the queensland government industrial gazette 15.08.08.pdf · the queensland government industrial...

319

The Queensland Government

Industrial Gazette PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

PP 451207100086 Annual Subscription $358.00 (GST inclusive) ISSN 0155-9362

Vol. 188 FRIDAY, 15 AUGUST, 2008 No. 16

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - s. 550 - procedure for appeal

Dorothy Ann Smith AND Q-COMP (WC/2006/74)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BLOOMFIELD 5 August 2008 Appeal against the decision of the Review Unit, Q-COMP - Witness evidence - Medical evidence - Psychiatric injury - Alleged workplace harassment, intimidation and bullying - Nature, date and cause of decompensation - Three factors contributed to decompensation - Nature of management action in relation to each contributing factor - Management action reasonable and reasonably taken in respect of each factor - McArthur's case and Hohn's case considered - injury excluded under s. 32(5) of the Act.

DECISION

Introduction This decision relates to an appeal by Dorothy Ann Smith (the Appellant) pursuant to s. 550 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (the Act) against a decision of the Review Unit, Q-COMP (Q-COMP) dated 29 September 2006 in which Q-COMP confirmed an earlier decision by WorkCover to reject a claim for workers' compensation by the Appellant. In doing so Q-COMP determined that the matters alleged by the Appellant as being productive of her psychological injury were excluded by the operation of s. 32(5) of the Act on the basis that the relevant management action was both reasonable and taken in a reasonable way. Application for Compensation In her "Application for Compensation" dated 28 March 2006 the Appellant indicated that her injury happened at 1500 hrs on 22 March 2006 and that it did not happen over a period of time. She also recorded that she had first seen a doctor in relation to her injury on 27 March 2006, and stopped work because of the injury on that date. At paragraph 33 of the Application the Appellant provided details about how the injury arose, as follows:

320 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 15 August, 2008

"The anxiety and panic I am now experiencing has occurred as a result of the inability or possible refusal or both of the Queensland Ambulance Service to provide information relating to an investigation into a workplace bully who has now applied for access through FOI legislation to statements provided by me to the investigation. At the meeting on Wednesday 22nd March 2006 I felt no attempt was made to explain problems at a level a person not versed in the jargon of ethical standards could understand. Only after very persistent questioning by me that became progressively heated and stressful did the conveners of the meeting state that the bully has been supplied with a copy of the report compiled from the investigation. After establishing this fact it was agreed I would be supplied with a copy of any parts of the report in which my statement was used. I e-mailed a reminder request the following morning but still have not received this information six days later. I was experiencing great anxiety at the thought of returning to work on Monday (27 March 2006), and of working future shifts with this individual. As I have worked for AFCom for ten years, far longer than any other staff who made statements, I feel it would be very obvious that some statements could only have come from me. This person has proven to be an expert in this area during two previous investigations into her behaviour. The unwillingness of QAS to provide information that may be vital to prepare for possible litigation by this person is only adding to my continuous feelings of panic.".

Relevant Legislation Section 32 of the Act provides:

"32 Meaning of Injury (1) An injury is personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if the employment is a significant

contributing factor to the injury. …

(3) Injury includes the following - …

(b) an aggravation of the following, if the aggravation arises out of, or in the course of, employment and the employment is a significant contributing factor to the aggravation - (i) a personal injury; (ii) a disease; (iii) a medical condition if the condition becomes a personal injury or disease because of the aggravation.

… (5) Despite subsection (1) and (3), injury does not include a psychiatric or psychological disorder arising out of, or in

the course of, any of the following circumstances - (a) reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer in connection with the worker's

employment; (b) the worker's expectation or perception of reasonable management action being taken against the worker; (c) action by the Authority or an insurer in connection with the worker's application for compensation.".

In determining whether a worker has suffered an injury for the purposes of the Act it is necessary to consider four questions:

(a) has the worker suffered a "personal injury"? (b) did that personal injury arise out of, or in the course of, employment? (c) was employment a significant contributing factor to the injury? (d) if the injury is a psychiatric or psychological disorder, did that disorder arise out of, or in the course of, reasonable

management action for the purposes of s. 32(5)? Q-COMP accepts that the Appellant was a "worker" within the ambit of the legislation. It also accepts that the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (the Commission) would have little hesitation in finding, on the whole of the evidence, that the Appellant suffered an injury which is of a psychological or psychiatric nature. However, Q-COMP does not concede that the Appellant suffered an injury prior to the date alleged in her Application for Compensation, namely 22 March 2006, and further argues that if there was an "injury" prior to that date it did not occasion the Appellant to "decompensate" in accordance with that term as used by the President in Hohn's case [(2008) 187 QGIG 139 at 142].

15 August, 2008 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 321 Q-COMP also accepts that the Commission could well find that the events within the workplace were a significant contributing factor to the contraction of injury. However, in circumstances where it appears not in issue that all matters contended by the Appellant in relation to her psychiatric injury were matters involving "management action", Q-COMP submits that such management action was, at all times, both reasonable and taken in a reasonable way. Nature of the Appeal The appeal to the Commission is by way of a hearing de novo. It is the Appellant who bears the onus of proof on the balance of probabilities (see State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Q-COMP and Beverley Coyne 172 QGIG 1447; Qantas Airways Limited v Q-COMP 181 QGIG 301). Evidence - Appellant Appellant The Appellant said she had worked for approximately 10 years until March 2006 as a Communications Officer for the Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS) at its Spring Hill Communications Centre. The Communications Centre was sometimes referred to by its acronym AFCOM (Ambulance and Fire Communications) or as simply "the room". It was her role to receive "000" calls and enter data associated with that call (location of emergency, nature of emergency etc.) into a computer system whilst a dispatcher, in the same room, would then have responsibility for dispatching an appropriate ambulance response to that emergency situation. While the work was sometimes stressful, the Appellant said the stress didn't affect her and she was well suited to the role because of her previous employment as a taxi cab dispatcher and assistant nurse, respectively. However, she said that commencing in 1999, or thereabouts, she began to feel stressed by the behaviours of another worker in the room and the way that worker treated other staff members, especially new employees or ones who were undergoing training. The other worker was very aggressive towards them, humiliated them and caused them great stress. Many such workers were undergoing training and needed to be mentored by an experienced call taker who sat with them using a double headset. However, the other worker "was very, very aggressively picking and criticising them constantly and they were getting terribly stressed and emotionally upset, some of them were crying… a lot of them were just virtually emotionally destroyed and lost confidence and left, it was just awful watching them." (transcript p22). The Appellant also said "… if we were on the shift that she was on, the stress levels were very, very different to the stress levels with any other team, people used to remark on it, the new people always remarked." (transcript p23). The Appellant also opined that the criticism of the other staff member was not justified and "… it was in a very loud and aggressive - very aggressive form and I think that it was totally unjustified how she did it, even if she was asking for information that everyone - other dispatchers would ask for and very reasonable, she would be just so aggressive and rude and would - she would actually complain that they hadn't put enough information into a job and then when they became so anxious and were trying to please her, they would then put more information into the job, she would complain that they were taking too long and putting in too much information…" (transcript p23-24). The witness cited the example of three other employees (out of about 20 she could recall if she thought about it for a while), whom she said the other worker had criticised or belittled. One of them, a very pretty Asian lady, had been the subject of snide remarks about being "the beautiful one". The Appellant said such comments had been very hurtful to the Asian lady concerned and she was very upset about it. This lady was also constantly being criticised in relation to what information she was putting into her jobs, how quickly she was putting it in and how long she was taking. The Appellant said she had seen this Asian lady crying, on a number of occasions, when it was time to actually start the shift because she was so anxious about going into the room. One other North Asian lady had also been constantly belittled and criticised and this "reduced her to a nervous, anxious, insecure person" (transcript p25) and she was eventually taken out of the room and given another job in an office. The Appellant said she had also seen the effect of the other worker's treatment on supervisors and managers. She said it "… had a terrible effect on them and I watched all that." (transcript p25). In response to a question about how witnessing those behaviours of the other worker made her feel, the Appellant answered "They made me feel terrible, I felt very stressed watching them and they had investigations and nothing happened, I felt absolutely helpless and just when nothing happened after investigations I felt absolutely hopeless, as though the whole thing was utterly hopeless and that no one could do anything and it was a cause of great stress and sadness, in a way, watching while there's really good people being affected so badly." (transcript p26). The Appellant said that the first management-initiated investigation, by a Mr Britton, occurred in around 2000. After that investigation the other worker's behaviour became very underhand but she still intimidated people, although not so

322 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 15 August, 2008 obviously. The witness was of the opinion that the other worker just "laid low until the pressure went" after which time she behaved exactly the same way. The Appellant also opined that she did not see any difference in the way workers in the room were managed after the first investigation. However, the Appellant also said QAS management put up posters on the notice board about how to recognise harassment and bullying with a couple of people nominated as being officers that you were to go to if you were being harassed or bullied. Employees had also received different letters at different times about the same issue. However, the witness opined that some of these letters were contradictory with one of them, from Mr Wood (the AFCOM Manager from approximately July 2004) requesting employees to come and see him if they were experiencing any problems whilst another letter, also from Mr Wood, stated that you were to confront the person whose behaviour you objected to and if that didn't work you were to report it to the supervisor. Only if it wasn't resolved at that level were you to go to him. The witness said she had spoken to a particular supervisor, a Ms Duffield, who was also a Harassment Referral Officer (HRO), about dealing with the other worker and said she started telling supervisors about her concerns when she first noticed the other worker's behaviours. However, she said, "… we all just learnt to get on with it regardless." (transcript p54). The Appellant also claimed that she, and other people, were "constantly" complaining to supervisors about the behaviour of the other worker but only gave the additional example of having spoken to a Ms Jan Tipping, in October 2004, and to Mr Wood when he first arrived. The so called "complaint" to Ms Tipping was tendered (p86 of Exhibit 13) in the form of a "File Note", prepared by Ms Tipping on 27 October 2004, in the following terms: "Subject Notes from meeting requested by Dorothy Smith

Outcome / Recommendations

Dorothy requested a meeting with me to discuss the impact (the other worker) is having on her when she is rostered on with her.

The meeting took place on Tuesday 19 October 2004.

Dorothy began by explaining some of the ways that (the other worker's) character was displayed during the course of the day. She said she was loud, had a passive/aggressive nature and she is unhappy dealing with the extremes of behaviour that (the other worker) uses to manipulate situations to her advantage. She also said that she felt that (the other worker) was provoking excessive responses from her that are not a part of her normal behaviour pattern and this upset her. She said that she tries to maintain a professional relationship but even that has been tested over the last few months and she now just avoids her altogether.

Dorothy said that when (the other worker) came back to the Communications Room she was controlled and careful in her actions. She said that she refused to mentor her through her return to work program as she has had previous dealings with her. She has referred her issues to Bonita Duffield as her Team Leader. She said that (the other worker) takes people over and then destroys them and she did not want that happening to her as she has witnessed it many times.

She stated that when she has to sit near her for her duties then she feels very stressed. She said that she has to be aware of everything she says and does as (the other worker) could manipulate it and use it against her - she feels this is impacting on the way she does her job.

She said that she has noticed the way the team works together when (the other worker) is present. She says this displays itself by the increased tension both in the environment and the way that team members are reacting to each other and performing their duties as call takers and dispatchers.

Dorothy said she was frightened that she is going to make an error and feels that by alerting management to her stress then this removes some of the responsibility from her.".

In addition to the Britton investigation, the Appellant also indicated she was aware there was an Organisational Psychologist, Ms Hill, as well as a Management Consultant, Ms Tipping, who were doing something about "it", but she didn't know exactly what they were doing. Further, there was something called the Clarke Review, because she was interviewed for that in June 2005. There was also a subsequent review, by an organisation by the name of Ashdale Integrity Solutions, for which she declined to be interviewed on the basis "… it was terribly stressful and worrying that - and (the other worker) would retaliate against me." (transcript p60).

15 August, 2008 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 323 The witness said she did not notice anything change in the behaviours in the room between the time when she was interviewed by Mr Clarke (June 2005) and when she went on holidays at the beginning of March 2006. She said she constantly crossed over on shifts and worked with the other worker. Whenever she did so it was a very stressful, tense, work environment. The witness said that this work environment made her feel dreadful and she became more distressed. She also "… found it quite sad … thinking about all the very distressed people I'd seen who had, you know, were affected by her behaviour." (transcript p62). The Appellant also said she had been to see her General Practitioner several times just to talk about how stressed she was feeling and had taken a couple of days off early in 2006 because she was feeling very stressed. She opined that it was the build up of stresses over time, particularly those stresses associated with the return to the workplace of the other worker after being away from the room for several months, and the affect that person's return had on the whole of the team (transcript p63). However, this statement is inconsistent with the information contained in the Appellant's "complaint" recorded in Ms Tipping's file note (above) which records that the other worker returned to the room prior to October 2004, not in late 2005 as was suggested by the Appellant in her oral evidence, and it was in that year, not 2005, that she refused to mentor the other worker through her return to work program. The Appellant said she commenced Annual Leave on 10 March 2006 and received a letter from QAS on the day she was leaving Brisbane to go away on holidays. This letter, dated 10 March 2006, was about a Freedom of Information (FOI) application relating to the investigation conducted by Mr Clarke in 2005. She said receipt of the letter completely unnerved her and she almost felt shocked initially. As she started thinking about its contents she became more and more stressed and actually started to cry, which was extremely unusual for her at the time. She said she was really quite hysterical a few times whilst she was away on the holiday. The letter, from the Acting FOI Officer for the Department of Emergency Services, sought the Appellant's views about the release of a document headed "Interview Notes and Summary" purporting to be a dot point summary of the Appellant's discussion with Mr Clarke on 22 June 2005. The letter indicated that some of the document applied for, if released, "could reasonably be expected to be of concern to you" and informed the Appellant how she could go about objecting to the document's release. The letter also indicated:

"The Act requires that ultimately I am obliged to form my own view regarding the appropriateness of release. Any comments you make and reasons you give for believing a matter to be exempt will be taken into account when making a decision on access. If it is decided to release the document(s) with or without deletions being made, and you have made a submission detailing your objections to their release, you will be given the opportunity to apply for a review of the decision prior to actual release of the document(s). Your comments on release of the documents would be appreciated as soon as possible and should be directed to me at the address listed on the bottom of the cover page of this letter. If I have not received a response from you by 22 March 2006, I will assume you have no objection to the release of the documents and I will make my decision accordingly.".

By letter dated 18 March 2006 the Appellant wrote to the Acting FOI Officer objecting to the release of the Interview Notes and Summary on several grounds, the most important of which was that she had been led to believe, at the time of the interview, that the contents of the interview were confidential. She said she would not have agreed to the interview if disclosure of the information provided was not confidential. By some (unidentified) means the Appellant became aware of a special meeting of AFCOM employees, at the Nathan Ambulance Station (on 22 March 2006), which had been convened by the management of QAS regarding the FOI process and the ongoing investigative processes. The witness said that when she went to the meeting at Nathan she found out, from a Ms Choppy and another employee, that the other worker had a copy of the Ashdale Report, and actually had it resting on the top of her bag at work (transcript p64-65). However, this evidence was also at odds with other evidence she gave to the effect that prior to the meeting "I had calls from friends that were telling me that they had received letters and they were very worried and upset about it and they had seen (the other worker) with the Ashdale Report on top of her bag, you know, and were really worried." (transcript p68). The Appellant said that when she heard about the other worker having the Ashdale Report she "got really stressed and incredibly concerned that (the other worker) already had all the information, possibly in the Ashdale Report, even though she was applying for our interviews. She possibly had all sorts of information in the Ashdale Report that would allow her to identify us, especially me, because I had been there so long and because of some of the things I'd talked about." (transcript p66). The witness said she actually started crying at the meeting and was "trying to get clarification of what was going on and what our rights were." (transcript p66). She said she requested information about what was in the Ashdale Report that might allow the other worker to identify her but Mr Rosenthal, from Ethical Standards, kept side-stepping the issue and

324 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 15 August, 2008 was not giving her straight answers. She said she actually had to start yelling, and eventually swearing and crying, and demanding over and over that he provide the information before he actually agreed to do it (transcript p66). The witness also stated that she "was so distraught at the thought that the Ashdale Report had given (the other worker) all this information that it was just so ridiculous that they'd actually …asked us if we would agree to give her access through FOI to our interviews when they had given her the Report that was actually giving her that information anyway without even telling us or asking us." (transcript p67). She said she asked the management representatives at the meeting why they hadn't told the staff that the other worker had been given the Report and she felt that management were just making light of it all. It was only when she got so rude and angry and absolutely distressed, and started acting like a mad woman, that Mr Rosenthal actually agreed that she could email him, and that other people could contact him, about what had been provided (transcript p67). On the following day, 23 March 2006, the Appellant sent an email to Mr Rosenthal in the following terms: "Thankyou for the information you provided to me during yesterdays (sic) meeting at Nathan Station.

With regard to the 'Ashdale Report' - as agreed yesterday could you please send to me by email the sections of the Report relevant to me that have been provided to the recipients with regard to this matter? Also, can you please provide the information in the same form in which it was presented to the recipients, in order that I can accurately assess the situation with regard to myself? If the information is not in the same form, please can you brief me on the differences? Thankyou for you help.".

The Appellant said that it was not until the following Wednesday, 29 March, that she received a reply from Mr Rosenthal. She said the delay made her feel "(d)readful, I was just so getting more and more distressed and stressed…" (transcript p68). However, by that date the Appellant had already been to see her General Practitioner on 27 March 2006; received a Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate which declared her unfit for work until 28 April 2006; been referred to her Psychiatrist, Dr Steinberg; and, completed an Application for Workers' Compensation form. Ms Judy Rowell Ms Rowell is currently employed as an Emergency Medical Dispatcher by QAS at the Maroochydore Communications Centre. She was previously employed at AFCOM between 1996 and 2006. In response to a question about whether she had observed any particular behaviours by the other worker (previously referred to by the Appellant) in the room, the witness recalled a time when she was working on the North Side board and the other worker was sitting on the Bay Side board next to the South Side dispatcher. She said the other worker was bullying the South Side dispatcher, telling him how to do his job dispatching his cars and yelling at him. When asked to cite other examples of behaviour of the other worker that concerned her, she responded "she was just constantly badly behaved and she was yelling - just yelling and intimidating people and bullying people and it just went on for years." (transcript p105). When asked whether she had ever complained about the behaviour referred to above, Ms Rowell said she put in a written complaint to the manager at the time, about 5 or 6 years ago, when she witnessed the other worker's behaviour towards the South Side dispatcher mentioned above. She said she received a letter back from the manager which said the behaviour of the other worker was unacceptable but it also indicated that the tone of the whole room wasn't very acceptable. The witness said that she didn't know whether the other worker had been disciplined in any way, nor was she aware of any actions taken by management to curtail the behaviours described. However, under cross-examination, Ms Rowell revealed that the manager to whom she had written also told her that he had spoken to the other worker about her behaviour. Mr Jeffrey Ingham Mr Ingham worked as a Student Communications Officer, and later as an Emergency Medical Dispatcher, with QAS at AFCOM in 2001. During the later part of 2003 he was appointed to the position of Professional Development Officer, which he occupied until, at least, 2006. In this later role he actually worked on a different floor to that on which the room was located but had occasion, as part of his day to day role, to work in the room to support students undertaking training.

