Dr Peter Bernard Chilcott v Peninsula and Torres Strait Regional Health Authority [1994] QIRC 21 (1994) 145 QGIG 420

420 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE [25 February, 1994 #################################################### QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1990 s. 174 - application for reinstatement Dr Peter Bernard Chilcott Peninsula and Torres Strait Regional Health Authority (No. 85 19 of 1993) AWARD FOR SENIOR MEDICAL STAFF - PUBLIC HOSPITALS, QUEENSLAND AND THE QUEENSLAND RADIUM INSTITUTE COMMISSIONER SWAN 16 February 1994 Termination of employment - Dismissal - Application for Reinstatement - Range of Complex Issues Arose - Harassed by Employer - Show Cause - Unauthorised Leave - Failing to Follow a Lawful :Jirection - Failure to Satisfactorily provide Information - Failure to Provide the Authority with Specific Material - Lengthy and Complicated History - Strong Personal Attachment to Area - Pre-Mareeba Hospital Incident - Patient Complaints - External Complaints - Staff Issues - Interaction with Superiors - Community Issues - Administrative Issues - Cited Reasons for Dismissal - Ancillary Issues - Personal Issues - Allegations by both Parties are of an Extremely Serious Nature - Submissions were Logical, Well-planned, Relevant and Persuasive - Diminished Work Performance - Psychiatric Evidence - Community Perceptions - Audit Review - Publicity - Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland - Medical Board of Queensland - Compla:nts Investigated Fully - Appropriate Bodies empowered to make final Determinations - Dismissal was harsh and unreasonable - Application for Reinstatement Granted - Costs Partially Granted for Applicant. DECISION The applicant in this matter, Dr Chilcott, seeks reinstatement to his formerly held position as Medical Superintendent at Mareeba District Hospital (the Hospital). The employer of Dr Chilcott at the time of the dismissal was the Peninsula and Torres Strait Regional Health Authority (the Authority). Dr Chilcott, who had on a previous occasion held the position of Medical Superintendent at the Hospital, most recently held this position from January 1988, until the date of his dismissal on 7 September 1993. It should be stated that while the Authority relies upon the grounds set out below for dism1ss;ng Dr Chilcott, a range of other complex issues arose out of Dr Chilcott's claim that, for some time, he had been harassed by his employer (specifically the Regional Director) culminating in the situation which eventually led to his dismissal. The specific grounds for dismissal, as detailed by Dr G. Goodier (Regional Director of the Authority), were set out in a "show cause" letter sent by the Authority to Dr Chilcott:- (]) Failure to satisfactorily respond to a request by the Authority to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against Dr Chilcott for allegedly taking unauthorised leave on 24 and 25 June 1993. (2) Failure by Dr Chilcott to satisiactori:y respond to a request by the Authoritv to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for allegedly failing to follow a lawful direction to contact the Authority's Regional Oiiice in July 1993 to arrange for further meetings between officers of the Authority and himself. (3) Failure to satisfactorily provide information concerning reasons for a visit to the Lotus Glen Correctional Centre on 23 June 1993 (this ground was subsequently withdrawn by the Authority as reasons, deemed to be acceptable to the Authority, were forthcoming f,om Dr Chilcott) (4J Failure to provide the Authority with spec1f.c material explaining Dr Chilcott's return to his duties :n an administrative capacity only. While the above represented the stated reasons s ,en by the Authority for Dr Chilcott's dismissal, a lengthv and sor,ewhat complicated history surrounded the relar:onsh,p bet,-een the parties. As a result oi the applicant's claims oi harassrne,it, 1t 1s necessary for me to detail, as far as relevant, the issues raised by Dr Chilcott so that the events surrounding the d1sm,ss.ai can be viewed in context. I do, however, have another reason for mentioning these issues. That is the need to ensure that, where appropriate, matters concerning Dr Chilcott -,,..h1ch ha,e been investigated and resolved 1n other forums are placed on the public record. This consideration will be elaborated upon later in this decision. For the purpose of clarification, I would detail at the outset, briefly, where the Peninsula and Torres Strait Regiona' Health Authority sits within the organisational framework oi the Health Department in Queensland and specifically as it relates to Dr Chilcott's formerly held position of Medical SuperinteCJdent at the Mareeba District Hospital. Minister for Health Director General (Dr Peter Stanley) Peninsula and Torres Strait Regional Health Authority (Aid. Desley Boyle - C!-,a,rperson) Regional Director of the Peninsula and Torres Strait Regional Health Authority (Dr Gareth Good,er) Executive Officer - Tablelands Sector (Dr Bruce Cameron) Mareeba Hospital - Medical Superintendent (Dr Pe:er Chilcott) APPLICANT'S PERSONAL HISTORY Dr Chilcott graduated from the Universitv of Q1.;eensland Medical School in 1973. In 1974, Dr Chilcott worked at the Cairns Base Hospital. During 1975, after ser-. mg a short period of time as Senior .l\,1edical Officer at the Mareeba District Hospital, Dr Chilcott was appointed Medical Superintendent. This position he held until 1977. Subsequent to holding that position, Dr Chilcott worked as a General Medical Practitioner in Atherton until January 1988 when he again resumed the positioo of Medical Superintendent at Mareeba District Hospital. This was the position held by Dr Chilcott at the time or his dismissal 1n September 1993. As can be seen, Dr Chilcott has lived in the ,\1are;c,ba district for manv vears and has children who attend school in 'v\areeba. For specific reasons expressed during the hearing, Dr Chilcott has a strong personal attachment to this area which was understood by the Commission. Dr Chilcott represented himself during this hearing which was both lengthy and complex. Throughout the case, Or Chilcott presented as a person who had control over the case he conducted. His submissions were logical, well-planned, relevant and persuasive. While there were areas of the case -,,..h1ch may have been dealt with differently and in some instances more effectively had Dr Chilcott been represented by Counsel or by an Industrial Relations Advocate, the manner 1n which he chose to conduct his case in no real sense had an adverse impact on the effectiveness with which he put his submissions to the Commission. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERA TJON There have been a number of contentious issues -aised by the parties which span a considerable period of time. It is proposed to deal briefly with those issues in order to explain the tensions which developed between the Authority and Dr Chilcott and in order to appreciate more fully the stance taken ..,ltimately by both parties leading up to Dr Chilcott's dismissal. These matters can be segmented into the followirg categories which, ,vhile not representing an exhaustive list of all '"1atters raised, deal with the more pertinent issues. • Pre-.\1areeba Hospital Incident. • Pat,ent Complaints. 25 February, 1994] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 421 • External Complaints. Staff Issues. • Interaction with Superiors. Community Issues. • Administrative Issues. • Cited Reasons for D1sm1ssal. • Ancillary Matters PRE-MAREEBA HOSPITAL INCIDENT . Reference was made by Dr Cameron, who held at the time ot this incident th_e position he currently holds as Medical Superintendent ot Atherton Hospital, to a matter concerning Dr Chdcott during 1987. At this time, Dr Chilcott was employed as a private Medical Practitioner in Atherton. While the details of the matter need not be traversed here, the issue in contention between the At_herton Hospital Board and Dr Chilcott centred upon the question ot alleged inadequate medical note-taking by Dr Chilcott. From_ Dr Cameron's testimony, it was some period of time before Dr Chilcott agreed to accept a procedure required by the Atherton Hospital which had been accepted by other medical pract1t1oners w1th1n the region. The issue was ultimately resolved between the Hospital Board_ and Dr Chilcott, even though 1t appeared to have left a lingering concern and perhaps some aggravation in the mind of Dr Cameron regarding Dr Chilcott's approach to certain issues. . This incident has long since passed, and is referred to in this dec1s1on not o_nly because or this lingering concern but also because_ a similar concern with regard to Dr Chilcott's medical note-takin~ arose as an issue prior to Dr Chilcott's dismissal. In this latter incident, Dr Cameron again expressed his concern about the quality of Dr Ch1lcott's note-taking. PATIENT COMPLAINTS There h_ave been a number of complaints made by patients who had presented themselves to the Hospital over the past few years: The evidence shows that, in some cases, the complaints are directed at Dr Chilcott, __but, 1n other instances, the complaints relate to other Hospital statt. As well,_ it is conceded by all that in some cases the matters complained ot were trivial in nature. . The process of deal,ing with such matters was complicated by the tact that some comp1a,nts were sent by complainants directly to the Regional Director, Dr Goodier, while others by-passed the Regional Authority and v.ent to the Health Right£ Commission. . Most of the complaints have been determined as finalised either by the Authority or, alternatively, by the Health Rights Comm1ss1on. However, at the time ot the reinstatement hearing into this matter, the Health Rights Commission had still to investigate and determine a complaint. In making reference to all of these matters, it should be stated tha_t 1t 1s neither the role nor the intention of the Comm1ss1on to make find,ngs with regard to patient complaints. I ~o, however, believe_ 1t to be appropriate to record the findings of fdies whose role 1t 1s to investigate such matters for the purpose o ensuring that Or Chilcott does not, throughout his future medical career, have to_ be "re-tried", as it were, on matters which have been finalised. \,\ h:le the Authority claims that Dr Chilcott was dismissed for the reasons earlier stated in this decision, the person who ultimately dismissed Dr Chilcott, Dr Goodier, was clear ,1n his commentary to the Commission that aside from the spec1,t1c reaso~s cited by the Authority for dismissal, there were "a lot or reasons leading up to the dismissal of Dr Chilcott. Included in the_ range ot reasons referred to were the number of patient compla_ints which had been made against Dr Chilcott the '."1areeba Hospital and other Hospital staff. In fact, much of the locus of the case presented to the Commission centred upon issues other than those detailed in the letter of dismissal. Dr Chilcott, in his applicat,on to the Commission stated:- "The Regional Director has waged a war of harassment against me for over two years.". Dr Chilco!,t then proceeded to cite examples of what he saw as const1tut1ng harassment" by Dr Goodier. Some of the examples revolve around the ,issue of patient complaints and the cons1derat1on and handl,ng ot some complaints over a period of time primarily by Dr Goodier. . Giv~n the nature of the case before the Commission I would ~hd it d,1ft1cu_lt to disregard a series of events leading up t~ Dr 1lcott s ultimate dismissal. To do so would leave me with the cited _reasons for Dr Chilcott's dismissal which, if viewed in 1solat_1on, would cause me a degree of concern in terms of the se-,,.erity of_the outcome for Dr Chilcott. Dr Chilcott held a senior pos1t1on w1th1n the He_alth Industry in Queensland. He is a medical pract1t1oner or long standing and has held positions of trust within the community. To be dismissed solely for the rea,ons cited by the Authority wo_uld immediately suggest to me th_at there might be something seriously amiss in the tunctionin ot the Peninsula and Torres Strait Regional Health Authority in g tenrns _of the way in which they deal with matters of this nature. I sa~. this because the reasons cited, on their own, refer to situations which arguably_ should have been capable of resolution between proress1onals without having to resort to dismissal. When viewed however, in the context of all that had occurred over the years D~ Chilcott's reasons for the responses he gave to the "show caus~" letterfrom_ the Authority are heavily tied to perceptions and beliets wh1_ch he had formulated over a period of a few years and especially in relation to Dr Goodier and his interaction with Or Chdcou. I accept, from the evidence given on point, that the Authority, and particularly Dr Goodier, was aware of this factor. . Consequently, n(!twithstanding the fact that the Authority relies upon its lett_er ot d1sm1ssal to Dr Chilcott as containing the sole reasons _tor d1sm1ssal, Dr Chilcott's reasons for his particular react_1on to his "show cause''. letter from the Authority deserve due cons1derat1on by the Comm1ss1on. It 1s in this context that surrounding issues as raised by Dr Chilcott need to be considered. The following incidents may not necessarily be listed in strict chronol_og1cal order. As well, the particular details of patient complaints need not be detailed. Ru~y/Johnston/Braithwaite Complaint <hereafter the Ruby Complaint) For Dr _Goodier (who commenced employment with the Authority 1n April 1991 ), this was the first incident that brought Dr Chilcott and the Mareeba District Hospital spec1t1cally to his attention. A complaint had been made concerrnng Dr Chilcott and his handling of this matter. Up_on 1nvest1gat1on, Dr Goodier stated "I concluded that Dr Chilcott,, had managed the case in a caring and professional manner ._ Having concluded that, Dr Goodier stated that he was required to re-open the case because of further complaints received by a friend a,nd helper of r!-,e patient. At this stage, Dr W. Smith, the Chiet Executive Oii1cer of the Cairns Base Hospital, was delegated the role of conducting a thorough _invest1gat1on of the complaints. After this second 1nvest1gat1on, Dr Smith found that Dr Chilcott had not been 1nsens1t1ve towards the 1atient and that the patient had not sutfered any detrimenta effects as far as the standard of care expected was concerned. Dr Smith did comment that Dr Chilcott could have conducted his meetings with one party (not the patient) with gr_eater moderation, but, despite this factor, Dr Chilcott was in no way adversely affected by the findings. What _occ_urred, however, during the course of the 1nv_est1gat1ons into this matter by the Authority, was that Dr Chilcott raised with Dr Goodier a number of concerns and allegations relating not only to the particular parties who had 1n1t1ated the complaint a~amst Dr Chilcott, but also against a range of other parties (this issue will be dealt with separately). ;,'t the time, Dr G_ood!,er felt that Dr Chilcott appeared stressed and anxious but also "likeable and plausible". Dr Goodier further stated that in the particular circumstances of this case, he found Dr Chilcott's degree of stress "quite normal". Bell Complaint Mr Bell's_comp!aint had been sent to the Health Rights Comm1_ss_1on .. The investigation was put on hold because of other CIVIi a_ct1on. which was at that time under way with regard_ to this patient Subsequently, upon being investigated, the Regional Director, Dr Goodier, stated clearly that _he supported Dr Chilcott's actions concerning this complaint. During this hearing, Dr Goodier stated that, in his view, the claim by Mr Bell against Dr Chilcott was vexatious. Osborne Complaint (On behalf of Miss Sutton) This complaint involved a patient who, having previously been treated satisfactorily by Dr Chilcott, could not -- 1 of 10 -- 422 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT I}..1DUSTRIAL GAZETTE (25 February. 1994 understand the change she saw in Dr Chilcott during a subsequent visit. The complainant also thought that she had detected alcohol on Dr Ch1!cott's breath at the time of the visit. This matter was investigated by Dr Cameron who stated, at the initial stage, that he believed Dr Chilcott had failed in his duty of care to this patient. After the complaint had been made, Dr Chilcott had advised Dr Cameron that he wished to seek legal advice before he formally responded to the claims being made about him by this patient. After receipt of Dr Chilcott's formal response, Dr Cameron determined that he was not able to sustain his previously held view of Dr Chilcott's actions in this regard. Having determined that, Dr Cameron still expressed concern that Dr Chilcott would wish to seek legal assistance before responding to a patient complaint. Dr Chilcott advised that at the time of this incident occurring, two senior registered nurses recalled the events surrounding the incident and were prepared to confirm Dr Chilcott's version of events and that this information had been passed on to Dr Cameron. Dr Cameron, however, did not seek to interview the registered nurses. The following exchange occurred during cross- examination of Dr Cameron by Dr Chilcott:- Dr Chilcott - "Doctor Cameron, if you're not able to distinguish the truth in the matter, wouldn't an interview with either one or both of those two registered nurses helpl" Dr Cameron - "It may have done. As I said, I passed this on to the Regional Director, and it was basically, I guess, agreed that the matter wouldn't be pursued further.". Dr Chilcott - "The Regional Director has - it was explained to me that he's passed it back to you.". Dr Cameron - "The only parties that were in the room, as I understand it, when this meeting was taking place was yourself and Catherine Sutton and her brother.". Dr Chilcott - "My report clearly states otherwise, Doctor Cameron. Isn't it in the interest of natural justice to follow that through?". Dr Cameron - "Your report merely indicates that those sisters were on duty. They certainly wouldn't have been - there's no suggestion, as I understand it, that they were in the consultation room with you. They were present at the out-patient desk.". Dr Chilcott - "Those two sisters can recall the events of the evening, and have confirmed that my conduct was, at all times, professional and caring. Wouldn't that have been worth ,nvestigating Doctor Cameron, in the interest of natural Justice?". Dr Cameron - "I guess at that stage, with the delayed report, it would have been of interest.". Further on this point, it is relevant to consider the evidence of Dr Goodier under cross-examination by Dr Chilcott:- Dr Chilcott - "I would ask you Dr Goodier, why was this complaint not finished? Why were those two nurses not interviewed?". Dr Goodier - "Whether they were interviewed or not is up to Dr Cameron. I mean, it's finished as far as the region is concerned there. As with so many of these complaints, it is very difficult to determine whether one party or the other party is speaking the truth. It's often difficult