email to the other staff on the floor. It was put to Mr Cairns that he did not make any complaint that Ms Clark did anything to him between June 2005 (when Mr Cairns raised the alleged relationship with Mr RV) and November 2005 when Ms Clark had shown Mr Cairns the email from Mr SR. Mr Cairns said that he had reported things that Ms Clark had done in that period to Mr Davis, but it was not part of his case that Mr Davis had failed to address the issue. Mr Cairns agreed that he was complaining in the current case that Human Resources did not do anything about his complaints, but said that he had no such complaint against Mr Davis. Mr Davis had explained to Mr Cairns that it was the responsibility of Human Resources to deal with Mr Cairns' complaints. Mr Davis said under cross-examination, that he thought Mr Hood had shown him the email from Mr SR to Ms Clark, and he remembered speaking to Mr Hood about it. Mr Davis denied that Mr Hood forwarded the email to him, or that he had shown it to Mr Cairns. Mr Davis could not remember Ms Clark showing him the email. Mr Davis agreed that Mr Cairns was keen to have a copy of the email and that he had badgered Ms Musk about it. Mr Davis said that he had told Mr Cairns to "move on" in relation to demanding a copy of the email and his issues with Mr SR. Ms Clark said that the email was derogatory about Mr Cairns, Mr Brian and Mr Hood. When she received the email, Ms Clark called Ms Musk and Mr Hood about the content of the email. Ms Clark also held a discussion with Mr Davis, who was Ms Clark's direct Manager. Ms Musk asked Ms Clark to send her the email and then to delete it. Just after Ms Clark finished speaking to Ms Musk, Mr Cairns and Mr Davis came over and Mr Davis asked Ms Clark to show the email to Mr Cairns. Ms Clark said she was not comfortable with this because she had been advised by HR what to do about it. Mr Davis reached across Ms Clark's desk and opened the email and showed it to Mr Cairns. As soon as they moved away, Ms Clark deleted the email. Thereafter, Mr Cairns had been "infuriated" and according to Ms Clark, Mr Cairns wanted to retaliate. Mr Cairns kept asking for a copy of the email and Ms Clark told him she had deleted it, and that he should speak to Ms Musk. Mr Cairns believed that the company was obliged to provide him with the email, and had sent Ms Clark a number of emails to this effect. Ms Clark told Mr Cairns that they did not care about the email, that it did not impact his credibility, that Mr SR did not work at AAPT any more and that the email had been deleted. Under cross-examination, Ms Clark rejected the proposition that Mr SR had sent the email to her because they were close friends and because they shared a mutual dislike of Mr Cairns. Ms Clark also rejected the proposition that she had spread the email around. Ms Clark said that she sent the email to Mr Hood because it also contained statements about him, and either read or sent the email to Ms Musk. Ms Clark also communicated the content to Mr Davis as he was her direct Manager. Ms Clark denied that she had told Mr Cairns about the email or said to him that he would not want it to get out. Ms Clark said that she had not wanted to tell Mr Cairns because she knew that he had a volatile nature and was worried about how upset he would get. Ms Clark said she told Mr Davis about the email, and he told Mr Cairns. Ms Clark also said that she feared an explosion by Mr Cairns, and exactly what she knew would happen, happened. Ms Clark also said that if she was such good friends with Mr SR she would not have told Mr Hood and Mr Davis about the email. Ms Clark could not remember the period of time that elapsed between her receipt of the email and deleting it. Ms Clark also spoke to Ms Musk about putting a block on future emails from Mr SR and organised this. Later, Ms Clark agreed that Ms Musk had organised the block but maintained that she had suggested it. Ms Clark also said that she had told Mr Hood about a telephone call from Mr SR where he threatened to poach staff from AAPT, and Mr Hood had caused a letter to be written to Mr SR in relation to this. Ms Musk said that Ms Clark told her about the email from Mr SR, but had not given her a copy. Ms Clark told Ms Musk that she had forwarded the email to Mr Hood and had shown it to Mr Davis. Ms Musk took specialist advice from AAPT's HR Manager and was told that the email should be deleted. Ms Musk told Mr Hood and Ms Clark to delete the email, and told Mr Cairns and Mr Brian that this had been done. A block had also been placed on emails from Mr SR. Under cross-examination, Ms Musk maintained that her actions in relation to this issue had seemed like the right thing at the time, and she was still of this view. Ms Musk also said that she had initiated the actions of deleting the email, advising Ms Clark to have no further telephone contact with Mr SR and blocking Mr SR's email access to AAPT. -- 13 of 29 -- 14 Use of American Express corporate credit card Mr Cairns said in his evidence that when he was promoted to the position of Team Manager in September 2005, he signed an application for an American Express corporate credit card, but was not given any other documentation in relation to that card. Under cross-examination, Mr Cairns denied signing a document setting out terms and conditions for use of the card. Mr Cairns said that he understood that the American Express card was to be used to purchase team incentives, such as drinks at the pub, bottles of wine and meals. Mr Cairns said that he had been told by Mr Davis, that the card could also be used for personal purchases, provided that these were repaid on reconciliation. Mr Cairns said he made several attempts to reconcile his use of the card with Mr Davis. Mr Cairns said he did not know that he had to reconcile his use of the card through a portal on the AAPT computer system, and was not given a limit as to what he could spend on the card. Mr Cairns said he did not think about how much he could spend but did not think he could spend as much as he wanted to. When it was put to Mr Cairns in cross-examination that he had not submitted expense claims in relation to his use of the card, and had let AAPT pay it, Mr Cairns said that he did not know who paid the card account. On 15 December 2005, Mr Cairns sent an email to Mr Tim Wilson in relation to charges on his American Express card. That email (Exhibit 15) was in the following terms: "Hi Tim I am one of the Team Managers in the Brisbane Telesales Centre (BRS). I have some personal expenses on the corporate Amex card and I would like to confirm that it is best for me to pay this amount by Bank Cheque to AAPT Limited or not? I would like to finalise this prior to our Christmas break and your guidance would be appreciated.". On the same day, Mr Wilson responded to that email stating: "You need to wait until these are billed and then when completing your expenses in the portal mark personal use. This will then get deducted from your pay directly.". Mr Cairns said that he sent the email after a discussion with Mr Davis, during which Mr Davis said that if you have any expenses that were deemed personal, you simply "cut a cheque", and send it to AAPT. Mr Cairns asked Mr Davis who he should give the cheque to, and Mr Davis "came back" to Mr Cairns and told him that it had to go to Tim Wilson. Mr Cairns said that he had not had any discussion with Ms Clark in relation to expenses on his American Express card, before sending the email. Under cross-examination, Mr Cairns agreed that he had known since December 2005 that an investigation into inappropriate and excessive use of American Express cards was being conducted by AAPT. Mr Cairns also agreed that in December 2005, every Team Manager had been called to a meeting and American Express cards were withdrawn. Team Managers were told at this time that the use of the cards was being investigated. Mr Cairns also said that this may have been before he sent the email about personal use of the card to Mr Wilson, and the meeting may have prompted him to send that email. Mr Cairns said that on 16 January 2006, Ms Clark approached him at approximately 3.45 p.m. and said: "Well I've got you now". Ms Clark told Mr Cairns that he was going to have a meeting with her and Ms Musk and handed him a letter dated 16 January (Exhibit 16) which stated: "Dear Mick I would like to invite you to a meeting to discuss the potential misuse of your Corporate Credit Card which is a direct breech (sic) of company policy. I have attached a print out of expenditure on your corporate credit card since one was issued to you in September 2005. As you can see, there are a number of items that appear to be non work related expenditure. When you were issued a credit card you signed an adherence to the American Express Corporate Card Policy which clearly stated that your corporate credit card was not to be used for personal expenditure. I have attached a copy of the policy as a reminder. The balance currently sits at $7098.27 and to date you have not submitted any expense claims in relation to your American Express Card since it was issued to you. I would like to meet with you to discuss this matter. The meeting will be held at 3/45 on Level 3 on 16 January 2006. Please let me know if for any reason that time is not suitable for you. -- 14 of 29 -- 15 If you are unable to provide a satisfactory explanation in relation to the issues raised above, this may result in disciplinary action being taken against you, which could involve a warning or dismissal. In light of this you are welcome to bring a support person/representative to the meeting. Please note, this is a confidential matter and I do not expect you to discuss this with any work colleagues.". Mr Cairns was also handed a print out of charges to his American Express card, and a document headed "AAPT COMPANY CREDIT CARD EMPLOYEE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE" (Exhibit 17). Point 3 of that document states that: "I will not charge private expenditure to the card. The Card will only be used for AAPT business related expenses in accordance with AAPT policies and procedures, and I agree that it is my responsibility to always keep myself informed of such policies and procedures. Should I use the card for personal expenditure or expenses which are subsequently not approved as valid AAPT business related expenses then I authorise AAPT to deduct from any sum it owes me at any time the amount of unapproved expenditure and I agree that should amounts still be outstanding, I will pay these immediately in full to AAPT. AAPT may also recover any such amount as a debt. ... I undertake to return my reconciled monthly credit card expense spreadsheet statement to accounts payable by the 15th of the following month, or by the date advised by accounts payable when the statement is sent to me...". Mr Cairns said that this was the first time he had seen the policy document. Mr Cairns denied that he had been asked at the meeting on 16 January 2006 if he remembered signing the policy on credit card use and whether he understood it. Mr Cairns also denied saying that he understood the policy but that it was applied differently in practice. Under cross- examination, Mr Cairns agreed that he had not claimed that Ms Clark said: "I've got you now" in his statement to WorkCover or to his treating medical practitioners. Mr Cairns said that he had not remembered this comment until recently when he had been thinking about this appeal. Mr Cairns said that after the meeting he felt sick and was unable to drive home straight away. When Mr Cairns went home he vomited and did not sleep that night. The following day Mr Cairns had been unable to go to work