15 August, 2008 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 325 Mr Ingham said he was subjected to behaviours by the other worker, (previously referred to by the Appellant), in 2001 that concerned him and described them as "intimidation", "bullying type behaviour" and "standover tactics". An example of "intimidation" was voice-raising or yelling across the room on a regular basis. "Standover tactics" was said to involve physically coming and standing behind you whilst you were attempting to take a call or do your work. The witness said whilst he couldn't give a specific example of an incident "…you'd be taking a call at any one time, the phone would be in your ear so you were listening to the call which can take considerable management, so you're concentrating at the same time as listening and actually physically typing into a computer system and whilst you were doing that there was a presence of somebody coming and standing and often they would (say), you know 'What's going on here? What's happening with this?' If they weren't physically standing or if she wasn't physically standing she'd be yelling across the room. So it's quite a demanding, difficult environment to work within because of that." (transcript p111). The witness said he had made an oral complaint to a line supervisor when he was a student in 2001, but did not indicate how that complaint had been handled. Ms Janee Choppy Ms Choppy is employed by QAS and had recently been appointed to a position as a Supervisor at AFCOM. She previously was a Communications Officer at that same location, having commenced her employment in May 2002. Ms Choppy said that from the first day of her employment she had witnessed the behaviour of the other worker towards herself and other employees in the room. In particular, the behaviour involved yelling across the room, inappropriate behaviours and the questioning of techniques used. The witness said the room was set up with dispatchers sitting on one side and 000 call takers sitting on the other. On one occasion, while she was still undergoing training, the other worker got up and yelled at her across the room in front of other staff. Ms Choppy said that this made her feel incompetent in front of an entire room full of people. The witness also opined that the other worker behaved that way on every shift and said working in that environment made her very stressed (transcript p117). Notwithstanding the behaviour complained of Ms Choppy said she had not directly made a complaint to management herself (transcript p118). However, the witness did recall that a Mr Clarke had been engaged by management during the course of 2005 "… to see if there were grounds for further investigation or an enquiry into AFCOM and the workplace bullying and harassment." (transcript p118). Ms Choppy said that she was interviewed by Mr Clarke as part of his investigation. Ms Choppy also said she had attended the meeting at Nathan on 22 March 2006 where "one of the questions that (was) at the top of everybody's list were the - we had been exposed to the information that we were aware that some sort of legal action was going to be taken upon us once the Freedom of Information had been received." (transcript p119). She said that she knew about the proposed legal action from "…people speaking and talking about it around AFCOM." (transcript p119). Ms Choppy said that someone actually asked the question of the likelihood of the AFCOM staff being sued personally. The management representatives present indicated they thought the possibility would be low but also mentioned that 2 people had previously been sued on those grounds, although they didn't know whether such action had been successful or not. The witness also said she recalled the Appellant being clearly distressed and emotional at the meeting. She recalled someone asking the management representatives about how the AFCOM staff were still expected to work in such a confined environment in circumstances where someone had made an application under FOI regarding "the stuff" they had talked to Mr Clarke about. When asked whether there had been discussion about the information that might be released, the witness answered "not really, not really any significant answers that would make us sort of think that we were safe for that information not to be released and unknown as to whether it would be released…everybody had questions about it. We were all sitting there wanting to know what was going to happen to us…everybody had questions about it, that meeting was called in the attempt to try and resolve the issues before they got out of hand. I'm not sure - everybody had questions who attended at that meeting." (transcript p120). Under cross-examination, Ms Choppy indicated that the other worker (mentioned previously) was not the only person whose behaviour she had concerns about. Other staff members also used intimidation. Ms Choppy also confirmed that she had never lodged any form of complaint about the other worker during the entire period of her employment, including during the period where she was a Priority One Counsellor from approximately 2005 onwards. Ms Choppy also said that she was not aware that the other worker, nor a second worker whose behaviour she had concerns about, were actually in possession of any information in March 2006 that would entitle them to know who had made a complaint about them, or otherwise.

326 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 15 August, 2008 Evidence - Respondent Mr Peter Wood Mr Wood is a Senior Manager within the QAS with responsibility for AFCOM, a role he assumed in July 2004. Mr Wood said he first began to hear about behaviours in the room that were not conducive to a good working environment, such as intimidation and the like, after several months in the role. This information came from a variety of sources, including students and one particular HRO. He said he implemented a review, by a Mr Clarke, to see just what the issues were because what he was hearing was non-specific, "…they were very cloudy and nobody really relayed any specific times or dates and they were very reluctant to say who was involved." (transcript p145). Mr Wood said Mr Clarke was selected to undertake the review in consultation with the Assistant Commissioner of the day, a representative of Ethical Standards Unit and a Human Resources representative after he communicated his concerns in relation to the feedback he had received from students about not being completely happy with the work environment. The witness also said Mr Clarke was engaged to undertake a review, as opposed to something else, because he wasn't quite sure what he was dealing with. The work environment in a communications centre such as at QAS is "…mission critical and very hostile and there's a…close working environment with a lot of people in there and you have some interpersonal issues…" (transcript p151). Mr Wood also said that when the issue of intimidation and the like was first raised by one of the HRO's he also took action to distribute information packages, prepared by the Department of Emergency Services, on appropriate workforce behaviours as well as to issue emails to team leaders directing them to address such behaviours. Mr Wood said Mr Clarke "looked through the workplace and identified there was an element of behaviours that probably needed addressing" (transcript p145) but the matters raised were not specific enough to allow any action to be taken against any particular individual or individuals. In this regard, Mr Wood said the advice he received from the Ethical Standards Unit, when everyone reviewed the Clarke Report, was to the effect there was insufficient detail in the Report to allow QAS to take any specific action in respect of any individual(s). Further, Ethical Standards did not believe the "harassment and bullying" referred to in the Report actually fitted the definition of such action. For this reason, it was decided to commission a second report, from Ashdale Integrity Solutions, to get actual examples of behaviours, that is: who, when, where and how, so that specific action could be taken. Mr Wood also opined that, within the Department of Emergency Services, such material was necessary in order to take any disciplinary action against someone, "…otherwise you're just shooting into the breeze and do somebody an injustice on hearsay." (transcript p156). The advice he received at the time was that the information contained in the Clarke Report was too broad and contained too much hearsay. If any formal action was taken against anyone it would be upheld through an appeal. Further, more specific information was required if the Department was to address, and manage, the situation. Mr Wood clearly only had partial recollection of the meeting of 22 March 2006 held at Nathan and, because of this, some of his responses to questions asked of him were at times somewhat vague, whilst at other times they were somewhat inconsistent. He recalled that one of the reasons for calling the meeting was because there were a number of people who came to him and personally expressed concern over the contents of the 10 March 2006 FOI letter and what it might have entailed. He said the purpose of the meeting was to go through the FOI process to waylay any "anxieties" staff may have had. He recalled that the Appellant had "specific anxieties" about the information being released and recalled that the subject experts (from Ethical Standards and the Department of Emergency Services) spoke about the FOI process and told staff it was "not a given" that when somebody made an FOI application for information it was automatically released. Mr Rosenthal, in particular, made an offer that staff could attend his office in an out of session forum, and, after viewing their statements to see what had been transcribed, make an application to stop that information from being released. Mr Wood also remembered the Appellant becoming upset during the course of the meeting. He said "… it was anxieties expressed by (the Appellant) about a - the message that was being communicated on the day, which then went forward into her anxieties about a staff member in there and past behaviours or alleged past behaviours… There was some anxieties put back onto management that we were not doing anything about (those behaviours)…" (transcript p145). When it was put to him that one of the fears of the staff raised at the meeting was that the Ashdale Report had already been given to the other worker, Mr Wood said he could remember thinking that wouldn't be right because when he met with the 5 individuals referred to in the Report for feedback sessions only a portion of that Report had been given to those particular people he needed to take some decisive action with. He said he would have clarified that issue "... I'm sure, because they wouldn't have had the full Report … - it would have given me great anxieties to think that somebody thought

15 August, 2008 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 327 that I'd shared the total Report with them, so I would have clarified it… That was a part of the tasking that I had from Ethical Standards to resolve the issue, was to meet with each individual and clearly communicate the expectations to them.". However, the above answers appear to be somewhat at odds with Mr Wood's answers to the next 2 questions asked of him, as follows (transcript p170-171):

"Mr Rebetzke: See, part of the problem of the meeting, I would suggest, is that the staff members who participated couldn't get a clear answer as to what document had actually already been given to (the other worker), that's the case, isn't it? Mr Wood: I didn't get that from that meeting. Mr Rebetzke: And it's the case that you're not aware of any of the staff members who attended the FOI session having been notified that any part of the Ashdale Integrity Solutions Report would be given to (the other worker) prior to at least part of the report being given to her? Mr Wood: Look, I don't have any knowledge of that in my mind. I can't remember whether that particular portion of the report was given to that particular target group before or after that meeting, because it's - I don't have a memory of thinking about that particular document at that meeting.".

Mr Gregory Ouglitchinin Mr Ouglitchinin is the Manager of the FOI section for the Department of Emergency Services, which includes the QAS. Mr Ouglitchinin said that under section 51 of the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (the FOI Act) the Department was compelled to consult someone who may have substantial concerns if the Department released material to an FOI applicant without consulting them first. He said the letter of 10 March 2006 to the Appellant, as well as around 30 other employees, was a standard practice that was gone through before any documents of the nature mentioned in the letter could be released to an FOI applicant. Mr Ouglitchinin also indicated that as a decision-maker, under the FOI Act, he would need to make his own decisions on whether a particular document or piece of information was released but, in doing so, would need to take into account the considerations of the person who had been consulted. If he made a decision to release material the person objected to, the FOI Act also required him to advise that person to give them an opportunity to request a review. He could not release any documents until after any review had been completed. Mr Ouglitchinin said the statement of the Appellant, about which she had been consulted, had not been released to those parties who had sought access to it under FOI. He also said that whilst some people consulted did not object to the release of information relating to them no material had been released where people had objected. This was because the objections received indicated that the persons who had made statements to Mr Clarke had been assured of confidentiality. Once he was convinced those who had been interviewed had been given an assurance of confidentiality he decided that all those who objected would have their material exempted from release and, accordingly, he exempted the entirety of every such statement. Mr Craig Rosenthal Mr Rosenthal is the Executive Manger of Ethical Standards, Department of Emergency Services. Mr Rosenthal said he attended a meeting at the Nathan Ambulance Station on 22 March 2006 which was attended by a number of employees from AFCOM (about 5 or 6 persons) as well as a number of management representatives from QAS and the Department of Emergency Services (a similar number of people). This meeting formed part of an overall communication strategy Mr Wood had been implementing concerning an investigation at AFCOM which had been undertaken by Ashdale Integrity Solutions. The purpose of the meeting was to give an overview of the investigation process and also to address concerns raised by staff about an FOI application that had been made. The witness said he had an overview of the overall FOI process and how it was being managed, which was part of the information he obtained in preparation for the meeting. However, his primary role was to attend the meeting to speak broadly about the investigation process and to respond to questions about what was occurring as a result of the investigation. In particular, he remembered the Appellant asking questions about the investigation and what action management was going to take to deal with the people who had allegations made against them during the investigation process. He said he told the Appellant, and the broader group, it was difficult to go into specific details about action to be taken concerning particular people because of their right to privacy and the fact that some of those decisions hadn't been made at that time. Nonetheless, he was trying to assure people that action had been taken by QAS management and would continue to be taken (transcript p204). He also recalled making an offer to the group to the effect that if people wanted him to address their individual concerns they could contact him after the meeting.

328 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 15 August, 2008 In this regard, he confirmed he had received an email from the Appellant on the day following the meeting in which she sought particular information in respect of her circumstances. He responded to that email on 29 March 2006 after making enquires about the material that might have been administratively released, as opposed to that released through the FOI process, after making certain that the information contained in his response was accurate. There was also a weekend in between the request and his reply, during which time he had to balance a range of other work matters. Under cross-examination Mr Rosenthal agreed that when he attended the meeting at Nathan he was unaware as to what information, if any, had been provided to the other worker as a result of any FOI request that person might have made. He also agreed that people at the meeting were concerned that the other worker had access to the Ashdale Report. In response to a specific question as to his awareness about what information, if any, concerning the Ashdale Report might have been provided to the other worker, Mr Rosenthal replied "I was aware that the Report or an edited version of that Report had been provided to her." (transcript p205). After acknowledging that some of the staff attending the meeting were concerned that the other worker had a copy of the Ashdale Report, Mr Rosenthal went on to state "I was aware that the Report - that sections of the Report that had been provided to her contained information that was relevant to her particular case. The investigation Report I had covered a range of what we call subject officers and the information that was provided to the (other worker) was specific to her particular matter, those matters that related particularly to her where comments had been made concerning her." (transcript p207). When it was put to Mr Rosenthal that he was unable to allay the fear of the staff members present at the meeting about exactly what might have been provided to the other worker, Mr Rosenthal responded "Look, at that time in regard to the meeting I wasn't aware of - we weren't aware of who was attending the meetings and those sort of things so it was very difficult to be able to deal with regard to people's individual specific concerns in a group forum and that's why the offer was made that - at that meeting that if people wanted to discuss or - their individual matters then they were asked to contact myself or the unit or - I think that was also offered by Peter Wood." (transcript p207). Under further questioning about how his responses were affecting the Appellant during the meeting, Mr Rosenthal indicated that at the start of the meeting he recalled the Appellant asking questions, which he had responded to, and it was at a particular stage, where she may have been recounting some of her experiences at AFCOM, that she became upset. He said the Appellant had a concern about what was happening at AFCOM and that management wasn't taking any action. However, he recalled that the staff were advised that there would be meetings taking place with those people named in the Report. Mr Rosenthal also recalled that the Appellant had sought clarification from him about what information had been released to the other worker but he had not specifically answered her request at the meeting, as a result of which she sent him a written request the next day. Mr Rosenthal also agreed he had read the "Clarke Report" (see below) when it was released including Mr Clarke's warnings about the room being "so toxic that a tragic outcome was a very real possibility" and that "the clear perpetrators should be removed from the AFCOM environment" (transcript p210). He also agreed he had read that a significant number of people interviewed by Mr Clarke had expressed a concern about reprisals for speaking out (transcript p209). Evidence - Medical Practitioners Dr Jennifer Thorne (called by the Appellant) Dr Thorne is a General Practitioner, located in Spring Hill, who has been treating the Appellant since approximately May 2005. Dr Thorne said her patient records showed the Appellant visited her on 29 September 2005 at which time she made the following entries on her computer records: "History Notes

Episode at work on Tuesday whereby ?panic attack - it was related to an extremely stressful work situation - similar episode (word(s) missing) her daughter took an O/dose Examination Notes BP=130/80; HR=78SR,HS*2,NMH, no carotid bruits,chest-clear discussion re workplace bullying Assessment Notes Anxiety Onset Date: 29/09/2005

15 August, 2008 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 329

0Plan Notes agrees anxiety likely - - - ".

The patient records also showed another visit on 15 February 2006 when the following notes were recorded: "History Notes work stress persists - has been managing but felt unable to get to work today Examination Notes BVP=120/80 Plan Notes Letter Medical Certificate issued: 16/02/2006 - from 16/02/2006 to 18/02/2006". In the Medical Certificate referred to, immediately above, Dr Thorne opined that the Appellant was suffering from a "medical condition" and would be unfit for work from 16 February to 18 February 2006 inclusive. However, in the witness box, the Doctor indicated that whilst she had written "medical condition" on the Certificate she was of the view that it was work stress and, more particularly, anxiety relating to work stress. The Appellant visited Dr Thorne again on 27 March 2006, at which time the following notes were entered into the patient records: "History Notes

on hols from work but fearful of returning to work - very stressed - had to report on a co-worker who was being investigated for bullying but now under freedom of information the co-worker has access to the report previous work stress but this particular incident occurred - last WED22/3/06 when she was notified that the co-worker would have access to all comments Plan Notes Referral Letter Referral - Dr Jon Steinberg 27/03/2006 on 27/03/2006 cert for time off work 27/3 until 28/4 refer Dr. Steinberg".

A Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate issued on the same day showed that the Appellant was suffering from "Anxiety and Panic Disorder" which was said to have been caused by "work stress". Under cross-examination Dr Thorne acknowledged "anxiety relating to work stress" (as was diagnosed by Dr Thorne on 16 February 2006) was a recognised psychiatric condition. When pressed as to which axis her diagnoses fell under in relation to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM IV) she amended her diagnoses to be "a generalised anxiety disorder". Dr Thorne also agreed that she had not issued a workers' compensation certificate in relation to any application for compensation or the like prior to 27 March 2006. Dr Thorne also agreed that apart from the entries of 29 September 2005 and 16 February 2006 there was no other entry in the patient notes which recorded any consultations by the Appellant relating to anything to do with work stress or the like prior to 27 March 2006. In a report to WorkCover (Exhibit 7) dated 11 April 2006 the witness wrote:

"When I saw Dorothy on the 27/3/06 she advised me that workplace stress levels had been elevated for a few months but what had recently increased her stress was that she received notification from her workplace whilst she was on holidays on Wednesday the 22nd March 2006 that the co-worker who was being investigated for bullying was to have access to all comments and reports that had been made about her by her colleagues in the workplace… when I examined Dorothy on the 27/3/06 she was emotionally labile and very anxious. I consider that her anxiety is directly attributable to the recent events that had occurred in the workplace - in particular it was the notification that Dorothy's co-worker being investigated for bullying was to have access to all reports made about her.".

Dr Thorne was particularly questioned about the last sentence (above) and how her reference to "recent events that had occurred in the workplace" was consistent with evidence she had given to Counsel for the Appellant to the effect that the Appellant was suffering the same medical condition on 27 March 2006 as she was suffering on 16 February 2006, when she had several day off work. In response, the witness said she still held to the opinion she had given earlier on the basis

330 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 15 August, 2008 that while the Appellant didn't have any additional time off from work "... you don't need time off work to be struggling at work with an illness." (transcript p138). Dr Jon Steinberg (called by the Appellant) Dr Steinberg is a consultant Psychiatrist who saw the Appellant intermittently between 1998 and 2003 and treated her for a depressive illness that was precipitated by family stressors. She re-presented to see him in April 2006 following referral from Dr Thorne on 27 March 2006. In his evidence in chief, Dr Steinberg primarily confirmed the accuracy of a number of written reports he had provided to Solicitors for the Appellant in response to particular questions/propositions put to him. In particular, he confirmed the accuracy of comments in his report of 15 November 2006, in response to questions/propositions put to him on 24 October 2006. In order to understand his responses it is necessary to, also, include the questions/propositions to which he was responding, as follows:

Q1. Please confirm whether in your opinion Ms Smith's current psychiatric condition has been primarily caused by her past experience in working with (the other worker), and specifically (the other worker's) bullying and harassing behaviour in the workplace.

Response: " …Mrs Smith re-presented to see me in April 2006 after some significant work stressors. She presented with a history of difficulty dealing with (the other worker). She told me that a copy of her report regarding (the other worker) was given to her and this had caused significant distress. Mrs Smith claimed that (the other worker) had been 'bullying people for years'. Mrs Smith wrote an account of (the other worker's) behaviour and this was given to (the other worker). Mrs Smith believes that (the other worker) would be able to carry out some form of retribution against her. Eventually Mrs Smith has had to leave work because of this confrontation and stress. In my opinion Mrs Smith had a diagnoses of an Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood as a result of the stress in the workplace. Mrs Smith is also prone to developing Major Depressive Disorder and unfortunately due to the onset of the Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood which was primarily caused by the stress in her workplace, she had a recurrence of this Major Depressive Disorder. …." (p35-36 of Exhibit 8).