to determine the truth.". On the question of Dr Chi!cott's sobriety, given that the complainant thought alcohol could be detected on Dr Chilcott's breath, both Dr Goodier and Dr Cameron attested to the fact that, from their knowledge of Dr Chilcott's social habits, he had never had a problem with his sobriety. However, it was submitted that the patient may have made this claim because she failed to understand why there had been such a noticeable change (as she saw it) in Dr Chilcott's behaviour and ... as looking for reasons to rationalize such a change This patient was called to give evidence. Her evidence of the incident was similar to that put by the Authority and Dr Chilcott chose not to cross-examine her. The complaint made by the patient was of a serious nature and, while the witness's evidence has been taken into account, I remain uneasy about the fact that people (i.e. the two senior registered nurses) who may have been able to have shed more light on the events of the evening were not interviewed. Notwithstanding that, the 1nc1dent was deemed by the Health Rights Commission to be resolved and no adverse findings were made by either Dr Cameron or the Health Rights Commission against Dr Chilcott. Everett Complaint This complaint was one that caused Dr Goodier to be concerned about both Dr Chilcott and the Mareeba District Hospital. The complaint was forwarded to the Health Rights Commission for further investigation. The determination made by this body in October 1993 was that no further action was required. This finding by the Health Rights Commission, however, was not accepted by either Dr Goodier or Dr Cameron. Their own investigations into the treatment of asthmatic patients at the Mareeba District Hospital (two complaints of asthmatic patients were referred to in this hearing) found, according to Dr Goodier's testimony, the treatment offered at the Hospital to be "sub-optimal". The complainant in this matter was called by the Authority to give evidence at the hearing. Dr Chilcott did not cross- examine her. Dr Cameron, who had earlier investigated the complaint with Mrs Everett and reported his findings to Dr Goodier stated - "No previous history was detailed, no records made of previous admissions, treatments or current treatment. There is no record of examination of her respiratory system, in particular at no stage was a single peak flow recording or any measurement of her ventilation function made. This level of clinical care is indefensible and would not be tolerated in the most junior of House Officers let alone an emplofee of Dr Chilcott's experience ... I think the critica thing was that you should have made an adequate assessment in the first place. It takes 10 seconds to do a peak flow recording on a patient.". Further, in evidence, Dr Cameron continued to be, on a number of occasions, highly critical of Dr Chilcott's failure to perform a "basic peak flow" measurement of the patient upon her presenting herself at Mareeba Hospital. However, direct evidence from the patient in this hearing was as follows:- "He (Dr Chilcott) when he came into the room, he had aske?, the sister what my peak flow was and she told him .. In the whole range of events surrounding this incident with this patient, the issue just referred to is probably but one of a series of concerns felt by both Dr Cameron and Dr Goodier and it may well be that in terms of the seriousness of the matter, it may not rate as highly as other issues at the time. I mention it, however, because Dr Cameron in his evidence before the Commission was most scathing in his criticism of Dr Chilcott's performance on that occasion specifically relating to the alleged non-performance of this "basic measurement of peak flow". It is not for this Commission to attempt to make findings pertaining to clinical matters, the subject of complaints against Dr Chilcott. However, in this instance, where clear and unambiguous evidence from the complainant goes against the evidence of Dr Chilcott's superiors, I am led to wonder how thorough the Authority's investigations were and how accurate were the "findin~s" made by the same persons. If the complainant herselt can attest to certain procedures having taken place at the time of the incident, and such procedures are "critical" (according to the evidence of Dr Cameron) to the treatment of such patient, why was part of the evidence not discovered through early and appropriate questioning of both the nursing sister and Dr Chilcott? 25 February. 1994] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT lNDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 423 Dr Cameron did state that an examination of Dr Chilcott's notes at the time did not reveal that this procedure or .idequate assessment had occurred. In response to this observation, Dr Chilcott questioned whether Dr Cameron was aware of what other urgent matters might have been occurring at the Hospital on the night In question. There Is no doubt In my mind that the complaint was of a serious nature. Sufiice to say that the matter was resolved with the determ,nation made by the Health Rights Commission and, despite concerns being expressed by both Dr Goodier and Dr Cameron, there were no formal adverse findings made against Dr Chilcott. There may well remain residual concerns on the part of Officers of the .A,uthority concerning this issue, but if the matter is deemed to be resolved by the body authorised to make such a determination, then that should put the matter to rest. Campbell Complaint The compla1nan: n this case did not name Dr Chilcott in any adverse wa\ After investigation, the staff at the Hospital were round to 1'a1e acted appropriately in this matter. Outstanding Patient Complaint There remains one outstanding complaint against Dr Chilcott. Other complaints referred to in correspondence received by the Health Rights Commission (Exhibit 33) relate to issues which do not 1molve Dr Chilcott or where the Health Rights Commission determined that "no further action is indicated". The above represent what can be termed "patient" complaints. With the except,on of the one outstanding complaint (Exhibit 33 - Health Rights Commission Complaint No. 921030), none of the findings, whether made by the Authority acting alone or by the Health Rights Co'"'1mission, are adverse to Dr Chilcott. This does not mean, however, that there was no reason for concern to be expressed by the Authority or in fact by the Health Rights Commission. All ot these complaints are patient initiated. Some complaints wert directly to the Authority, others to the Health Rights Comm,ssion. In fact, the Health Rights Commission, In Nove'Tlber 1991, in correspondence to Dr D. Lange, Executive Director, Public Health Services and Chief Health Officer, Queensland Health, stated - "I indicate my concern that there are numerous complaints from this area about the same doctor and would welcome the opportunity to discuss the issues with yourself, the Regional Director and any other Departmental or Regional Staff who may be able to provide advice in the resolution of matters at hand.·. At this point In t,me, the complaints referred to by the Health Rights Commission included the Ruby complaint (referred to earlier);_ a complaint irom the members of one family, and the complaint by a Dr O Hare (dealt with later). Dr Chilcott referred to the aforementioned correspondence when cross-examining Dr Goodier. He stated that apart from the Ruby and O'Hare complaints, he was unaware of the other complaints which were detailed in that correspondence. Dr Goodier's response was that - "We didn't plan to do the examination of the complaints until we had shown that you were in a mentally fit state to undergo the stress of the examination.". EXTERNAL COMPLAINTS Dr O'Hare Complaint Dr O'Hare had served as a relieving Doctor at Mareeba District Hospital during 1990. The complaints of this Doctor addressed issues such as therapy; lack of medical education; treatment ot Aboriginals; disregard for relieving Doctor's opinions, amongst other issues. Dr O'Hare's complaint had been lodged with the Australian Medical Association in 1991 which had then iorwarded the complaint to the Health Complaints Un,t. Dr Cameron investigated the issue by conferring d1rect:v with Dr Chilcott and also by seeking the views ot a Mareeba based General Practitioner (Dr Towne) who was involved in a family medicine programme and postgraduate medical educatior. Dr Towne had, according to Dr Cameron's corresponderce to the Health Complaints Unit_ in October 1991, "no pros '"ecns in his professional relat1onsh1p with the Mareeba rc'.1spital nor w,th the care of his patients". At this point, th_e -vestigation conducted by Dr Cameron and subsequent tirc,ngs were sufficient for Dr Cameron to determine not to pursue the matter further. Consequently, the matter was presumed finalised on this basis. In November 1991, however, the Health Rights Commission stated that it was not totally satisfied with the response it had received from both Dr Chilcott and Dr Cameron. Dr Goodi_er and Dr Cameron then independently conducted an investIgat1on and audit into the complaints and determined that - the medical notes kept by the Hospital were sub- ~a nd a~; . management of patients with certain conditions was at times sub-optimal; there was a suggestion that Aboriginal people may have been treated inappropriately. Dr Goodier's evi?ence was that, upon determining that there were obvious det1c1enc1es in procedures being adopted at Mareeba District Hospital, he sought to confer with Dr Chilcott in order to introduce measures to attempt to remedy these problems. While the evidence shows that Dr Chilcott was made aware of the compla'nts made by Dr O'Hare, he was not made aware of the outcome of the audit of clinical notes because, according to Dr Goodier "we were concerned about your state of mental health, and we were taking the course of decided [sic] what to do about it". Dr Chilcott's evidence is that he became aware of the results of this audit during early 1993, after accessing Freedom of Information for material concerning himself. This stated concern about Dr Crtlcott's mental health and the non-disclosure to him of certain material pervades much of what occurred between Dr Chilcott and ~he Authority leading up to the period of d1sm1ssal. At the time ot querying Dr Chilcott's mental health, however, both Dr Goodier and Dr Cameron were relying upon their own judgement because, at this stage, Dr Chilcott had not been formally assessed in this regard and Doctors Goodier and Cameron were not privy to information regarding any medical assessment Dr Chilcott may have had during this period concerning his state of mental health. That Dr Goodi_er may _have perceived extreme stress and anxiety on the part ot Dr Chdcou may be so, but in his _own words he stated that he was apprecIatIve ot the degree ot anxiousness which may be experienced by any Doctor when sub1ected to investigation of patient complaints. I accept, also, in making his assessment that Dr Goodier's concern went to what he (Dr Goodier) saw a; the extreme nature of the complaints which had been raised by Dr Chilcott with him during this period. Complaints made by Dr Chilcott to Dr Goodier and Other Bodies Dr Goodier referred to a series oi complaints made by Dr Chilcott around the time of the Ruby complaint concerning personal1t1es and events In the Mareeba area. It is not necessary for me to detail the nature of the complaints. Dr Chilcott stated that he saw it as his duty as a Doctor to report such complaints, which he had heard about from other persons, to his superiors and while Dr Goodier agreed on this point, he saw the content or such complaints as being of an extreme nature. While it is not for me to determine the truth or otherwise of such claims, some of the claims were subsequently investigated by other appropriate bodies and no action was taken by these Authorities. Complaints regarding Certain Drugs Dr Chilcott had claimed that there was evidence in the Mareeba region of _illegal trafficking in a certain drug. Dr Chilcott brought this matter to the attention of Dr Goodier who requested that such information be placed in the hands of appropriate Authorities for their investigation and action, if necessary. In the interim, Dr Chilcott claimed to retain possession of such drugs in his role as an accredited Health Officer. Some time later, Health Authorities sought to take these drugs from Dr Chilcott. A debate subsequently ensued as to whether Dr Chilcott was the appropriate official to handle such matters. Material has been tendered to me by -- 2 of 10 -- 424 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE f25 February, 1994 both parties contesting th,s point. It is not necessary for me to seek to determine such point - all that should perhaps be said Is that I tormed the opInIon that, in his own view at the t,me, Dr Chilcott believed he possessed a perfectly bona fide reason tor acting as he a,d. The real debate between the parties, as stated earlier, centred around the question of whether Dr Chilcott was legally entitled to maIntaIn pos,ession of such goods. Dr Chilcott believed that he had been harassed by Health Authorities over this issue. However, In my view, the Health Authorities had a leg1t1mate right and duty to investigate such matters under certain circumstances. Beyond that, the matter \\ould seem to be academic. STAFF ISSUES _ There ha_d been, over the years, complaints made about the tunctioning ot the Hospital by various staff members. The first complaint tendered by the Authority was dated February 1983 and signed by a Ms Pitcher, Social Worker. This complaint went to issues such as lack ot appropriate tacilities in the Social Work ofiice - e.g. non-locking filing cabinets; non-suitability of plastic chairs; only having one plant ,n the office etc. ... While these issues would appear to be of little to no significance in this case because they occurred outside of the period in question in this decision, they were raised because many of the problems highlighted remained unresolved for many years and certainly into the period of time under rev,ew. The next complaint, addressed to the Queensland ~epartment of Health, is undated, but relates to a period of time atter 1987. The complainant was a former Social Worker at the Hospital. The complaint is that the pos,tion of Social Worker was shared between two Hospitals - the Mareeba Hospital and the Atherton Hospital and the complainant states that there are "obvious disadvantages" in th s arrangement in that the "Mareeba Hospital statt viewed the Socia! Worker as being the 'Atherton Hospital Social Worker', and this common perception possibly still exists". The complaint then deta,'s the following areas of concern:- Lack of sufficient reierrals from the medical officers at the Hospital and none from Dr Chilcott; Inadequate support f,om Dr Chilcott and the Manager of the Hospital, The administrative svstem of the Hospital was alienating and 1nhosp1table and the administrative staff were "frequently and demonstratively aggressive"; Lack of appreciat10~. of the role of Social Worker in the Hospital. The la,st _complaint, dated June 1989, was forwarded by former statt ot the Hospital, including Ms Johnson (Physiotherapist); Ms Miles (Occupational Therapist) and Ms Allen- Kelly (Social Worker). This complaint details the following areas ot concern:- Poor staff morale and communication due to lack of orientation to the Hospital and to other staff; Little understanding of the role of paramedical staff and a tailure to develop a "team" approach to health care; Lack of supply of appropriate equipment in the Social Work Department (s•milar to requests made by former Social Workers); An alleged inefficiency in the filling of vacant paramedical positions. In all, these problems appear to be directed more towards the administrative fu_nctioning of the Hospital and a perceived failure on the part ot the med,cal administrator and others at the Hospital to fully__ appreciate the professional role played by paramedical statt ot the Hospital. These complainants were not called to give evidence, but I have little d1ff1culty in accepting that the persons concerned were e,pressIng their views honestly in the hope that these areas of Hosp '.al procedure would be addressed appropriately. Whether appropriate action was ultimately taken to rectify these prob_lems was not submitted in evidence, however, the absence ot these complaints in later years and certainly at the time of the Audit Review suggests that these problems were resolved accordingly. INTERACTION WITH SUPERIORS Dr Chilcott had dealings on a regular basis with Dr Cameron, t_he Executive of the Mareeba Hospital, on a much less regular basis with Dr Goodier and almost no 1nteractIon with the Regional Health Authority Committee. Dr Chilcott and Dr Cameron had known each other since 1978 .. A work relationship had existed during the periods when Dr Chilcott had been employed in the public hospital system, and, during the period of time that Dr Chilcott was working as a general practitioner in Atherton, a less structured working relationship existed. Dr Cameron was quite clear when he stated that he did not believe that the Authority or the Mareeba Hospital could re-establish a working relationship with Dr Chilcott. I detected, throughout Dr Cameron's evidence, a sense of trustratIon and veiled resentment towards Dr Chilcott. That there was some residual ill feeling towards Dr Chilcott by Dr Cameron _arising out of the "pre-Mareeba Hospital incident" was evident It Is also possible that the events surrounding this 1nc1dent assisted in torm1ng In Dr Cameron's mind a particular view of Dr Chilcott which_ was d1ft1cult to change. This however, was only one of_ many 1nc1dents which involved both parties. I would say, at this stage, that I accept to some degree that Dr Cameron's frustrations with Dr Chilcott were war(anted. What reservations I have on this point will be expressed later in this decision after I detail further facets of evidence. Dr Chilcott, however, was circumspect in his opinion of Dr Cameron. Dr Chilcott viewed his period of time working with Dr Cameron In terms ot "survival". What he did state, however was that "I put_it to the Commissioner though, that In that s1tuati;n, given the tact that our long association (Dr Ch1lcott's and Dr Cameron's) - very, very long association with Dr Cameron - this is _all that could be brought up". The "all" that Dr Chilcott was retemng to was the "pre-Mareeba Hospital incident" and alleged inadequate record keeping on Dr Ch1lcott's part. This comment appears to be accurate at !east as it pertains to the period ot time up until Dr Coodier's appo,ntment as Regional Director in 1991. . There was little, if any, ev_idence concern,ng Dr Chilcott's InteractIon with the Director ot Finance and Administration for the H_ospital (The Executive of the Hospital consisted of the atorement1_oned Director, the Medical Superintendent, and the Director ot Nursing ot the Hospital). Evidence was however forthcoming from Ms C. Cray, who commenced h~r duties a~ Director of Nursing at Mareeba Hospital in September 1992. Ms Cray noticed_ a change in Dr Chilcott's work performance during this period ot time in that "I guess I saw a dist,nct change in terms of his focus. He was very concerned about the issues that were besetting him between himself and regional oriice". When asked specifically if Dr Chilcott could fulfil the role one expected of a Medical Superintendent, Ms Cray responded bv saying "I honestly don't know. I haven't seen 1t this year because of the stress and the way 1t_'s been for Peter". Ms Cray also expressed her fondness tor Dr Chilcott as an individual. It is a much more difficult exercise to attempt to understand the relationship which existed between Dr Chilcott and Dr Goodier. Dr Chilcott detailed the actual number of times that he and_ Dr Goodier had met in person over a period of two and a- halt years. It is relevant to note these times, because the bulk of the communication which occurred between these two parties appeared to be by way of written communication rather than personal interaction. The first meeting occurred in Mav 1991 wfien both parties were present at a Medical Superintendent's Conierence. A brief social exchange occurred at this time. The ne,t meeting occurred in late June 1991 when the Ruby complaint was discussed. In July 1991, the ty,,o met during a visit to the Tablelands by Dr Goodier. One turther visit occurred during 1991 when members of the Regional Authority visited Mareeba Hoso,tal Around the same time, Dr Chilcott visited Dr Goodier in Cairns to discuss a series of allegations about certain happenings :n the Mareeba- d,strict (these allegations have been referred to earlier). On this occasion, Dr Chilcott advised Dr Goodier that he had seen Dr Rigano (a Cairns based psvch1atrist). Dr Chilcott claims that this visit was not tor the purpose of seeking psych,a:ric help but for 25 February, 1994] QUEENSLAND GOYERN\1ENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 425 the purpose of discussing other issues. Dr Coodier's observat1or>s of Dr Chilcott at this stage were that " . we had, as I remembe,, quite a long discuss,o~ and it was at that time that I was particularly concerned that you seemed to be anxious and vou seemed as if you ha,h·t slept well, as if you were tense, and so on" On 13 August 1991 Dr Chilcott again visited Dr Goodier ,.o d,scuss the drugs issue earlier referred to. This meeting was followed by a furthe, meeting on 25 October 1991 to discuss the same issues. The last time the two appeared to have met was during late Novembe, 1991 when Dr Goodier attended a nurses graduation ceremonv at .'v1areeba Hospital where the two held a brief discussion. Dr Goodier confirmed that the aforementioned meetings did occur between the parties on or about the dates which had been mentioned, however, he stated quite clearly that there had been manv attempts made by him to meet with Dr Chilcott on subsequent occasions, each of which had allegedlv been frustrated bv D, Chilcott's behaviour. As stated earlier, on a number of occasions, Dr Goodier withheld 1nformat1on from Dr Chilcott because he was concerned about the state of Dr Ch1\cott's mental health. Dr Goodier, on the one hand, accepted that any Doctor under investigation as a result of serious claims be,ng made against them would feel anxious a-id stressed, however, later in evidence he qualifies that by stating ·1 must say frankly, that Dr Chilcott's state of mind when I'd seen him concerning the Ruby Affair, his anxiety levels were such that the prospect of su1c,de wasn't out of my mind, in terms of his state of health". Sometime In February 1992, Dr Goodier requested Dr Chilcott to consult ;sith psychiatrists. As it transpired, Dr Chilcott consulted one psychiatrist, Dr Carrone (Director of Psychiatrv - Cairns Base Hospital an employee of the Regional Authority) There was clearly an understanding between Dr Chilcott and Dr Carrone that Dr Chilcott would see a copy of the psychiatric report. This is evident from the correspondence which passed between Dr Carrone and Dr Goodier, dated 14 February 1992, ·,•. ~ich states inter a!,a:- "I provide the iollowing report on my clinical findings and opinions based on an extended consultation session with Dr Peter Chilcott o'l 13 February 1992. This report was requested by the Regional Director, and is provided witb the knowledge that a copy will be given to Dr Chilcott Unfortunately, Dr Chilcott never received a copy of this report. Dr Cood,er's reco!lect1on ot this event Is as tollows:- "And the report 1 tself states that it is furnished in the knowledge that he was to receive a copy and certainly I have no objections to him receiving a copy, but we made a mistake. I had asked my then Executive Support Officer ,\\r Chris Russell to check with Dr Carrone that Dr Chilcott had not received one directly from her, and he informed me tl;at she had sent h,m one directly. And of course, events later prove that she had not done so.". It is not my intention generally to go into any detail on the assessments made bv various psychiatrists whom Dr Chilcott consulted other thar, to state whether such assessments were fa,ourable or unfavourable to Dr Chilcott. In the case of Dr Carrone's report, it would seem to have been reasonable for Dr Goodier to be concerned about the Iss0e of Dr Chilcott's state of health, although Dr Carrone did state that her advice would include Dr Chilcott seeking "another psych1a'.·ic opinion by a Senior Psychiatrist in a metropolitan area for his own peace of mind" ' Dr Rigano, a Cairns based psychiatrist, gave evidence that he examined Dr Chilcott in July 1991 and, at that time, while he pondered over Dr Cn1lcott's state of health (and that he took into account whether he should report his findings to the Medical Board of Queensland or the Regional Health Authority), he determined to lean ,n favour of Dr Chilcott and his capacity to continue his emplm ment as a Medical Superintendent. Dr Rigano stated in evidence, however, that in retrospect, he may have made findings concerning Dr Chilcott which accorded more with those of Dr Carrone. Dr Rigano did not expand upon his reasons for stating tfi1s v 1ew and I am led to believe that no further conference 0 1 consultation occurred between Dr Rigano and Dr Chilcott be, O'ld the cor.suitat,ons in 1991. Consequent upon Dr Carrone·s report being made availab e to Dr Goodier, Dr Cood,er discussed the issue with Dr Lange (Executive Director. Puoi,c Health Services and Chief Health Officer, Queensland Health), who he claims suggested that Dr Chilcott be referred to the Medical Board of Queensland for assessment Dr Lange advised the Commission that the Medical Board of Queensland had before it for consideration a copy of correspondence (Exhibit 20) directed to Dr Lange in her official capacity as Executive Director, Public Health Services and Chief Health Officer, Queensland Health from the Health Complaints Unit which referred to complaints concerning Dr Chilcott and the Mareeba Hospital (to which I have already referred) and a letter from Dr Goodier (enclosing Dr Carrone's Report) (Exhibit 130) stating that he requested:- "• • That Dr Chilcott's case is presented to the Medical Board of Queensland; That a decision is made as to whether Dr Chilcott can continue to function in his present role or whether he would be best In a role which is supervised; and That Dr Chilcott be required to attend for treatment as part ot the cond1t1on ot employment.". Dr Goodier also referred in his letter to his understanding that Dr Chilcott had sought a consultation with a psychiatrist in Brisbane. Dr Chilcott appeared before the Committee of Assessors of the Medical Board of Queensland in June 1992. Despite the fact that all of the earlier referred to material was in the hands of the Registrar of the Medical Board of Queensland, the Registrar chose not to submit Dr Carrone's report to the Medical Board of Queensland when it finally met to examine Dr Chilcott. What the Board did ask of Dr Chilcott, prior to its meeting with him, was for his agreement to provide a copy of the Brisbane based psychiatrist's report for their perusal; a practice Dr Lange viewed as being "usual" in the circumstances. This brings into question an issue which I perceived to be of utmost importance to Dr Chilcott throughout the hearing. Dr Chilcott believed most strongly that he had been denied "natural justice" by the Authority and specifically by Dr Goodier and a particular area he pointed to was the manner In which Dr Carrone's report had been made available to various parties by Dr Goodier without Dr Chilcott's prior knowledge or consent. This question will be dealt with in more detail later In th;s decision. As it transpired, Dr Chilcott did visit a psychiatrist in Brisbane (Dr Mulholland) prior to appearing before the Medical Board of Queensland and this psfch1atrist's assessment was not adverse to Dr Chilcott in any rea sense. Interestingly, in this psychiatrist's assessment of Dr Chilcott, the following comments were made:- "At interview, Dr Chilcott presented as being somewhat anxious and relatively agitated, which appeared to be understandable, in view of the various pressures under which he has been placed, and is being placed under at the present time. At interview there was no evidence of any psychotic behaviour, nor was I able to obtain a history which was consistent with his ever having had psychotic process.·. Further, this report states:- "He gave me a long and complicated story oi his differences with various individuals and with the Health Authorities. I am not in any position to judge the absolute truth, in as much as an elusive quality ever exists as these conflicts. If all of the allegations against him are correct, and his defences of these allegations are completely groundless, then the most that I could conclude from this, is that he may have some personality problems. However, on the other hand, he may be the victim of circumstances, which are causing him to experience significant emotional stress and strain.". The report went on to state that - "I do not form the conclusion that he had ever suffered from a psychotic process, although he may or may not have some personality problems which meant that at times, he is rather hard to get on with, and has conflicts or tensions with some patients, and or their relatives and friends and or with the Health Authorities." -- 3 of 10 -- 426 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE (25 February, 1994 This psychiatrist also stressed to Dr Chilcott that he should seek to receive "such support as he felt necessary from his friends and colleagues, and 1f necessary from Dr Rigano or Dr Garrone, as well as remaining in close contact with the Medical Defence Society of Queensland". When Dr Chilcott was finally assessed by the Medical Board of Queensland (comprising of a Committee which included psychiatrists), he was deemed fit to practice by the Board. It was the unanimous view of the Board members (who included Doctors D. Perry-Keene; J. Lawrence and I. Curtis) that - "At discussion after the interview, it was quickly apparent that no member of the panel felt that there was any justification whatsoever in classing Dr Chilcott as unfit to practice medicine on the basis of the information placed before the panel or on the basis of Dr Chilcott's presentation today.". Dr Chilcott took the opportunity while Dr Lange was giving evidence, to present her with personal endorsements from Medical Practitioners in the Tablelands Region of North Queensland attesting to the fact generally that they had found Dr Chilcott diligent and professional in his work as Medical Superintendent and they had not detected in him any suggestion of a psychotic condition. This collation of references also includes one from a Dr Harnishchfegar, the person who subsequently filled Dr Chilcott's position as Medical Superintendent of the Mareeba Hospital. There was hearsay evidence later given by Dr Cameron to the effect that some of these Doctors had changed their view of Dr Chilcott because they "had not appreciated the major level of concerns that we had about Dr Chilcott". I referred earlier to Dr Chilcott's concern about his psychiatric report, compiled by Dr Garrone, being made available to other parties through Dr Goodier. The question to be considered regarding this issue is this. Was it fair and ethical for Dr Goodier to gain access to this report and, once having done so, to distribute copies of it to certain other persons within the health industry? It was clear to me, through consideration of the evidence on point, that Dr Chilcott held the view that, while he had agreed to see Dr Garrone for assessment, as per Dr Goodier's request to do so, that the outcome of such assessment be made available to him. It is accepted that Dr Chilcott never received a copy of this assessment at that time and was only made aware of it through a Freedom Of Information application. It is also clear that this document has come into the hands of many people, not only the Medical Board of Queensland representatives and other medical officers, but staff of the Regional Health Authority allegedly as a result _of the number of requests for information received by the Regional Authority from Dr Chilcott. I have considerable sympathy for Dr Chilcott's concerns regarding this matter. He attended what he believed to be a private consultation _wi_th a psychiatrist on the understanding that the strong conf1dent1al1ty which exists between Doctor and patient would not be in question. The end result for Dr Chilcott is that the contents of this report of Dr Garrone's appears now to be almost common knowledge for those who wish to know its contents. I had intended to comment much more on this issue, but feel constrained by the contents of a letter sent by Dr Goodier to Dr Chilcott on 24 March 1992 wherein Dr Goodier states:- "! regret to inform you that after serious consideration I have decided to report my concerns about your health and well being to the Medical Board of Queensland. I have done this through the office of Dr Di Lange, Chief Health Officer. / understand that we have an appointment to discuss this and other issues at 4 p.m. on Friday 27 March 1992.". (My emphasis) In his response to this letter, Dr Chilcott decided not to avail himself of the offer to meet with Dr Goodier "until after the Medical Board has resolved any doubts you have". I am presuming, and thereby giving Dr Goodier the benefit of the doubt, that had such meeting gone ahead Dr Chilcott would have been made aware that Dr Goodier was not only in possession of Dr Garrone's report but would have advised Dr Chilcott of his intention to send such report to Dr Lange. This scenario would at least have assured that Dr Chilcott knew precisely what was going on and what "concerns" Dr Goodier had been referring to. The fact that the meeting did not go ahead, of course, does not absolve Dr Goodier of the obligation to at least advise Dr Chilcott of the course he was pursuing. Whether my presumption is correct or not, Dr Chilcott remained ignorant of the real content of the "concerns" which had prompted Dr Goodier to pursue a course of action against him, the ramifications of which, were a finding adverse to Dr Chilcott to be made, could prove to be fatal to the professional career of any medical practitioner. This view is bolstered by the fact that both the Medical Board of Queensland and Dr Stanley, Director General of the Department of Health (both arguably being entitled to see confidential material pe111nent to Dr Chilcott) displayed sens1tiv1ty and respect towards Dr Chilcott by asking his permission before they perused highly conf1dent1al material concerning him. I do not question Dr Goodier's right or obligation to take action which he believed to be appropriate especially when one considers the importance of the position held by Dr Chilcott and the need for the public interest to be protected. As such, I do not take issue with Dr Goodier acting upon Dr Garrone's report and forwarding it to Dr Lange. What seriously concerns me, however, is the manner in which many events were handled by the Authority. That there existed a poor work relationship between Dr Goodier and Dr Chilcott is evident. Dr Chilcott claims he had no faith or trust in Dr Goodier. (Dr Goodier has since left the employ of the Regional Health Authority.) Other factors touching upon this relationship will be discussed later in these reasons, but at this point I am prepared to say for reasons which I have outlined that I am appreciative of the concerns felt by Dr Chilcott towards Dr Goodier. It seems to me that ultimately a "battle of wills" commenced between these two parties with the stronger combatant (Dr Goodier) determining the course of events. The final area for consideration in this segment is Dr Chilcott's relationship with the Regional Health Authority as chaired by Ms Boyle. Background information shows that th,s Organisation came into existence in July 1991. Ms Boyle, Cha,rperson of the Authority, gave evidence on behalf of that body. Ms Boyle referred to a range of issues of concern to her Authority members regarding both Dr Chilcott and the Mareeba Hospital, which 1ncluded:- information supplied by Dr Goodier on the Ruby complaint; complaints from members of the .'v\areeba Community; Dr Chilcott's competency as an administrator and his unavailability to perform his duties; the declining reputation and patient numbers of the Mareeba Hospital during 1992/1993; the length of time taken to pursue Diminished Work Performance procedures concerning Dr Chilcott. Ms Boyle believed that the Authority of which she was Chairperson had the right to dismiss Dr Chdcott and had delegated such right to Dr Goodier. Further, when asked if the Regional Health Authority could re-establish an employment relationship with Dr Chilcott as Medical Superintendent of 'v\areeba Hospital or in any other medical capacity, Ms Boyle replied:- "Certainly not in the immediate term, and it's very hard to imagine even in the long term that that would be so.". The evidence of Ms Boyle showed that in the main, the Authority of which she was Chairperson relied upon Dr Goodier's version of the events which occurred between himself and Dr Chilcott for its information (save for information gathered at meetings held in Mareeba). There was no direct communication between her Committee and Dr Chilcott. In fact, Dr Chilcott stated that the hearing before the Commiss'on represented the first occasion upon which Dr Chilcott had spoken with Ms Boyle. As I understand it, the point being pursued by Dr Chilcott with Ms Boyle was this. Dr Chilcott had not been given a chance to state his case and explain himself to the Authority and that the Authority accepted Dr Goodier's word (amongst others in the community) as to the state of affairs concerning Dr Chilcott and the Mareeba Hospital. 