and he had not been to work since. On Wednesday 18 January 2006 Mr Cairns had seen Dr Tran who had told him to go immediately to WorkCover and recommended that Mr Cairns see a psychiatrist. Under cross-examination, Mr Cairns agreed that by the time he attended the meeting on 16 January 2006, Mr Brian had been dismissed and had told Mr Cairns that the reason for his dismissal was misuse of his corporate credit card. When asked whether he perceived that the same thing was going to happen to him, Mr Cairns said: "Not the same as Dan, but it was certainly an option.". Mr Cairns agreed under cross-examination that on 16 January 2006, he was given the option of having the meeting immediately with Ms Clark and Ms Musk, or having a meeting the next day with Ms Musk and Ms Parfitt. Mr Cairns chose to have the meeting that afternoon with Ms Musk and Ms Clark. Mr Cairns said he was interrogated and the meeting was hostile and confronting, but could not remember much of the conversation. Mr Cairns could not remember saying that he would take responsibility for the personal expenditure under duress, but could not be sure about whether or not he had made this statement. Mr Cairns denied saying that he would take responsibility for things that he did not feel he should, but would do so to maintain his credibility. Mr Cairns agreed that he had told Ms Clark and Ms Musk that he was prepared to take responsibility for expenses associated with a night at Hollywood Show Girls, which he had attended with a number of Team Leaders. During cross-examination, Mr Cairns was shown an itemised list of charges on his card, and questioned as to whether a number of them were personal. In relation to an amount for fuel, Mr Cairns said that he had given Mr Davis a lift sometimes and was able to fill his car up on those occasions. Mr Davis had told him that he could do this, but had not clarified whether the amount would have to be paid back by Mr Cairns. On one occasion Mr Cairns purchased fuel at Nundah when Mr Davis was not in the car. In relation to two entries on the card statement for Hollywood Show Girls, Mr Cairns could not remember whether he went there two nights in a row or stayed after midnight. Various bar and restaurant charges were said by Mr Cairns not to have been personal, as he was attending with Team Leaders and Mr Davis. Mr Cairns also agreed that various charges for sheets, vehicle parts, clothing, footwear and other goods were personal items. In response to the proposition that most of the other expenditure appeared to be outings with Mr Brian and Mr Davis, Mr Cairns said it was not limited to this, but agreed that this was the case and said that the use of his card like this was encouraged. Mr Cairns did not recall being asked by Ms Clark about what he was doing in terms of reconciling his card, and did not know that expenditure of amounts over $200 on the card required approval by the Sales Manager. Mr Davis and Mr Brian also said that they were not aware of the $200 limit. Mr Cairns had kept receipts and written on the back of them, but did not now know where they were. When it was put to Mr Cairns that he had not taken any steps to reconcile his card usage, Mr Cairns said that he had approached Mr Davis three times in this regard, and had also had discussions with Mr Davis at the time that he was charging food and drink to the card. On these occasions, Mr Davis -- 15 of 29 -- 16 had said: "Don't worry about putting it on your card, I decide what's personal and not personal, that's my decision and we'll look after it later.". Mr Davis said in his evidence that he had authorised Mr Cairns to have access to a Corporate American Express card. Mr Davis had given instructions to Mr Cairns that he had a budget to work to and could use the card to purchase lunches, vouchers and that sort of thing. In relation to other instructions given to Mr Cairns, Mr Davis said that he told Mr Cairns that: "Look, if you ever need to use the card for private use, do it within reason, but the rules of play are that, you know, once your statement comes in on the 15th you need to pay the private stuff in full, immediately.". In response to the question of whether he had subsequent conversations with Mr Cairns about reconciling the statement, Mr Davis said: "No I didn't. Yes, I did, sorry. I - that was a - I mean, it was - he had a couple of private things happen towards the end of my tenure there and he asked me - he - I believe you got in a bit of strife for having private use on his card because I - he reported to another lady by the name of Belinda Clark and I was managing Belinda. She, he - she had some issues with his private use and said 'Shane said it was ok'. And then Belinda come and asked me that sort of question. And I said, yes, I said within reason he can have private use of the card. And I think it was about December when all this - statement come in and I'd left the business on or around about December the 24th.". When asked whether Mr Cairns had talked to him or tried to have a discussion about reconciling the card, Mr Davis said: "It wasn't a matter of reconciling because, as I said to you and everyone else in the business, I had no problem with him using it. It was a matter of him paying back the money as - full stop.". In response to the question of when the money was to be paid back, Mr Davis said: "Effectively straightaway, when his statement came in.". Mr Davis was then asked whether he recalled any instance where he was with Mr Cairns, that might be called private, where he used the card. Mr Davis said: "Yeah I do actually and - yes I do. And could you elaborate on that? - Yes. There was a - I guess a function we went to - and whilst I wasn't his direct manager, I was his manager's manager. And we had a bit of a function after work in a Brisbane pub and I said, 'Happy for you to use the Amex and put a few drinks on for the people'. And were there any other instances? - Probably two or three incidents like that, but again I don't know, to be honest with you. I don't know the scope of what Michael's use was privately. Now, I just want to clarify and don't like to - I said 'within reason'. Now, I don't know what he used and what he hasn't used. But, you know, if there was private use, as far as I'm concerned, that was okay. The amount of private use, I don't know the answer to that question at this stage.". Under cross-examination, Mr Davis said that the term "within reason" in the context of private use of the card, meant that the card was to be used predominantly for work, and he had told Mr Cairns this. Mr Davis agreed that in terms of personal use of the card there was nothing to reconcile and it was just a matter of paying it back. It was up to the person using the card to identify what use was personal and Mr Davis would check it off. Mr Davis said that he did not have a chance to do this with respect to Mr Cairns' card, as by the time Mr Cairns got the card and his first statement it might have been well into November or December 2005, and Mr Davis was not Mr Cairns' Manager at that time. Mr Davis also said under cross-examination that he had not seen the document headed "AAPT Company Credit Card Employee Terms and Conditions of Use" and did not recall having signed this document (Exhibit 18). Mr Davis also denied that he knew that it was AAPT's expectation that private expenses would not be charged to the card. Mr Davis was shown a list of expenses incurred on Mr Cairns' card and said that spanning late September to early December 2005, he would not expect that the expenditure of a Team Manager on the card would be $7,000. Mr Davis said that he had not attended the Delano Hotel, Hollywood Showgirls or Melbas on the Park. Mr Davis had been present at Howl at the Moon, but not on each occasion that something was charged to Mr Cairns' card. Mr Davis rejected the proposition that expenditure on the cards by Team Managers was not intended by AAPT to exceed $200 per month, and that where expenditure exceeded that amount, there was a requirement for a Team Manager to seek approval from their sales manager. Mr Davis agreed that Team Managers spending money on their -- 16 of 29 -- 17 teams, would be spending that money on their sales staff, but disagreed with the proposition that the cards were not supposed to be used by Team Managers to have lunch with Mr Davis. Mr Brian was asked in cross-examination about the statement he made to WorkCover (Exhibit 23) that Mr Cairns had paid back some expenses on his card by use of a personal cheque. Mr Brian said that this statement had been taken out of context, and that he had been referring to an amount of money that he had given to Ms Clark's assistant to be handed on to Mr Cairns. When Mr Cairns had not advised he had received the money, Mr Brian had assumed that Ms Clark kept it for expenses, whether they were American Express expenses or not. In relation to his written statement to WorkCover (Exhibit 23) that another form of harassment against Mr Cairns was an audit of his American Express card, Mr Brian was asked whether he remembered management of AAPT asking for credit cards to be returned in December 2005. Mr Brian variously said he did not recall this, or that he did not recall this in any situation with Ms Clark. Mr Brian said that Mr Davis had told him that the card could be used for work expenses to buy team bonuses, team dinners and that sort of thing. The card could be used for personal expenses to a certain extent. According to Mr Brian, Mr Davis said: "If anything that comes up that's personal use, then when I reconcile the card, you'll have to account to me for what's personal and what's business and then you'll have to make an arrangement to pay back.". Mr Brian agreed that based on what was said by Mr Davis it would be up to Mr Brian to go to Mr Davis, when the account was reconciled and to identify personal expenditure. Mr Brian said that there was no formal reporting session to sit down and reconcile the card, but he had raised the issue with Mr Davis in late November 2005 and said: "Look I haven't received this statement yet. What's going on?". Mr Davis had said: "Don't worry about it. When they come they come and we'll sit down and reconcile.". Mr Brian said that he had not been told that there was a monthly limit on expenditure on the credit card and had not understood that this was the case. Mr Brian said that he had not paid his personal expenditure on the card back to AAPT, as he was still disputing the amount. When asked whether it was true that he was summarily dismissed for use of the card, Mr Brian said that this was not his understanding and that there were other things as well. It was put to Mr Brian that he had said in his written statement to WorkCover (Exhibit 23) that: "I was disciplined in January 2006 and summarily dismissed for misuse of the company card.". Mr Brian said he did not dispute this if it was in the statement he made to WorkCover. Mr Brian was taken through a list of charges on his card (Exhibit 35) and said that some items were personal and some were business related. Mr Brian said that there was a dispute over the card, and when Mr Davis was "sacked" there had not been time to reconcile the card. Ms Dunbar, who replaced Mr Davis, had called Mr Brian into a disciplinary meeting in early January 2006, and alleged that certain amounts on the card were personal. Mr Brian had said that these amounts should be sorted out and he would "cut the cheque". Ms Dunbar had said that Mr Brian could not just pay the money back as he was to be sacked. Mr Brian was summarily dismissed, and commission payments were withheld by AAPT. As a result there was a dispute about how much Mr Brian owed AAPT and how