Q2. Please confirm whether Ms Smith's psychiatric condition has primarily been caused by fear of (the other worker's) bullying and aggressive behaviour - and that this psychiatric condition is likely to have predated the meeting held by the QAS on 22 March 2006 to discuss (the other worker's) Freedom of Information request.

Response: "Mrs Smith developed an Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood in response to the behaviour by (the other worker) in the workplace. This condition was exacerbated by the confrontation at the Freedom of Information discussion on 22 March 2006. As stated above the onset of her Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood in response to these stressors in her workplace most likely contributed to the recurrence of her Major Depressive Disorder." (p36 of Exhibit 8).

Q3. Please advise whether Ms Smith's irrational reaction to the meeting on 22 March 2006 is likely to have been caused by her pre existing condition developed out of prior negative experiences of (the other worker).

Response "Mrs Smith was most likely in a distressed state when she was at the meeting where she had the said 'irrational reaction' on 22 March 2006. Because of her emotional and anxious state it was more likely that she would have behaved the way she did in the meeting. She was obviously distressed about (the other worker's) behaviour as she found her bullying behaviour intimidating and was clearly frightened of her. This fear contributed to her 'irrational reaction'." (p36-37 of Exhibit 8).

Q4. Please confirm whether in your opinion our client's psychiatric condition was most likely not caused by the abovementioned meeting or the way in which QAS dealt with the FOI application per se, but rather the fear that (the other worker) would "retaliate" against Ms Smith for providing information to the QAS in relation to (the other worker's) workplace bullying.


Response: "The psychiatric condition experienced by Mrs Smith of an Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood appeared to result primarily due to stressors she experienced in the workplace as a result of her fear of the bullying and the intimidating behaviour of (the other worker). This Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood began in the workplace as a result of her perceived bullying and intimidation by (the other worker) and then was made worse by the FOI application and then further deteriorated due to Mrs Smith's fear that (the other worker) would retaliate with further bullying due to the FOI application." (p37 of Exhibit 8).

By letter dated 17 November 2006 Dr Steinberg also responded to an unknown question/proposition put to him earlier that day by facsimile, by the Appellant's Solicitors, in the following terms:

"In my opinion Mrs Smith's Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood began in the context of stress in the workplace she had experienced in association with the behaviour of (the other worker). The fact that Mrs Smith feared (the other worker) would see a copy of her report about her by Freedom of Information was also very stressful. Therefore, Mrs Smith's Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood was exacerbated by her knowledge that (the other worker) had made an FOI application. The role of the Queensland Ambulance Service in processing the FOI application was only one factor amongst a number of factors contributing to the Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood. The most significant factor was the behaviour of the staff associated with Mrs Smith and Mrs Smith's fear of retaliation." (p38 of Exhibit 8).

Finally, on 27 November 2006, Dr Steinberg responded to yet another question/proposition put to him earlier that day, as follows:

Q. But for the behaviour of the staff associated with Dorothy (as referred to in your earlier report), would she have developed the Adjustment Disorder with Anxious mood as you have diagnosed. That is to say, without that particular stressor, can you confirm that, on balance, she would not have developed this disorder?

Response: "I can confirm that in my opinion Mrs Smith developed the Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood (as referred

to in my previous report) due to the stress that she experienced dealing with her fellow staff at the Queensland Ambulance Service. Without this stress she would not have developed the Adjustment Disorder at that time in her life." (p39 of Exhibit 8).

Under cross-examination, Dr Steinberg accepted that the "questions" to which he had provided responses were not in truth questions but, rather, propositions. He went on to say "… the question I was answering was, I confirmed on balance that she would not have developed this disorder without the events occurring in the workplace, and that's the question I was answering." (transcript p93). There then followed a lengthy exchange between Counsel for the Respondent and Dr Steinberg about how the Appellant was functioning in the workplace between 2003 and 2006 and the relative affect on the Appellant of the alleged workplace bullying, the FOI letter of 10 March 2006 and the FOI meeting of 22 March 2006, respectively. In the course of that discussion (transcript p93-95) Dr Steinberg described the receipt of the letter of 10 March 2006 and the meeting of 22 March 2006 as "a tipping point", which culminated in the following series of questions and answers:

"Mr Sapsford: …As far as you're concerned, Doctor, there was no need for her to take off work, take time off work, until 2006, was there? Dr Steinberg: Not that I was aware of- - - - Mr Sapsford: And indeed, what you were treating Mrs Smith for between 1999 and 2003 were problems that weren't associated with her work? Dr Steinberg: The problems were associated with her history of depressive illness, major depressive disorder, and also stress related to her family, children, and so forth- - - - Mr Sapsford: Yes, they - - - - ?

Dr Steinberg: - - - - But they were difficulties that I had responded to, but she seemed to be complaining of work stress, associated with these bullies in 2003. Mr Sapsford: Mmm - - - - Dr Steinberg: - - - - But then, the events of 2006, when she became fearful of her notes being viewed by the person she felt bullied by, that was the tipping point that seems to distance her in relation to work." (transcript p94-95).

332 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 15 August, 2008 A little while later (transcript p97) Dr Steinberg was taken to his letter of 17 November 2006 (his response to the unidentified question/proposition put to him by Solicitors for the Appellant) where the following exchange occurred:

"Mr Sapsford: …Your conclusion, where you say, 'Therefore, Mrs Smith's adjustment disorder with anxious mood was exacerbated by her knowledge that (the other worker) had made an FOI application.' Really, it was rendered symptomatic to the extent that she couldn't return to work, wasn't it? Dr Steinberg: That summarises well what I mean by "exacerbation". That her stress had been started in the context of perceived behaviour of (the other worker) towards her and then was made - was exacerbated to the point of becoming a psychiatric disorder after she had found out there was a risk of the FOI application - - - - Mr Sapsford: You see - - - - Dr Steinberg: - - - - being viewed by (the other worker).".

Finally, Mr Sapsford took Dr Steinberg to his response to the question/proposition put to him on 27 November 2006 where the following exchange occurred (transcript p98):

"Mr Sapsford: …It's fair to say, isn't it, given everything that I've asked you, that without the letter of the 10th of March 2006 and the meeting of the 22nd of March 2006 you can't say whether she would have developed such a disorder at that time or necessarily any time in the future? Dr Steinberg: The reality of the situation was that there were the - there was the combination of the stress in the past and the letter and the meeting and in its entirety that contributed to the adjustment disorder with anxious mood. That's the reality of what happened. Mr Sapsford: But it would not necessarily have come to a head without the letter of 10th of March and the meeting of the 22nd? Dr Steinberg: Not being able to predict the future, I cannot make an exact statement about whether it would have happened or not but it seemed to me that the combination of those three things that you've described including the previous stress which Ms Smith had mentioned to me in 2003, had combined to cause this adjustment disorder with anxious mood. Mr Sapsford: Yes, I accept what you're saying there, Doctor, but the point that I'm trying to ask you about is in the absence of two of those, namely the letter of the 10th and the meeting of the 22nd you can't say, can you, whether it would have been symptomatic to the degree that she expressed? Dr Steinberg: It would be impossible for me to make a judgement on that because that's a hypothetical scenario but it's - I see this situation as arising because of a combination of all the factors - those three factors that I've mentioned.".

Finally, in re-examination, Dr Steinberg acknowledged that a person could technically have a diagnoses of adjustment disorder, which causes some dysfunction or disability, which did not necessarily prevent them from going to work "…but in some cases it does mean that it gets severe enough to stop work. In this case Ms Smith would have reached that criteria…." (transcript p100). Dr Jennifer Lockwood (called by Q-COMP) Dr Lockwood is a consultant Psychiatrist who prepared a report for Q-COMP following an extended interview with the Appellant on 23 March 2007 and after reading an extensive amount of written material which contained progress notes and reports written by a variety of medical practitioners, including Dr Thorne and Dr Steinberg, respectively. In the course of her written report (Exhibit 9) Dr Lockwood recorded the source of the workplace stress said to have been encountered by the Appellant as a result of her dealings with, and exposure to, the other worker whose activities, together with a third worker, had contributed largely to what the Appellant described as a "toxic work environment" over many years. Dr Lockwood also wrote (p7-8):

" … Dorothy stated that she did not like working with (the other worker) though she has worked with her regularly. She states that she has always tried to treat (the other worker) professionally and that she has not had a great deal of personal difficulty being bullied by (the other worker). She states however that she has frequently observed (the other worker) bullying others and recounted some episodes where staff members have become highly stressed and depressed and on two occasions suicided. She felt that difficulties arising from (the other worker's) behaviour in the work place


had contributed significantly to all these observed problems. She currently returned to these themes stating 'it is hard to understand sorry, it's really awful. It is so horrible to watch'. She described the effect of (the other worker) as being somebody who 'destroyed and slaughtered' people who she was working with. She stated 'it is a horrible wave of destruction. You're watching it and you can see what is going to happen and you cannot do anything about it'. Dorothy stated that because of the influence of this worker, the environment was a toxic environment and that there had been at least two reviews into bullying in the work environment during the period of time she had been working. (The other worker) contributed information to these reviews on various occasions. In the context of what she described as this toxic environment, Dorothy started developing symptoms. She said that she felt as though she was coping, though feeling increasingly subjectively stressed prior to taking holidays in March 2006. When she went on holidays in March, she felt somewhat improved until a friend from work rang to say that (the other worker) had requested interview documentation from a review from Freedom of Information. At this point Dorothy started to that (sic) (the other worker) would 'sue everyone and take away their houses'. She stated 'I knew what she was going to do to them. There will be a massive investigation into things that she will blame other people for, those people would be destroyed'. In the setting she developed a great deal of anxiety about (the other worker) obtaining information that she had given to the reviews and punishing her, and also was anxious on behalf of other people at work. She reported sleep problems including middle and some terminal insomnia, and reported feeling anxious about going to work. She was preoccupied with guilty and troubled thoughts about others and she said she felt distressed and helpless. When she discovered that (the other worker) had requested Freedom of Information report she said she completely fell apart. She became acutely tearful and at times laughed inappropriately… … After hearing about the FOI she attended a meeting with a variety of other QAS service people where she tried to find out what the status of the FOI request was and found the information that was given was hard to understand and did not fully answer her questions. At this meeting she became uncharacteristically tearful, raised her voice and behaved in a way that she felt was not characteristic of her. Following this time, symptoms developed further...".

Further on in the report Dr Lockwood wrote (p10):

"Symptom Course; (the Appellant) started to become mildly subjectively stressed throughout the latter part of 2005 and it became quite noticeable in the earliest part of 2006. After discovering about the Freedom of Information request in March 2006 while in (sic) holiday her symptoms as stated above dramatically worsened. They started plateauing out in around September of 2006 and she states that over the last three months there has been a mild to moderate improvement, particularly in terms of her anxiety symptoms, but her depressive symptoms have become fairly constant. … During this period of symptom development she had a number of relevant stressors. In terms of work related symptoms, as mentioned she was profoundly distressed by hearing that (the other worker) was going to be, or indeed had been given statements or comments written by her in spite of previous reviews, and was fearful of the effect this would have on herself and other work colleagues...".

Later on, Dr Lockwood reported (p13-14):

"…In 1998 she developed a documented depressive disorder in association with serious addiction problems within her family. Her own account, which is supported by the documentation of her psychiatrist, suggests that she remained on antidepressant medication for about six months and made a reasonable recovery at this time for most of the symptoms of her depressive condition. She was able to work throughout this entire period and function generally well from about 2003 to 2006 in terms of all aspects of her life. In early 2006 she started to develop symptoms of anxiety. I note Dr Steinberg's diagnoses of adjustment disorder with anxious mood made at the time and agree that this diagnosis is consistent with the symptoms she had at that time. These symptoms had developed in the setting of cumulative work stressors related to bullying in the work environment and particularly the actions of one fellow worker.


From March 2006 she had a significant worsening of her symptomatology in association with her specific stressor of finding out that a fellow worker would have access to statements she had made about her in reviews, leading to fears of retribution and punishment from this fellow worker. In this setting she developed heightened symptoms of anxiety including a development of panic disorder of agoraphobic features. As time went on depressive symptoms also developed, and it appears at around mid 2006 onwards she had some pervasively depressed mood and symptoms consistent with a diagnosis of recurrence of her major depressive episode. This has continued to the present time...".

Like Dr Steinberg previously, Dr Lockwood was also invited to respond to particular issues related to the development of the Appellant's condition. Noting that Dr Lockwood's report dealt with both the development of the Appellant's Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood and the later major depressive episode, the following issues raised by Q-COMP's queries and Dr Lockwood's answers are relevant to the present Appeal:

"1. The mechanism of injury as described by Mrs Smith.

Mrs Smith describes becoming very stressed by working in a toxic environment and observing and at times being affected by the behaviour of a workmate. This led to the development of feeling subjectively stressed and anxious. She describes becoming acutely distressed and increasingly unwell after she found out that (the other worker) had been given or would be given access to statements she had made regarding her in the work place leading to fear of retribution.

2. List of stressors including work related and non work related stressors.

Work Related Stressors 1. Chronic effects of working in what is described as a toxic environment characterised by bullying, secretiveness,

multiple complaints and lack of management success in controlling these problems. 2. The discovery that (the other worker) had accessed information that she had given in an inquiry through

Freedom of Information leading to fear that (the other worker) would use this information to sue her and others, leading to grave consequences.

Non Work Related Stressors 1. Ongoing problems relating to one daughter's unstable relationship and substance abuse.

2. Longstanding difficulties relating to all of her children who have histories of substance abuse, some of which is

ongoing, and some difficulties in their personal relationships.

3. Current DSM IV Diagnosis

Axis I Major depressive episode, chronic, moderate in intensity. Axis II No diagnosis. Axis III No significant diagnosis. Axis IV Work stressors related to working in a bullying environment and fears that information obtained by a co

worker under FOI could result in her being exposed to serious consequences. Axis V Moderate level of impairment. Current GAF 65.

4. Please outline any previous or pre-existing psychiatric/psychological conditions suffered by Mrs Smith and

specifically: … d. Whether or not Mrs Smith developed a new condition in March 2006 as distinct from any previous

condition she might have suffered from, and the factors leading to the development of this condition.

In March 2006, I think that she did suffer from adjustment disorder with anxious mood. This was a new condition distinct from any previous conditions.

…".

15 August, 2008 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 335 In her examination-in-chief, the witness said her notes, and report, recorded that prior to March 2006 the Appellant was becoming "…preoccupied and anxious about work problems and was feeling, in herself, stressed but I had not made a diagnosis of her during that time." (transcript p37). Nonetheless, Dr Lockwood said, the Appellant was still capable of working. Dr Lockwood was also asked a series of questions designed to clarify her response to the last issue raised by Q-COMP in its letter to her (above), as follows (transcript p39):

Mr Sapsford: All right. Doctor, please, if you'd go to your conclusion at page 17 of your report, you say that in March 2006 you considered she suffered from an adjustment disorder with anxious mood and that that was a new condition and distinct from any previous condition. Is that right? Dr Lockwood: Yes. Mr Sapsford: What do you say about the differential diagnosis, if I can put it that way, provided by Dr Steinberg in relation to the depressive illness? Dr Lockwood: In what sense, that that - - - - Mr Sapsford: - - - - Did she also suffer a recurrence of a depressive illness or is that an alternative; was that something - - - -? Dr Lockwood: - - - - Oh, no - - - - Mr Sapsford: - - - - you considered - - - -? Dr Lockwood: What I - I think I perhaps was trying to say was that in March 2006 I thought she did have an adjustment disorder with anxious mood. Later on, and I made the point of this earlier in the report, that developed further to - to diagnosis of a major depressive episode. Mr Sapsford: So that as at March of 2006 the only illness suffered by Ms Smith was the adjustment disorder. Is that right? Dr Lockwood: Yes. Prior to the - - - - Mr Sapsford: - - - - I mean psychiatric? Dr Lockwood: Yes. Prior - prior to the - to the fretful experience of - in March 2006 she had an adjustment disorder.".

Immediately after the above exchange, and somewhat inconsistently with her earlier answer, Dr Lockwood responded positively to a proposition put to her in cross-examination by Counsel for the Appellant to the effect it was her evidence that prior to the stressful experiences in March 2006 the Appellant suffered from an adjustment disorder that subsequently developed further into a major depressive disorder (transcript p40). The witness also agreed with a proposition, said to have been the opinion given by Dr Steinberg, to the effect that the Appellant's adjustment disorder with anxious mood began in the workplace as a result of her perceived bullying and intimidation by the other worker and then was made worse by the FOI application and further deteriorated due to her fear that the other worker would retaliate with further bullying due to the FOI application. She also agreed with a proposition put to her that the Appellant developed an adjustment disorder with anxious mood in response to the behaviour of the other worker in the workplace and that that condition was exacerbated by the confrontation at the FOI discussion on 22 March 2006 (transcript p40). Dr Lockwood also agreed with yet another proposition put to her to the effect it was her opinion that the Appellant had the adjustment disorder prior to the FOI issues (transcript p41). In re-examination, Dr Lockwood was asked a series of further questions about when the adjustment disorder arose and when she diagnosed it as first occurring, as recorded in the following exchange (transcript p45-46):

"Mr Sapsford: Now, doctor, you've been asked questions in relation to your diagnosis of an adjustment disorder, and when you diagnosed that as first occurring, you can take it that the evidence of the appellant is that the events surrounding the FOI application occurred in March 2006. Did the appellant - did Ms Smith have an adjustment disorder prior to that time?


Dr Lockwood: Well, would you give me a moment just to refer to my notes? Mr Sapsford: Certainly? Dr Lockwood: According to my notes - on page 7 in particular - started talking about Dorothy developing what she described as a toxic environment, and said she felt as though she was coping, although was feeling subjectively stressed prior to taking holidays in March 2006. You see, in fact, in my progress notes, she described that she was feeling quite anxious during this period, the end of 2005 until early-2006, and - it is very hard to retrospectively make a diagnosis, whether or not she was simply anxious or developing an adjustment disorder or whether at this point in time she had a diagnosable adjustment disorder - I cannot (say) with absolute certainty. What I can say is that she was having psychiatric symptoms, according to her own account, at the end of 2007 or towards the end of 2007. Mr Sapsford: 2005, do you mean, doctor? Dr Lockwood: 2005 - yes, sorry. I apologise. 2005 - the latter part until before March 2006. Mr Sapsford: All right. Given your evidence that you've said to my learned friend in examination, are you able to say whether at that stage - given she was still working - whether that comprised a clinically significant disorder? Dr Lockwood: It would - if she'd had a serious major depressive episode, then I would say she has that. Because she was working, I do not believe that we could diagnose her - a serious major depressive disorder at that time. Nor did she have the symptoms to allow that. It is certainly possible that people can work whilst they are having (an) adjustment disorder or a mild psychiatric disorder. Mr Sapsford: I see. Do the entries that you have been referred to in relation to Ms Smith seeing her general practitioner - is there anything to be made of the fact that there are only two you've been referred to, and they date - the first on, 29 September '05, and the second one is 15th of February '06 with no entries in between? Dr Lockwood: I think with the information you've given me, I can't really interpret that. It may be that she's not somebody who attends the doctor very often, or she may be reluctant to attend doctors, or she may have been going to other doctors. In my experience, a lot of people who are going through periods of stress tend not to present until they reach points of feeling that they can't cope. So I don't think I can interpret that - the period of time between the consultations - - - - Mr Sapsford: - - - - Are you saying either way, or - - - - ? Dr Lockwood: - - - - I can't interpret it either way.".