25 February, 1994] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 427 Ms Boyle further stated:- "As the community tell me their hospital was going along quite nicely. It is this last couple oi years that they feel through various circumstances, and your (Dr Chilcott's) difficulties performing as Medical Superintendent being one of them, that their hospital has run down.". Ultimately, the Authority through Ms Boyle stated that 1t supported Dr Goodier's decision to dismiss. Of interest, on this particular point, was correspondence received by Dr Goodier from Dr Stanley (the Director General of Health) which stated:- "As Regional Director of the Authority, you would be aware that you hold office under the Public Service Management and Employment Act 7988 and that you are subJect to my direction. Accordingly, to assist officers of the Department to effectively prepare submissions to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, I direct that you provide me, within 7 calendar days, with: 1. A statement by you in respect of Dr Chilcott's dismissal. This statement must contain: (a) (bJ (c) the issues relating to the dismissal together with your findings of fact as to those issues; references to the evidence or other material on which the findings of fact were based; and the reasons for the decision to dismiss Dr Chilcott emanating from the findings of fact. 2. Copies of all documents held by yourself and other officers of the Authority (and those documents which are under your control) relating to Dr Chilcott in his role as Medical Superintendent of Mareeba Hospital. This direction does not, at this time, include health records of patients treated by Dr Chilcott. Please note, should any of the documents relate to Dr Chilcott's personal affairs (e.g. his health record) prior approval of Dr Chilcott must be obtained before copies of such documents are provided to me.". (My emphasis) It appears, from the evidence on this point, that Dr Goodier was the Officer primarily determining the late of Dr Chilcott. This 1s not to suggest that Dr Goodier was the only Officer to find fault with Dr Chilcott, but it does appear that the decision to dismiss appeared to have rested mainly with Dr Goodier (it is acknowledged by the Commission that Dr Goodier sought adv,ce before he pursued this course of action). As for Dr Chilcott's claim that he did not have a chance to state his case to the members of the Regional Health Author,tv of which Ms Boyle was Chairperson, this would show some • weakness in a system which did not allow an employee of Dr Chilcott's standing to at least challenge points in contention. I say this because I remain unsure as to how detailed any information concerning Dr Chilcott was that passed between Dr Goodier and the Regional Health Authority (certainly, the minutes of the Regional Health Authority meetings did not reflect any specific d1scuss1ons_ cen_tering upon Dr Chilcott or the Mareeba Hospital). As such, I t1nd 1t difficult to accept some ot Ms Boyle's evidence especially when she was em 1hatic about the views which had been formed by the Regiona Authority towards Dr Chilcott. I might have been much more accepting of her views ii I thought they had been formulated in a balanced way, having heard directly both from Dr Goodier and Dr Chilcott. COMMUNITY ISSUES Under this particular category, a number of issues need to be addressed and these are as follows:- • Media Reports. • Racist Allegations. Local Community Perspective. Media Reports Upon allegations made by Dr Goodier that Dr Chilcott had "gone t_o the_ media" with issues arguably damaging to the reputation ot the Regional Health Authority, Dr Chilcott did not deny that he may have "spoken" to the media as distinct from actively initiating media coverage. Howeve_r, spec1f1cally on the issue of med,a covPrdge concerning possible down-grading of the Marecba Hospital, Dr Chilcott states that he had been accus,,d by Dr Goodier of initiating this story. This accusation Dr Ch,lcott strenuously den,ed, stating that he subsequently was made aware of the identity of the Doctor who had discussed the issue with the press. Whatever the real situation, media speculation concerning the Hospital and indirectly the Regional Health Authority appeared to be damaging to the standing of both bodies in the mind of the public. During the entire hearing, I found no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Or Chilcott. The strong 1mpress1on I gained from observing Dr Chilcott over an extensive period before the Commission was that he held dogged beliefs on certain issues and while the Authority might question the basis of such beliefs, the sincerity with which they were held by Dr Chilcott to my mind was not in question As such, I accept that Dr Chilcott may have spoken to the press, but I am not convinced, on the lirrnted evidence before me, that he sought to instigate _media coverage which was deliberately aimed at adversely attecting the standing of the Mareeba Hospital. Racist Allegations Dr Goodier gave evidence that the Mareeba community believed the Mareeba Hospital to be racist and that, at the time of respond_ing to an equal employment opportunity request, 1t was tound that "1t was the only hospital in the region that did not employ a single Aboriginal or Islander person". Dr Chilcott's evidence on this issue was as follows:- There were Aboriginal persons employed by the Mareeba Hospital, at the time ot the enquiry, but when asked to have their racial status recorded, they "wished to be recognised as Just staff members of the hospital and not specifically as being Aboriginal people". Dr Chilcott also gave evidence of a lengthy article written 1n October 1990 about the _Mareeba district by the magazine /ta, tocus1ng upon the plight ot Aboriginal people within that district. This article (which 1s 1n no way derogatory of Dr Chilcott_or the ,\.1areeba Hospital - 1n tact, 1f anything, the article _views the most p_rogressive changes occurring tor Aboriginals generally w1th1n the Mareeba district as occurring within the Health industry 1n that region), 1n part, quotes Dr Chdcott saying "we are getting somewhere - we're seeing attitudes change, we're starting to co-ordinate services, learning to meet the Aborigines half way and then turn over responsibility to them". Further, evidence from Ms Gray, Director of Nursing at Mareeba Hospital showed that a reconciliation program had been established wherein the Aboriginal community and hospital staff interacted in an attempt to foster better understanding between both groups. When asked how she viewed Dr Ch1lcott's involvement 1n such a program, Ms Gray responded:- "Well you (i.e. Dr Chilcott) and I discussed it at great length and it was quite obvious that you were wanting to understand and so we talked quite an amount about it . . . Hov. we could make Mareeba more attractive recognising there obviously was problems with the v.'.ay the Abor1g1nal community viewed Mareeba and viewed the hospital and how we could better that and the reconciliation conference was seen as a way of getting the sides together, so to speak.". In all, on this issue, I would see the evidence as showing that, once spec111c problems were highlighted, Dr Chilcott provided both the means and interest whereby obvious changes were seen to occur. Local Community Perspective There was evidence from some witnesses (1 .e. the two ex- pat1ents) that the .\.1areeba Hospital was not held in high regard w1th1n the commun1tv According to Ms Boyle (Chairperson - Peninsula and Torres Strait Regional Health Authority) the concerns w:th the Hospital have occurred "for nearly two years"'. Ms Bm ie went on to add:- ........ -- 4 of 10 -- 428 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE (25 February, 1994 "It is this last couple of years that they (i.e. the community) feel through various circumstances, and your difficulties performing as Medical Superintendent being one of them, that their hospital has run down.". A local practitioner, Dr Bestmann stated that over the years he "would estimate that between 20 and 30 patients have expressed dissatisfaction with Dr Chilcott's treatment to me in passing". Cross-examination by Dr Chilcott found Dr Bestmann saying that he had known Dr Chilcott for some time, had found h,m approachable and that he could talk to him whenever it was necessary, but that he had never raised any of the problems over that time with Dr Chilcott, to which he was now attesting. While evidence was given by a witness called by the Authority that there was also local support for Dr Chilcott, no direct evidence was called to this effect - a factor which may not have been overlooked had Dr Chilcott been represented at the hearing. Of interest on this point, was the evidence of Mr P. McCarthy (Acting Director, Internal Audit Branch - Queensland Health). The specifics of the Audit of the Mareeba Hospital conducted by Mr McCarthy's team during 1992 will be duly considered later in this decision, but at this stage the following parts of the team's findings bear mention:- Also; "The Review Team received no reports of concern about the standard of medical care provided at Mareeba Hospital. Nursing staff, paramedical staff, G.P. and the visiting surgeon were all satisfied that a high standard of care was provided.". "There was concern at the numbers of mothers attending Cairns for maternity services. The hospital (i.e. the Mareeba Hospital) has an excellent maternity facility but there has been some anxiety about the lack of obstetric experience in some of the junior staff.". Mr McCarthy also informed the Commission that when a Review of Financial Management and Operations was conducted in any particular area, the Review Team, before commencing the Review, notifies Federal and State Politicians and local Council representatives "advising them of the upcoming review and inviting that individual as representatives for the community to have input into the review process". In the case of this Review of the Mareeba Hospital, held in Mareeba in 1992, Mr McCarthy did not recall any local persons or community interest group representatives availing themselves of the opportunity to express any concerns they may have had about their local Hospital. What was identified, however, by the Review Team as being an issue of community concern was the following:- "There was a clear demand within the community for an increase in the availability of specialist medical services and there was potential for a reduction in the amount of work being referred to the Cairns Base Hospital.". The evidence on this point shows that there was an element of concern within the community about the standing of the Mareeba Hospital which appeared to go more towards the range of medical services available at the Hospital rather than towards Dr Chilcott; that this concern was felt more acutely over the past two years; that in some areas the response to the concern by Dr Chilcott and the Mareeba Hospital was appropriate and obvious (e.g. Aboriginal Community issues); that there were reasons given as to why some patients (i.e. maternity patients) chose not to attend the Mareeba Hospital which had no bearing on Dr Chilcott's administration at all and also in this vein, that one of the significant areas of community concern related to the unavailability of specialist medical services at the Mareeba Hospital resulting in patients seeking alternative and appropriate Hospital care; but that the level of local concern was not sufficient for elected representatives of the community to formally voice the community's interests when the opportunity arose. In fact, if anything, one wonders if the attention might not be more appropriatelv directed at the Authority in its general administration of health care in the area rather than towards Dr Chilcott. That the problems became more exacerbated during 1993 was, in my view, understandable given the state of Dr Chilcott's health and his non-attendance at his position at the Hospital during that period. This facet of the situation will also be addressed later in this decision. ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUES I have referred earlier to views expressed by Dr Cameron and others concerning Dr Chilcott's alleged poor medical note- taking over the years. On this point, I accept the evidence of Dr Cameron and Dr Goodier that they found, upon investigation, this facet of Dr Chilcott's performance "sub-optimal". Dr Chilcott was not informed of the results formulated by both Dr Goodier and Dr Cameron because of their collective concerns about Dr Chilcott's "mental well being". Consequently, the question must be asked as to how Dr Chilcott, in the absence of information regarding his employer's concerns in this area, could attempt to rectify what were perceived deficiencies on his part when he simply had no knowledge of the findings? The primary investigative process instituted by Queensland Health was by way of the Audit Report (earlier referred to) conducted by Mr P. McCarthy and a specialist team. This Review, which commenced in June 1992, was to "cover all matters to do with the delivery of health care from the Hospital . .. The Review covered all areas such as medical and allied health services, nursing services, hotel services, that is cleaning, catering, engineering, administration and other support services". The evidence of Mr McCarthy was that at the exit interview of the Team with Dr Chilcott, certain matters were discussed with the Team detailing the procedural and administrative duties of a Medical Superintendent to Dr Chilcott. This was done because there had been an acknowledgement by Dr Chilcott that he had not undertaken all of his administrative responsibilities and specifically as they related to Public Service Management and Employment Commission human resource management guidelines. The Team made the following suggestion concerning an approach which may be adopted by Dr Chilcott as a means of addressing perceived administrative deficiencies on his part:- "The availability of a senior medical administrator acceptable to the Executive Officer and Medical Superintendent, Mareeba Hospital as an adviser and resource person would considerably assist the Medical Superintendent in his commitment to improve the standard of medical administration. The Review Team considers that the Medical Superintendent or Deputy Medical Superintendent of Cairns Base Hospital could appropriately assume this role.". When one peruses the document entitled "Atherton, Mareeba and Herberton Hospitals - Review of Financial Management and Operations", it is noted that deficiencies in processes (similar to those identified by the team at the Mareeba Hospital) were apparent at the Atherton Hospital as well. I refer specifically to the sub-heading "Human Resource Management", as it applied to the Atherton Hospital and the comments of the Team:- "6.1.3 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (a) Personnel There was no combined Human Resource Management strategy in place at the Atherton Hospital. Personnel management was divided amongst the three (3) executive streams and as a result no consistent program and/or policy existed to cover all staffing categories. The inconsistency across the professional and administrative strands was evidenced by the following: • formal processes of Human Resource Management had not been established in all areas. • job descriptions had not been finalised for all staff and some staft wrote and changed their own without formal executive approval of the final document. • selection criteria were not available for all staff, both for internal promotion and external appointments. • performance appraisal and review were lacking for medical and administration staff. 25 February, 1994 l QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 429 • administrative staff development was not co-ordinated and occurred in a haphazard manner with no overall plan. Junior staff had little opportunity in this regard. • induction and orientation was not available to all staff and needs to be developed and applied overall.". I raise these factors because ,t is important to understand that the Review Team's identification of problems relative to the Hospitals reviewed during 1992 (i.e. Atherton, Herberton and Mareeba Hospitals) is not confined solely to the Mareeba Hospital. In many respects, some of the problems identified at the Atherton Hospital are similar to those uncovered at the Mareeba Hospital, although I accept that the Review Tea_m placed different emphasis upon the methods to be used at the different Hospitals to overcome such problems and the speed with which the problems should be addressed. Dr Chilcott had stated to the Team that he did not have the time, because of work commitments, to attend courses on medical administration. Having set in train a series of proposals for Dr Chilcott to address, the Team conducted a debriefing session with Dr Chilcott some four months later and expressed "disappointment to learn that he had made little progress towards complying with the administrative responsibilities as Medical Superintendent". There had been questions raised during this case concerning the level of staffing at the Mareeba Hospital. Dr Chilcott had stated that he was unable to react positively in all respects to recommendations of the Review Team because of lack of time on his part. This question was also raised because there had been considerable debate extending to criticism of Dr Chilcott when he had stated to the Review Team that he juggled his workload to the extent that there was a 50/50 apportionment between administrative and clinical work - an apportionment which was viewed by the Team as being inappropriate. Upon being asked the specific question about staffing levels at the Mareeba Hospital, by the Commission, Mr McCarthy responded:- "At the time of our review I understand that Dr Chilcott had a full complement of medical staff. However, to put things in context, prior to, and I think subsequent to, that has not been the case.". Mr McCarthy did state, however, that fluctuating staffing levels were not unique to Mareeba Hospital and it represented "a problem that we have throughout the whole State in terms of attracting medical staff to a lot of the areas outside the big metropolitan hospitals". It appears from the information subsequently tendered to the Commission that the Mareeba Hospital experienced real staff shortages at varying times throughout this period. I have borne this in mind when considering claims by Dr Chilcott that he simply did not have time to address some of the issues that were required of him. In terms of the 50/50 split which was seen as being inappropriate, Mr McCarthy recalled that, at the time of interview with Dr Chilcott, the statement being made that because Dr Chilcott did not have a full complement of staff prior to the Review, he was taking the opportunity to catch up with his administrative duties thereby creating the odd 50/50 split between administrative and clinical work. Mr McCarthy saw this situation, in light of Dr Chilcott's explanation, as being perfectly normal and appropriate. Dr Chilcott proceeded to explain to the Commission how he had made attempts to avail himself of health administration booklets and procedures and how he had tried to fit within the time frames set by the Review Team, all that was required of him. Dr Chilcott also referred to the fact that he had commenced studies for a Masters Degree in Public Health and Tropical Medicine. While, on most requirements, it was shown that the time frame set for commencement'rectification of certain procedures had not expired, the Review Team believed that, after a four month period, some clear signs of progress should have been forthcoming on Dr Chilcott's part. The Report of the Review Team which initially commented upon Dr Chilcott's willingness to rectify any problems did highlight and detail deficiencies ,n the administration of the Hospital. The report of the Team should, I believe, under normal circumstances, have triggered in Dr Chilcott a response adequate to meet the requirements specified. Also, while I accept that Dr Chilcott had taken steps to adhere to the requirements of the Team, I acknowledge that such responses, again under normal circumstances, should have been seen to have commenced earlier than the four months post discussion. While Dr Chilcott did appear to make an effort to facilitate change, the degree to which such change occurred was gradual. Having said that, one must consider whether, taking all factors into account, Dr Chilcott could have been expected to have responded satisfactorily at this particular point in t,me. This factor becomes one of the key questions to be considered in this matter. In this vein and at this point, it might be helpful to detail the chronology of events so that all pertinent issues can be viewed in context:- (NOTE:- This list does not contain all of the issues which occurred, but at least puts the major issues into context). 