much AAPT owed Mr Brian. Ms Clark said in her evidence that all Team Managers were given a corporate credit card. The card was to be used to provide incentives for their teams on a monthly basis, and the limit for spending on this was $200 per month. Team Managers were required to seek approval from Ms Clark for spending above that amount on cards. Ms Clark said that there was a document setting out terms and conditions for the use of corporate cards (Exhibit 7). That document did not contain any information about the $200 limit. Ms Clark said she had been aware of that limit through discussions with Mr Hood and Mr Davis, and had sent an email to Team Managers to make sure it was understood, and had also discussed this limit in team meetings. When there was expenditure on the card there was an online system for monthly reconciliation. Staff were instructed by Ms Clark to go on line at the end of every month to reconcile the purchases on their cards. The system allowed for each expenditure item to be assigned to categories such as team incentives. Ms Clark would normally receive the reconciliations from each Team Manager who reported to her. Ms Clark had not received any reconciliations from Mr Cairns, although she had asked him monthly to provide these. Mr Cairns told Ms Clark that it was all taken care of. Ms Musk said that the process for approval of charges on American Express cards was that each month an email was generated to staff with cards advising that their expenses had been uploaded and they should go on line and process them. Staff could then access their statements through a portal on the AAPT computer system and check off each item and say what it was and whether they had a receipt for it. When each item had been checked, a cover sheet was printed stating what the expenditure was and that was given to accounts together with receipts. The information was then scanned in and sent to each cardholder's Manager for approval. Ms Musk did not have copies of emails sent to Mr Cairns in relation to this process. -- 17 of 29 -- 18 Ms Clark said that in the latter part of December 2005, it had been brought to her attention by Ms Musk that a couple of people had misused their cards or appeared to have done so. It was decided that there was a need to have a further conversation to either confirm or deny this. In the meantime, cards were taken off the team leaders. Ms Musk had shown Ms Clark a reconciliation report showing all of the expenses on Mr Cairns' card, and some of those expenses had caused Ms Clark concern, particularly pubs and Hollywood Show Girls which Ms Clark understood was a strip joint at the Gold Coast. There were also a number of charges that did not seem to be business related. Ms Clark said that on 16 January 2006, when she had given the letter requesting a meeting with Mr Cairns about the card (Exhibit 16) to Mr Cairns she told him that there needed to be conversation around the use of his company credit card, and that he could meet that afternoon with herself and Ms Musk or the next day with Ms Musk and Ms Parfitt. Mr Cairns opted to meet that afternoon with Ms Clark and Ms Musk. The meeting with Mr Cairns went for twenty or thirty minutes. Mr Cairns was asked whether he understood the company policy around personal use of corporate credit cards and Mr Cairns said he believed that he did. According to Ms Clark, Mr Cairns was given a copy of the document setting out expenses on his card and the meeting concluded on the basis that Mr Cairns was going to look over them and highlight potentially what was personal and what was not. Mr Cairns admitted in the meeting that a lot of the charges were personal. Payment of the expenses was not discussed at the meeting and Mr Cairns had never given Ms Clark a cheque to cover the expenses. This was not the way that the AAPT system worked and that would not be something that would be done. People did not generally put personal expenses on company credit cards and Ms Clark did not know what had been done in the past. Ms Clark denied that she said: "Got you now" to Mr Cairns when she had handed him the letter. Under cross-examination, Ms Clark said that she became aware of the AAPT conditions in relation to the use of the corporate credit cards when she received one on her promotion in September 2005. The documentation including the policy relating to the use of the card had been supplied by Ms Clark's Personal Assistant. Mr Hood and Mr Davis explained to Ms Clark that she could spend up to $500 each month on the card and for anything above that amount she would have to talk to Mr Davis or Mr Hood. Ms Clark had not been told that she could use the card for personal expenses. Ms Clark said that she had sent the terms and conditions via email to the Team Leaders who reported to her, and had also held conversations with Team Leaders. Ms Clark also said that she told Team Leaders via email that they could use their cards for incentives for staff such as pizza lunches, and that the limit was $200 per month, with any expenditure above that amount required to be approved by Ms Clark. Ms Clark did not keep a copy of the email and said that it would have been deleted. When it was put to Ms Clark that she had failed to keep a very important email, Ms Clark said that she did not think there would be an issue with it. Ms Clark said that she thought that all reconciliations for the cards used by Team Leaders reporting to her would come to her at the end of the month. She was not aware that if the spending on the cards was over a certain amount in a month, it would "kick to a higher level". Ms Clark said that when she had not received Mr Cairns' reconciliation and had spoken to him she believed that there must have been some sort of systems error. Ms Clark said that she thought that she had also mentioned to Mr Davis that she was not getting these reports. It was put to Ms Clark that Mr Davis had told her that he had told Mr Cairns that personal use of the card was okay as long as it was paid back when the statements came in. Ms Clark said that Mr Davis could have told her this and agreed that it would have been before 24 December 2005 when Mr Davis ceased employment with AAPT. Ms Clark said that she told Ms Musk about this statement by Mr Davis at some stage but did not know whether she had done so before or after the meeting on 16 January 2006. Ms Clark agreed that it would have been important for Ms Musk to know this information when she had initiated an investigation into private use of the cards, and that it may have had a significant effect on the investigation. When handing the letter of 16 January 2006 to Mr Cairns (Exhibit 16), Ms Clark had not noticed whether the copy of the policy document attached to the letter had been signed by Mr Cairns. Ms Clark said that it was not necessary at this time to alert Ms Musk to the fact that the copy of the policy document attached to the letter was unsigned as Mr Cairns was going to be given an opportunity to talk about whether he had actually read the guidelines. Ms Clark could not remember Mr Cairns saying at the meeting that he had signed the policy document and said that she thought that Mr Cairns said that he had not signed it. Ms Musk said under cross-examination that she had not spoken to Mr Davis about whether he had authorised Mr Cairns to use his American Express card for private purposes, either before or during her investigation. Ms Musk said that she had prepared and typed the letter of 16 January 2006 requesting Mr Cairns to attend the meeting about the use of his American Express card, and had collated the attachments to the letter. Ms Musk also said that she had not checked Mr Cairns' employee file before the meeting of 16 January 2006 to establish whether he had signed off on any policy document in relation to the use of the card, but had looked at the signing of the policy document during her investigation. Ms Musk had not found a policy document signed by Mr Cairns. Further, Ms Musk agreed that Ms Clark had not told her prior to the meeting with Mr Cairns on 16 January 2006, that Mr Davis had said that he had approved the use by Mr Cairns of the American Express card for personal expenditure. Ms Musk agreed that this information was important but Ms Musk maintained that it had not been relevant for the purposes of conducting the investigation, whether Mr Cairns had signed the policy document or not. Ms Musk also said that when she had drafted the letter to Mr Cairns she made an assumption that he had signed the policy document. Ms Musk said that the meeting -- 18 of 29 -- 19 on 16 January 2006 had been for the purpose of gathering information, but the outcome could have been disciplinary action. Ms Musk agreed under cross-examination that at the meeting of 16 January 2006 Mr Cairns said that Mr Davis had given him permission to use the American Express card for personal use, and that Ms Clark had not intervened to confirm that this was the case. Ms Musk also said that if she had known that Mr Davis had said this to Mr Cairns, it would not have changed the course of action in terms of having a formal meeting with Mr Cairns about personal expenditure on his card. According to Ms Musk, the fact that Mr Cairns had been led to believe that he could do this might change the outcome, but did not change the need to address the fact that there was personal expenditure on the card. From AAPT's perspective, this level of personal expenditure was a serious matter which needed to be addressed in a formal context. Allegation that Mr Cairns was required to dismiss staff Mr Cairns said in his statement to WorkCover (Exhibit 21) that he had not relaxed at Christmas because he had been forced by Ms Clark to dismiss three employees, a woman with cancer, a 53 year old man and a single woman with a child. Under cross-examination by Mr Jackson, Mr Cairns agreed that the employees in question were Ms PL, Ms KS and Mr WH. In relation to Ms PL, Mr Cairns agreed that she was a casual employee, but said he did not know that her contract was due to end in February 2006. Mr Cairns also said that he knew that Ms PL was proposing to commence study in February, but said that she had discussed doing this on a part-time basis. In relation to casuals generally, Mr Cairns said under cross-examination that he thought they were on a good wicket and had mentioned that. Mr Cairns agreed that casual employees were paid almost as much as he was. Mr Cairns also agreed that no sales representatives employed on a casual basis remained in employment past Christmas 2005, and that Ms PL had been treated like any other casual employee in the organisation. Further, Mr Cairns agreed that Ms PL had struggled with sales and was not a performer on his team. Ms KS had been having treatment for cancer, and had no sick leave left. Mr Cairns had been annoyed when Ms KS did not turn up for work in December 2005. Mr Cairns denied that he had disliked Ms KS, but agreed that he thought she was not very good at her job. Mr Cairns did not recall a conversation with Ms Dendy where he said in relation to Ms KS that: "Why do I get this shit. She'll never make it. Its going to make my job harder to get rid of her", and did not believe that he had said this. Ms Dendy said in her evidence that Mr Cairns made this statement on the first day that Ms KS had worked in his team. Mr Cairns also denied that he had called Ms KS a "good for nothing, dumb fat bitch" and that he had made the decision to sack Ms KS. Mr Cairns agreed that Mr WH did not end up getting sacked. When asked why he had said in his statement to WorkCover and to his medical practitioners that he was forced to sack Mr WH, Mr Cairns said that it was a miscommunication, and