Evidence - Written Materials The "Clarke Report" (tendered by the Appellant) This Exhibit (Exhibit 13) is a heavily edited document apparently obtained by the Appellant pursuant to an FOI application. Whilst there are many pages which appear to relate to interviews with various staff members of AFCOM, as well as other material, the vast bulk of that material is "blacked out". Further, apart from some references by the Appellant to the other worker, the names of other staff members (except management representatives) have also been blacked out. Nonetheless, the introductory pages of the report still contain sufficient information and detail to allow a reader to comprehend the nature of the task undertaken by Mr Clarke as well as his broad "findings" and recommendations. In dot point form, the report contains the following relevant information and comments by Mr Clarke:

• At a staff meeting on 22 November 2004 it was brought to the attention of Mr Wood, by the HRO, that a number of AFCOM staff members had concerns that elements of harassment, bullying and intimidation were being used against them by other staff members.

• Details of the allegations were kept confidential. However the HRO assured Mr Wood that action had been put in place to counsel the staff members concerned about how to prevent this behaviour.

• At that time, persons in the work area were provided with literature packages on harassment and bullying to highlight and rectify the problem.

• In addition, Mr Wood sent an email to all team leaders requesting them to ensure their respective teams practiced proper interpersonal behaviour and approached colleagues in an amicable and professional manner. Team leaders


were directed to take all necessary action to ensure that staff adhered to the QAS Code of Conduct and agreed ethical behaviour.

• On 15 June 2005, following reports to Mr Wood of continuing problems, Corporate Success Group, through Mr Clarke, was given a contract to review all allegations of harassment, intimidation and bullying (HIB) which were suggested to exist at AFCOM.

• On 22 June 2005 Mr Wood circulated another memorandum to team leaders alerting them to the fact that he had received further complaints in recent weeks and reminding them of his previous communication and their obligations as team leaders.

• The same memorandum was addressed to all AFCOM staff and advised them that Mr Wood had gained authority to conduct an external review aimed at ascertaining the underlying causes of the complaints. Was it a case of young staff members not being prepared for the AFCOM environment with all the normal personal interactions under stressful conditions? Or was it an issue of deeper significance involving elements of unacceptable behaviour that needed to be addressed?

• The memorandum asked staff to embrace the review and invited them to contact Mr Clarke on a given telephone number to arrange a time and place for interview.

• Between 22 June 2005 and 6 July 2005 Mr Clarke was contacted by a number of current and ex-staff members and conducted interviews at AFCOM, QAS stations and private homes. In all, 30 staff members had their comments and concerns recorded in summaries. Of these 30 persons, 25 said they had experienced harassment, bullying or intimidation in some form or another, either to themselves or by witnessing it being directed to others. The remaining persons categorically denied having seen or heard any sign of HIB.

• Mr Clarke detected a definite resistance to making complaints by some staff members. When questioned about this, 8 interviewees indicated they were concerned about reprisals for speaking out, including from management.

• One particular staff member was identified as the source of the behaviour complained about in 18 of the interviews.

• CCS Duffield, in her role as HRO, received 7 separate complaints between 12 August 2004 and 2 March 2005, which were confidentially dealt with by her. It is not known what the outcomes of these specific complaints were.

• Ms Tipping was engaged on a contract for a period of 12 months in a human resources role and was ensconced with the AFCOM staff to, inter alia, assist to address any issues of HIB, perceived or otherwise. At the beginning of 2005 Ms Tipping prepared a review of an earlier "Hill Report". Her review noted the vast majority of the Hill Report recommendations had been implemented, or at least had been partially acted upon. "The obvious outstanding element of the recommendations is that which refers to the relationship issues between staff" which was marked by Ms Tipping as "ongoing work advised".

• When Ms Tipping's review is studied "it is obvious that whilst a great deal of work has been done" it appears that HIB "remains a serious concern for a large percentage of the AFCOM staff.".

• "The HIB behaviour is not always overt and definitive, but more inclined to be a continuum of snide, aggressive remarks over a period of time, which wears the receiver down and causes stress and unease.".

• "As the vast majority of the alleged perpetrators of the bad behaviour appear to belong to one particular 'team', it is obvious that one particular Team Leader is not complying with Roles and Responsibilities.".

• "There appears to be a history of sullen avoidance of the issues of HIB at AFCOM and an unspoken hesitancy to confront them and name the persons responsible.".

• "There is evidence that some members are reduced to feeling ill, depressed or stressed when dealing with these people. Others will refuse to work on the same 'line', even at the expense of losing overtime payments.".

• "Having completed the interviews in this review, the author of this report can categorically state that on occasions the work atmosphere within the AFCOM is so 'toxic' that a tragic outcome is a very real possibility. …The author has personal experience of working in a busy communications centre. It is sincerely believed that if the reported behaviour is allowed to continue unabated, there exists the distinct possibility that tragic consequences will occur; either within or without the AFCOM confines. The emotional, political, industrial and/or financial outcomes could be very serious.".

• "The recommendation for correcting this issue of HIB at AFCOM is clear and direct. Having demonstrated that they have no intention of curbing their behaviour towards their colleagues, the clear perpetrators should be removed from the AFCOM environment.".

Under the heading "Recommendations" Mr Clarke concluded:

"It is recommended that the suggested options should be considered and one or possibly more of them used as a solution, depending on the administration's considered severity of the issue. OPTION 1. No action. Do nothing and retain the status quo. Not a serious option and not recommended. OPTION 2. (Section not reproduced in FOI copy of Report tendered in these proceedings) OPTION 3. Administrative Solution (a)


Split up the 'team' permanently by placing the three members in separate teams.

Comment (i) This has been done previously. However, through various methods they have re-joined again.

Comment (ii) There is the difficult aspect that initially other teams may not want to accommodate the members; afraid of 'spreading the poison' (as one member phrased it). This would have to be overcome by strong management and convincing the members of the long term benefits of such a move.

Administrative Solution (b)

Write performance and behavioural agreements for ALL staff to sign, with the understanding that any further serious breaches will result in instant referral for dismissal; and enforce such action.

Comment (i) At least one of the alleged perpetrators have an historical penchant for creating a 'victim

mentality' and may use this method to make early complaint on the slightest of excuses. OPTION 4. Disciplinary Action.

A disciplinary investigation to be undertaken with a view to ascertaining if sufficient evidence exists to formulate charges.".

Importantly, Mr Clarke made one important qualification about the methodology he had adopted in undertaking the review, as follows: "EXCLUSION

If during this review, a staff member was identified as an alleged perpetrator of bad behaviour any interviews with those people have been postponed, as such interviews may have to be conducted out of the arena of 'review interviews'. ..."

Accordingly, none of the allegations made by individual AFCOM workers to Mr Clarke was tested with any of the alleged perpetrators. It is unclear when Mr Clarke presented his written report to QAS management. However, it was the subject of a memorandum from the Executive Manager, Ethical Standards Unit (Mr Rosenthal) to the Assistant Commissioner, Brisbane Region QAS, on 5 August 2005. In that memorandum Mr Rosenthal referred to Mr Clarke's report and notes that "the report identifies inappropriate conduct by certain members of AFCOM, which could be interpreted as workplace harassment… The report does not supply any degree of specificity to take disciplinary action against any individual. However, the information in the report clearly puts the QAS 'on notice' that inappropriate actions have and continue to cause angst among a number of employees… .". Mr Rosenthal noted that the report "found" that 5 staff, to varying degrees, were involved in behaviours such as:

• "Abuses co-workers • Exhibits aggressive behaviours towards co-workers • Is rude and aggressive and puts co-workers down • Uses intimidating behaviour towards co-workers • Mimics and ridicules co-workers • Treats 'call-takers' in a disparaging way • Makes snide, sarcastic remarks about co-workers • Makes derogatory remarks about co-workers • Yells at call-takers …".

However, it appears that these were examples of comments made by individual employees to Mr Clarke, rather than "findings" as such.

15 August, 2008 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 339 Mr Rosenthal also wrote "… (T)o protect the Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS) and the individuals named in the report a further investigation should be commenced into these allegations which if proved would amount to workplace harassment. …The investigation would seek to support or refute these allegations.". On behalf of ESU, Mr Rosenthal recommended to the Assistant Commissioner of QAS that a Mr Bryan Cook of Ashdale Integrity Solutions be appointed to look into the allegations that arose from the Clarke review and further recommended that the Assistant Commissioner sign an attached consultancy agreement and letter of appointment. This material was signed on 9 August 2005. The "Ashdale Report" (tendered by the Appellant) Like the Clarke review (above), the Ashdale Report was obtained by the Appellant pursuant to an FOI application and large parts of it are blacked out. However, substantial parts of the report, including an Executive Summary and, at various places, a series of Recommendations, still remain. In the "Background" to his report Mr Cook wrote:

"While Mr Clarke's report stated that there was behaviour at AFCOM that could be defined as 'workplace harassment', it did not provide any specificity about the behaviour. The matter was subsequently referred to Ashdale Integrity Solutions for an investigation to determine if there was sufficient information available to allow action to be taken, disciplinary or otherwise, against any of the individuals involved. A number of the complainants were re-interviewed by the author of this report in an attempt to gain more specific details about their complaints. This process was largely unsuccessful.".

Nonetheless, drawing on the information provided to Mr Clarke by AFCOM employees in the initial review, an additional complaint which was lodged with him, as well as the terms of reference provided to him by QAS, Mr Cook framed 10 specific allegations in relation to (it seems) 5 individual employees and considered whether the allegations constituted "workplace harassment" as defined in the Prevention of Workplace Harassment Advisory Standard 2004. The end result was that Mr Cook found each of the 10 allegations to be unsubstantiated. Despite reaching that conclusion, Mr Cook nonetheless made the following comments under the heading "Recommendations" at sections 1.4 and 8.0 of his report (p11-12 and p54-55 of Exhibit 14):

"Although each of the allegations of 'workplace harassment' against individual officers has been unsubstantiated, there is evidence of behaviours that did cause concern for the complainants and these behaviours should be brought to the attention of each of the subject officers. If these behaviours are allowed to continue in the workplace, then there is a risk that the subject officers will again be accused of 'workplace harassment' and further investigations may ensue. It is therefore recommended that:

• Management at AFCOM take whatever action (is) considered necessary, possibly including counselling, to ensure that individual officers are aware of the impact of their behaviours and that they must take responsibility for changing them.".

Mr Cook also made a number of other recommendations during the course of his report, which are summarised as follows:

• Review the training of new staff members in relation to the emergency call centre environment for currency and relevance.

• Expose new staff members to the role of dispatcher so that they better understand what is required of them as call takers.

• Require all staff members at AFCOM to undergo training in the provisions of the Prevention of Workplace Harassment Advisory Standard 2004.

• Undertake a complete review of the ergonomics, layout, internal communications systems and procedures at AFCOM.

• Fully debrief all AFCOM staff members about the general points of this investigation and make them aware that, where possible, they should attempt to address issues as they occur.

• Introduce a system of handling minor complaints and make all staff members aware of that process. • Provide specific training to supervisors in identifying and dealing with interpersonal problems that occur between

individuals under their supervision.

340 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 15 August, 2008 In relation to his recommendation that all staff members undergo training in the provisions of the Prevention of Workplace Harassment Advisory Standard 2004, Mr Cook recorded in his report (p12 and p55 of Exhibit 14) that:

"Not one of the staff members interviewed during this investigation had an awareness of the definitions or the requirements of the standard.".

While not making any specific recommendations into the issue, Mr Cook nonetheless made several observations under the heading "Workplace culture" (p14 of Exhibit 14) which are worthwhile to reproduce, as follows: "Workplace culture

While the allegations against individuals in this report have been unsubstantiated, there appears to be a workplace culture that could lead to 'workplace harassment'. There is evidence to suggest that Dispatchers sometimes have to make several requests for information from Call-Takers and, in some cases, the Call-Takers are interpreting these questions as criticism of their work. Some of the subject officers admitted that their 'assertiveness' could be mistaken for aggression and intimidation. Failure to change this culture may cause further distress in the workplace, particularly to sensitive individuals. While previous recommendations will address some of the systemic issues that have caused this culture to develop, the issue also needs to be addressed and highlighted with staff members to make them aware of how their own behaviour can effect others.".

There is nothing in the report to confirm the precise timeline associated with Mr Cook's investigation. However, it is safe to assume that it was started sometime after the letter of appointment was signed on 9 August 2005 and completed on or around the date Mr Cook signed the report, namely 22 February 2006. Findings Date of Decompensation After considering all of the evidence in these proceedings I have concluded that the Appellant decompensated between the date she went on Annual Leave, namely 10 March 2006, and the date she was due to return to work, namely 27 March 2006, rather than on 16 February 2006 as proposed by her Counsel. I arrive at this conclusion for a number of reasons. Firstly, the Appellant herself concedes that up until 10 March 2006 she was, to all intents and purposes, functioning just the same at work (transcript p75) and despite her concerns about the behaviour of the other worker that issue hadn't caused her enough consternation to go back and see Dr Steinberg (transcript p73). Further, the Appellant stated that while she had taken 2 days off work in February, because she was so stressed she felt she couldn't take 000 calls, she was otherwise able to cope with such tasks and anything else that had to be dealt with, but her stress levels were "absolutely tipped over the edge when the FOI application came in and then when I felt as though we were getting absolutely no help at the (22 March 2006) meeting…" (transcript p75). Secondly, 27 March 2006 was the date Dr Thorne first issued the Appellant with a Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate which recorded that she was suffering from a condition diagnosed as "Anxiety and Panic Disorder" which was said to have been caused by work stress. This Certificate also showed the Appellant to be unfit for work between 27 March 2006 and 28 April 2006, inclusive. Additionally, Dr Thorne's report to WorkCover dated 11 April 2006 (Exhibit 7), read in full, makes it clear that whilst the Appellant's stress levels had been elevated for a few months, her anxiety "is directly attributable to the recent events that had occurred in the workplace - in particular it was the notification that Dorothy's co-worker being investigated for bullying was to have access to all reports made about her.". Thirdly, Dr Steinberg was very specific about the development of the Appellant's disorder (transcript p97) where he made it absolutely clear that whilst the Appellant's stress had been started in the context of the other worker's perceived behaviour towards her it was "exacerbated to the point of becoming a psychiatric disorder" after she found out there was a risk of the FOI material being viewed by the other worker. Later, (transcript p98) Dr Steinberg clarified the point further when he stated "(T)he reality of the situation was that there were the - there was the combination of the stress in the past and the letter and the meeting and in its entirety that contributed to the adjustment disorder with anxious mood… I see the situation as arising because of a combination of all the factors - those 3 factors that I've mentioned." (my emphasis). Fourthly, Dr Steinberg (transcript p93-95) described the receipt of the FOI letter of 10 March 2006 and the meeting of 22 March 2006 as a "tipping point" in respect of the Appellant's ability to work. He particularly mentioned the Appellant

15 August, 2008 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 341 becoming fearful of her notes (i.e. the interview with Mr Clarke) being viewed by the person she felt bullied by as the "tipping point that seems to have distanced her in relation to work.". Fifthly, Dr Steinberg indicated in re-examination that whilst a person could technically have a diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder which caused some dysfunction or disability and which did not necessarily prevent them from going to work, the Appellant's condition was sufficiently severe that it did stop her from working (transcript p100). This position was reached on 27 March 2006 when the Appellant was due to return to work from her Annual Leave. Sixthly, Dr Lockwood's written report of March 2007 (Exhibit 9), substantially based upon a lengthy interview with the Appellant around that same time, records (at p7-8) that whilst the Appellant was feeling increasingly subjectively stressed prior to taking holidays in March 2006 it was not until she discovered that the other worker had requested the Clarke Report under FOI that she "completely fell apart". Virtually identical comments were made at page 10 of the report where it was recorded that the Appellant's symptoms "dramatically worsened" after learning about the FOI request and she became "profoundly distressed" by hearing that the other worker was going to be, or had been given, statements or comments written by her in the reviews of the workplace and was fearful of the effect this would have on herself and other work colleagues. These comments suggest the Appellant was not suffering from a condition which prevented her from working right up until the time she went on Annual Leave at the beginning of March 2006. In accepting Dr Lockwood's evidence, immediately above, I have disregarded some of the responses she gave to Counsel for the Appellant during her cross-examination (see above). Those answers were in apparent contradiction of some of the earlier evidence she had given in examination-in-chief and were also inconsistent with the report she had written some 12 months previously. It appeared to me at the time, and more so from reading the transcript subsequently, that Dr Lockwood was simply confused by questions which contained multiple elements. Her answers appear to relate to one or more of the elements addressed in a particular question, not the question when viewed in its entirety. On one occasion she even started to answer a question she thought had been asked before realising that and directly answering the question asked of her. This was when she started to respond to a question asked by Mr Sapsford about the nature of the (psychiatric) illness suffered by the Appellant in March 2006. Although her answer to the question is recorded as "Yes. Prior - prior to the - to the fretful experience of - in March 2006 she had an adjustment disorder.", her actual answer to the question was "In March 2006 she had an adjustment disorder.". In any event, Dr Steinberg was the best placed of all of the medical practitioners to give evidence about the Appellant's psychological condition at the relevant time. It appears he first saw her in mid-April 2006, again in early May 2006 and a number of times subsequently at regular intervals. It was not until March 2007, some 12 months after the event, that Dr Lockwood interviewed the Appellant and read the various case notes. Further, Dr Lockwood was careful to indicate that she had not made a diagnosis of the Appellant at the time and said it was very hard to make a diagnosis retrospectively (transcript p45) but did venture a view, when asked (see immediately above), that the Appellant had the adjustment disorder in March 2006. Her evidence also seemed to focus on the further development of the Appellant's condition, into a depressive disorder, rather than the earlier condition of Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood. In reaching the above conclusion about the date of the Appellant's decompensation I have rejected the evidence of Dr Thorne to the effect she believed the Appellant was suffering from the same condition on 16 February 2006 as she was suffering on 27 March 2006. With respect to Dr Thorne, while there can be no doubt the Appellant was suffering from stress in both February and March 2006, Dr Thorne is not qualified to diagnose any psychiatric condition. Further, the amount of time off work granted by the 2 Medical Certificates (of 16 February and 27 March 2006, respectively) does not suggest the Appellant's condition was the same. On the second visit, the Appellant's condition was clearly worse than it had been on the first occasion. In addition, Dr Thorne's report to WorkCover of 11 April 2006, states that the decompensation was "directly attributable to the recent events in the workplace - in particular it was the notification that Dorothy's co-worker being investigated for bullying was to have access to all reports made about her.". Nature of Injury Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Appellant's psychiatric condition was an aggravation injury in the sense that her adjustment disorder, which she had by at least 16 February 2006, was made worse by the FOI events in March 2006. Counsel went on to submit that if the Commission accepted this argument, then it followed that the FOI events of March 2006 were irrelevant for the purposes of s. 32(5) of the Act because the Appellant was already suffering from her psychological disorder by that time. However, such submission is not supported by the evidence, particularly that referred to immediately above. Dr Steinberg was very clearly of the view that the Appellant's psychological condition of Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood occurred as a result of the combination of the stress in the workplace in the past and the FOI letter of 10 March 2006 and the meeting at Nathan on 22 March 2006. He also very clearly stated that while the Appellant's stress had