1991 - Complaints about Mareeba Hospital and Dr Chilcott (including Ruby and O'Hare complaints). Commencement of discussions between Dr Chilcott and Dr Goodier. November 1991 - Dr Cameron and Dr Goodier review clinical notes of Dr Chilcott. (The findings of which are kept from Dr Chilcott). 1992- Assessed by Dr Garrone (psychiatrist). Dr Chilcott assessed by the Medical Board of Queensland. The Audit Review Team visit the Mareeba Hospital. Diminished Work Performance Program determined. 1993 - Dr Chilcott on extended sick leave for which Workers' Compensation was awarded. Dr Chilcott's return to work on other than full-time duties. Diminished Work Performance programme instituted. September 1993 - Dr Chilcott's dismissal. I have referred to this chronology of events because it should be noted that a number of significant happenings had occurred to Dr Chilcott in a relatively short period of time. The extent to which these events (and the degree to which Dr Chilcott exercised control over them) impinged upon Dr Chilcott's work performance is the question posed by the applicant. Did what occurred to Dr Chilcott during this time frame (roughly mid July 1991 through to late 1993) constitute "harassment" by the employer culminating in Dr Chilcott's ultimate dismissal? CITED REASONS FOR DISMISSAL It is difficult to attempt to separate the history surrounding Dr Chilcott's employment over a period of time in both ,\·\areeba and Atherton from the specific reasons cited for his dismissal. While the Authority relies upon a consideration of the reasons referred to at the commencement of this decision for the dismissal of Dr Chilcott, those events, in my view, must be considered against the lengthy and somewhat complex background already detailed in this decision. Were this not the case, the reasons cited by the Authority might automatically suggest an over-reaction to a situation which should have been capable of resolution, using some sensitivity and common sense and utilising contemporary human resource management skills, and the reasons cited by the employee and his subsequent actions would seem to be irrational and extreme. Consequently, against as complete a background as I have been able to detail, I will examine the stated reasons for dismissal:- -- 5 of 10 -- 430 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE [25 February, 1994 Failure to satisfactorily respond to a request by the Authonty to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against Or Chilcott for allegedly taking unauthorized leave on 24 and 25 June 1993. During early 1993, Dr Chilcott had taken four months sick leave returning to work on 21 June 1993. Upon his return to work, Dr Chilcott had in his possession a medical certificate stating that "work adjustment may be required as indicated in medical report". Dr Chilcott wou!d not provide Dr Goodier with a copy of the medical report reterred to because he stated that he did not trust Dr Goodier with his personal documentation. Dr Chilcott, armed with his medical certificate returned to work only to perform administrative duties. As such, the Authority determined to pay Dr Chilcott for one and a-half days per week (the time which they estimated it should take to pertorm a Medical Superintendent's administrative duties). On 23 June 1993, Dr Chilcott was requested by Ms Morera, an employee of the Regional Health Authority and acting on Dr Goodier's behalf, to attend Regional Office on 25 June 1993 to discuss options for resolving the operational difficulties arising from the fact that Dr Chikott was only performing part of his Medical Superintendent's duties. As It transpired, when the letter requesting a meeting was received at the Mareeba Hospital, the Director of Finance and Administration, Mareeba Hospital advised that Dr Chilcott had taken 2 days recreation leave. The precursor to this event had been a letter received by Dr Chilcott from Dr Goodier dated 16 April 1993 where Dr Goodier alleged that Dr Chilcott had taken absence without leave from the Mareeba Hospital on 16 February 1993. The letter from Dr Goodier is strongly worded and chides Dr Chilcott for not informing either the Hospital Executive or Dr Cameron of such leave. The letter goes on to say:- "This action demonstrated a poor regard for your position as Medical Superintendent at Mareeba Hospital and showed little insight into hospital management, organisational structures and routine protocols for absence from work"; and turther, "I also require a guarantee from yourself that in future you will always ensure that your supervisor, Dr Bruce Cameron, approves all your absences of leave". Dr Chilcott's response to this correspondence was by way of a solicitor's letter stating that on the day in question Dr Chilcott, under subpoena, had been giving evidence In the District Court in Cairns and that on the afternoon of the same day i.e. 16 February 1993, he had earned out his duties as anaesthesist at two operations at the Mareeba Hospital. It was further stated that this 1ntormat1on had been supplied to the administration of the Mareeba H_ospital .. Under the circumstances, in light of the evidence given which was not refuted, Dr Goodier's letter seems extraordinary and most significantly shows that no real investigation was conducted into this matter before such a damning letter was sent to Dr Chilcott. It should also be stated that, ior sometime, the Authority relied upon this incorrect allegation as founding one oi the key reasons for Dr Chilcott to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. . Dr Chilcott's solicitor's letter in response stated that " ... we are instructed that Dr Chilcott will comply with all proper requirements in relation to notification of absences from his duties". . On the question of the leave taken on 24 and 25 June, Dr Chilcott stated that it had always been standard practice for the Medical Superintendent to approve his own recreational leave. Dr Goodier rejected this assertwn, stating that all staff, including h1mselt, had to seek approval tor leave trom their supervisors. . Dr Chilcott referred to an "urgent personal matter" arising in Brisbane which required his attendance. Dr Chilcott viewed the two days' off as being not dissimilar to rostering days off for Doctors dependent upon the staffing levels at any particular time "You see, as Me<Jical Superintendent I was responsible for rostering my statt which quite often, particularly when we had a tull quota ot statt, included rostering off tor a couple of days at a time.". I would have thought that rostering functions (ii that is what this arrangement constituted) would not require formalised approval other than within the immediate institution in question (at _least I have not been given evidence to the contrary). The d1ft1culty in this situation is that Dr Chilcott had Just returned to work prior to taking these days off. Dr Chilcott states that it was clear that he was not going to be performing a full work load; that the Authority was paying him for 1.5 days work per week and as sl!ch the~e should be little objection to his taking these two days otf. _He turther states that he was unaware that any more formal requirement (other than completing the leave form, countersigned by another Hospital Executive member) was necessary. It appears not to be In question that Hospital personnel were aware of what was happening. My view on this point is that, even if Dr Chilcott did not believe that any greater degree of formality was required in the circumstances, he had been adequately forewarned that the ~mployer was .. concerned ab<?ut the prospect of his taking of unauthorised leave (even It the employer was wrong in its earlier allegation concerning leave allegedly taken on 16 February 1993) and It would have been sensible for him to formally notifv. Evidence was given that the Hospital was adequately staffed at the time this leave ":'.as taken: M,Y impression is that the incident may not have been ot maJor sIgnit1cance under ditterent circumstances (and if it related to a different Medical Superintendent) but, given the d1ff1cult1es being experienced by all at this stage, it took on a much more senous connotation in the mind of the employer. Under those circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the Authority to seek a satisfactory response from Dr Chilcott. I believe Dr Chilcott's response, while not totally satisfactory, is also not completely devoid of appropriateness On balance, under the strained and specific circumstances which existed at that time, Dr Chilcott's failure to formally notify was, at worst, imprudent. Failure by Dr Chilcott to satisfactorily respond to a request by the Authonty to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for allegedly failing to follow a lawful direction to contact the Authority's Regional Office 1n July 1993 to arrange for further meetings between Officers of the Authority and himself. As a background to the series of events which unfolded under this headi~g, Dr_Chilcott had lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman (Otf1ce ot The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations). The essence of Dr Chilcott's complaint to the _Ombudsman was as detailed in correspondence sent from Comm1ss1oner Albietz ((Ombudsman) to Dr Stanley, Director General, Queensland Health dated March 1993 - Concerns regarding the administrative practices employed by the Authority in evaluating the medical administration of Mareeba Hospital. Any shortcomin$s administratively at the Hospital, were the result of staft shortages. Such shortcomings are not related to Dr Chilcott's Diminished Work Performance. Reliance by the Authority on Dr O'Hare's earlier complaints was unwarranted because the O'Hare complaint was deemed to be resolved. Non-acceptance of the findings of the Audit Review Team headed by Mr P. McCarthy particularly as it related to the claim that he "lacked commitment" to change. Extreme concern felt by Dr Chilcott that copies of his psychiatric report (compiled by Dr Garrone) were circulated to a number of people. In a letter dated August 1993, the Ombudsman wrote again to Dr Stanley. Some key elements of that letter detail the views of the Ombudsman, after investigation of the claims made by Dr Chilcott:- "Dr Chilcott's complaints to this Office have essentially concerned allegations about treatment by the Peninsula and Torres Strait Region in response to complaints received about him. He has raised a number of peripheral concerns but overall ,t seemed to me that complaints made about his performance have never been substantiated and ,n fact the Medical Board of Queensland has assessed him as fit to practice. 25 February, 1994) QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 431 A number of matters separate to these have subsequently arisen and for which the Regional Director issued the show cause notice. It would appear that the show cause notice relates to matters not part of the earlier complaints for which I did ask that no action detrimental to Dr Chilcott be taken until I had completed investigations. I think it is appropriate that the show cause proceedings be allowed to take their course. In the event ot a finding, detrimental to Dr Chilcott, he has formal avenues of appeal to either the Commissioner for Public Sector Equity if the outcome is discipline or to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ii it is dismissal. I would anticipate that in both these forums he would have the opportunity to air all issues of concern to him. It is important however to note that as far as this Office is aware there have been no adverse clinical findings in respect of Dr Chilcott's professional practice and the Medical Board of Queensland has certified that he is fit to practice. In respect of the complaints previously made to this Office about the manner in which Dr Chilcott has been treated, no findings are made at this stage. However a review of Or Chilcott's complaint leaves me with some concern about the Region's general approach to managing Diminished Work Performance, in particular where medical personnel are involved. (My emphasis) I anticipate, whatever the outcome of the show cause process. wanting to examine this area more closely with Queensland Health in the near future. I have informed Dr Chilcott along these lines. I have urged him to be as conciliatory as possible and to try to work with the Authority and the Department to resolve the problems that obviously exist. I would urge the Authority and the Department to do likewise. I would appreciate being kept informed of significant steps and outcomes in the show cause process and any appeal findings. As noted above, when the matter is resolved I would like to discuss further with you the procedures followed where Diminished Work Performance is identified, having regard to the circumstances of Dr Chilcott's case.". (My emphasis) The background painted thus far must be kept in mind when considering the actions taken by Dr Chilcott. The evidence strongly suggests the following factors as being crucial to influencing Dr Chilcott's actions at this stage:- A number of patient complaints against Dr Chilcott and the Mareeba Hospital - all of which, upon investigation by outside bodies, do no damage to Dr Chilcott's professional or personal standing. The acknowledged strain which having to contend with these complaints placed upon Dr Chilcott. Independent investigations concerning Dr Chilcott's work performance conducted by Dr Goodier and Dr Cameron, the findings of which they believe they cannot discuss with Dr Chilcott because they are fearful of his mental state and his capacity to cope with any subsequent investigation. Dr Chilcott's appearance before the Medical Board of Queensland. Dr Chilcott's subsequent discovery that his psychiatric report has been handed to a number of parties without his consent. The added pressure of the Audit Review Team investigating the Mareeba Hospital. Acknowledged illness on Dr Chilcott's part with time off work. The decision by the Authority to continue to pursue Diminished Work Performance procedures with regard to Dr Chilcott immediately upon his return to work. All of the above events occurred within a relatively short period of time. It Is not for the Commission to attempt to attribute medical labels as to how all of these factors may have impacted upon Dr Chilcott. Common sense, however, would suggest that any person who was subjected, rightly or wrongly, to the barrage of powertul events as detailed would be more than likely to have difficulty dealing with their ordinary duties in an optimal fashion. I say this because the events which occurred touched not only upon Dr Ch1lcott's professional standing as a Doctor but also upon his mental competence as an 1nd1v1dual. With these factors in mind, this component of the dismissal charges w,II be considered. Chronologically, the Diminished Work Pe..formance process appeared to have been put in train after the findings of the Medical Board of Queensland became known which were favourable to Dr Chilcott. It was debated whether, as a result of the Au_dit Review Team findings concerning the Mareeba Hospital, a Diminished Work Performance program was instituted in an attempt to identify and deal with problems associated with the medical administration of Mareeba Hospital. Mr McCarthy (member of the Review Team) stated in evidence ho¼ever that he did not believe his Audit Review Team initiated the Diminished Work Performance process. . _I _remain uncertain as to what prompted the 1nstigat1on of the D1m1n1shed Work Performance process. If it did not relate to the Review of the Hospital undertaken at that time and it related to concerns emanating from the O'Hare investigation, this would create a problem. The problem is that, upon investigation of the O'Hare complaint, Doctors Goodier and Cameron detected what they saw as deficiencies in Dr Chilcott's performance but never told Dr Chdcott of these concerns because they were questioning the state ot his mental health. If this understanding of the evidence on my part 1s correct (and I should state that 1i it is not, it does no damage to the general thrust of this decision), one could reasonably ask whether Dr Chilcott had been treated fairly in being subjected to a Diminished Work Performance process in the absence ot any opportunity being atforded him to rectify what his superiors saw as procedural deticiencies. Nonetheless, the Authority determined that the panel which would con_duct such a survey would not include Dr Goodier, because ot Dr Chilcott's attitude towards him. The panel consisted of Dr Newland (Director of Medical Services at Cairns Base Hospital); Dr Cameron (earlier referred to); and Dr Brandon (Assistant Regional Director of Community and Clinical). At the time of the establishment of the panel, and prior to the Diminished Work Performance process commencing, Dr Chilcott questioned the validity of such a process as it pertained to him. Some correspondence passed between the parties together with Freedom of Information requests on the part of Dr Chilcott on this point but, ultimately, dates were set during which to conduct this process. The first meeting was scheduled for 18 December 1992. Dr Chilcott was not present at the commencement of the meeting and the meeting was subsequently abandoned. Prior to all ot the panel members leaving Mareeba Hospital, Dr Chilcott did present himself