that if he had not vouched for Mr WH to get him a job, Mr WH would have been sacked. Mr Cairns maintained that he had suggested that Mr WH be moved to Robina, and that Ms Clark had simply authorised this. Ms Clark said that in the time Mr Cairns had managed a team he had wanted to sack between two-thirds and three- quarters of his team. Mr Cairns had not decided to sack Ms PL. Ms PL had been a contractor and AAPT had decided to end contractual agreements with contractors in Brisbane in December 2005. In relation to Ms KS, Mr Cairns had called her a "dumb fat bitch" and questioned whether Ms KS was genuinely ill. After discussions between Mr Cairns, Ms Musk and Ms Clark it had been decided to terminate the employment of Ms KS on the basis that she had not advised of her whereabouts. Mr Cairns had wanted to terminate the employment of Ms KS at an earlier time. In relation to Mr WH, Ms Clark had arranged a position to which he was more suited, as Mr WH had struggled in the role of sales representative notwithstanding that he was a hard worker. Ms Musk said that Ms PL had been one of five casual employees who had been given notice before Christmas 2005. Mr Cairns had spoken to Ms Musk about terminating the employment of Ms KS on the basis of her attitude. Ms Musk had assisted Mr Cairns by editing the letter he had drafted, advising Ms KS of the termination of her employment. It had been Mr Cairns' idea to terminate Ms KS's employment. Ms Clark had found an alternative position for Mr WH as he was a good employee, who was not suited to a sales role. Other stressors Under cross-examination, Mr Cairns was asked whether he had any sources of stress in his personal life in the latter half of 2005 and early 2006. Mr Cairns said that none sprung to mind. When asked about getting divorced, Mr Cairns said that it was a messy divorce but it was good to see it over and it was a relief. When it was put to Mr Cairns that his divorce was said to have been amicable, Mr Cairns said he did not think that they ever really were. Mr Cairns said that despite being messy, his divorce had not caused him stress as he had left his wife everything, so there was nothing for her to come after. Mr Cairns also said that he had separated from his girlfriend earlier in 2006 and had been asked by her to leave the place where they had been living as the relationship was not working out. This had caused Mr Cairns concern, but he was now married and happy. -- 19 of 29 -- 20 Mr Brian said that during the time he had lived with Mr Cairns, there had been comments made by Mr Cairns about his divorce. When asked whether Mr Cairns appeared to be under stress as a result of that, Mr Brian said that during the period when he was getting the papers served, there was a week when he was quite stressed about how it was all going. Mr Brian thought that this was around October 2005. Mr Cairns was also asked during cross-examination, why, with all of the things he claimed were wrong at AAPT, it was not until 16 January 2006 that he was unable to continue working there. Mr Cairns said that he struggled through with counselling, but by the time it got to January he could not go any further. In relation to how Mr Cairns was feeling in December 2005, he was asked about an incident at a Christmas Party, where Ms Dendy claimed that he had exposed his penis to her after wrapping a glow stick around it. Mr Cairns said that he did not expose his penis, but rather had engaged in a childish prank by having a glow stick hanging out of his fly. Mr Cairns also denied having a discussion with Ms Dendy about the size of his penis on the following Monday. Ms Dendy said that at the AAPT Christmas Party in December 2005, Mr Cairns had approached her while she was with her husband and said he had a Christmas present. Ms Dendy and her husband went to the side of the room with Mr Cairns and had exposed his penis which had a glow stick wrapped around it. As he did this, Mr Cairns said: "Merry Christmas.". Mr Cairns appeared to be loud and happy and ready to party. On Monday, Mr Cairns phoned Ms Dendy and asked her if she had spoken to anyone about the size of his penis, because people were talking about it. Under cross-examination, Ms Dendy said that she had seen Mr Cairns' penis but did not know whether it was circumcised as she had turned away. Ms Dendy rejected the proposition that a glow stick had been hanging out of Mr Cairns' fly and not his penis. Medical evidence Professor Nurcombe's report (Exhibit 8) stated that Mr Cairns has a major depressive disorder, and continues to suffer from that condition. The report sets out the following list of stressors: 1. perceived work stress; 2. divorce; and 3. break-up of personal relationship. Under the heading "Relationship of current Diagnosis to Stated Mechanism of Injury" the report states: "The particular stressors perceived by the claimant were as follows: harassment by [Mr SR] resentful because Mr Cairns advised a sexual harassment victim to complain, and harassment by Sales Manager, Belinda Clark, reportedly because Ms Clark supported [Mr SR]. In August 2005 at a National Sales Conference in Couran Cove, he was physically assaulted by an out of control team manager after he came to the aid of a female staff member who was being physically attacked by the team manager. This event involved the out-of-control team manager's (sic) pummelling Mr Cairns about the head and torso. Mr Cairns perceived the Sales Manager (Belinda Clark) as harassing him to attend drinks after work on Fridays. Mr Cairns became disturbed when fellow workers were affected by the incorrect payment of commissions. In general, Mr Cairns perceived the workplace as tense, unsupportive, disorganized and harassing.". In relation to the incident at Couran Cove, Professor Nurcombe's Report goes on to state that: "The incident at Couran Cove (11/8/05) occurred when Mr Cairns intervened between an out-of-control co-worker and a female co-worker. In the resulting melee, the out-of-control man pummelled Mr Cairns about the head, neck and body. This incident was significant enough to contribute to Mr Cairns' current condition and incapacity for work, but is only one of a number of stressors experienced in the workplace.". Professor Nurcombe said in his evidence that he had seen Mr Cairns on 21 March 2006. Following that consultation, Professor Nurcombe prepared a report, which stated that the diagnosis for Mr Cairns was a major depressive disorder (Exhibit 8). In preparing the report, Professor Nurcombe relied on documents sent to him, including the statement made by Mr Cairns on 7 February 2006 (Exhibit 21) and an interview with Mr Cairns. Professor Nurcombe agreed that in relation to stressors there were a range of circumstances alleged by Mr Cairns, identified by Professor Nurcombe as:  several instances and episodes of what Mr Cairns thought were threats and harassment by two fellow workers;  a physical assault which occurred at a work function in August 2005;  stress as a result of pressure on Mr Cairns to attend weekly after work drinking episodes; and  failure of AAPT to pay staff correctly for their commissions. Professor Nurcombe said it was possible, but unlikely, that these matters could have individually caused Mr Cairns' condition. It was possible that the altercation with the fellow worker at Couran Cove could have done so by itself but -- 20 of 29 -- 21 Mr Cairns' condition was of a type that was more commonly a result of an accumulative range of stressors occurring over a period of time. Under cross-examination, Professor Nurcombe said that of the two personal stressors identified in his report, Mr Cairns' divorce did not appear to have been particularly upsetting, while the separation from his girlfriend was upsetting. Professor Nurcombe said that it might have made a difference if the divorce was acrimonious and Mr Cairns had to give his ex-wife everything he had. This would depend on timing. In relation to workplace stressors, Professor Nurcombe said that Mr Cairns had told him that Ms Clark jibed at him on a daily basis, and that problems with Ms Clark had begun in June 2005 and continued until he stopped work. Problems with Mr SR had begun in May 2005. Professor Nurcombe agreed that in relation to the Couran Cove incident, Mr Cairns had told him that he was punched in the head, back and ribs. Professor Nurcombe also agreed that when someone said they were pummelled in that way, he took it as a fairly important stressor. When asked to assume that the assault just did not happen, Professor Nurcombe said that this would make a large difference to his conclusion. Further, it would make a difference if there was to be a link between that alleged occurrence and the depression. Professor Nurcombe said that he was not suggesting that this alone had caused the depression, but agreed that it was a very important factor. Professor Nurcombe also agreed that the Couran Cove incident may have been important enough on its own to cause the depression, but that this was probably not the case given that major depression is more likely to be caused by an accumulation of stressors rather than a single stressor. However, it was not impossible for a single stressor to precipitate major depression. Mr Cairns had not told Professor Nurcombe how often the harassment about attending Friday drinks had occurred, but Professor Nurcombe said that he thought it was an expectation and that whenever Friday came, Mr Cairns knew that he was expected to attend. Professor Nurcombe said that he would only expect someone who was socially withdrawn and who had a perception about losing their job, under the influence of a considerable amount of alcohol, to expose their penis at a work function. The meeting on 16 January 2006 about Mr Cairns' use of his American Express card could have been the last straw, resulting in Mr Cairns taking sick leave and not returning to work. Mr Cairns' workmate and friend telling Mr Cairns that he had been dismissed for misuse of a corporate card, prior to Mr Cairns going to that meeting, could also have been a factor in Mr Cairns' suspicions about not being wanted at work. It would also be a reasonable conjecture that this information would be consistent with Mr Cairns having the perception misuse of the card was going to be an excuse to dismiss him. Professor Nurcombe said that if the history he was given by Mr Cairns was wrong in the sense that Mr Cairns was not jibed at daily, the physical assault did not occur and he was only asked on six occasions to come to drinks but was not threatened, it would not necessarily destroy the link between his diagnosis and the workplace factors, but would make him question that link more closely. Professor Nurcombe said it would be "worrying" if the assault was removed as a factor on the basis that it did not occur at all. Ms Pears said in her evidence that she had prepared a report (Exhibit 7) after interviewing Mr Cairns and preparing a statement (Exhibit 21). All of the information taken by Ms Pears was in the report. The diagnosis made by Ms Pears was major depressive disorder. In her professional opinion, the causes of that condition were ongoing harassment suffered by Mr Cairns in the workplace from several different people, combined with the difficulties of trying to maintain a focus on target driven activities and getting staff to work harder, when there were anomalies in pay. Mr Cairns had thought it grossly unfair to have people trying to work harder when they weren't being paid properly, to the extent that he was lending money to people from week to week. A personality assessment inventory administered by Ms Pears had shown that Mr Cairns had responded consistently and