342 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 15 August, 2008 been started in the context of the other worker's perceived behaviour towards her, it was exacerbated to the point of becoming a psychiatric disorder after she found out there was a risk of the FOI material being viewed by the other worker. Dr Lockwood was also very clearly of the view that the condition the Appellant was suffering in March 2006 was a new condition, and was unrelated to any previous condition, including the depressive condition she developed in 1998 and for which she was being treated until approximately 2003. Given the clear medical evidence, above, I conclude that the nature of the injury to the Appellant was a psychological or psychiatric injury diagnosed as Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood. This was a new injury which caused the Appellant to decompensate sometime between the day she commenced Annual Leave, namely 10 March 2006, and the date of her scheduled return from that leave, namely 27 March 2006. The Cause(s) of the Decompensation The Appellant's Application for Compensation dated 28 March 2006 (see above), records it was her view at that time that her injury happened at 1500 hours on 22 March 2006 (the time and date of the meeting at Nathan Ambulance Station) and that it did not happen over a period of time. By March 2007, when she was interviewed by Dr Lockwood, the emphasis which the Appellant placed on the various events which caused her decompensation had changed somewhat to now include reference to the stresses which she had experienced at work. However, Dr Lockwood still concluded, under the topic "Symptom Course" (p10 of Exhibit 9), that in late 2005 the Appellant started to become mildly subjectively stressed which become noticeable in early 2006. Dr Lockwood also recorded the Appellant informed her that after finding out about the FOI request her symptoms dramatically worsened. This suggests the Appellant's condition progressively worsened over time and that her ultimate decompensation was linked to the FOI events. By the time of the trial, some 2 years later, the focus of the Appellant had changed considerably. Even allowing for the fact she was simply responding to questions put to her by her Counsel, it was clear she placed greater emphasis on the events in the workplace, rather than the receipt of the FOI letter or her attendance at the meeting on 22 March 2006, as being the major cause, if not the cause, of the development of her psychological condition and eventual decompensation. However, as noted above, Dr Steinberg was firmly of the view that it was the combination of the stress in the workplace in the past and the FOI letter of 10 March 2006 and the events of the meeting on 22 March 2006 that contributed to the development of the Appellant's Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood. Dr Steinberg was not prepared to separate the events, repeatedly stating that it was the combination of the 3 factors that had contributed to the development of the Appellant's disorder. Nothing which Dr Lockwood said detracted from Dr Steinberg's diagnosis. Rather, it seemed to confirm its accuracy. Given this clear and unambiguous evidence I conclude that the Appellant developed her condition of Adjustment Disorder with Anxious Mood as a result of the combination of the 3 factors mentioned by Dr Steinberg, with each factor having near equal weight in the development of her condition. Accordingly, it is necessary to consider each of the 3 elements related to the Appellant's decompensation, in turn, to consider the nature of the management action (or inaction, as the case may be) involved, and determine whether such management action was reasonable management action reasonably taken, or otherwise. Because of the way the case was argued, it is also necessary to look at the reasonableness of the management action by Mr Rosenthal in not responding to the Appellant's email of 23 March 2006 until 29 March 2006. (a) Management's failure to address alleged workplace bullying, intimidation and harassment Evidence led by, and on behalf of, the Appellant suggests a number of complaints were made about the behaviour and mannerisms of the other worker from as far back as 1999 or 2000. There is also a claim that the management of QAS undertook some investigation around that time, through a Mr Britton, but the nature and extent of that "investigation" has not been revealed. Accordingly, it would be pure speculation to conclude that the work undertaken by Mr Britton was related to the alleged complaints being made about the other worker, or other inappropriate behaviours in the room. In any event, even after that alleged investigation in or around 2000, evidence about complaints lodged and management action or inaction in respect of them between 2000 and 2004 was very limited. Ms Rowell could only cite one complaint she had made, some 5 or 6 years ago, and only reluctantly revealed, under cross-examination, that that complaint had been acted upon. Mr Ingham said that he had made a complaint about the other worker's behaviour in 2001 but did not indicate how that complaint had been handled. Ms Choppy, who commenced at AFCOM in May 2002, said she had been yelled at by the other worker while still undergoing training, and witnessed inappropriate behaviours by the other worker after that, but had never made any complaint to management during the entire period of her employment. This included a period where she was a Priority One Counsellor from approximately 2005.

15 August, 2008 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 343 The Appellant also gave 3 examples of the way that the other worker's behaviour was alleged to have affected other AFCOM employees and how witnessing that behaviour, and the effect it was having on those other employees, was, in turn, affecting her. However, there is no evidence to suggest that any of the employees who were allegedly affected by the other worker's behaviour towards them complained to management about that behaviour. Similarly, there is no suggestion (other than several instances which I deal with immediately below) that the Appellant drew to management's attention the alleged effect the other worker's behaviour was having on her or on the employees whose cases were cited, as examples, by the Appellant. The Appellant claimed she "constantly" complained to supervisors about the behaviour of the other worker but, apart from a brief mention of having spoken to a Ms Duffield, a supervisor and HRO, no specific examples or details of any such complaints were given, the exception being the "complaint" made to Ms Tipping in October 2004 (see above). The Appellant also, in a general way, suggested her complaints were not acted upon. Information contained in the Clarke Report, however, suggests that a number of complaints were made to management at or around this same time (October 2004) by a number of AFCOM staff members who had concerns about harassment, bullying and intimidation in the workplace. Mr Clarke reports that such matters were brought to Mr Wood's attention, by the HRO, at a staff meeting on 22 November 2004. Whilst the details of the allegations were kept confidential by the HRO, that person, nonetheless, assured Mr Wood that action had been put in place to counsel the staff members concerned about how to prevent the behaviour. Mr Clarke's report also records that people in the immediate work area were provided with literature packages on harassment and bullying, in addition to which Mr Wood sent an email to all team leaders requesting them to ensure their respective teams practised proper interpersonal behaviour and approached colleagues in an amicable and professional manner. This shows that management did act to address issues such as those the Appellant had complained about within a month of her making her "complaint" to Ms Tipping. Although the Appellant generally claimed that the other worker's behaviour did not alter after she made the "complaint" to Ms Tipping in October, there was no evidence from her, or anyone else, to suggest that any other complaints were made to management to the effect that its efforts in November 2004 to address harassment, bullying and intimidation in the room had failed. However, the Clarke Report records that Ms Duffield, a HRO, received 7 complaints between 12 August 2004 and 2 March 2005 which were confidentially dealt with by her. The Report doesn't say who was involved, or the circumstances surrounding the complaints, but records that each of the complaints was dealt with by Ms Duffield. The accuracy of this information was not challenged. The Clarke Report also records that after Mr Wood continued to hear reports of continuing concerns about behaviours in the workplace, he acted on or about 15 June 2005, to engage Mr Clarke to review the nature of the allegations of inappropriate behaviours. At about the same time, Mr Wood circulated another memorandum to team leaders which informed them of the fact he had received further complaints in recent weeks about inappropriate behaviours and reminded them of their obligations as team leaders to address such issues amongst their teams. He also wrote a memorandum to all AFCOM staff informing them he had received reports of ongoing problems and alerting staff to the fact he had engaged Mr Clarke to investigate the nature, and cause, of the complaints. He also encouraged all staff to talk to Mr Clarke. Counsel for the Appellant suggested, in questions put to witnesses for the Respondent, as well as in his written submissions, that QAS had been "put on notice" as to the "distinct possibility that tragic consequences will occur, either within or without the AFCOM confines" by Mr Clarke's findings. He suggested that QAS's failure to respond to the recommendations made by Mr Clarke, particularly his comment that the "clear perpetrators should be removed from the AFCOM environment", meant that the Appellant continued to be exposed to the inappropriate behaviours of the other worker from that time (approximately late July or early August 2005) until she decompensated in February (or March ) 2006. The assumption behind the questions put to the witnesses for the Respondent was that there was sufficient information in the Clarke Report to act on Mr Clarke's comment to the effect that the perpetrators should be removed from the AFCOM environment. However, I agree with Mr Wood that the Clarke Report contained insufficient information and detail to allow QAS to act to remove any of the individuals named in the Report from the room and/or take decisive steps to have the persons against whom complaints were made to act to address the behaviours complained of. This is for four reasons. Firstly, none of the allegations had been tested with the alleged perpetrators. As such, the information in the Clarke Report was purely a one-sided version of the events. It also involved (on what can be gleaned from Mr Rosenthal's memorandum of 5 August 2005) a lot of hearsay, rumour, innuendo and gossip. Secondly, if the management of QAS had approached any of the alleged perpetrators at that time and raised the allegations with them, the first response of those persons would have been "who?, what?, where?, when?, how?". Rather than being able to address the concerns of those who had spoken to Mr Clarke, any action by QAS management at that time had the potential to cause more conflict than already apparently existed and make it more difficult for management to address the types of concerns identified by Mr Clarke.

344 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 15 August, 2008 Thirdly, Mr Clarke had only been engaged to ascertain the nature of the underlying causes of the complaints and establish whether they related to normal personal interactions under stressful conditions or whether they involved elements of unacceptable behaviour that needed to be addressed. He established that they involved the latter but, arguably, drew a number of conclusions he was not entitled to draw based upon the one-sided nature of his conversations and the clear lack of detail associated with the allegations. Importantly, Mr Clarke also identified that the behaviour complained of was not always overt and definitive but more inclined to be a continuum of snide, aggressive remarks over a period of time which wore the receivers down and caused stress and unease. He also found that there was an unspoken hesitancy to confront the alleged perpetrators and name the persons responsible. In my view, management was entitled to act upon these comments, and the non-specific nature of the allegations, to conclude it had insufficient information, at that time, to immediately attack the issue and confront the alleged perpetrators. Management was also entitled to be concerned about whether the behaviours complained of constituted harassment, intimidation and bullying or whether they constituted inappropriate behaviour which the alleged perpetrators might, or might not, have been aware of. There was also a need to gain more specific information about the behaviours complained of so that specific examples could be raised with the alleged perpetrators if management was to attempt to rectify the situation. Finally, QAS was required to provide natural justice to the alleged perpetrators. That involved a clear requirement to put specific allegations and/or detail to those persons so that they could provide appropriate responses. Asking someone to respond to allegations, for example, that they "exhibit aggressive behaviours towards co-workers" or "make snide, sarcastic remarks about co-workers", in the absence of clear examples, wouldn't have progressed the matter very far. As a consequence of these types of considerations, QAS management, in my view, took the only reasonable path available to it at that time, namely to commission a second investigation to get actual examples of the behaviours complained of so that specific action could be taken to address the situation. In this respect, management acted very quickly to consider the information contained in the Clarke Report and to engage Mr Cook of Ashdale Integrity Solutions to conduct a more detailed examination. However, as recorded in his report, Mr Cook's attempts to gain more specific information about the nature of the complaints was largely unsuccessful. Why this is the case is not reported. It could be because the complainants were unable to provide more specific details about their complaints (see page 2 of Exhibit 14) or it might have been because people who had originally spoken to Mr Clarke, such as the Appellant, declined to be interviewed by Mr Cook. In any event, Mr Cook's inability to gain more detail about the behaviours complained of, in independent one-on-one interviews, merely serves to highlight the difficulties QAS management would have encountered had they tried to attack the issue head on with the alleged perpetrators after Mr Clarke handed over his report in, it seems, July 2005. In this respect, Mr Wood was quite correct when he observed that management would be just "shooting into the breeze" if it did not have reliable information upon which to act. This point is highlighted in the (heavily edited) report of Mr Cook. He appears to have raised a number of allegations with the alleged perpetrators and notes, at times, that the information lacked any specific detail and that many of the allegations were denied by the perpetrators whilst, at other times, the responses provided by the alleged perpetrators seemed quite reasonable in the circumstances. In relation to one particular case, the alleged perpetrator denied that she was aggressive, as alleged, and indicated that her assertiveness might be taken for aggression. In the end result, Mr Wood established that none of the allegations he had framed constituted workplace harassment as defined in the Prevention of Workplace Harassment Advisory Standard 2004. Although it appears to have taken Mr Cook from August 2005 until February 2006 to undertake his investigation and write up the results, there is no suggestion anywhere in the evidence that any additional, or particular, complaints were made during this time about the behaviours of the other worker, or about other employees whose behaviour had been identified by Mr Clarke to be of concern. Accordingly, it cannot be concluded that management failed to act on any additional information brought to its attention during this 6 month period. However, when Mr Cook's report was finally received, sometime around late February 2006, it is clear that QAS management did take prompt and decisive action to confront the alleged perpetrators to draw to their attention the effect their behaviour was having on other AFCOM employees and to get them to sign performance agreements. However, it appears that management's attempts to address this issue with the alleged main perpetrator (i.e. the other worker) resulted in the lodgement of an appeal, the result of which was that the decision to introduce a management plan for that person was overturned. This serves to further emphasise the difficult task that management faced in its attempt to address the alleged inappropriate behaviours of the other worker in the absence of clear and detailed examples of the behaviour alleged to be of concern. My overall impression of the evidence in relation to the alleged intimidation, harassment and bullying in the room was that whilst employees frequently spoke amongst themselves about their concerns that the behaviours of some employees in the room was unacceptable, very little of that concern permeated through to management by way of complaint. When QAS

15 August, 2008 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 345 management was informed, through the persona of Mr Wood, it did start to address the issue in what I regard as a reasonable manner. The initial series of concerns about inappropriate behaviour, which appear to have surfaced in the several months prior to November 2004, were reasonably non-specific and were also quite subjective (see for example, the information contained in Ms Tipping's diary note, about the Appellant's complaint, p86 of Exhibit 13). Management also arranged for staff to be distributed with information kits on how to recognise and deal with issues like harassment and bullying in the workplace. Supervisors were also instructed to address such issues with their team members. Further, it is clear that at some stage, but it is not known when, management created at least one role for a Harassment Referral Officer who, it seems from the material, was given the task of confidentially dealing with issues brought to her attention. It is not known whether this was a specific initiative in late 2004, or sometime previously, but it does demonstrate that management was taking some steps to put in place appropriate mechanisms to enable staff to raise concerns and have those concerns confidentially dealt with. Mr Clarke records that 7 such complaints were dealt with in the period between August 2004 and March 2005 by Ms Duffield, in her role as a HRO. Mr Clarke also reported that Ms Tipping was specifically engaged on a contract for a period of 12 months to assist with addressing any issues of harassment, bullying and intimidation but does not state when this contract commenced or ended. Nonetheless it is clear that Ms Tipping was at QAS in October 2004, when the Appellant made her "complaint", up to at least early 2005, when she prepared a review of an earlier "Hill Report" (unfortunately, Mr Clarke did not state when this document was prepared and what it was about). When further complaints came to his attention, Mr Wood arranged, with the approval of more senior QAS management, to engage Mr Clarke to undertake a review to establish the precise nature of the complaints so that management could consider its options. When it was established by Mr Clarke that the complaints were related to inappropriate workplace behaviours, not interpersonal difficulties created by the close working environment, QAS management acted promptly to engage Mr Cook of Ashdale Integrity Solutions to gather specific detail about the allegations so that the matter could be addressed. Notwithstanding that his was the second detailed investigation in a short period of time Mr Cook, like Mr Clarke before him, was also unable to gather sufficient detail from those who had concerns about the behaviour of the other worker, and other employees in the room, to enable any disciplinary action to be taken. After the Ashdale Report was received (it was completed on or about 22 February 2006), steps were taken by management to confront the alleged perpetrators about their alleged behaviour in an attempt to have them correct that behaviour. It appears that management's efforts were successful with 4 out of the 5 alleged perpetrators of the inappropriate behaviour. However, management's attempts to formally address the matter with the other worker, whose behaviour the Appellant particularly complained about, were unsuccessful. When management attempted to impose conditions and requirements on that person through a work performance agreement, that attempt was overturned after an Appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of QAS. Whilst there is scant information as to the ground(s) upon which the matter was overturned, I think it is fairly safe to assume it was because of a lack of detail to support management's decision. In any event, the reason why it was overturned is immaterial to these proceedings because those events appear to have occurred after the Appellant decompensated and ceased work. In the end result, I have concluded that the way that QAS management dealt with the issue of the alleged workplace bullying, intimidation and harassment was, in all of the circumstances, reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. In so deciding, I have also taken into account that the Appellant said it was not so much the other worker's behaviour towards herself that was her primary concern but, rather, the alleged effect that the other worker's behaviour was having on other workers and how witnessing both the behaviour and its alleged effect made her feel. Not one of these other workers was called to provide evidence of the alleged behaviour of the other worker or the affect it had on them. Having found that the management action in relation to the way it dealt with the alleged workplace bullying, intimidation and harassment was reasonable management action, taken in a reasonable way, that should be enough, applying the reasoning of Hall P in Q-COMP v Education Queensland (McArthur's case) 179 QGIG 491 as confirmed in Hohn's case (supra), to dispose of the Appeal. However, in the event my reading of those decisions is incorrect, or I am wrong in concluding that the way that QAS management dealt with the issue of harassment, bullying and intimidation at AFCOM did not involve reasonable management action, or if it did, it was not undertaken in a reasonable way, it is appropriate that I consider the nature of the management action as it relates to the other factors identified by Dr Steinberg as contributing to the Appellant's decompensation.

346 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 15 August, 2008 (b) The FOI letter It was generally argued by Counsel for the Appellant that the action of QAS management in sending the Appellant the FOI letter of 10 March 2006 to her home address, when she was on Annual Leave, was unreasonable. It was also submitted that several other matters associated with the sending of the FOI letter involved, or constituted, unreasonable management action, as follows:

1. there is an inference the Appellant was not warned by Mr Clarke that the information she gave would be recorded in a document which might subsequently be accessed by the other worker;

2. management had been warned in the Clarke Report of concerns held by staff members of reprisals for speaking out;

3. management had not previously ensured the interview notes and summary taken by Mr Clarke, attached to the FOI letter, were reviewed for accuracy by the Appellant before sending them with a letter "proposing" their release under FOI; and

4. the letter should not have been sent to the Appellant while she was on holiday. Rather, it was submitted, "a reasonable manager in the circumstances would have waited until she was on duty when she could be supported having regard to management's knowledge of the fear of reprisal amongst staff."