and received relevant documents which went to improving the medical administration of the Hospital. The minutes of this meeting state - "Due to correspondence by Dr Chilcott to the PS,\K regarding the validity of the meeting and uncertainty by the members ot the validity of continuing there was a delay in commencing. After one hour it was determined to meet with Dr Chilcott to pass on copies of relevant documents for Dr Chilcott's ' information. As the status of the meeting was not clear no discussion relating to addressing diminished performance was entered into.". . From this report of the first meeting, no adverse view could be tormed concerning Dr Chilcott's behaviour or attendance status. A second meeting occurred on 2 Februarv 1993 at which Dr Chilcott attended and at which goals were established with regard to the administration of the Mareeba Hospital. The third meeting was scheduled for 18 February 1993. Dr Chilcott_ did not attend that meeting. However, after the receipt of a letter trom Dr Chilcott's solicitor on this point, Dr Goodier determined "not (to) pursue the matter as I had obtained the assurance that it would not occur again". It appears that Dr Chilcott then went on a per:od of sick leave having claimed Workers Compensation Originally the claim tor Workers Compensation had been re;ected bv the Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland (in July 1993) but it -- 6 of 10 -- 432 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE [25 February, 1994 was subsequently accepted in October 1993 to cover the period trom 19 February 1993 to 20 June 1993. Correspondence from the Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland dated October 1993 directed to Dr Goodier states that the reversal of decision by the Board in Dr Chilcott's case resulted from - "The decision to pay this claim results from a decision of 25- 08-1993 by Justice MacKenzie, President of the Industrial Court in the case of David Patrick Timbs and the Workers Compensation Board of Queensland (No C3 of 1993). Following this decision the Board reviewed its policy in relation to the management of stress claims.". The Authority then claimed that at no stage did the Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland find that the employe_r was_ the cause of stress in Dr Chilcott. While the Authority claim this, upon questioning from Dr Chilcott, it is clear that there is no _ mention of this finding in any Workers' Compensation Board ot Queensland documentation on point and in fact the Authority's views on this come by way of an alleged telephone conversation between the Authority and Board officers. The decision of the President of the Industrial Court in the above mentioned case, and upon which the Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland relies, states inter a/ia:- "An applicant for workers' compensation must show more than that the employment was merely the scene in which the development of his depression took place. However 11 Is not necessary that the applicant show that there was a special unusual or wrongful factor of his employment which was the contributing factor. It is sufficient that the employment . positively contributed to the development ot the depression, that is to say, that the employment provided external stimulus to aggravate or accelerate his disease Westgate v. Australian Telecommunications Commission (1987) 17 FCR 235, 242: O'Neill v. Commonwealth Banking Corporation (1987) 75 ALR 154.". Dr Chilcott's subsequent success with his Workers' Compensation claim was seen by the Authority as Dr Chilcott being successful because of a "technicality". Upon Dr Chilcott's return to work, in late June 1993, a . medical certificate had been provided by Dr Chilcott's Doctor in Brisbane stating that Dr Chilcott would only be able initially to return to work in an administrative capacity and the specific wording on the certificate stated "work adjustment may be required as indicated in medical report" (this "medical report" is the subject of a further claim by the Authority and will be dealt with separately in this decision). On 23 June 1993, Dr Chilcott was asked to attend Mareeba Hospital in order, according to Dr Goodier, "to discuss options for resolving the operational difficulties arising from that situation". Dr Chilcott was unavailable for that meeting as he had taken two days' leave (the subject of earlier discussion). He was then requested to attend a meeting on 30 June 1993. Dr Chilcott advised his inability to attend on this date as he had work commitments at the Lotus Glen Correctional Centre. After these initial attempts to arrange meetings between the Authority and Dr Chilcott, a series of communications commenced between the two parties initially triggered by Dr Chilcott's questioning as to the detail of what was to be discussed at these meetings. This was countered by the Authority stating that it needed to know the "reason" why Dr Chilcott could perform only administrative work and that it needed to be able to plan for the proper functioning of the /\,1areeba Hospital. To some degree this factor is interwoven with the determination on Dr Ch:lcott's part not to release to the Authority his medical report from his Brisbane based Doctor. Dr Chilcott's responses to various requests from the Authority to not only meet but also to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him include the following:- failure by the Authority to await the outcome of the Ombudsman's enquiry before pursuing the current course of action; a request for reasons for reducing Dr Chilcott's salary to cover only 1.5 working days per week; anger at being declared AWOL on 16 February 1993 when this was not the case, thereby causing Dr Chilcott to state "the rest of your letter of the 16th April 1993 therefore cannot be taken seriously"; the lack of logical process being adopted_by the Authority, summed up by Dr Chilcott as tollows:- "You have accused me of imaginary misdemeanours. You demand that I return salary that you have not paid me. You refuse to acknowledge that I have any legal rights at all. You claim to be taking no action one minute, and in the next breath are demanding action. You contradict yourself, often in the same sentence. You seem possessed with the idea of obtaining medical opinion in order to discipline me, a medical practitioner who is clinically your senior, and you threaten to request another psychiatric assessment.". On this component of the Authority's claim against Dr Chilcott, I have formed the following views:- ! accept that the Authority was entitled to know as expeditiously as possible what Dr Chilcott's intentions_ were, specifically as they related to the proper functioning ot the Hospital. Dr Chilcott also was entitled to know the detail of procedures which might be adopted by the Authority in dealing with his special circumstances. I appreciate at this stage that Dr Chilcott had become very wary of the Authority. His mental health had been under question; he had undergone processes, at the Authority's instigation, to establish that his mental faculties were intact and that he was fit to practice medicine. The Hospital at which he was Medical Superintendent had undergone Review by the Department and he had just returned trom time off work where, after challenge by him, he was awarded Workers' Compensation. Against this backdrop, it appeared to me as if another long process was about to commence between Dr Chilcott and the Authority which would require a considerable degree of stamina and resolve on Dr Chilcott's part (and perhaps on the Authority's as well). I believe that at this stage, the Authority should have exercised constraint and sought the assistance of persons capable of acting as intermediaries between Dr Chilcott and the Authority. I say this, because Dr Chilcott had in his possession a medical certificate which stated that he would require a period of readjustment before he could commence his full Medical Superintendent's duties. This should have triggered in the mind of a reasonable employer that an approach to the situation, other than the usual, might be appropriate in the circumstances. Even if the Authority did not have access to the details of the report, the certificate should have been enough to ensure that Dr Chilcott was afforded sufficient respect concerning his obviously continuing debilitated state. Yet again, there can be no question that the Authority were entitled to know what was going on, but the process adopted by them was insensitive and threatening to Dr Chilcott. This component of the claim ties in heavily with Dr Chilcott's refusal to show his medical report to Dr Goodier. The final claim by the Authority against Dr Chilcott is as follows:- failure to provide the Authority with specific material explaining Or Chilcott's return to his duties 1n an administrative capacity only. This is a situation where Dr Chilcott refused to supply Dr Goodier with a copy of a medical report he had received from his Brisbane based Doctor. He claimed that he could not trust Dr Goodier with his confidential material and therefore he was unwilling to part with the report on that basis. Dr Goodier unsuccessfully attempted to obtain a copy of this report from the Workers' Compensation Board of Queensland which stated in its response to Dr Goodier:- "The rest of the file would relate to the claimants personal affairs which are confidential and not available under Freedom of Information.". If Dr Chilcott entertained a fear that the Authority would seek to pursue another course of psychiatric assessment of him (and his evidence shows this to be so), then it was made abundantly clear during the Authority's questioning of Dr Lange (referred to later) that this fear was well-founded. 25 February, 1994] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 433 After considering all the circumstances on this point, I accept that Dr Chilcott was justified in being suspicious and fearful of any confidential medical report regarding himself getting into the hands of the Authority. This contentious point again raises the question of the Authority's right to know as opposed to the employee's right to privacy. I would have thought that since the Medical Board of Queensland had recently made its findings, the Authority v.ould accept that Board's determination as resolving the issue and not seek to pursue the question of Dr Chilcott's mental health any further. That the Authority had a right to know what the future might hold for Dr Chilcott concerning his readjustment is not questioned That Dr Chilcott harboured a fear that whatever was contained within his latest medical report might be used as a weapon against him (rather than as a stepping-stone towards his rehabilitation) is not unreasonable under the special circumstances of this case. This scenario again calls for a more professional and sensitive approach to a difficult situation and on this point, the Authority should have taken the lead. ANCILLARY MATTERS Study Leave. Appointment to the position of Medical Superintendent of Mareeba Hospital. Patient Transit Scheme. Ombudsman's Involvement. Personal Issues. Study Leave Dr Chilcott had sought, apparently as a result of the Audit Review Tearn comments, to pursue a post graduate study course. Such study course was also supported by the Ombudsman in his analysis of the situation. That Dr Chilcott expressed a clear intention to pursue appropriate study to assist him in his performance as a Medical Superintendent is not doubted by the Commission. Unfortunately, Dr Chilcott made application to pursue some part of this course with the giving of very short notice to his employer. The application was refused and, in these circumstances, the refusal by the employer was not unreasonable (only, however, as it related solely to time constraints as opposed to merit). Appointment to the position of Medical Superintendent of Mareeba Hospital It was disclosed during the course of the hearing that the Authority had appointed a Doctor currently on the staff of the Mareeba Hospital to the full-time position of Medical Superintendent of the Hospital. I queried Ms Boyle (Chairperson of the Authority) on this point asking whether she was aware at the time of appointment that Dr Chilcott was pursuing his case before the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission for reinstatement and were he to be successful, whether she was aware of the potential difficulties this might cause the new appointee and the Authority. It appears that little, if any, thought was given by the Authority to this possibility. While it is an irrelevant consideration from my perspective in terms of the decision that I ultimately make, any employer places themselves and the newly appointed employee in a difficult position were an applicant to be successful in their reinstatement claim. In this instance, where the employing Authority had easy access to industrial relations expertise, I would have thought that such advice might have been forthcoming in the circumstances. Patient Transit Scheme Sometime during this period, Dr Chilcott availed himself of facilities offered via this Scheme to visit a Specialist Doctor in Brisbane. The Scheme, briefly, operates as follows:- The Patient Transit Scheme is a taxpayer funded scheme which allows patients who are in need of essential, specialist medical treatment (which is not available in their immediate locality) to claim the minimum cost of attending the nearest available specialist. Dr Chilcott had referred himself to a particular psychiatrist in Brisbane and such applications were approved by his deputy (the person who ultimately was appointed Medical Superintendent of Mareeba Hospital). In this case, it was argued by Dr Chilcott that he would not have felt comforcable visiting psychiatrists In the northern region of the State as they all had some connection with the Authority. The Authority is seeking repayment by Dr Chilcott of moneys owing to them as a result ol Dr Chilcott's improper use of the Scheme which had been determined by the Audit Review Team. I can understand Dr Chilcott wishing to be psychiatrically assessed by a Specialist who had no involvement with the Regional Authority, but I do not query the findings of the Audit Review Team on this point. Ombudsman's Involvement Dr Chilcott complained to the Ombudsman who, In March 1993, wrote to Dr Goodier asking for a response to the following questions and comments:- "! would be pleased to have your report on the matters raised by my complainant. In that report would you provide me with details of the following: • What diminished medical performance by Dr Chilcott has been identified by the Department, and what factual material has this dim1n,shed performance been based upon? • What shortcomings have been identified in the administration of the Mareeba District Hospital I • What lack of attention to administrative responsibilities has been identified as at1ributable to Dr Chilcott? • In what respect do the medical services of the Mareeba District Hospital not meet the requisite Department standards? • What facts demonstrate a lack of commitment on the part of Dr Chilcott? • What complaints about Dr Chilcott, in his professional capacity at the Mareeba District Hospital, have been received by Queensland Health, investigated and sustained? • Why has it been necessary to refer to the .lv\edical Board of Queensland concerns about Dr Chilcott·s competence as a medical practitioner1 • To whom has Dr Chilcott's psychiatris!°s report been circulated within the Department and what were the reasons for circulating that report? Pursuant to section 18(1) of the Parliamentarv Commissioner Act 79 74 I advise you of the • Commissioner's intention to conduct an investigation into Dr Chilcott's complaints. I would be pleased if you would hold in abevance am proposed action adverse to Dr Chilcott's inteiests unt,! this Office has concluded its investigation.". The Authority did respond to these questions. I have cited earlier the subsequent response of the Ombudsman. Of special interest to me are two issues raised by the Ombudsman:- (1) his concern about the Authority's "general approach to managing Diminished Work Performance, in particular where medical personnel are involved"; and (2) his interest in discussing further with the Authoritv "the procedures followed where Diminished Work Performance is identified, having regard to the circumstances of Dr Chilcott's case.". The sentiments expressed by the Ombudsman are shared bv me for reasons which are detailed in the conclusion to this decision. Personal Issues I make special reference here to what I view as being not only Dr Chilcott's assessment about the level of undue stress he experienced over this period, but of the assessment of others who had dealings with him during this time. -- 7 of 10 -- 434 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE [25 February, 1994 I do this because the evidence in this case shows quite clearly that there is general acknowledgment that_ Dr Chilcott suffered a cons,derable degree ot anxiety for the tew years prior to his d,sm:55al, much of which I attribute to the Authority's inappropriate handling or the special circumstances oi !h,s case. The assessments are as follows:- The acknowledgement by Dr Goodier of the stress Dr Chilcott was under during the Ruby inves. tigation and, despite comments t.hat the stress level observed in Dr Chilcott at that time was extreme, the acceptance that it was understandable that anv Doctor under examination as a result of patient' complaints would feel anxious and stressiul. The comments of Dr Lange to the effect that any Doctor iacing an assessment panel of the .vled1cal Board of Queensland would feel concerned under those circumstances and further, her ackno.- !edgement that breaches of privacy can cause a considerable degree of stress to an individual. (Whether Dr Chilcott was justiiied in holding the view that a breach of privacy had occurred, does not matter. I accept that he was devastated that his psychiatric report was made available to others when he had not sighted it himseli and his reaction, to my mind, was understandable.) The comments by Ms Boyle that the problems with the ,\1areeba Hospital had appeared over the last two years (the period under review in this decision), The comments made by Mr McCarthy that the Revie.