had not tried to present either a more negative or positive impression. The validity scores were quite acceptable and the results could be interpreted. During the consultation Mr Cairns had been tired and lethargic and had spoken without much variation. He had become teary when talking about the breakdown of a previous relationship and how he had gone to AAPT at a lesser level than his previous job to put more focus into his personal life. Ms Pears' report (Exhibit 7) states that Mr Cairns became teary when discussing the impact of the events he was describing to her, on his relationship with his girlfriend and family. According to Ms Pears' evidence, Mr Cairns had said that he noticed symptoms such as disturbed sleep, feelings of being overwhelmed, anxiety, lack of concentration, withdrawal from friends and family, vomiting and diarrhoea. This had impacted on Mr Cairns' diabetes and his blood sugar levels. These symptoms had first occurred around August 2005 and had increased since that time. Ms Pears had seen Mr Cairns in February 2006. In the context of that evidence, Ms Pears was asked about a statement in her report (Exhibit 7 paragraph 2.25(a)) that Mr Cairns said that these symptoms commenced in January 2006. Ms Pears said that this was because of confusion on her part, and that Mr Cairns noted a build-up of these symptoms from August 2005, but was admitted to hospital in January 2006, with very high blood sugar levels. Ms Pears said that one of these symptoms would not, in itself, be clinically significant, but an accumulation of those symptoms was clinically significant. -- 21 of 29 -- 22 Ms Pears' report (Exhibit 7) at point 6.2, states that: "Mr Cairns' symptoms were likely to meet the DSM-IV criteria for a Major Depressive Episode. It seems likely that Mr Cairns' symptoms have occurred in response to ongoing bullying and harassment at work. However, in order to demonstrate a link between Mr Cairns' current psychological condition and workplace factors, further information is required.". Under cross-examination Ms Pears said that she had not obtained that further information. Ms Pears said that the type of disorder suffered by Mr Cairns is more commonly caused by cumulative incidents rather than a single incident, and that depression is a gradual build-up of symptoms over a period of time, because of a feeling of helplessness and of not being able to change the situation. There is also a loss of interest in life and the things of interest, the workplace and relationships. Depression is caused by stressors that operate on the mind. Ms Pears confirmed that she had found no significant recent or concurrent personal life stressors that were likely to have contributed to Mr Cairns' presentation. Ms Pears was asked whether the assumption that Mr Cairns' divorce had been acrimonious would alter her view as to whether or not there was a significant personal life stressor, and said that it might have some significance but without Mr Cairns presenting her with that information, it would be hard to make a decision now. Ms Pears also said that Mr Cairns had been with another person for twelve months, and had moved on in terms of his relationship. Ms Pears agreed that she could only rely on what she had been told by Mr Cairns. Dr Field provided a report to WorkCover on 27 June 2006 (Exhibit 9). The report stated that Mr Cairns had been a patient of Dr Field since 24 January 2006, and that Mr Cairns had been diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with anxiety and depression. The report states that Mr Cairns had been under mounting stress at work for some time and his psychological problems were a result of that stress. The report outlined the following problems raised by Mr Cairns with the first being raised from April 2005:  incorrect payments to staff with attempts by Mr Cairns to represent his subordinates in relation to this matter being met with a hostile response and a reprimand from his superior;  being labelled a troublemaker when he represented a young female staff member who had been sexually harassed by a Team Manager, and being unable to achieve anything for the girl who was forced to resign;  becoming more unpopular after refusing to attend Friday drinks sessions and being reprimanded by his superior and being told he was not a team player;  being told by the Human Relations Officer that he was a disruptive influence and being threatened with disciplinary action;  ongoing stress since being off work, due to inability to resolve matters at work and failing to get any reply to attempts in this regard;  second hand messages from the workplace about not being welcome back and being prevented from getting a job in the industry;  confirmation of this by being told that he had a job and later being told that the prospective employer was not interested; and  being told that a superior had stated that she would destroy Mr Cairns. Dr Field's report also states that he has interviewed one of Mr Cairns' workmates who had independently painted a picture that was practically identical to that painted by Mr Cairns, and some of the things recounted made it sound worse. In relation to relationship of work-related conditions to any pre-existing conditions, Dr Field said that he was not aware of any pre-existing conditions, and that Mr Cairns had an "obsessional personality style". While the positive feature of this style was that Mr Cairns took his responsibilities seriously and would be a reliable worker, people with this personality style feel vulnerable when they are losing control of a situation. Mr Cairns felt he had been losing control for some time, and that no matter what he tried to do, seemed to meet with hostility and a resulting deterioration in the situation. Under cross-examination, Dr Field said that he had seen Mr Cairns on nine occasions between 24 January 2006 and 5 February 2007. During these consultations Dr Field had taken a full history. Senior members of staff putting Mr Cairns under mounting stress were said to have been Megan [Dunbar] and Belinda [Clark]. When asked what Mr Cairns was trying to resolve by contacting senior management and the human resources office after he had left work, Dr Field said that Mr Cairns wanted to try to get back to work and to resolve the situation between him and his superiors. When asked whether Mr Cairns' "unpopularity" could be a perception, Dr Field said that it could be, but also said that he had interviewed a workmate of Mr Cairns to see whether the workplace was as bad as Mr Cairns perceived it to be. From this person's point of view the workplace had been worse than described by Mr Cairns. Dr Field agreed that he had taken this other person's account of events into account in compiling his report. -- 22 of 29 -- 23 Conclusions The credit of witnesses I have no doubts about the credit of the medical professionals who gave evidence in these proceedings. I am also of the view that Ms Musk and Ms Mitchell were witnesses of credit. However, I have serious doubts about the credit of Mr Cairns, Mr Davis, Mr Brian, Ms Crockett, Ms Clark, and to a lesser extent, Ms Dendy. Unfortunately, these witnesses were some of the major protagonists in the series of events relied upon by Mr Cairns in order to establish that he suffered an injury within the meaning of s. 32(1) of the Act. Other major protagonists, Mr SR and Mr FL, did not give evidence to the Commission. Underlying all of the events was a significant amount of interpersonal conflict and animosity between the protagonists. Further, the evidence of a number of witnesses conflicted and was riddled with exaggeration and "spin". Counsel for Mr Cairns submitted that differences in the perspectives of witnesses in this case were analogous to a blind man describing an elephant and that this was a strength in Mr Cairns' case. I do not agree. In my view, the conflicts in the evidence went beyond mere differences in perception. As a result, the Commission was required to decide between competing versions of events from witnesses who had all been untruthful to some degree in their evidence. Generally cases about s. 32(5) of the Act are about the context in which incidents occurred, or the perceptions of the injured worker about incidents. I am not aware of a case where there was such a divergence in the evidence about the incidents to the point where the only conclusion that can be reached is that the incidents did not occur or have been exaggerated to such a degree that the appellant's version is not credible. Regrettably this was such a case. This lengthened the trial considerably. Underpinning all of the evidence was what appeared to be an ongoing war between Mr Cairns and Mr SR in which Mr Cairns was an active participant. After carefully considering and weighing all of the evidence, I have reached the following conclusions in relation to each of the incidents. May - October 2005 Harassment and threats by Mr SR after assisting a staff member who had been sexually harassed by Mr SR I am reasonably satisfied that Mr SR made derogatory and threatening comments about Mr Cairns and told Mr Cairns that he could get him sacked as a result of Mr Cairns advising a staff member to take allegations of sexual harassment by Mr SR to management of AAPT. I am also satisfied that it was appropriate for Mr Cairns to have given this advice to Ms NT and that Ms NT approached Mr Cairns in this regard. Further I accept that Mr SR made inappropriate and threatening comments to Mr Cairns in relation to this matter. However, I am unable to be satisfied that these comments had the effect claimed by Mr Cairns or that Mr Cairns had a genuine or reasonable view that his employment was in jeopardy as a result of Mr SR's conduct. The first exchange between Mr Cairns and Mr SR, in relation to Ms NT's allegations, occurred in May 2005 or at latest early June. At that time, Mr SR was a sales representative, as was Mr Cairns. Mr SR had no authority or capacity to carry out the threat, notwithstanding the fact that he had facilitated the employment of a number of staff, including Mr Cairns. Mr Cairns told Ms Crockett, Ms Corrie and Ms Clark about his concerns, and was reassured about his position. Further, Ms Crockett documented Mr Cairns' concerns and took them to Ms Corrie. Ms Crockett, Ms Corrie and Ms Clark all told Mr Cairns that he should not worry about Mr SR. Mr Cairns was also told that Mr SR had denied the allegations and was therefore aware that they had been put to Mr SR. Despite the alleged threat to his employment, and his claim that he took this threat seriously, Mr Cairns raised a further issue involving Mr SR, relating to the conversion of residential customers to business customers. In raising this issue, Mr Cairns told Mr SR that the practice was a fraud and a rip-off. By this time, Mr SR had been promoted to the position of acting Team Manager. Mr Cairns also raised the issue with Ms Crockett of leads being removed from his portfolio around May or June 2005. This issue was rectified within a matter of weeks. At the time these matters were raised, Mr Cairns was still a probationary employee. Thus, by the end of June 2005, Mr Cairns had raised three separate issues, at least two of which directly involved Mr SR, and one of those issues was raised after Mr SR had allegedly threatened his employment in a manner which Mr Cairns claims to have taken seriously. Mr Cairns had no compunction about raising issues involving Mr SR after Mr SR was promoted and while Mr Cairns was still a probationary employee. In my view Mr Cairns' conduct at or around the time of the incident with Mr SR, was inconsistent with his claims made to WorkCover, Q-COMP and to his treating medical practitioners