I deal with these various concerns about the nature of the management action, and its reasonableness, in turn. It might be the case that the Appellant was not warned by Mr Clarke that any information he attributed to her might, ultimately, be accessed under FOI by the other worker. However that omission (if indeed it be the case rather than a mere inference) ignores the relevant steps associated with the consideration of any FOI request. The FOI Act requires an employer, such as QAS, to consult a person who may have substantial concerns if that employer released material to an FOI applicant without consulting the affected person first. The author of the FOI letter also clearly recorded that the author considered that some of the documents applied for, if released, could reasonably be expected to be of concern to the Appellant and sought her views as to whether the documents should be released. Additionally, the FOI letter informed the Appellant that whilst the departmental FOI officer was obliged to make their own decision in relation to the request for release of the material, that officer, nonetheless, was still obliged to give her the opportunity to apply for a review if it was decided to release all or part of the material applied for. Accordingly, if there was an initial omission, there was ample opportunity provided to the Appellant to object to the material's release before it could ever find its way into the hands of the other worker. It is difficult to understand the nature of the second concern. It is the nature of public service enterprises that virtually any document or report produced by someone in its employ, or under contract, can be subject to an FOI application. If an application is made then it must be processed in accordance with the relevant provisions of the FOI Act, including the steps mentioned immediately above. In any event, the concern seems to assume that if the other worker was the person who applied for the Clarke Report, and the material contained in it, and that material was released to the other worker, then not only would the other worker actually take reprisals against the Appellant but that QAS would stand by and allow that to happen. Not only is it an unlikely event it is complete speculation. Thirdly, whilst it might be true that neither management nor Mr Clarke had previously ensured the interview notes and summary taken by him were reviewed for accuracy by the Appellant before sending them to her with a letter canvassing (as opposed to proposing) their release under FOI, the Appellant agreed during her evidence that the notes accurately recorded what she had told Mr Clarke. Accordingly, accuracy cannot be an issue. However, if the third concern had to do with the possible release of those notes to the person making the FOI application, then that objection is covered above. The fourth concern, like the second concern, seems to assume that management would have stood by and allowed the other worker to take some form of reprisal against the Appellant if she was granted access to the interview notes with Mr Clarke. Not only is it an unlikely event, it is also pure speculation. In my view, there was nothing inappropriate in sending the letter to the Appellant's home address, notwithstanding that she had commenced a period of Annual Leave on the same day as the date of the letter. There was also no need for any representative of management to be available to "support" the Appellant when she was informed about the FOI request. Management might have been alerted to the fact that a number of staff were concerned about reprisals, including from management, but they were not to know the Appellant might have been one of those people (if indeed she was). Further, management was entitled to believe that, even if staff were fearful about reprisals, it had the ability to support any such staff to ensure that no such reprisals occurred. In considering the Appellant's objections under this heading it is important to note that QAS management had no control over whether or not the other worker made an application under FOI for access to either the Clarke Report or the Ashdale Report. While there seems to be a link (I do not put it any higher than that) between the lodgement of the FOI application and the decision by QAS to approach the other worker after the Ashdale Report was handed down, there was always the

15 August, 2008 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 347 likelihood that management would need to talk to the other worker, at some point in time, if it was to attempt to deal with the types of concerns the Appellant claims she had been raising with her supervisors and other members of QAS management. Further, such application could have been made by the other worker prior to the time management spoke to her because she, together with all of the workers at AFCOM, had been made aware that Mr Clarke and Mr Cook, respectively, had been commissioned to undertake investigations into the behaviours at AFCOM. Accordingly, there could have been any number of stimuli for the other worker to lodge an FOI application. Further, once the FOI application was lodged, QAS was compelled, by virtue of the FOI Act, to commence a process of consultation with the persons who might have concerns about the release of any requested documents, to ascertain the views of those persons. Management could not reasonably have been expected to be aware that the Appellant would apply her own interpretations to the clear and unambiguous message contained in the FOI letter, nor that she would further speculate about the potential downstream reprisals against her (or other AFCOM employees) by the other worker, if the information requested under the FOI application was released. It was simply too far removed from what was likely to occur even if the information was released. "It is the reality of the employer's conduct and not the employee's perception of it which must be taken into account" (Prizeman v Q-COMP 180 QGIG 481), in deciding whether the relevant management action was reasonable. Given all of the above, I have concluded that the management action in relation to the preparation and sending of the FOI letter, including the summary notes of the Appellant's discussion with Mr Clarke in June 2005, to her home address was reasonable management action, reasonably taken. (c) The meeting of 22 March 2006 The first point to make about this meeting is that it was comprised of approximately 5 to 6 members of management and an equal number of employees from AFCOM. It was obviously a fairly small group and one is entitled to assume, and the evidence confirms this view, there was a fair opportunity for reasonable interaction between the various people in attendance with everyone having the opportunity to raise issues and have those issues addressed. It was certainly not a "town hall" type meeting where participants would have only been provided with limited opportunity to raise issues and have them addressed. The evidence from the Appellant, Ms Choppy, Mr Wood and Mr Rosenthal, respectively, leads me to conclude that the purpose of the meeting was two-fold. Firstly, it was to allow management to report on the progress of the Ashdale Report. Secondly, it was to allow staff to raise issues about the FOI request and to have those issues addressed. It is also clear that, prior to the meeting, several of the staff at AFCOM had seen something which they believed to be the Cook Report, or the Ashdale Report, in the possession of the other worker. Indeed, they believed she had deliberately "displayed" it by leaving it on the top of her bag at work. It is also clear that a number of AFCOM staff had discussed amongst themselves their belief they were going to be sued by the other worker in relation to what they had told Mr Clarke during the course of his investigation. It was against this background that the Appellant went into the meeting. Notwithstanding the terms of the FOI letter, which made it clear that none of the records of interview with Mr Clarke had been released to the other worker and that nothing would be until certain processes were gone through, the Appellant had, nonetheless, convinced herself that the other worker already had the material applied for as part of the Ashdale Report of which she was supposedly in possession. It was also because the Appellant had convinced herself that this was the actual scenario that she kept insisting, in particular to Mr Rosenthal, that he tell her what was included in that Report which related to her. Not surprisingly, Mr Rosenthal did not appreciate the nature of the Appellant's concerns (and nor should he have been expected to) nor why she particularly wanted to know what was in the material from the Ashdale Report which, by that time, had been presented to the other worker. In this respect, it is the reality of what was actually provided to the other worker which is important, not the Appellant's belief or perception of what had been provided based upon her own insecurities and the rumours, innuendo and gossip which had passed between various AFCOM employees. At this time, the Appellant had also convinced herself that the meeting was, essentially, a farce because she had come to the conclusion that management was canvassing the issue of the release of the interviews between staff and Mr Clarke in circumstances where it had already provided the other worker with a copy of the Ashdale Report, which included all those interviews. Again, as in the previous issue, it is a case of the reality of what was actually happening, rather than the Appellant's perceptions of events, that has to be looked at. Management had convened the meeting for 2 purposes. The first purpose was to provide a report on the nature of the investigations by Mr Clarke and Mr Cook, respectively, and to inform staff what management was doing as a result of the outcome of those investigations. The second purpose was to help staff to understand the nature of the FOI process in an attempt to allay certain concerns which had come to Mr Wood's attention.

348 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 15 August, 2008 Unfortunately, the evidence in relation to the first point is fairly limited. It seems that management informed staff they had received Mr Cook's report, without telling them what the ultimate findings were, and indicated that management had taken certain action as a result of that report and would be taking additional action in the future, without providing specific detail about what that action was going to be. Mr Rosenthal said, and I accept, that the Appellant became quite upset at this point and demanded to know what disciplinary action was going to be taken against the other worker. When he informed her that he was not going to talk about what action, if any, was going to be taken in respect of any particular employee the Appellant became even more upset. In my view, it was entirely appropriate for the management representatives at the meeting to inform the assembled staff they had received the final report from Mr Cook, of Ashdale Integrity Solutions, and that they intended to take action in respect of certain of the matters contained within that Report. There was no obligation upon them to inform staff about the detail of Mr Cook's finding or the matters he might have discussed. It was entirely sufficient for them to say they intended to act on elements of the Report but without going into too much detail. In particular, it would have been inappropriate for management to discuss with the AFCOM employees present at that meeting the nature of the action they intended to take, if any, in respect of any particular employee, or employees, who might have been adversely mentioned in Mr Cook's report. In relation to the second issue canvassed at the meeting, namely the FOI process, I am again satisfied that management approached the issue in a reasonable way and that the actions they took during the course of the meeting were appropriate. Staff were informed about the nature of the FOI process and the obligations which QAS management had under the FOI Act. They were also informed of the options they had, as individuals, if they objected to the release of their interview notes with Mr Clarke. They were also informed (see Mr Wood's evidence) that it was not an automatic outcome that if someone sought access to a particular document under FOI that that particular document would be released. Further, it is common ground that Mr Rosenthal made an offer that if anyone wished to talk to him further about any matter, including lodging an objection, then they could see him after the meeting or contact him at a subsequent time. Importantly, in the whole scheme of things, none of the notes from any of the staff interviews with Mr Clarke were released where any staff member objected to the release of those notes. Again, it is the reasonableness of the actions of management that has to be examined, not the employee's perception of those actions or the employee's perception of what would have been a reasonable approach for management to have taken during the course of the meeting. In summary, the steps taken by QAS management to:

• convene the meeting; • provide a brief report to the effect they had received Mr Cook's report and inform employees they intended to take

action in respect of certain matters in it (without going into details); • provide additional information about the FOI application to try to help the AFCOM staff members understand

more about the processes; and • offer to answer individual AFCOM employees' questions on a one-on-one basis

all constituted reasonable management action, taken in a reasonable way. I am also satisfied that QAS management conducted the meeting in a reasonable way. (d) The delay in responding to the Appellant's email of 23 March 2006 It is common ground that during the course of the meeting at Nathan on 22 March 2006 Mr Rosenthal made an offer to all of the AFCOM employees present that if any of them wished to make enquiries about any information concerning them, which may have been released to staff members who had been given access to the Ashdale Report, they could email him, or otherwise contact him, to request that information. It is also common ground that on the following day, Thursday 23 March 2006, the Appellant sent Mr Rosenthal an email (see above) asking him to provide her with a copy of those sections of the report relevant to her that had been provided to the recipients, with a special request that the information be provided in the same form in which it was presented to those recipients, in order that the Appellant could accurately assess the situation with regard to herself. She also sought to be informed about the differences if the information provided to her was not in the same form. The Appellant complained that part of the cause of her stress, and part of the circumstances leading to her decompensation, was that she had not received a reply to her email by the time she visited Dr Thorne on Monday 27 March 2006, nor by the time she completed her Application for Compensation on the following day. In this respect, it was argued by Counsel for the Appellant that Mr Rosenthal's delay in not responding to the Appellant's email, until Wednesday 29 March 2006, was unreasonable management action.

15 August, 2008 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 349 Counsel for the Appellant also put to Mr Rosenthal that he should have appreciated the urgency of the Appellant's request, and the need for a prompt reply, because of the Appellant's distress during the course of the 22 March 2006 meeting. However, the nature of the proposition put to Mr Rosenthal assumes he appreciated what was going on in the Appellant's mind, including her fear that she and other staff members might be sued, rather than what had actually happened at the meeting. As is clear from his evidence Mr Rosenthal thought the Appellant's distress, as exhibited at the meeting, was because of her concern that management had not done anything about the behaviours in the workplace and her concern that nothing would be done in the future. He attempted to address that concern at the meeting but could not have been expected to have been put on notice about anything else, other than the Appellant wanted to know what information might have been released. In my view, Mr Rosenthal's behaviour in respect of the Appellant's email involved reasonable management action, taken in a reasonable way. The Appellant had sought particular information and Mr Rosenthal was entitled to be given some reasonable time to gather this information and respond whilst still trying to manage his day to day responsibilities. Taking into account that a weekend intervened and that Mr Rosenthal had to establish, and verify, the nature of the information which might have been provided to the people to whom the Ashdale Report had been distributed (there was more than one person) it was not unreasonable for him to take until the following Wednesday, 29 March 2006, to reply. However, by that stage, the Appellant had already been to see her doctor and been issued with a Workers' Compensation Certificate. Even if Mr Rosenthal had replied a day earlier it would not have altered that fact. It is also speculative to draw any conclusions about what impact, if any, the provision of the information would have had on the Appellant had it been provided on 27 March 2006. That possibility was not canvassed with any of the medical practitioners and I can draw no conclusions about it. Summary and Conclusions The result of my consideration of the relevant management action in relation to the 3 factors identified by Dr Steinberg that combined to cause the Appellant's decompensation is that I have concluded that all of the management action in relation to those 3 factors involved reasonable management action, taken in a reasonable way. I have also found that the management action by Mr Rosenthal in taking until 29 March 2006 to reply to the Appellant's email of 23 March 2006 was reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. As such, the issue for my further consideration is whether the Appellant's psychiatric disorder is excluded from the definition of "injury" in s. 32 of the Act by the effect of s. 32(5). In McArthur's Case (supra) the Industrial Court held:

"The concern of s. 34(5) is to remove certain psychiatric and psychological disorders from the statutory definition of 'injury'. Where a situation arises in which s. 34(1) 'ropes in' a particular psychiatric or psychological disorder and s. 34(5) excludes the same psychiatric or psychological disorder, there is an inconsistency which because of the use of 'notwithstanding' must be resolved by allowing s. 34(5) to prevail.". (Section 34 is the predecessor of the current s. 32).

This statement was confirmed in Hohn's case (supra). Applying those precedents to this case, it appears that because the Appellant's decompensation was inextricably linked to the 3 factors identified by Dr Steinberg, then a finding that the management action in respect of any one of those 3 factors was reasonable management action, reasonably taken, would have been sufficient to bring the Appellant's psychological disorder within the exclusion at s. 32(5) of the Act. Accordingly, given my finding that all of the alleged factors associated with the Appellant's decompensation, including the delay in responding to the 23 March 2006 email, involved reasonable management action taken in a reasonably way, it follows that the Appellant's psychological disorder is excluded by the operation of s. 32(5) of the Act. For the foregoing reasons I dismiss the Appeal. I find that the Application for Review to Q-COMP lodged on 11 August 2006 is one for rejection and I therefore confirm the decision of WorkCover dated 21 June 2006 to reject Ms Smith's Application for Compensation. The Commission determines and orders accordingly. A.L. BLOOMFIELD, Deputy President.

350 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 15 August, 2008 Hearing Details: 2008 18, 19 & 20 March

14 April (Transcript Available) 22 April (Respondent's Submissions) 07 May (Appellant's Submissions) 14 May (Respondent's Submissions in Reply)

Appearances: Mr G. Rebetzke, instructed by Hall Payne Lawyers, for the Appellant. Mr S.P. Sapsford, directly instructed by the Respondent. Released: 5 August 2008

##################################################################################################


Industrial Relations Act 1999 - s. 287 - application for declaration of a general ruling - s. 288 - application for statement of policy

Queensland Council of Unions AND Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited, Industrial

Organisation of Employers and Others (B/2008/45);

The Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland AND Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited, Industrial Organisation of Employers and Others (B/2008/50)

VICE PRESIDENT LINNANE DEPUTY PRESIDENT SWAN COMMISSIONER FISHER

7 August 2008

STATE WAGE CASE 2008

DECISION

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. The Claims [1] 2. Outline of Responses to the Claims [8] 3. Recent Decisions in Other Jurisdictions [50] 4. International Economy [69] 5. Australian Economy [72] 6. Queensland Economy [88] 7. Wage Environment [121] 8. Social Factors [159] 9. Legislation [167] 10. Conclusion [168]

1. THE CLAIMS [1] On 5 June 2008 the Queensland Council of Unions (QCU) filed an application (B/2008/45) seeking a general ruling

pursuant to s. 287 of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 (Act) and a statement of policy pursuant to s. 288 of the Act in regard to the principles of wage fixation. The QCU amended that application on 13 June 2008 to seek the following:

• a $29.00 increase in award wage rates; • an increase in existing award allowances which relate to work or conditions which have not changed and service

increments by the equivalent percentage increase to that which the $29.00 wage adjustment bears to the C10 wage rate as it appears in the Engineering Award - State 2002 i.e. a 4.7% increase;

• a $29.00 increase in the level of the Queensland Minimum Wage as it applies to all employees; and • an operative date for the respective increases of 1 September 2008.

[2] The QCU submits, relying upon the Employee Earnings and Hours Survey by States and Australia - May 2004, that

the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) continues to maintain a relevant and sustaining role in determining wages and employment conditions for around 40% of Queensland workers. Since 1997, the manner in which award wage and allowance increases have been processed is by way of General Ruling with an operative date of 1 September in each year.

15 August, 2008 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 351 [3] Further, the QCU contends that s. 287(2) of the Act imposes an obligation on the Commission to ensure, at least

once in each calendar year, a General Ruling about the Queensland Minimum Wage for all employees. [4] The QCU submits that the increases sought in its amended application are consistent with maintaining the real value

of wages and would ensure that the parity created in the State Wage Case 2007 (2007) 185 QGIG 422 between the Western Australian and Queensland minimum award wage rates is retained.

[5] In arguing for the increases sought in the amended application, the QCU places reliance upon the cost of wages in

comparison to prices and then applies that percentage figure to determine the average increase using the Engineering Award - State 2002. Adopting this rationale would, in the QCU's submission, meet the Commission's legislative responsibility found in s. 3(f) of the Act of ensuring fair standards in relation to living standards prevailing in the community. In arriving at our decision, the Full Bench is mindful that the intent behind the current legislation is that awards are no longer to reflect a mere safety net of wages and conditions.

[6] In contending for the increases sought in its application, the QCU has referred the Full Bench to a number of matters

including recent decisions in other jurisdictions, the national and Queensland economies, the wage environment, social factors and legislative provisions all of which have been considered by the Full Bench and are matters which are dealt with in some detail in later sections of this decision.

[7] On 24 June 2008 The Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland (AWU) filed a similar application

(B/2008/50) to the QCU's amended application. By consent of all parties, the two applications were joined in preliminary proceedings held on 4 July 2008. The AWU supports and adopts the arguments advanced by the QCU in support of its claim.

2. OUTLINE OF RESPONSES TO THE CLAIMS

(i) Queensland Government [8] In response to the QCU and AWU applications, the Queensland Government proposes the following:

• a general ruling to provide a $23.00 a week increase to all State award rates of pay and the Queensland Minimum Wage;

• an increase of 3.7% to existing award allowances which relate to work or conditions which have not changed and to service increments; and

• an operative date of 1 September 2008. [9] The Queensland Government in supporting a $23.00 per week increase indicates that this amount is somewhat less

than the amount supported by the Government in the 2007 State Wage Case. It contends that the $23.00 is considered appropriate because while economic conditions in Queensland are still healthy and ahead of the rest of Australia by most indicators, the Queensland economy has slowed to some extent. The Queensland Government is also concerned about the inflationary risk of wage increases. The cost impact of $23.00 per week is considered to be responsible and affordable increasing total average earnings growth by between 0.10% and 0.14%. The impact on the private sector unincorporated businesses is estimated to be between 0.48% and 0.77%. This is the area where any decision of this Full Bench would apply.

[10] A $23.00 per week increase would result in a 4.35% increase to the Queensland Minimum Wage and it is submitted

this is comparable to increases in all other jurisdictions except for Western Australia where a 5.5% increase was granted.

[11] The Queensland Government supports the QCU position that economic growth in Queensland has outperformed the

Australian economy for the twelfth consecutive year and it is expected to expand over the next twelve months. The Wage Price Index (WPI) remains steady at 4.5% for the year. The Queensland economy and the labour market remain very strong and can easily absorb an increase to minimum wages of $23.00 per week.

[12] The Full Bench was referred by the Queensland Government to the legislative provisions which require us to ensure

that awards provide fair standards in relation to living standards of the community generally and it contends that we should therefore award a fair wage increase this year. We are reminded that awards are the primary source of income for low income earners and how the cost of petrol and housing has increased substantially in the last twelve months. These increases have impacted more heavily on low income earners who spend a greater proportion of their incomes on essential goods and services.