- Team "certainly acknowledged the tact that you were going through a lot of, yeah, personal " turmoil 1n terms ot the outcome of that dec1s1on . (The dec,sion referred to is the one that was made by the Queensland Medical Board of Queensland). The recognition by Dr Garrone that the _level of stress in Dr Chilcott's life over the past tew years "has been relatively high". The comments of the Brisbane based psychiatrist which I have quoted earlier in this decision (see pages 16 and 17) clearly recognise the degree of stress under which Dr Chilcott was suffering. The views expressed by Ms Gray (the Director of Nursing at Mareeba Hospital) attesting to the stress Dr Chilcott was experiencing "with the interactions that were happening between himself and regional office so - and then he went out on sick leave". In each of these instances, there is direct commentary that links the high ievel oi stress experienced by Dr Chilcott .to work related issues. To be more explicit, I would state issues such as patient complaints; investigations into such complaints (by both outside bodies and the Authority); interaction with the Authority; appearance before the . Medical Board of Queensland and perceived breaches ot . confidentialitv as some of the areas specifically referred to in this hearing and I would see these from a common sense. perspective, as contributing to the levels of stress and anxiety experienced by Dr Chilcott. Whether Dr Chilcott should have experienced the degree of stress he did as a result of these issues is a point to consider and this factor was at least alluded to in evidence from Authority witnesses. In considering questions such as this, the Commission does not attempt to make a medical observation but rather makes an observation based on due considerati;n oi the evidence, from a point of view of common sense and practical experience. The views I have formed, based on these criteria, are as follows:- Upon acknowledging that Dr Chilcott was experiencing noticeable signs of stress and anxiety (which manifested itself in Dr Chilcott's demeanour and commentary on some issues which appear to be extreme, notwithstanding the fact that Dr Chilcott claims that he was duty bound to repeat an account of such to his superiors), the Authority initiated a course of events which had the cumulative effect of strongly exacerbating Dr Chilcott's state of health. Dr Goodier claims support for the actions which he took regarding Dr Chilcott stating that he would have been seen to be neglectful in his position as Regional Director were he not to act as he did. It is clear that complaints concerning Dr Chilcott had been patient instigated. As concerns had been raised by other bodies over the number of complaints regarding Dr Chilcott and other personnel of the Mareeba Hospital, it was expected that the Authority seek to deter.mine the validity or otherwise of these complaints. What 1s inescapable though, is that when investigated, the complaints almost consi.stently fail to impinge upon Dr Chilcott's personal or professional standing. I did not gain the impression that these complaints had not been properly investigated by these other bodies (in fact, on one occasion, an outside body, the Health Rights Commission, requested greater investigation by the Authority because it was not convinced that the matter had been thoroughly looked into at a local level). Once these investigations had been completed, that should have been the end of the matter for both the Authority and Dr Chilcott. This appears not to have been the case. On the question of Dr Goodier's intenti~n to have Dr Chilcott referred to the Medical Board ot Queensland for assessment it is difficult for the Commission to determine the appropriat~ness or otherwise of this action occurring either when it did, or at all. That it occurred, ul(imately 1s the prerogative of the employer at the time. It there were genuine fears held by the Authority over Dr Chilcott's capacity to perform his duties as the f'.vled1cal Superintendent of the Mareeba Hospital (despite the tact that these tears were not shared by medical practitioners, including specialists, who interacted with Dr Chilcott on a much more regular basis than did Dr Goodier) then one would expect the Authority to act accordingly. That being so, and the findings of the Medical Board of Queensland being known to all, the question-mark held by the Authority over Dr Chilcott's psychiatric well being and his capacity to perform his duties as a medical pract1t1oner should have been erased. Evidence on this point, however, shows that Dr Goodier yet again had difficulty accepting an outcome that did not accord with his own assessment. During this period, Dr Chilcott had also to contend with the knowledge that his psychiatric report, which he .had not seen, had been given to Dr Goodier, his 1mmed1ate employer Dr Cameron, and the Medical Board of . Queensland. Given the clear understanding that Dr Chilcott had with the psychiatrist at the time that he would be given a copy of the report at first instance, it is not unreasonable to accept that Dr Chilcott was distressed with his newly acquired knowledge. By this stage, the Commission's observations are that any . individual, whether they work as a medical pract1t1<Jner or 1n any other form of employment, would be greatly attected .by these events as they unfolded. To then have the expectation by the Authority that, despite all these happenings, the employee should be performing "optimally" is both unrealistic and unreasonable. The Mareeba Hospital was then the subject of an Audit Review Team assessment (this occurred prior to Dr Chilcott knowing his fate concerning the Medical Board of Queensland assessment). There is no question that this Review was not undertaken appropriately. However, one needs to consider Dr Chilcott's assessment of his own situation at the time:- 25 February, 1994] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 435 "At the time I was very much aware that the decision made by the ,'-'1edical Board if unfavourable to me would have instantly ended my medical career. My mental state during this audit could be described as being anxious. However, I was able to manage to carry out my duties at the Hospital nonmally.". CONCLUSION Because of the length of the case and the large number of exhibits tendered, it has not been possible to make mention in this decision of all issues raised during this case. However, all submissions and evidence have been duly considered by the Commission. These reasons have been lengthy and considerably detailed for a number of reasons. Firstly, the dispute between the two parties (Dr Chilcott and the Authority) had been on-going, at a rapid pace and with increasing intensity, for some time. Many of the allegations made by both parties are of an extremely serious na!ure and the repercussions of such allegations may well be felt b, some of the individual parties for some time yet. I was also a\,are of the degree of publicity attributed to this case in the northern region of the State and the impact that would have on a number of individuals, the Mareeba Hospital, and also on Dr Chilcott and his family. There have been over two hundred exhibits tendered to the Commission in this case, each being of individual significance. This amount of documentation represented a manifestation of the sheer intensity of the dispute between both parties on points and perspectives which were contested by them at every turn. Further, because of the decision I have reached in this case, it is imperative that there be a full appreciation of the issues involved and my reasons for arriving at such a conclusion. I earl,er commented on the need to refer to patient complaints which had been made concerning Dr Chilcott and the Mareeba Hospital. It is accepted by the Commission that these complaints have been investigated fully by the appropriate bodies empowered to make final determinations on these issues. While this Comm,ssion accepts these findings, as does the Ombudsman, there seems to be an inability, more notably on the part oi Dr Goodier, to let the matters pass. Dr Chilcott is correct when he states that these matters should not be continually re-heard in the hope that at some stage a different finding might result. In fact if anything, the matters when raised again largely went to highlight some deficiencies on the part of the Authority in their own investigative processes. If one then looks at the finding of the Medical Board of Queensland - i.e. that Dr Chilcott was deemed fit to practice medicine - it is seen that again the Authority, through Dr Goodier's evidence (and also through questioning of Dr Lange by the :'dvocate for the Authority), does not seem willing to accept the tinality of this finding. The Commission is asked to look at what the Board did not say, rather than what they said. To expand - the commentary is that the Board did not look at Dr Chilcott's capacity to function as a Medical Superintendent. The Board is the final arbiter on questions of appropriateness of Doctors to continue working as medical practitioners. If the Commission is being asked to discount the Board's findings because of all that was not said by the Board, then I would find such a course of action unacceptable. Therefore, it should be clear that I accept the findings of the Medical Board of Queensland as they relate to Dr Chilcott's fitness to practice medicine. Of greater concern to me on this point, however, is the questioning on behalf of the Authority of Dr Lange which • went to the following issues. I had already stated that the Board, when assessing Dr Chilcott, did not avail itself of Dr Garrone's report, but chose to rely, for whatever reason, upon their independent assessment utilising the services of their own particular panel (including members who are eminent practising psychiatrists). The questioning went to whether the Board might entertain another assessment of Dr Chilcott if Dr Garrone's report was made available to them. My observation of Dr Lange 1n her response to this question suggested quite strongly that she was somewhat taken aback by the proposition, as was the Commission. Dr Lange's response to such a suggestion was as follows:- "There's certainly the principle of not trying someone again. You know, the double principle would have to be very seriously considered, and I would hardly think that unless the Board had avai Iable to it other expressions of concern, that ,t would reconsider the matter. It would have to have evidence available.". 146765-36 Unperturbed by this response, the Authority sought to pursue the point further by asking the following question of Dr Lange:- "lf - I'm just seeking your opinion, Doctor Lange. What I guess I'm asking is if - as a result was not before the Medical Board at the time the Medical Board determined Doctor Chilcott was fit to practice, is it a likelv scenario that if that report came to light, before the ,\1edicai Board that perhaps the Medical Board may make another decisi~n, with respect to Doctor Chilcott's case?", to which Dr Lange responded:- "! think on that alone, the Board would be very unlikely to do so. It did see Doctor Chilcott with two - as he said - two psychiatrists of high credibility. ·They would need to have other evidence of being unable to cope.". While I found the Authority's continued attempt to pursue a course of action against Dr Chilcott with the Medical Board of Queensland, presumably to have him declared unfit to continue to practice medicine, threatening, I also found it indicative of the general thrust being pursued, particularly by Dr Goodier, against Dr Chilcott for some time. To a large degree, it highlighted the fears expressed by Dr Chilcott when he stated that he had little trust in Dr Goodier. I have detailed the reasons as to why I believe Dr Chilcott acted as he did upon receipt of the Authority's "show cause" letter. I have also alluded to an appreciation I had of frustrations which may be experienced by Dr Cameron towards Dr Chilcott. To expand on this point:- My impression of Dr Chilcott's actions over the past few years is that Dr Chilcott challenged every point made by the Authority, on most occasions not unreasonably but, in some instances, to an unnecessarily extreme degree. That he experienced difficulty in accepting the views of persons in authority over him (at least during the period under review in this decision) was obvious on a number of occasions. That this was not justified is another question. I previously used the adjective "dogged" to describe such an approach on Dr Chilcott's part, but I could easily have referred to his approach, on occasions, as "accusatory·, "pedantic" and verging on "obstructionist" in other ins'.ances. Such an approach, especially if unwarranted, "ould cause frustration and anger in most people and, in this regard, I understand Dr Cameron's comments. In context, though, these traits were mostly evident when Dr Chilcott ,vas placed under more than usual pressure and when the actions of the Authority were questionable. My primary concern, however, goes to the manner in which the Authority handled this escalating situation with Dr Chilcott. There is a recognition within the public service in Queensland (as there is generally within contemporary industrial relations) of the need to attempt to assist employees who may be experiencing difficulties in relation to their work. The Public Sector Management Standard for Managing Diminished Performance is an example of the type of process which is available for utilisation in such cases. This Standard was identified by the Authority as the appropriate mechanism with which to deal with Dr Chilcott's alleged work deficiencies (and, again I do not query the views expressed by the Audit Review Tearn as it identified administrative weaknesses attributable to Dr Chilcott). Unfortunately, what was missing at this point was the capacity on the part of the Authority to appreciate the enormity of what had occurred to Dr Chilcott and to proceed to deal with a situation which was, to some degree, still fragile. There is a recognition within the Diminished Work Performance Standard that employees may be experiencing a range of problems, including stress and anxiety. If full recognition is to be &iven to this Standard, then such employees need to be treated with understanding 1n recogn1t1on of their particular problems. In this instance, the relationship between Dr Chilcott and Dr Goodier had so deteriorated (and this factor must have been obvious to most who were involved in the situation at the time), that a different approach should have been capable of adoption. (In saying this, I am aware of the fact that Dr Goodier had distanced himself from the panel to review Dr Chilcott's work performance). ThE: use of a person, acceptable to both parties, but independent ot the Authority, as opposed to the Department, may have assisted the transition needed by Dr Chilcott to resume his duties at the Hospital; to recognise his work deficiencies and to attempt to implement a programme of rehabilitation for him. Unfortunately, this did not occur and, as was the case over the previous two years, the situation got completely out of hand with -- -- 8 of 10 -- 436 QUEENSLAND GOVERJ•rMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE [25 February, 1994 Dr Chilcott bei1e,:ng that whatever he did, the Authority would still pursue him ·, a tormal channels (e.g. further psychiatric assessment) unti :hey achieved the result which best suited them. Sadly, there is st:0ng evidence to support the view held by Dr ChrlcotL I am u.:,cal of this scenario because there surely exists within the Heal:- Department the expertise to deal with problems of this nature. 0- this point, however, it is the non-recognition oi this factor by the .\uthority, rather than the Department generallv, that I refer to. If one puts as,de all the documents which passed between the parties, and a·' the allegations which have been made, the question to be a..;.,;ed is what is the real nature of the situation as it existed prior to Dr Chilcott's dismissal? The situation identities certain problems confronting Dr Chilcott - i.e. deficient administrative p:actices (inclusive of questions over the adequacv of medical note-taking on his part but not of such magnitude that they were incapaole of resolution); some element of community concern at the l2ck of medical facilities available at the Mareeba Hospital and a ser:ously deteriorated relationship between Dr Chilcott and Dr Goodier. One part of the problem has resolved itself; Dr Goodiec no longer works for the Authority. One then . needs to look at whether the remaining problems were capable ot resolution witho~: the need to dismiss. With this in mind, I must consider whether the actions oi the employer in disr- .ssing Dr Chilcott were so harsh and unreasonable that this Commission should exercise its power to interfere in the cecis1on made by the employer to dismiss Dr Chilcott. A determina: on by the Commission to interfere with the decision of an e...