about its impact. I am also of the view that Mr Cairns put a "spin" on this incident in his statement to WorkCover. In that statement, Mr Cairns implied a link between the telephone call from Mr SR to his home, overheard by Mr Brian, and the May 2005 incidents surrounding the sexual harassment complaint against Mr SR made by Ms NT. Mr Cairns also contended in that statement that he had told AAPT that Mr SR's threats had become "criminal" and they had done nothing about it. It was clear from the evidence of Mr Cairns and Mr Brian to the Commission, that this telephone call from Mr SR did not occur until August 2005, after the Couran Cove incident. It was also clear that Mr Cairns did not make a formal -- 23 of 29 -- 24 complaint to a relevant manager of AAPT about this incident when it occurred, and in particular did not allege "criminal conduct" on the part of Mr SR. In this regard, I accept the evidence of Ms Musk which is supported by her email to Mr Cairns dated 16 November 2005, which states that there was a big jump between what Mr Cairns told her about Mr SR's conduct towards him, and a formal complaint of bullying. It is also apparent that when Mr Cairns wanted to raise an issue of concern to him, he had no compunctions about doing so in very direct terms with Managers of AAPT who were in more senior positions. I am also of the view that the telephone call from Mr SR to Mr Cairns was dealt with by AAPT following the incident at Couran Cove. Further, I do not accept that these incidents were serious, or that Mr Cairns viewed them as such. Rather, these incidents were part of an ongoing interpersonal dispute between Mr Cairns and Mr SR, in which both were active participants. I am unable to be reasonably satisfied that these incidents were a significant contributing factor to Mr Cairns' injury, which created a causal or consequential relationship or a connection with Mr Cairns' employment, so that Mr Cairns' injury arose in the course of employment. In June 2005 Mr Cairns spoke to Sales Manager Ms Clark about her relationship with a sales representative and was harassed and threatened by Ms Clark I accept that Mr Cairns did raise an issue with Ms Clark about some interaction between Ms Clark and Mr RV. Notwithstanding the evidence of Ms Clark, it is more probable than not that she engaged in some interaction with Mr RV at a work related function which led to a view that there had been a sexual relationship between Ms Clark and Mr RV. Whether or not this was actually the case is irrelevant to these proceedings. I also accept that there were a number of exchanges between Mr Cairns and Ms Clark about this issue, and that Ms Clark told Mr Cairns to "pull his head in" and that he was "no angel". However, I am unable to accept that Ms Clark threatened Mr Cairns' employment or that Mr Cairns perceived Ms Clark's comments as such. Mr Cairns could not remember the threat he claimed Ms Clark made to his employment and neither could Mr Brian. Both Mr Brian and Mr Cairns could remember other comments that Ms Clark made. This inability to remember the alleged threat is surprising, given that Mr Cairns said he had already been threatened in his employment by Mr SR at the point the exchange with Ms Clark occurred. It is, in my view, highly unlikely that Mr Cairns would be unable to remember the precise terms of the alleged threat to his employment if such a threat was made. Mr Cairns had no hesitation about becoming involved in a matter which was quite simply none of his business, and of challenging the conduct of a person who was in a more senior position, while Mr Cairns was still a probationary employee. Mr Cairns acted of his own volition and was not asked by Mr RV to raise this matter with Ms Clark. Mr Cairns did not even tell Mr RV that he planned to do so. Mr Cairns conduct is not consistent with a belief that his employment had been threatened. This is despite Mr Cairns' claim that he took earlier comments made by Mr SR as serious threats to his employment. Mr Cairns' conduct in relation to this incident is inconsistent with him holding a genuine fear about the security of his employment. It was also the case that Ms Clark, while in a senior position, did not have the authority to dismiss Mr Cairns or to in any way threaten his employment, and I am satisfied that she did do so, notwithstanding any annoyance she might have expressed to Mr Cairns for raising this matter. In relation to this incident, I am unable to be reasonably satisfied it was a significant contributing factor to Mr Cairns' injury, which created a causal or consequential relationship or a connection with Mr Cairns' employment, so that Mr Cairns' injury arose in the course of employment. The Couran Cove incident I accept that Mr Cairns intervened in an incident between Mr FL and Ms Dendy to assist Ms Dendy, and that Ms Dendy sought his assistance. I also accept that during that incident Mr FL held Ms Dendy in a bear hug, and that Mr Cairns had to use some force to prise Mr FL's arms off Ms Dendy. Otherwise, I do not accept the version of events outlined by Mr Cairns in his evidence to the Commission. I am also of the view that Mr Cairns was not truthful in his descriptions of the incident to his treating medical practitioners or in his statement to WorkCover and put a "spin" on events so that it appeared that the incident had played a significant part in his injury. In particular, I do not accept that Mr Cairns was punched in the head, back and side while prising Mr FL's arms away from Ms Dendy. Further, I do not accept that management of AAPT acted inappropriately in relation to Mr Cairns after the incident. It is clear from the evidence that there were a number of other employees in the vicinity when the incident between Ms Dendy and Mr FL occurred. Mr Cairns could have sought assistance from any of these employees if he was being punched as he claimed. In fact, Mr Cairns and Ms Dendy refused assistance, and told a Manager from Melbourne that they had the situation under control. -- 24 of 29 -- 25 Mr FL had Ms Dendy in a bear hug, and she wanted him to let her go. Ms Dendy maintained that Mr FL did not hurt her and that she was not frightened or concerned for her personal safety at the point when she was with Mr FL outside the marquee. During the alleged assault, Mr FL ran away, and Mr Cairns chased him and caught him. It is improbable that Mr Cairns would have chased after a man who had just assaulted him by punching about the head and body. It is equally unlikely that upon witnessing a "heavy altercation" between an "intoxicated man" and his friend Mr Cairns, during which that man landed a good blow to Mr Cairns' torso, Mr Brian would not have gone to the assistance of Mr Cairns or at least requested the assistance of other employees. I generally did not find Mr Brian a credible witness and his account of this incident is highly improbable. Mr Brian's evidence to the Commission was also inconsistent with his statement to WorkCover. It is also improbable that having been assaulted in the manner claimed by Mr Cairns, both he and Ms Dendy got into a vehicle with the alleged perpetrator and drove with him back to his accommodation. It is even more improbable that, if the events occurred as claimed by Mr Cairns, that Ms Dendy and Mr Cairns would have voluntarily gone into a room with Mr FL. This is particularly so if, as Mr Cairns alleges, Mr FL continued his assault in the vehicle while being driven back to his room. It is also the case that after leaving Mr FL's room, Mr Cairns and Ms Dendy returned to a function. This is not consistent with an assault of the seriousness claimed by Mr Cairns. Mr Cairns did not tell Ms Dendy that he had been assaulted or mention any injuries to her. Further, Ms Dendy did not witness Mr FL punching or otherwise assaulting Mr Cairns. I do not accept the evidence of either Mr Davis or Mr Brian that Mr Cairns showed them red marks on his body. Mr Brian was not a witness of credit. It is also improbable that Mr Davis sat through a meeting the morning after the alleged injuries to Mr Cairns and said nothing about seeing red marks and bruises on Mr Cairns' body on the previous night. I do not accept that management of AAPT did not offer Mr Cairns any support after the incident. Early on the morning after the incident Mr Cairns was interviewed by Ms Musk and Ms Strickland, AAPT Human Resource Management representatives. During that interview, Mr Cairns was asked about what had happened. There was no evidence that Mr Cairns was prevented from telling Ms Musk and Ms Strickland about any injuries he may have sustained. If Mr Cairns reported injuries to Mr Davis (and I do not accept that he did) there is no reason why he could have not made the same report to Ms Musk and Ms Strickland, given that they were interviewing him in the capacity of Human Resource Managers. Mr Cairns had no compunctions about raising matters in the past, and it is improbable that he would not have reported any injuries sustained during the incident to Ms Musk and Ms Strickland. If Mr Cairns believed that he needed a medical examination or other support, he had every opportunity to make such a request. I do not accept that the failure of Mr Cairns to report his injuries or to request medical assistance constitutes poor management on the part of AAPT. I do not accept Ms Crockett's evidence that on the Monday immediately after Couran Cove - 15 August 2005 - Mr Cairns showed her injuries to his upper body. Ms Crockett said that this occurred on the same day that she took Mr Cairns for lunch and had offered him time off as a result of the emotional state that Mr Cairns was in. However, it was clear that Ms Crockett was mistaken about the date on which these events occurred and that the lunch meeting with Mr Cairns occurred on Thursday 24 August 2005, the date that Ms Crockett sent an email to Ms Musk confirming events relating to Mr Cairns. It is unlikely that Mr Cairns showed Ms Crockett any injuries to his upper body on that date - i.e. 13 days after he claimed to have received those injuries. Further, there was no evidence from Mr Cairns that he had shown Ms Crockett injuries at some earlier time. When Mr Cairns made his allegations to Ms Musk about rumour mongering and threats by Mr SR after Couran Cove, Ms Musk told him that the allegations were ridiculous and that he had been commended about the assistance he had provided to Ms Dendy. Mr Davis said that there had been an investigation of the allegations made by Mr Cairns and there had been insufficient evidence upon which to base any action against Mr SR, but "he was on notice in a big way". Mr Davis also said that Ms Musk had done a fantastic job. Mr Cairns also sought and received reassurance from Mr Hood about the security of his employment. On receiving an email from Mr Hood on 18 August 2005, to the effect that there was no intention of terminating Mr Cairns' employment, Mr Cairns responded by saying that he would leave matters "well alone". Thus, Mr Cairns stated to a senior Manager of AAPT that he was satisfied to leave matters relating to Mr SR where they stood at that point. I can see no basis for Mr Cairns' contention that AAPT did not manage this situation appropriately. The tone of the email to Mr Hood, and the response received by Mr Cairns, are at odds with Mr Cairns' evidence that he was a nervous wreck during that week. Further, Mr Cairns told Mr Hood that he would let the matter rest. In any event, Mr Cairns was given a period of leave, and on his return, was promoted to the position of Sales Manager. Mr Cairns was also provided with access to a counsellor as part of an employee counselling service, provided by AAPT. There is no evidence