352 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 15 August, 2008 [13] The Queensland Government also points to the fact that female employees outnumber male employees in

unincorporated private sector businesses in Queensland and that they are far more reliant on award wages than males. Any reasonable wage increase will thus have a disproportionate effect on women, helping in some way to close the gender pay gap.

[14] It is further submitted that a $23.00 per week increase should have no quantifiable negative impact on employment

or unemployment in Queensland. Unemployment in Queensland has continued to decrease and is currently the lowest it has been in 34 years. Employment in the most award reliant industries has similarly not been adversely affected by increases granted by this Commission in the past decade and the Queensland Government is confident that the situation would be no different this year.

[15] Inflation is said to be the major economic risk factor facing the Queensland economy in 2008, however, the

Queensland Government submits that a $23.00 per week increase to the Queensland Minimum Wage and award rates will not contribute to an increase in inflation. It is expected that continued high productivity and profitability across the State, including the award reliant industries, will militate against it.

(ii) Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry

[16] The response of the Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited, Industrial Organisation of Employers

(QCCI) to the QCU and AWU claims is as follows:

• the QCCI does not object to a General Ruling being made; • it does not support a $29.00 per week wage adjustment for award employees, a $29.00 adjustment to the

Queensland Minimum Wage or a 4.7% adjustment to existing award allowances which relate to work or conditions which have not changed and to service increments;

• instead, the QCCI supports an increase of $15.00 per week for the Queensland Minimum Wage and award employees and a 2.5% increase to work related allowances and service increments; and

• support for an operative date of 1 September 2008.

[17] In support of its proposal, the QCCI submits that the Act requires the Commission to consider a number of factors when undertaking its functions including:

• ensuring economic advancement and social justice for all employers and employees: see s. 3(a) of the Act; • strong economic growth, high employment, employment security, improved living standards, low inflation and

national and international competitiveness: see s. 3(b) of the Act; • promoting the effective and efficient operation of enterprises and industries: see s. 3(f) of the Act; • ensuring wages and employment conditions provide fair standards in relation to living standards prevailing in

the community; and • s. 320(3) of the Act requiring the Commission to be governed in its decision by equity, good conscience and the

substantial merits of the case having retard to the interests of the persons immediately concerned and the community as a whole.

[18] It is the QCCI's position that the Commission is obligated to examine both the social and economic environment as a

whole in determining an appropriate wage increase which is fair and reasonable for employees and equally for employers. The QCCI submits that the legislation is directed to ensuring wages and living conditions represent fair standards for employees and fairness to employers.

[19] Whilst the Commission should consider increases arising out of enterprise bargaining, it should be remembered that

any increase resulting from this decision is granted without the trade-off to productivity and efficiency unlike the position with enterprise bargaining. Thus increases arising out of enterprise bargaining should not be considered as a determining factor in establishing fair wages.

[20] The QCCI submits that the result of these applications will not just flow to the low paid workers. Rather, they will

apply to all workers covered by industrial instruments. The Commission is required to support economic prosperity with respect to all workers and employers.

[21] The Full Bench was referred to the following factors, favoured by the Full Bench in State Wage Case 2007, as

factors to be considered when assessing these claims:

• the interests of employees; • the interests of employers;


• economic factors (such as strong economic growth, high unemployment etc); • improving living standards; • ensuring wages provide fair standards in relation to living standards prevailing in the community; and • ensuring equal remuneration for men and women employees for work of equal or comparable value.

[22] The QCU and AWU are seeking a flat $29.00 wage increase which, based on the C10 rate, equates to a 4.7%

increase. Prior to the decision in Western Australia the QCU was seeking only $27.00 per week increase. The application was only amended after the Western Australian decision. The QCCI submits that the Queensland economy did not improve in the period 5 June 2008 and 9 June 2008 i.e. the date of release of the Western Australian decision, thus the claim is not one based on what is fair and reasonable for Queenslanders but rather the claim is based on what was determined in Western Australia.

[23] Based on the Engineering Award - State 2002, the QCCI provides the following table to highlight the impact should

the minimum weekly wages sought by the QCU and AWU be granted:

Level Current weekly $ Plus $29 % increase

C14 528.40 557.40 5.5% C13 545.10 574.10 5.3% C12 567.60 596.60 5.1% C11 588.50 617.50 4.9% C10 622.20 651.20 4.7% C9 643.10 672.10 4.5% C8 663.80 692.80 4.4% C7 682.80 711.80 4.2% C6 724.50 753.50 4.0% C5 740.80 769.80 3.9% C4 766.20 795.20 3.8% C3 807.90 836.90 3.6%

C2 (a) 828.80 857.80 3.5% C2 (b) 866.50 895.50 3.4%

[24] According to the QCCI, percentage wage increases of more than 4% are not sustainable under the current economic

conditions. The QCCI supports the Queensland Government's position that the Queensland economy is not as strong as in previous years. The fact that the QCU and AWU are seeking an increase greater than the increase granted in 2007 shows that their claims are unreasonable and not sustainable under the current economic environment.

[25] The claims fail to take into account the recent tax relief introduced by the Australian Government which became

operative from 1 July 2008. The QCCI submits that this issue was reviewed in the Australian Fair Pay Commission (AFPC) 2008 decision where it was stated:

"As a result of these changes, the majority of employees receiving wages at or around the standard Federal Minimum Wage (FMW) will receive a tax cut equivalent to $8.65 per week. Pensioner single parents on the standard FMW (those with a youngest child under the age of 8) will receive a larger tax cut of almost $15 per week because their taxable income is higher due to their eligibility for a part-rate pension. At the level of 150 per cent of the standard FMW, the tax reduction will be just over $20 per week.".

[26] This followed the Australian Government's submission to the AFPC regarding tax relief:

"The Australian Government submission also highlights the continuing effect of current and future planned tax cuts on the disposable incomes of low wage earners. Over the three years from 2007-08 to 2010-11, the Low Income Tax Offset (LITO) will double from $750 to $1500. This change means that workers who earn less than $16 000 will pay no tax in 2010-11, compared with the current effective tax-free threshold of $11 000.".

[27] The QCCI also raises the point that as from 1 July 2008 higher superannuation contributions will be made by the

employer on behalf of employees given that there has been a change in the definition of "ordinary time earnings" under the Superannuation Guarantee legislation.

[28] The QCCI submits that the Full Bench must consider both the tax relief and the changes in superannuation laws

when considering these applications. [29] According to the QCCI, recruitment and retention of suitably qualified staff is currently the number one constraint

on business growth in Queensland. The second largest constraint is interest rates. The level of demand and


economic activity has increased to the fifth largest constraint on business. These, the QCCI submits, show the strong relationship between rising interest rates and its negative impact on the level of economic activity and demand. Businesses rank direct and indirect wage costs as the next largest constraints on growth. This, it is submitted, is of direct relevance in these applications.

[30] The QCCI strongly opposes the two applications on the basis that it would fuel inflation and inhibit economic

growth. Instead, the QCCI proposes that incomes of the lower paid be increased by a combination of the July 2008 tax cuts and a moderate wage increase of only $15.00 per week for low pay workers. This, it is said, would be the best way to minimise the risk of small and medium businesses funding wage increases by rising prices while still delivering a real income boost to the lower paid.

[31] The QCCI position on these two applications was developed after an in-depth survey of the impact of wage increases

on Queensland employment, average selling prices, profitability, investment and training expenditure. Based on that survey, the QCCI submits that they know that employers are comfortable with an increase of between $5.00 and $10.00 per week and are willing to absorb an increase of up to $15.00 per week before any negative impacts start to emerge. It is submitted that any increase in excess of $15.00 per week will cause Queensland businesses to significantly decrease their employment, investment and training expenditure levels and profitability will be eroded.

[32] It is, according to the QCCI, imperative that any wage increase not be at a level that would have an impact on

inflation. [33] The QCCI submits that granting an increase of $29.00 per week would result in an outcome that went beyond what

was fair and reasonable. Section 3(g) of the Act does not require the Commission to grant an increase which is in excess of community standards. Section 3 requires the Commission to provide 'fair standards', not award increases that will go beyond fair standards. The QCCI submits that it is not the role of this Commission to try to resolve the "poverty" issue. That is a matter for governments.

[34] The QCCI supports:

• the continuation of the current wage fixation principles subject to the necessary amendments to reflect this decision;

• the issuing of a General Ruling; • an operative date of 1 September 2008.

(iii) Restaurant and Caterers Employers Association of Queensland

[35] The Restaurant and Caterers Employers Association of Queensland, Industrial Organisation of Employers (RCEAQ)

submits that there should be no increase to minimum wage levels at all. The RCEAQ submits that the restaurant and catering industry employs approximately 50,000 people in Queensland and is 7% underemployed. It is one of the larger employing industries in Queensland. The submission that no increase should be awarded is said to be based on the following:

• wages will grow irrespective of this decision; • the tax cuts that will take effect on 1 July 2008 are sufficient to keep take-home pay at the same level as cost

increases; • the capacity of employers to meet increases in the minimum wage level has not changed; • there is a concern that if wages continue to forge ahead this will affect how households spend their money and

will lead to further interest rate increases, rental increases as well as the already recognised impact on inflation. Inflation is already outside the Reserve Bank of Australia's target zone and is set to stay there at least for the next twelve months;

• there is a possibility that any increase to minimum and award wages will flow on in higher wages in other industries;

• employers in the restaurant and catering industry do not have the capacity to pay higher increases; and • in March 2008 the retail trade data showed the turnover growth for restaurants, cafes and caterers was the lowest

it had been for two years at 2%. [36] It is projected that food, hospitality and tourism will provide 8% of new jobs to 2011-12 with the Department of

Workplace Relations Job Outlook (June 2004) identifying the hospitality industry as the third strongest industry for projected employment growth to 2011-12 at 2.2% per annum. Despite strong job growth projections, the hospitality industry also has the highest rate of job turnover per annum at approximately 24% according to the RCEAQ


submission. One of the immediate challenges for the industry is addressing the need for skilled staff in order to realise the full economic potential of the industry.

[37] The RCEAQ contends that with very small margins and a highly labour intensive business model, the restaurant and

catering industry has no capacity to absorb increases in wages. The industry operates on 41% of turnover being the cost of labour and therefore any increase in the hourly/weekly rate very quickly appears in the "bottom line".

[38] The labour market in the industry is, according to the RCEAQ submission, very tight. Whilst the greatest demand

for new employees is in the skilled and semi-skilled occupations, it is expected that wage pressure will be felt at all levels of employment. An adjustment to award wages is not required to facilitate this wage movement, as it will happen as a result of competition for employees.

[39] The RCEAQ submits that the levels of profitability in the industry remain very small. The industry has a very large

non full-time component in its workforce and such workers receive some form of payment over and above the full-time rate of pay. This, according to the RCEAQ, magnifies any increase in minimum wages.

[40] According to the RCEAQ, increases granted in minimum and award wages over many years have stopped businesses

in the industry from taking on additional staff to service additional demand which in turn has led to businesses closing their doors.

(iv) Queensland Cane Growers' Association

[41] The Queensland Cane Growers' Association, Union of Employers (QCGA) is opposed to the quantum sought in the

applications. It supports an increase to award wages and the Queensland Minimum Wage of $15.00 per week and an increase of 2.4% to existing allowances with effect from 1 September 2008. The QCGA supports the submission of the QCCI.

(v) Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association

[42] The Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association (QRTSA) opposes the increases sought in the

applications. Instead, the QRTSA supports an increase in line with the Queensland current rate of inflation i.e. 4%. This equates to an increase of approximately $21.14 per week.

(vi) Queensland Council of Social Service

[43] The Queensland Council of Social Service Inc (QCOSS) also provided a submission on behalf of Queenslanders

affected by poverty and inequality. QCOSS is the peak body for almost 700 welfare and community sector organisations in Queensland with membership drawn from throughout Queensland including rural, regional and remote areas. QCOSS considers wage levels that keep pace with the increasing cost of living play an important part in a plan to end poverty. QCOSS, like the Australian Council of Social Service, takes the position that minimum wages should be based on benchmarks for an adequate living standard well above poverty levels. Whilst Queensland is a rapidly growing and generally wealthy State not everyone is able to participate equally in this wealth.

[44] According to QCOSS, it is important that Queensland residents on the lowest working wages are taken into

consideration given that:

• over a ten year period Queensland's average annual rate of growth of gross state product per capital was 2.4% as compared with 1.8% for the rest of Australia; and

• Queensland's economic growth is estimated to strengthen to an above-average rate of 5.5% in 2006-07, more than double estimated national growth of 2.5%.

[45] QCOSS further submits that whilst unemployment has generally been identified as the price cause of poverty for

people of working age, this does not mean that the employed are exempt from poverty. With most employment growth in Australia being in casual and part-time jobs, the process of moving out of poverty is rendered more difficult given that employment is only sufficient in reducing poverty if it is full-time.

[46] For members and stakeholders of QCOSS, it seems that housing affordability is a primary issue and therefore

QCOSS describes housing affordability as a core element in a plan to end poverty. Areas where strong economic growth has taken place are, according to QCOSS, particularly vulnerable. The ABS definition of people in housing stress "… are those with household incomes between the bottom 10% and the bottom 40% of the distribution of equivalised disposable household income, and living in households where housing costs are more than 30% of the household's gross income". The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute reports that in 2002-03 "over 11%


of Australian households and 28% of lower income households were experiencing housing affordability problems (with) more than 40% of all lower income households" in housing stress being working households. Over half of all the households with affordability problems are in the private rental market. It is estimated that 20% of households with affordability problems live in Queensland i.e. 176,000 households.

[47] In Queensland, poverty also has a spatial dimension. Queensland workers are also affected by Queensland's unique

geography and will incur greater costs due to distance in the process of actually travelling to and from employment and other essential services. The combined effects of mortgage ownership and car dependence make some households particularly vulnerable to rising fuel costs.

[48] QCOSS recognises that the increase in the underlying rate of inflation over the past year is of concern. A reduction

in the rate of inflation, however, will not be achieved by restraining growth in minimum wages. QCOSS submits that it would be unfair for low paid employees to bear the burden of restraint. They have less capacity to absorb any decline in their real incomes without cutting expenditure on essentials. They are also disproportionately affected by recent increases in the cost of essentials such as rents and fuel.

[49] In supporting the QCU claim, QCOSS submits that a modest increase in wages will benefit lower income workers

who struggle to make ends meet. 3. RECENT DECISIONS IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS [50] The Full Bench has been referred to a number of recent decisions in other jurisdictions dealing with adjustments to

minimum wages and award wage rates. Briefly, the submissions by parties on those decisions are summarised as follows:

Western Australia [51] The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission (WAIRC) released its decision on the 2008 State Wage

Order (2008 WAIRC 00347) on 9 June 2008 granting an increase of $29.00 per week. This was the amount sought by the Western Australian Government and represented approximately a 5.5% increase in the minimum wage and 4.7% to the C10 rate. It brought the Western Australian minimum wage to $557.40 per week. The WPI for Perth is 5.9% to the December quarter 2007. With the Consumer Price Index (CPI) at 4.3% in Perth, the $29.00 per week will result in a real increase in most, if not all, award levels.

[52] The Trades and Labour Council of Western Australia sought an increase of $31.20 per week, the Chamber of

Commerce and Industry of Western Australia sought an increase of $17.00 per week with the Australian Mines and Metals Association supporting a 'modest' increase not greater than the CPI movement for Perth or the Western Australia CPI.

[53] In granting the $29.00 per week increase, the Full Bench said at paragraph 34:

"We are satisfied too that an increase to the minimum wage which not only maintains its real value, which is the common position of all persons who appeared or made submissions to us, but gives a modest increase to its real value, which is the position of the Minister, TLCWA and WACOSS and will not on this occasion contribute to inflation. Neither is it likely to have an adverse effect on the level of employment in WA or on productivity. This is because:

(1) 98% of Western Australia's workforce are already receiving a wage above the minimum wage. Our decision will only directly increase the wages being paid to approximately 2% of the State's workforce.

(2) The wage increase from these proceedings for employees on the minimum wage whose wages have not increased since July 2007 merely follows the rest of the workforce who have already received wage increases.

(3) The increase to both the minimum wage and award wage rates will be absorbable into any wage paid above the minimum wage and award wage rates.

(4) There is no evidence, and no-one has suggested, that the increases to the minimum wage and award wage rates awarded by this Commission since the demise of National Wage Cases after the Work Choices amendments to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) have had any measurable effect on the level of employment, inflation and productivity in Western Australia.

(5) Rather, the evidence suggests that increases awarded by us to the minimum wage and to award wage rates have followed community wage movements and price increases rather than the reverse. This was the conclusion reached in 2006 by Professor David Plowman, from the Graduate School of Management,


University of WA, in a Report on the effects of past statutory minimum wage adjustments in WA (see (2006) 86 WAIG 1631 at 1639), a conclusion with which we respectfully concur.".

[54] The Western Australian Full Bench also referred to pay equity implications stating at paragraph 41:

"We are conscious too, of the unchallenged information before us that the majority of employees receiving the minimum wage are female and that an increase in the real value of the minimum wage will assist in redressing the gender pay gap in this State. The information supplied to us by WACOSS in particular has also been helpful to us in reaching this conclusion.".

[55] The QCCI submits that the Western Australian decision was based on the submission of the Western Australian Government's proposal of a $29.00 per week increase. This Full Bench was referred to the following submissions of the Western Australian Government:

"… this increase to both adult minimum wage and adult award wage rates is balanced and sustainable in the context of the current labour market wages, the State's buoyant economic conditions and the needs of WA employees, including the low paid.".

and further, the conclusion of the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission that:

"We conclude that in 2007/08:

(a) the WA economy is forecast to grow by 7.5%; (b) employment growth is expected to remain strong at 3.75%; (c) unemployment is expected to remain low at 3%; (d) annual inflation in Perth is expected to average 3.25%; and (e) wages are expected to increase by 5.75%.

The economic factors forecast for WA for the future shows that employment will continue to increase, with the rate of growth in employment slowing to 2.5% in 2008/09 and 2.25% in 2009/10. Unemployment is expected to increase slightly over the same period to 3.25%. The WPI for WA is indeed high at 5.7% percent however it is expected to moderate to increases of 5.25% in 2008/09 and 4.5% in 2009/10. Similarly, the CPI for Perth is expected to moderate to 3.25% and 3% over the same time frame. We conclude that it is quite likely that strong economic conditions will continue in Western Australia for the next three years and this therefore creates a favourable environment for an increase in the minimum wage…".

[56] The QCCI submits that when compared to the Western Australian economy there are significant differences in the

forecast of that economy and the Queensland economy. The Western Australian situation should not be taken to be the benchmark for awarding wage increases.