-ployer to terminate an employee is not taken lightly (see Sloni"'l v. Fellows (1984) 154 CLR, Wilson J. (with whom Mason ar.a Deane Jj agree) at p. 515). This case not onlv refers to the caui on with which the Commission should act in these circumstances, but also states:- "There will oe many cases where the working relationship of employer ar•:J employee is so close that to impose such a relationship Dy an award would be quite destructive of industrial haernony .". (see also St George Hospital re: Carr (1980) 80 NSWAR 200, McC!e and J. at p. 205) I am fully a ... are that the situation as it peaked immediatelv prior to Dr Chilcot;'s dismissal had caused the Authority concern, sufficient for it to question what it might do next to resolve the problem. In this context, I would refer to a decision of Justice Sheahan, Acting Pcesident of the Industrial Court in the decision of Babinda Co-operative Central Mill Society Ltd. where it was stated:- "The 1urisd1con in the Commission to order reinstatement arises ... if :he Commission is satisfied that the dismissal of an employee was unduly harsh or oppressive in the circumstances which the Commissioner finds to have existed. This jurisdic::on is enlivened, in my view, even where on the facts as the e"'lployer reasonably believes them to be the dismissal v-2.s 1ustified. In other words, a dismissal may seem to be awful and proper and reasonable to the employer, b~t on consideration of the whole of the circumstance-; the Commission after enquiry may find it to be unduly harsh ". (178 QGIG 1288 at 1289) With these a~d other relevant considerations in mind, I have formed the view t~at Dr Chilcott's dismissal was sufficiently harsh and unreasonable as to warrant the intervention of the Commission. \l\':c.le the reasons for the view I have adopted have been detailed at s.ome length throughout this decision, succinctly put, they are based upon the following determinations - * Many of t~e events which occurred over a defined period of time to Dr Chilcott contributed to his poor state of health and consequently the actions he took which precipitated his dismissal. (I refer to a "defined" period of time because any serious prob ems the Authority claimed to have experienced with Dr Chilcott occurred only since mid 1991.) The evidence doe;; not show that Dr Chilcott had caused the Authority or its predecessor problems of any note prior to that period - in fact, there is a strong body of evidence from those p,ofessionals who worked most closely with Dr Chilcott tha: Dr Chilcott was a diligent and professional medical prac:.tioner. Further, the period post 1991 is distinguishac e in Dr Chilcott's medical career (as well as h,s personal liie. as one can clearly identify a series of events which comn'on sense dictates must have impinged seriously upon his v.e -being both personally and professionally. The relentless vigour with which the Authority (and specifically Dr Goodier) pursued Dr Chilcott allowed little or no consideration or appreciation of Dr Ch1lcott's physical and mental reaction to events of some magnitude which had occurred to him. I viewed many of Dr Chilcott's reactions (as did many witnesses) as being not unusual under the circumstances. A failure, in the end, on the part of the Authority (and particularly Dr Goodier) to give due consideration to these factors when determining to take the final step of dismissing Dr Chilcott. This decision to dismiss, I should add, could have been avoided had greater common sense and professionalism prevailed over a desire to rid oneself of a problem, which was partly of one's own making. Having determined that the Commission should exercise its_ powers to intervene in this matter, I must then look at what rel1et should sensibly be afforded to Dr Chilcott In the difficult circumstances of this case. Dr Chilcott, at the time of dismissal, had a medical certificate which stated that he would need a period of time to readjust to his work situation. Whether the time since the dismissal and now has been sufficient for Dr Chilcott to believe that he is ready to continue his duties in a full-time capacity is unknown to me. Briefly, section 175 of the lndustnal Relations Act 1990 (the Act) states that the Commission, if it considers that a dismissed employee should be reinstated or re-employed, may order such reinstatement or re-employment or, if either form of relief mentioned is inappropriate, may order compensation in accordance with a stipulated formula, together with other considerations, if deemed necessary. I have given lengthy consideration to the proposition that I reinstate Dr Chilcott to his formerly held position of Medical Superintendent of Mareeba Hospital. I propose to grant that relief. While I have detailed the reasons as to why I believe that the Commission should intervene in the decision reached by the employer, I must consider the ramifications of reinstating Dr Chilcott as Medical Superintendent. A fundamental principle to consider is whether the employment relationship which existed between the parties prior to the events leading up to dismissal can be resurrected. I accept that the position of Medical Superintendent is one of utmost trust and responsibility and as such the test for the applicant to satisfy this criterion is heishtened. To consider this point, I need to examine a number of !actors. Firstly, if one looks at the situation as it relates directly to Dr Chilcott's interaction with his colleagues and staff at the Mareeba Hospital, there was no direct evidence given that such persons would be unable to work efficiently and harmoniously with him. The only direct evidence on point given by a work colleague who was employed at the Mareeba Hospital was given by the.Director of Nursing who expressed an appreciation ot the d1ff1cult1es under which Dr Chilcott had been placed since her period of employment with the Hospital. She was not in a position to elaborate more fully, save for favourable reference to Dr Chilcott as an individual and his response regarding allegations of racist attitudes at the Hospital because of the limited time she had worked at the Hospital and the fact that for the larger part of 1993 (up until the date of dismissal in September 1993) Dr Chilcott was on sick leave or minimal duties. During the period when Dr Chilcott was working at the Hospital, evidence tendered by way of signed statements which related to events during mid to late 1992, from both medical officers employed at the Mareeba Hospital and including visiting specialists to the Hospital, attested favourably to Dr Chilcott's personal manner and his diligence and professionalism as a Doctor. I can see no reason why professionals of this standing would feel compelled to support Dr Chilcott as they did, unless they genuinely held those views particularly when they understood the significance of the claims being made against him by the Authority. 25 February, 1994] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 437 Th,s perception is bolstered by the views expressed by the Review Team (in late 1992) to the effect that:- "H,e Review T earn received no reports of concern about the star,-::ard of medical care provided at ,\\areeba Hospital. Nu's ng staff, paramedical staff, G.P. and the visiting surgeon we,e all satisfied that a high standard of care was provided.". (cite,; earlier) The-e was hearsay commentary from some witnesses that these vIe½S may not now be held by some of these persons as a result of Lich persons being made aware oi the problems that the Authority was having with Dr Chilcott, but in weighing such strong direct evidence against hearsay evidence, I accept that the documer:ed favourable views expressed by work colleagues far outweigr such hearsay evidence. Consequently, I am satisfied that, at tr.e local level, Dr Chilcott's return to work as Medical Superinte~dent of Mareeba Hospital would not cause undue concern a'.1d, while some readjustment might be needed, the pre- existing g00d working relationship should be capable of continua-ce. I need then to look at Dr Chilcott's working relationship with Dr Cameron and consider whether this is capable of resurrection. I have spent some time in this decision detailing the evidence as it related :o this work relationship. The parties have known each other for a very lengthy period of time. That there is a degree of disharmony between the two is obvious. Dr Cameron believes that the .\Jthority could not continue to work with Dr Chilcott (and by :-·s, I take it to mean that Dr Cameron also would have problems working with Dr Chilcott). I have indicated that, to a large deg·ee, I understand Dr Cameron's frustrations with Dr Chilcott, Dul largely as they relate to the specific period in question - i.e. 1991 through to dismissal. Dr Chilcott states that, despite the length of their working relations-·p, Dr Cameron had little to complain of concerning Dr Chilcott c;ntil the period in question (and the evidence supports this belie.-,. I have viewed the period under review as being exceptio-al in terms of Dr Chilcott's working life, and as such favour the view that under differing circumstances, the relations- p as existed between the two parties should be capable of cont1r_;ng. That it was never an exceptional working relations!-.p is accepted, but, nevertheless, it was an effective working -elationship regardless of the personal views expressed by both pares. I have been influenced in form,ng this view by the fact that Dr Chilcott appeared not to have experienced any similar difficult,e-; to any noted degree with his immediate work colleagues. It would be unreasonable to deny Dr Chilcott the relief he seeks because of a long-standing relationship with one party wr ::h has, by and large, weathered most storms when a range of :ither factors and individuals impact more immediately upon his working life. The processes to be set in train for Dr Chilcott coupled with the obvious professionalism that both parties d splayed at the hearing, satisfy me that an acceptable working ·elationship can continue to exist between these two parties. I ha·,e a lesser degree of concern when it comes to Dr Chilcott's relationship with the Authority. It was submitted that just beca-se Dr Goodier had left the employ of the Authority, the Commiss ,in should not automatically accept that a working relations~ p could be re-established between Dr Chilcott and the Authont\ ,in this instance, when referring to "the Authority" I include :-e Committee chaired by Ms Boyle). That Dr Goodier no longe· works for the Authority is of significance from my perspect,·, e. To a large degree, the "buck stopped" with Dr Goodier. I have detailed the reasons for why I believe that, under his direc:.on, the treatment of Dr Chilcott was both unfair and unreasorable. It is not unreasonable to expect that a more professio-al method of dealing with employees who were experienc:ng work related problems would be adopted by the new appo,ntee to that position (this is one oi the points I believe the OmbJdsman was referring to in his assessment of the situation\. Bearing this in mind, I need to look at Dr Chilcott's interaction with the Committee chaired by Ms Boyle. I have little difficulty ,n forming the following view - there was no real working •elationship existing between those persons simply because they hardly, if ever, interacted. This is not to say that I have not paid due attention to the concerns expressed by that Committee. Those concerns have been addressed in this decision I am also mindful of the fact that Dr Chilcott and the Authorit\ would need to establish a sound v.ork1ng relationship in the tuture and specifically for the beneftt of t~e Mareeba Hospital. I have given detailed consideration to whether the issue of the community's attitude towards the ,\.\areeba Hospital would be adversely affected by the reinstatement of Dr Chdcott. The evidence of the two witnesses (ex-patients) called by the Authority is that they do not hold positive views of Dr Chilcott or the Mareeba Hospital generally. Ms Boyle made special reference also to this factor in her evidence. She specifically referred to the concerns being expressed about the Hospital over the past couple of years. I have taken this factor into account and I must also take into account the report of the Review Team where there was no mention of community concerns being expressed other than in the context of the lack of specialist medical services offered at the Hospital. The movement of patients away from the Hospital in this regard was referred to. I have no direct evidence of any substance to show that this trend was attributable to Dr Chilcott and his administration of the Mareeba Hospital or Y.hether it related to the internal politics of regional health author_ities The Review Team report did state that the Hospital had d1ft1culty in attracting more senior medical personnel in the obstetrics area, thus the drift of patients towards other larger Hospitals. I can only link this comment to the general views expressed by Mr McCarthy (Review Team) that regional hospitals generally have difficulty in attracting an adequate number of medical staft let along more experienced medical personnel (as was the case with the Mareeba Hospital during the period under review). In terms of any community concerns that may have been expressed during 1993, specifically concerning Dr Chilcott as opposed to the medical facilities available at the Hospital, these must be considered in conjunction with the fact that for a large part of 1993, Dr Chilcott was either on sick leave or debilitated sufficiently as to be unable to totally perform his duties as Medical Superintendent. As time off work through illness during one's working life is not an unusual occurrence, it would be difficult for me to accept that knowledge of this factor could so destabilize a community. If anything, I would believe that if the community had been made aware of this factor especially if and when Dr Chilcott's name was mentioned in conjunction with more general discussions concerning the Mareeba Hospital, the community's understanding and acceptance would be forthcoming. Having taken into consideration all of these factors, I hold the view that Dr Chilcott could recommence his duties at the Mareeba Hospital as Medical Superintendent without any damage being done to public confidence in the Hospital and Dr Chilcott's working relationship with his colleagues, staff of the Hospital and the Authority. I have taken into account the fact that Dr Chilcott, at the time of his dismissal, had in his possession a medical certificate from his Doctor. I would recommend that there be an immediate meeting between Dr Chilcott, his Doctor and representatives from both the Authority and the Department. This meeting should discuss openly the proposed course of rehabilitation tor Dr Chilcott and the immediate needs for the appropriate functioning of the Hospital. It is a matter for the Authority to take the usual administrative action if a continuing medical condition requires that Dr Chilcott be absent temporarily from his duties. I would also state that the primary focus at this stage of Dr Chilcott's continued employment with the Authority should be on his rehabilitation. The Commission, in this decision, is not in the position to tell the employer that it is unable to utilise its own performance procedures as it sees fit. However, I would go so far as to say that any attempt by the Authority to rush into a process where Dr Chilcott was immediately subjected to a range of unnecessarily stringent procedural requirements, would be inappropriate. That is not to say that Dr Chilcott should be "treated with kid gloves". The Commission would require that Dr Chilcott be treated the same as any other employee who is attempting to return to the workforce after an extremely difficult period and especially when their health has been affected. As such, I order the reinstatement of Dr Chilcott to the position of Medical Superintendent of Mareeba District Hospital to take effect as from the date of dismissal on 7 September 1993. Dr Chilcott is to be paid "remuneration for wages lost" from the date of dismissal according to s. 175(4) of the Act and all of his Statutory entitlements remain intact. I am unsure as to the situation with regard to Dr Chilcott's superannuation but am prepared to hear submissions on this point when the parties come before the Commission by way of conference. I also propose to award a component of costs (in accordance with s. 84 of the Act) to Dr Chrlcott as they relate to his costs incurred in the presentation of his case berore the Commission. On the broader question of costs raised by Dr Chilcott, this Commission does not have the Jurisdiction to entertain this claim, -- 9 of 10 -- 438 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE [25 February, 1994 which more rightly comes under the headi ng of "damag~· . The awardi ng of costs, generally is the exception to the rule ,n this ju risdiction. The criteria to be sat i sfied, however, if costs are to be awarded ,s whether there exists particularly unusual or abnormal circumstances sufficient to depart from this princ iple and to cons,der the awarding of costs (see Mackenzie J. in Roy Harold Goldman v . Data General Australia Pty. Ltd. (1993) 144 QGIG 379- 381) where His Honour states:- "These cases (P. v. M. (1992) 139 QCIG 66 and Bice v. Bribie Island Coif Club Limited (1992) 141 QGIG 1n illustrate the long standing phi losophy of the Industri al Commi ssion that in the absence of a frivolous or vexatious application or other ci rcumstances that are abnormal costs w ill not be awarded in the traditional kinds of maners within the jur i sd icti on of the Industrial Commission . However there is a discretion to be exercised and such discretion cannot be fettered in such a way tha t, in practical terms, deni es its charae1er as a discretion. Where circumstances tha t can properly be described as abnormal can be identified in a case and it would cause serious injustice if costs were not awarded it would not do vio lence to these gener al princ iples if an award of costs is given. It should however be emphasi sed that the ci rcu mstances must be signifi e.1nt ly out of the ordinary before the general rule is departed from. It is really the rationale of the cases where costs have been awarded that such circumstances have been ab le to be identi fied .". I would see that pre-requisi te as being sat isfied as it relates to the special c ir cumstances of this case. It wo uld seem mani fes tly unfair were Dr Chi lcott vindicated i n the stand he has taken against the Authority and, at the same time, be severely disadvantaged financially as a result. Dr Chilcott represented himself at the hearing (ass i sted by his father), and his costs would go to the specifics expended in relation to the reinstatement hearing on ly . As such, I would direct Dr Chilcott to forward bo th to the employer and to the Commission detailed information concerni ng his costs in the circumstances under which I have awarded them w ithin a period of one week from the date of this decision. Dr Chilcott should al so be aware that subsections r S) and (6) of s. 175 oi the Act are relevant under these circumstances. These see1 ions state:- " (S) The remuneration must not exceed the actual amount of loss to the employee beca use of not receiving wages from the employer, after tak ing into account any emplo,ment benefits or other wages recei ved by the employee duri ng the peri od ior w hi ch remuneration i s being assessed . (6) If the Commi ss ion makes an order under subseoion (1), it may also order the repayment by the employee oi any amounts paid to the employee by or on account oi the employer on termi nation of the employee's emplo~ment.", and as such. the pani es should confer upon this aspect of the Act. With regard to subsection (6) of s. 175, I would need to confer with the parti es to determine what actually occurred w ith regard to any payments made to Dr Chi lcott on his dismi ssa l. In the event that excess payments were made, then Dr Chilcon wou ld be requ ired to repay such amounts to the Authority. I would trust that by th i s decision all parties do the ir utmost to put the past behind them. Dr Chilcott's record should now be clear speci fically as it relates to matters I have determin ed and the decisions which have been reached in other forums as detai led in this deci sion. It would be most unfortunate were any consideration to be given by the Authori ty to continue to pursue Dr Chi lcot1 . Likewise, Dr Chilcott should endeavour to put the past behi nd him and to concentrate u pon his rehab ilitation and retu rn to the workforce. I propose to re-l ist this matter by way of a confe ren ce 2 wee ks irom the date of rel ease of this deci sion, i.e. at 12 .45 p.m . on Wednesday, 2 March 1994 in order to address the questi on of costs and the date upon wh ich such costs will be payable. I would expe<:1 at th is st age a repon from the Authority on the question of "remuneration for wages lost" as I accept Dr Chi lcott's cla im that he has been financia lly strained as a result of th ese proc.eedi ngs and it wou ld be of utmost importance i or him to be paid this mo,.,ey as soon as possible. The Industrial Reg istrar wil l n otify the parties of the particulars of this conference (for Dr Chi lcott, commun icat ion w i ll be by way of telephone link-up). I Order Accordingly. D.A. SWAN, Commissioner. Appearances:- Dr P.B . Chilcott (the Applicant) with him Mr Chilcott (Sen ior). Mr P. Frew, wit h him Mr B. Hayward, of Queensland Health on behalf of the Peninsula and Torres Strait Reg ional Health Authority . Operative Date: 16 February 1994 Decision - Reinstatement Released: 16 February 1994 #################################################### 25 February, 1994] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT lNDUSTRIALGAZETTE 439 146765-37 -- 10 of 10 --