that Mr Cairns made a formal complaint about the telephone call from Mr SR. Mr Cairns had every opportunity to do so in his discussions and correspondence with Mr Hood, Ms Musk and Ms Crockett. I do not accept that in the aftermath of the incident at Couran Cove, that Mr Cairns had a genuine fear that his employment was under threat. Prior to the incident, Mr Cairns had completed his period of probationary employment, and was one of the top performing sales staff. During the conference at Couran Cove, Mr Cairns was part of a panel providing advice to other sales staff, because of his high level of performance as a sales representative. Mr Cairns was -- 25 of 29 -- 26 commended for his role in assisting Ms Dendy, and received confirmation by email from a senior Manager that his job was not in jeopardy. I am unable to be reasonably satisfied that the incident between Mr Cairns and Mr FL at Couran Cove was a significant contributing factor to Mr Cairns' injury, which created a causal or consequential relationship or a connection with Mr Cairns' employment, so that Mr Cairns' injury arose in the course of employment. I am also of the same view, with respect to the manner in which management of AAPT handled the incident and its aftermath. To the extent that it is alleged that the actions (or inaction) of management of AAPT in relation to this incident caused Mr Cairns' injury, I am satisfied that such actions were reasonable and taken in a reasonable way and are withdrawn from the definition of injury under s. 32(1) by virtue of s. 32(5)(a) of the Act. August - October 2005, regular harassment from Ms Clark to attend Friday afternoon drinks I am unable to accept that Mr Cairns was harassed by Ms Clark in relation to attendance at Friday afternoon drinks. In my view, Mr Cairns put a "spin" on telephone calls he received from Ms Clark in an attempt to establish that he felt threatened in his employment. Mr Cairns' evidence about this issue was inconsistent and exaggerated. In his statement to WorkCover, Mr Cairns said that the issue with the telephone calls was that he felt that Ms Clark was threatening his employment because he was not attending the Friday afternoon drinks. In his evidence to the Commission, Mr Cairns raised a new issue, that Ms Clark was using the Friday drinks for the ulterior motive of gathering gossip about people and then using it against them on Monday. There was no evidence that this was the case, and Mr Davis said that he was not aware of any such conduct on the part of Ms Clark. Mr Cairns said in his statement to WorkCover that the telephone calls began in August 2005 and continued until October 2005. However, in his evidence to the Commission, Mr Cairns said that the calls began in September 2005. Ms Clark was not appointed to the position of Sales Manager until late September 2005. Further, Mr Cairns exaggerated the number of telephone calls he received from Ms Clark. The estimate provided by Mr Cairns in his statement to WorkCover and his evidence to the Commission about the frequency of the telephone calls went from every single Friday, to almost every Friday, to frequently and then to half a dozen occasions. The witnesses that Mr Cairns said would corroborate his evidence on this matter, were unconvincing. Even taking their evidence at its best, Mr Brian said that he was in the car on only one occasion when Ms Clark had telephoned Mr Cairns about his non- attendance at the drinks. Similarly, Mr Davis had only been in the car on one such occasion. Mr Davis said that he did not interpret what Ms Clark said to Mr Cairns as a threat to his career, and that if Ms Clark's conduct had been inappropriate he would have been in a position to do something about it. Ms Clark conceded to having made one call, in circumstances where Mr Cairns had arranged drinks and had then not attended. I am unable to be reasonably satisfied that such conduct on the part of Ms Clark was a significant contributing factor to Mr Cairns' injury, which created a causal or consequential relationship or a connection with Mr Cairns' employment so that Mr Cairns' injury arose in the course of employment. Incorrect payments to sales staff After considering the evidence in relation to this matter, I am of the view that Mr Cairns has exaggerated the extent of the problem. Mr Cairns' evidence about the numbers of staff alleged to have raised issues with the payment of commissions was far from convincing. Further, the evidence demonstrated that Mr Cairns had no compunctions about raising problems about delays in the payment of commissions with Managers including, Ms Corrie and Ms Clark, and making threats about taking this issue to the media. Such conduct is not consistent with Mr Cairns' claims that he felt fearful and threatened in relation to his employment. The evidence established that there were some problems with delays in the payment of commission. It is likely that in some cases delays were caused by mistakes on the part of administrative staff, and in some cases sales staff failing to provide necessary information to establish an entitlement to commission payments, caused the problems. It was also the case that a new incentive system was introduced. Further, the evidence was that there were some structural problems caused by the ratio of sales staff to staff involved in connecting customers to the network. The evidence also established that the Brisbane operation of AAPT was relatively new. I do not doubt that delays in the payment of commission caused concern and friction among sales staff. However, in my view, the issues described by Mr Cairns are understandable in an organisation employing a large number of sales staff, who are required to interface with technical staff and to input information into a computer system in order to be entitled to payment of commission. I am also satisfied that this problem was not as widespread as Mr Cairns claimed, and that his reactions to it were disproportionate. There was no evidence that delays in the payment of commission caused any financial difficulty to Mr Cairns. To the contrary, according to Mr Cairns he was able to lend money to sales representatives. Mr Cairns was unable to remember details of which sales staff had complained to him, despite telling a number of medical practitioners that it was a significant issue. It is also apparent that there were staff at a more senior level to Mr Cairns who were aware of the problems with the payment of commissions and were dealing with them. I am unable to be reasonably satisfied that in all of the circumstances, problems with the payment of commission -- 26 of 29 -- 27 to sales staff were a significant contributing factor to Mr Cairns' injury, which created a causal or consequential relationship or a connection with Mr Cairns' employment, so that Mr Cairns' injury arose in the course of employment. Even if this issue was a significant contributing factor to Mr Cairns' injury, in a sales environment a mechanism by which commissions are paid is a system of work. In Bowers v Workcover Queensland (2002) 170 QGIG 1, President Hall said: "There is nothing in s. 34(5)(a) and there is nothing in the extrinsic materials ... to indicate that paragraph (a) is confined to the impact of disciplinary action. Neither, given the use of the word 'against' at paragraph (b), can there be any reason for limiting paragraph (a) to action taken against the worker, e.g. a transfer for other than disciplinary reasons. Neither am I able to accept the submission for the appellant that where the work environment is found to be a significant cause of a depressive illness, the employer's system of work and its implementation cannot be found to be reasonable. The circumstances that a system of work or its implementation has miscarried does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that either the system of work or its implementation was unreasonable. Reasonable schemes reasonably implemented can miscarry.". In the present case, I am satisfied that the scheme for the payment of commissions was a reasonable system. The fact that it may have miscarried in some cases and that there were difficulties and delays in the payment of commissions to some sales staff, does not make the scheme unreasonable. In all of the circumstances, the scheme under which commissions were payable to sales staff of AAPT was reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way, and any injury sustained by Mr Cairns as a result of the scheme miscarrying in the limited way that it did, is withdrawn from the definition of injury under s. 32(1) by virtue of s. 32(5)(a). Email from Mr SR to Ms Clark in November 2006 after Mr SR ceased employment with AAPT I accept that Mr SR sent an email to Ms Clark that was potentially defamatory and distressing to Mr Cairns. I accept that Mr Cairns was concerned about the email and wanted to obtain a copy of it. I also accept that this incident caused stress and anxiety to Mr Cairns and contributed to his injury. However, I am also of the view that the manner in which the email was dealt with was reasonable. Upon receiving the email Ms Clark forwarded it to Mr Hood. This was entirely appropriate given that he was a senior Manager and was also mentioned in the email. I do not accept that Ms Clark made a threat to Mr Cairns that she would disseminate the email to other staff. I accept Ms Clark's evidence that Mr Cairns approached her with Mr Davis and insisted on seeing the email. Mr Cairns conceded that this was the case and that he saw the email on Ms Clark's computer screen. Mr Cairns also changed his story about when Ms Clark made the alleged threat to show the email to other staff, saying that this happened at his desk before he saw the email. Further, Mr Cairns was unable to explain why, in an email sent to Ms Musk on 10 November 2005 at 3.51 p.m., he claimed to be privy to the contents of the email but refused to disclose the source. It is improbable that if the source was Ms Clark, Mr Cairns would not have disclosed this fact, particularly if Ms Clark had threatened to show the email to others. I accept that Ms Clark was told to delete the email and that she did so. Further, a block was placed on AAPT's email communications so that no further emails could be received from Mr SR. I also accept that Mr Cairns was told by Ms Musk in writing, that he was a valued employee, and that no attention was being paid to the email. It was reasonable in the circumstances that Mr Cairns was not provided with a copy of the email. Mr Cairns had no legal entitlement to be provided with a copy of the email. The email was not relevant to Mr Cairns in his ongoing employment with AAPT. It was clear that Mr Cairns was seeking the email for the purposes of taking some kind of legal action against Mr SR. Any such action was a private matter, and it is reasonable that management of AAPT wanted no part in it. I also accept that management of AAPT took the view that to provide Mr Cairns with a copy of the email would simply inflame the situation. Such a view was entirely reasonable and understandable given the past history between Mr Cairns and Mr SR. I am satisfied that the conduct of Ms Clark and Ms Musk in relation to the email was reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. Accordingly, this issue is withdrawn from the definition of injury under s. 32(1) by virtue of s. 32(5)(a). Action taken by AAPT to investigate alleged misuse by Mr Cairns of his corporate American Express card In my view, this matter was one of the more significant stressors in those alleged by Mr Cairns. It was after the meeting on 16 January 2006 in relation to this matter that Mr Cairns became incapacitated for work, and did not return. It is clear from the evidence that Mr Cairns was aware before the meeting on 16 January 2006 that AAPT was conducting an investigation in relation to the use of American Express cards for personal expenditure. Further, Mr Cairns was aware, prior to that meeting, that Mr Brian had been dismissed for alleged misuse of his American Express card. It is also clear that Mr Cairns was well aware that at least some of the expenditure on his card was going to be difficult to justify as business related, in particular, expenditure at Hollywood Show Girls. The level of concern these matters caused Mr Cairns is also apparent from the email he sent Mr Wilson offering to repay personal expenditure on the card. -- 27 of 29 -- 28 I am satisfied that the action taken by AAPT management in instigating an investigation into the use by Mr Cairns of his corporate American Express card was a significant contributing factor to Mr Cairns' injury, and that it created a causal or consequential relationship between that injury and Mr Cairns' employment, so that Mr Cairns' injury arose in the course of employment. I am also satisfied that this action was reasonable and taken in a reasonable way. I accept that there were some shortcomings with the manner in which this issue was handled by Ms Musk and Ms Clark. When Ms Musk drafted the letter of 16 January 2006 (Exhibit 16) she did not look at Mr Cairns' employee file to ascertain whether he had signed the policy document attached to the letter. Ms Clark sat in the meeting with Mr Cairns knowing Mr Cairns' Manager, Mr Davis, had approved some private use of the card by Mr Cairns, and that this was a significant issue, and said nothing about this. It is also the case that the policy itself was ambiguous in that it stated that private expenditure would not be charged to the card, and then went on to set out a process by which AAPT could make deductions from wages to cover private expenditure or expenses which were not approved as valid business expenses. I also accept that Mr Cairns had experienced difficulties in the workplace which had caused him stress sufficient for him to be given two weeks leave, and that this was known by Ms Musk. However, I am unable to be satisfied that these shortcomings were of sufficient weight to make the process by which the use by Mr Cairns of his corporate American Express card was raised and dealt with, unreasonable. In my view, it was reasonable for Ms Musk to operate under the assumption that Mr Cairns had signed the document detailing terms and conditions for use of the card, in circumstances where it was company policy and had been signed by other employees to whom cards had been issued. While I have concerns about Ms Clark's motives in failing to disclose that Mr Davis had told her that he had given Mr Cairns approval to use the card for personal expenditure, the reality of the situation was that Ms Clark did not take any action against Mr Cairns before, during or after the meeting. Further, there was every opportunity for Mr Cairns to raise any relevant issue including whether he was aware of AAPT's policies in relation to the use of the card and whether Mr Davis had authorised the use of the card for personal expenditure. I am unable to accept that when inviting Mr Cairns to attend the meeting, Ms Clark said to Mr Cairns: "I've got you now". Mr Cairns' claim for compensation was based on allegations of harassment by Mr SR and Ms Clark. It is unlikely that Mr Cairns would have failed to remember this comment when he made his claim to WorkCover if it had been made by Ms Clark in the manner claimed by Mr Cairns. It is also the case that Mr Cairns was offered an option for the timing of the meeting, which if taken, would have meant that Ms Clark would not be present. It is improbable that Mr Cairns would have chosen to attend a meeting at which Ms Clark would be present, immediately after Ms Clark had made the comment alleged. I am also of the view that there was nothing unreasonable about management of AAPT requesting Mr Cairns to attend a meeting about the issue of inappropriate use of his corporate American Express card. The evidence clearly establishes that Mr Cairns had a total expenditure on his card of $7,098.27, and that this total included a significant number of charges which were clearly not business-related. It is also clear that Mr Cairns had not reconciled the card in accordance with AAPT procedures. In those circumstances, it was entirely reasonable for AAPT to request that Mr Cairns attend a meeting to discuss that expenditure. In my view, this was the case regardless of Mr Cairns' knowledge of AAPT policy and procedure in relation to the use of the card. Mr Cairns was not singled out. There was a general investigation in relation to inappropriate use of cards and all cards had been withdrawn. Even if Mr Davis' evidence about what he told Mr Cairns in relation to personal expenses is accepted, Mr Cairns had gone beyond any approval he had from Mr Davis, to the effect that he could use the card within reason, provided that when the statement came in the private expenditure was repaid in full immediately. The level of expenditure on the card was beyond what Mr Davis said would reasonably have been expected of a Team Manager. The terms of the letter of 16 January 2006 were entirely appropriate, given that the implications of the discussion could have been serious, and disciplinary proceedings instituted against Mr Cairns. Had the letter not indicated this possibility, it could equally be argued that Mr Cairns had been treated unfairly in the event that AAPT decided to take some disciplinary action against him. There is nothing in the letter of 16 January 2006, or the subsequent actions of AAPT management to indicate that the investigation of Mr Cairns' use of the card was intended to be used as a basis for the termination of his employment, regardless of any response to the allegations that Mr Cairns may have made. The manner in which the meeting was conducted was also reasonable. Mr Cairns was offered an opportunity to change the time of the meeting from the day on which he was handed the letter, to the following day. Mr Cairns was also told that if he opted for the meeting to be held on the following day, Ms Clark would not be present. Mr Cairns opted for the time at which Ms Clark could attend the meeting. The letter requesting that Mr Cairns attend the meeting advised him that he could choose to have a support person present. There is no evidence that Mr Cairns was prevented from providing a full response to the issues raised at the meeting. Mr Cairns requested and was granted an adjournment to enable him to consider the list of expenditure items on his card. I accept that Ms Clark did not know that Mr Cairns had taken two weeks off as a result of stress following the incident at Couran Cove. Further, as far as Ms Clark was concerned any issues between Mr SR and Mr Cairns were at an end -- 28 of 29 -- 29 given that Mr SR no longer worked for AAPT, his access to AAPT through email had been removed and Ms Clark had been told not to have telephone contact with Mr SR. As far as Ms Musk was concerned there were no outstanding issues involving Mr Cairns. There was no formal complaint by Mr Cairns against anyone at AAPT and the most recent issue involving Mr SR sending an email to Ms Clark about Mr Cairns had been resolved. I also accept Ms Musk's evidence that Mr Cairns had not previously made a formal complaint about Mr SR. Mr Cairns had shown no compunctions about raising issues of concern to him in the workplace both verbally and in writing. Further, Mr Cairns had no reservations about raising issues which did not directly involve him, such as the matter relating to Ms Clark and Mr RV and the matter relating to Mr SR and Ms LM. In my view, if Mr Cairns had made a formal complaint about Mr SR he would have done so either in writing or in a way that left no doubt. Mr Cairns did not make a formal complaint about Mr SR after the Couran Cove incident and said in correspondence to Mr Hood that he would leave the matter alone. Even if the discussion in the corridor with Ms Musk in August 2005 was a complaint, by 16 January 2006, Ms Musk had every reason to believe that issues between Mr Cairns and Mr SR were at an end given that Mr SR was no longer employed by AAPT. There was nothing to suggest to Ms Clark or Ms Musk that it was not reasonable to request Mr Cairns to attend a meeting on that date to discuss private expenditure on his corporate American Express card. I am satisfied that the conduct of Ms Clark and Ms Musk in relation to the investigation into the use by Mr Cairns of his corporate American Express card was reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. Accordingly, to the extent that Mr Cairns' injury was caused by this incident, it is withdrawn from the definition of injury under s. 32(1) by virtue of s. 32(5)(a). Ongoing pressures and problems at work It is apparent that Mr Cairns and Mr SR had some history, and had worked together prior to working for AAPT. Mr Cairns said that he disliked Mr SR and had made derogatory comments about him. The evidence establishes that Mr Cairns was an active participant in the difficulties with Mr SR. Notwithstanding the numerous statements by Mr Cairns to the effect that he feared Mr SR, it is clear from the evidence that Mr Cairns on a number of occasions raised issues about Mr SR's conduct both to himself and others. It is also apparent that Mr Cairns was very proactive in this regard, and even raised issues with Mr SR's conduct to other staff, in circumstances where he was not present. This is illustrated by the fact that it was Mr Cairns who reported the incident involving Mr SR and Ms LM to management of AAPT. Mr Cairns was told about this incident by Mr Brian and was not present when it occurred. Mr Cairns also had no compunctions about raising issues with Ms Clark in which he was not directly involved, including the allegations about her relationship with Mr RV and the problems with payment of commissions. When all of the evidence is considered, it is apparent that the significant stressors identified by medical practitioners as a result of statements by Mr Cairns, did not occur or were significantly exaggerated. Mr Cairns was not assaulted at Couran Cove in the manner he described to Professor Nurcombe. Mr Cairns was not harassed about attending Friday drinks in the manner he claimed, and his employment was not threatened in relation to this matter. The issues of incorrect payments to staff were significantly exaggerated and did not occur over the time frame or with the frequency claimed by Mr Cairns, and Mr Cairns was not forced to sack staff. Further, the system of payment was reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. The investigation into the use by Mr Cairns of his corporate American Express card that precipitated Mr Cairns leaving the workplace, was also reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. Finally, there is no evidence upon which I could be reasonably satisfied that Mr Cairns was subjected to ongoing pressures and problems at work so that his employment was a significant contributing factor to his injury. The appeal is dismissed. I order accordingly. I.C. ASBURY, Commissioner. Hearing Details: 2006 December 11, 12 and 13 2007 March 12, 13 and 14 Released: 6 August 2007 Appearances: Mr R. Davis of Counsel instructed by Ms E. Crouch of Shine Lawyers for the Appellant. Mr S. McLeod of Counsel directly instructed by Q-COMP. Mr R. Jackson of Counsel instructed by Mr R. King of Milner Lawyers for the second respondent. Government Printer, Queensland The State of Queensland 2007. -- 29 of 29 --