[57] The QCCI provided the following table which deals with a comparison between the Western Australian and

Queensland economies for the period 2006-07 and 2007-08: Economic Growth Rates: Annual Percentage Change:

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 to 2011-12 Queensland Gross State Product 5.70 3.75 4.25 4.50 Employment 4.60 2.75 2.50 2.50 Inflation 3.30 4.00 3.50 2.50 Wage Price Index 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.00 Population 2.20 2.25 2.25 2.25 Western Australia Gross State Product 6.30 7.50 6.25 4.90 Employment 2.50 3.75 2.50 2.50 Inflation 3.90 3.25 3.25 2.80 Wage Price Index 4.70 5.75 5.25 3.80 Population


Australia Gross State Product 3.20 3.50 2.75 3.00 Employment 2.70 2.50 1.25 1.25 Inflation 2.90 3.25 3.50 2.50 Wage Price Index 4.00 4.25 4.25 4.00 Population 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50

Source: Queensland and Western Australian State Budget Papers 2008-09. [58] The QCCI submits that in the 2006-07 financial year, the Queensland economy either matched or outperformed the

Western Australian economy in terms of economic and employment growth. However, in the 2007-08 financial year, Queensland economic growth of 3.75% is significantly less than Western Australia's 7.5% with the trend to continue for the 2008-09 financial year i.e. the year that the outcome of this decision will impact on. Thus Queensland's ability to absorb the same level of wage increase that occurred in Western Australia is considerably less.

Tasmania [59] The Tasmanian Trades and Labor Council, the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited and the

Tasmanian Government reached an agreement to seek an increase of $19.00 per week to all minimum award rates before the Tasmanian Industrial Commission (TIC). The figure was based on approximately 3.5% of the C14 award rate which was equivalent to the WPI in Tasmania. The TIC released its decision on 18 July 2008 (T13142 and T13143) and approved the terms of the agreement granting a $19.00 per week increase, similar to the Tasmanian WPI of 3.6%. The TIC further increased work related allowances by 3.1%.

New South Wales [60] The New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission (NSWIRC) released its decision in the State Wage Case

2008 [2008] NSWIRComm 122 on 27 June 2008. The Full Bench of the NSWIRC awarded an increase of 4.0% in the Award Review Classification Rate (ARCR) and minimum award rates in response to an application seeking a 4.5% increase. This amounted to an increase of $21.30 per week at the equivalent C14, a $24.72 increase at the C10 award level and a $34.50 increase to the highest level of the NSW Metal, Engineering and Industries (State) Award i.e. the C2(b) rate.

[61] The NSW Government and Local Government Association supported a $20.00 per week increase, the Australian

Federation of Employers and Industries and its affiliates supported a $10.00 per week increase and the Australian Industry Group and other employers supported an approximate 2.5% increase or $13.00 per week.

[62] The NSW economic data before the NSWIRC showed employment levels in NSW were at 2%, unemployment at

4.75%, Sydney CPI at 2.25% and the WPI at 4%. As the QCU submits, the NSW economy does not have the level of robustness that the Queensland economy is showing in regard to the key indicators. In its decision the Full Bench stated at [86]:

"Undoubtedly, the New South Wales economy continues to lag behind the faster growing resource-driven

economies and although there has been some degree of catch-up in recent months, we do note what Mr Bennett said, that it is too early to be sure this momentum would be maintained.".

Australian Fair Pay Commission [63] The AFPC released its wage decision on 8 July 2008 in Australian Fair Pay Commission Wage-Setting Decision

July 2008 and awarded an increase to all minimum rates in the Australian Pay and Classification Scale of $21.66 per week and a similar increase to the Federal Minimum Wage. This resulted in a federal minimum wage of $543.78 per week. The Queensland Government sought a reasonable increase but did not nominate a specific quantum, the Australian Government sought a moderate increase without nominating a quantum, the Australian Council of Trade Unions sought an increase of $26.00 per week and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry supported a "genuinely moderate" increase without nominating a quantum.

[64] The QCU submits that this increase equates at the minimum pay level to a 4.15% increase. The operative date is the

first pay period on or after 1 October 2008. The AFPC believed that the impact of the increase on inflation, employment and unemployment would be "relatively minor" in the current economic circumstances. At p. 9 of its decision, the AFPC said:

"The Commission agrees that low-income households have been adversely affected by recent movements in consumer prices. It considers that the quantum of the increase awarded reflects the Commission's focus on the circumstances of the low-paid Australians.".

15 August, 2008 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 359 [65] Further, the AFPC said that it believed the impact of its decision on employment and unemployment would be

relatively minor in the context of current economic circumstances. [66] The QCCI in commenting on the AFPC's decision submitted that the AFPC took into account the following factors:

• economic activity and employment growth are forecast to slow in the near term, while unemployment is expected to rise;

• inflation accelerated through 2007-08 prompting the Australian Government and the Reserve Bank of Australia to act to restrain aggregate demand;

• the WPI increased by 4.1% over the year to March 2008; • wage growth in collective bargaining reached in each quarter over the past three years has been steady. The

average annualised wage increase in all wage agreements current in March quarter 2008 was 4% while the average annualised wage increase for new agreements was 3.7%;

• the CPI increased by an average of 4.3%, well above the Reserve Bank of Australia's medium term inflation target band of 2 to 3% per annum; and

• 2008-09 taxation changes. South Australia [67] SA Unions is seeking a $26.00 per week increase. At the time of release of this decision the South Australian

Industrial Relations Commission has not released its decision. [68] The Queensland Government has summarised the outcomes of the other jurisdictions' wage decisions and the

percentage increases to the minimum wage (we have inserted the Queensland figure on the QCU and AWU claims) in the table below:

Jurisdiction Increase per week New Minimum wage Percentage

increase to minimum

wage Federal $21.66 $543.78 4.15 NSW $21.26 $552.70 4.0 WA $29 $557.40 5.5 Tasmania $19 $546.10 3.6 Queensland $23 sought by Qld Govt

$29 sought by QCU $551.40 (if granted) $557.40 (if granted)

4.35 5.5

4. INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY [69] The world economic outlook has been clouded by uncertainty over the extent of the slowing in the United States

economy, as well as tighter credit conditions triggered by the sub-prime mortgage fallout. Further, rising inflationary pressures may limit the extent of any accommodative easing in monetary policy around the globe. As a consequence, economic growth in Queensland's major trading partners is estimated to ease from 4.4% in 2006-07 to 4% in 2007-08 and moderate further to 3.5% in 2008-09 (its lowest rate in 6 years).

[70] Global credit conditions remain tight and this has exacerbated the housing downturn in the United States where the

number of housing starts has fallen almost 60% from its peak. The United States economic downturn is expected to not only spill over to other advanced economies such as Japan and Europe, but also to emerging economies such as China and India, through trade and financial linkages. Those emerging economies which have become overly reliant on foreign capital may be left vulnerable to restrictive credit conditions.

[71] Another concern is the possibility of high global inflation. Prices for petroleum and thermal coal have risen more

than 75% and 100% respectively since July 2007. Steel prices are expected to rise significantly in 2008-09. Global food prices have also surged. With elevated global inflation, major central banks may have to limit the extent of their monetary easing despite the weaker economic outlook.

5. AUSTRALIAN ECONOMY QCU [72] In terms of the Australia economy, the QCU relies upon the following economic indicators in support of their claim:

360 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 15 August, 2008 [73] Gross Domestic Product for the Australian economy grew by 3.9% for the year to December 2007 i.e. the 27th

consecutive quarter of growth. Domestic final demand, consumption and investment (actual and expected) are, according to the QCU, higher. The Australian economy is forecast to grow by 4.25% in 2007-08 and 3.5% in 2008-09. Investment and demand are also forecast to grow. Treasury forecasts the terms of trade to increase by 1.25% in 2007-08.

[74] Employment is forecast to grow by a further 2.25% during 2007-08 whilst unemployment is also forecast to increase

slightly. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Labour Force data for February 2008 records a 2.7% increase in employed persons in trend terms and 2.9%, seasonally adjusted, over the year to February 2008. Labour Force data recorded the unemployment rate in trend terms at 4.1% and seasonally adjusted terms 4.0%. Figures from April 2008 show the unemployment rate at 4.2%. The participation rate remained at 65.2% in February 2008 having increased by 0.3% to 65.2% over the year to February 2008.

[75] ABS data on underemployed workers for September 2007 indicate that the labour force underutilisation rate has

declined from 12.6% in September 2001 to 8.9% in September 2007 with the underemployment rate declining from 5.7% to 4.7% over the same period.

[76] Employment growth has been Australia wide with all States and Territories contributing to, or participating in, that

growth. Whilst the New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania industrial relations jurisdictions have awarded higher minimum wages than those set by the AFPC there has been no negative effect on employment growth in those States.

[77] The retail industry, with almost a quarter of minimum wage workers, had the largest numbers of persons employed

in the period November 2006 to November 2007. Other industries with large numbers of minimum wage workers which experienced growth in the number of persons employed in that period include health and community services, manufacturing and property and business services.

[78] Wages are also forecast to grow by 4.25% in 2008-09. The WPI is steady at 4.2% for the year to December 2007

with full-time adult Average Weekly Earnings increasing to 4.8% for the year to November 2007. The measure of bargaining outcomes, the Average Annualised Wage Increase per employee was 3.9% to September 2007. The WPI increased by 1.1% in the December quarter 2007 and by 4.2% over the twelve months to the December quarter 2007 i.e. the same rate of growth over the year to December quarter 2005 and only slightly higher than the 4% growth to December quarter 2006. According to the QCU, the WPI is stable.

[79] The WPI for the private sector increased by 1.1% in the December quarter 2007 i.e. the same rate of increase as in

the September quarter. The WPI for the private sector increased by 4.3% over the twelve months to the December quarter 2007.

[80] Inflation (CPI) is forecast by the Reserve Bank of Australia to be 3.5% to December 2008, however, the March

quarter 2008 was 4.2%. Private business investment expenditure increased by 0.4% in the December quarter 2007, increasing by 11.9% over the year in seasonally adjusted terms. The two major components of business investment in the December quarter 2007 were machinery and equipment investment which increased by 3.8% to be up 12.3% over the year, and non-dwelling construction which decreased by 3.6% to be 9.4% higher over the year.

[81] The QCU submits that the official forecasts paint a positive picture of the Australian economy over the near future.

The Treasury's key domestic forecasts for 2007-08 are provided in the following table: Domestic Economic Forecasts (a)

Outcomes(b) Estimates Forecasts 2006-07

Year average 2007-08


Year average Four quarters to June 2009

Demand and Output(c) Household consumption 3.6 4 1/2 2 3/4 2 1/2 Private investment Dwellings 2.4 2 1/2 2 1 Total business investment(d) 6.7 9 1/2 8 1/2 4 1/2 Non-dwelling construction(d) 12.4 8 1/2 5 1/2 3 Machinery and equipment(d) 2.9 9 1/2 11 4 1/2 Private final demand(d) 4.0 5 1/4 4 3 Public final demand(d) 4.3 4 3/4 3 2 3/4 Total final demand 4.1 5 1/4 3 3/4 2 3/4 Change in inventories(e) 0.1 1/4 - 1/4 0


Outcomes(b) Estimates Forecasts 2006-07



Year average Four quarters to June 2009

Gross national expenditure 4.2 5 1/2 3 1/2 2 3/4 Exports of goods and services 3.8 3 6 7 1/2 Imports of goods and services 8.9 11 9 7 Net exports(e) -1.2 -2 -1 - 1/4 Real gross domestic product 3.2 3 1/2 2 3/4 2 3/4 Non-farm product 3.9 3 3/4 2 1/4 2 Farm product -22.8 2 20 36 Nominal gross domestic product 8.2 7 3/4 9 1/4 6 1/2 Other selected economic measures

External accounts Terms of trade 6.7 4 3/4 16 3 1/4 Current account balance (per

cent of GDP)(f) -5.6 -6 1/4 -5 -5 3/4

Labour market Employment (labour force

survey basis) 2.7 2 1/2 1 1/4 3/4

Unemployment rate (per cent)(f)

4.5 4 1/4 4 1/2 4 3/4

Participation rate (per cent)(f) 64.8 65 1/4 65 1/4 65 Prices and wages Consumer Price Index(g) 2.1 4 3 1/2 3 1/4 Gross non-farm product

deflator 4.8 4 6 1/4 4 1/4

Wage Price Index 4.0 4 1/4 4 1/4 4 1/4

(a) The forecasts are based on several technical assumptions. The exchange rate is assumed to be around 93 US cents, with a trade weighted index of around 71. Domestic interest rates are assumed to remain unchanged. World oil prices (West Texas Intermediate) are assumed to be around US$115 per barrel. Farm sector forecasts assume average seasonal conditions, but for low water storage level.

(b) Calculated using original data. (c) Chain volume measures except for nominal gross domestic product which is in current prices. (d) Excluding second-hand asset sales from the public sector to the private sector and including the impact of the

privatisation of Telstra. (e) Percentage point contribution to growth in GDP. (f) The estimate in the final column is the forecast rate in the June quarter 2009. (g) Through the year growth rate to the June quarter for 2006-07 and 2007-08. Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) cat. no. 5206.0, 5302.0, 6202.0, 6345.0, 6401.0, unpublished ABS data and Treasury.

[82] The Australian economy is forecast to grow by 4.25% in 2007-08 and 3.5% in 2008-09. The forecast for dwelling investment in 2007-08 is revised upwards by 3.0% from a Budget forecast of 2.5%. Business investment is expected to grow by 9.5%, revised upwards from a Budget forecast of 7.5%. Employment is forecast to grow by 2.25% during 2007-08 revised up from 1.5% forecast at Budget. The unemployment rate is expected to be around 4.5% and the participation rate 65.25%. Wages are forecast to grow by 4.25% in 2007-08 and 2008-09. This remains at 0.05% above the current rate of growth in WPI to the December quarter 2007. The CPI is predicted to be 2.75% in both financial years 2007-08 and 2008-09. The Reserve Bank of Australia forecasts on inflation are higher at 3.5% over the year to June 2008 and over the year to December 2008.

[83] The Australian Government has forecast that a moderation in world economic growth, tighter credit conditions and

significantly higher interest rates will adversely affect the household sector and slow growth in the national economy from 3.5% in 2007-08 to 2.75% in 2008-09.

[84] With households becoming more indebted, higher interest rates are expected to have a greater impact on

consumption than in previous tightening cycles. Falls in share prices have suppressed growth in household wealth and are anticipated to induce saving for precautionary purposes. Higher mortgage rates are also forecast to suppress dwelling investment growth. However, business investment and exports are forecast to support economic growth in 2008-09. Investment should benefit from a large amount of work under construction, a strong Australian dollar and high levels of capacity utilisation. An increase in the terms of trade flowing from a surge in coal and iron ore prices


is expected to support mining investment. Exports growth is forecast to strengthen significantly as a result of increases in mining and agricultural production.

[85] National employment growth is forecast to moderate from 2.5% in 2007-08 to 1.25% in 2008-09 causing the annual-

average unemployment rate to rise 0.25 of a percentage point to 4.5% in 2008-09. [86] Despite a forecast moderation in domestic demand, inflation is expected to stay above the Reserve Bank of

Australia's target band of 2-3%, at 3.5% in 2008-09. This reflects the fact that the Australian economy has been running at close to full capacity for some time, as well as higher energy and food prices and further rises in housing costs.

Queensland Government [87] In its submission, the Queensland Government draws the Full Bench's attention to the following forecasts with

respect to the national economy:

• the Australian Government has forecast that a moderation in world economic growth, tighter credit conditions and significantly higher interest rates will adversely affect the household sector and slow growth in the national economy from 3.5% in 2007-08 to 2.75% in 2008-09;

• with households becoming more indebted, higher interest rates are expected to have a greater impact on

consumption than in previous tightening cycles. Falls in share prices have suppressed growth in household wealth and are anticipated to induce saving for precautionary purposes. Higher mortgage rates are also forecast to suppress dwelling investment growth. However, business investment and exports are forecast to support economic growth in 2008-09. Investment should benefit from a large amount of work under construction, a strong Australian dollar and high levels of capacity utilisation. An increase in the terms of trade flowing from a surge in coal and iron ore prices is expected to support mining investment. Exports growth is forecast to strengthen significantly as a result of increases in mining and agricultural production;

• national employment growth is forecast to moderate from 2.5% in 2007-08 to 1.25% in 2008-09 causing the

annual-average unemployment rate to rise 0.25 of a percentage point to 4.5% in 2008-09; and • despite a forecast moderation in domestic demand, inflation is expected to stay above the Reserve Bank of

Australia's target band of 2-3%, at 3.5% in 2008-09. This reflects the fact that the Australian economy has been running at close to full capacity for some time, as well as higher energy and food prices and further rises in housing costs.

6. QUEENSLAND ECONOMY [88] Predominately it was the QCU, the Queensland Government and the QCCI that provided data on the Queensland

economy. Whilst the data used by each of these organisations is generally consistent, the interpretation of that data differed. In that regard we will briefly outline the submissions of the QCU, the Queensland Government and the QCCI on the Queensland economy.

QCU [89] The QCU submits that the Queensland economy is strong and is forecast to remain positive and it has the capacity to

absorb and sustain a reasonable wage increase for state award reliant employees. The Queensland economy is estimated to expand by 3.75% in 2007-08 and exceed growth nationally for the twelfth consecutive year.

[90] In this regard the QCU relies upon the following economic measures:

• household consumption growth is estimated to strengthen by 5.25% in 2007-08. The limited spare capacity in the economy is estimated to drive further growth in private and public investment, albeit at more modest rates than in recent years;

• economic growth in Queensland is forecast to strengthen to 4.25% in 2008-09 compared with an anticipated

moderation in growth for the nation as a whole to 2.75%. Economic growth in Queensland has been stronger than the national average since 2000-01 with economic growth in Queensland in 2006-07 being 5.6% as compared to 2.6% in the rest of Australia;


• jobs growth is forecast to ease to 2.75% in 2007-08 and 2.5% in 2008-09. This growth represents an increase in employment of more than 105,000 persons over the two years. In the period December 1999 to December 2007 the total number of employed persons in Queensland grew by 28% whilst employment nationally grew 17% over the same period. Whilst employment growth has slowed to 0.2% per month in late 2007, Queensland's employment growth over the year to November 2007 was 3.1% as compared to the national average over the same period of 2.5%. Jobs growth is forecast to moderate to 2.5% in 2008-09. The rate of employment growth in 2008-09 is expected to be limited by available supply, with unemployment reaching very low levels and the participation rate expected to remain largely unchanged in the short term. As a result, jobs growth is forecast to match civilian population and labour force growth of 2.5%;

• Queensland's year-average unemployment rate is estimated to fall to a 34 year low of 3.75% in 2007-08 and

remain there in 2008-09 representing a rate well below that nationally for the fifth consecutive year. The unemployment rate has fallen from 7.7% in December 2000 to 3.4% in 2007. The year-average unemployment rate is forecast to remain unchanged at 3.75%. Such positive employment trends, it is submitted, challenges the assumption that wage increases at the bottom end of the market undermine employment growth and destabilise overall economic health. The QCU submits that the analysis of employment growth data indicates that increases awarded in previous years have not had adverse implications and have been associated with strong macro-economic performance, including strong employment growth and falling unemployment;

• an easing in growth in consumer demand; • investment in machinery and equipment is estimated to rise 12.5% in 2007-08, however, investment in other

building and structures is estimated to grow only at 0.05% in 2007-08; • in 2006-07 the Queensland population grew at 2.2% compared to 1.4% for the rest of Australia with the high

growth rate being attributable largely to interstate migration; and • inflation has been higher in Queensland than the national average since mid-2006 reflecting high levels of

economic activity and scarcity in some resource markets. In annual terms, the CPI strengthened to 4.2% in the March quarter from 3% in the December quarter. The Labour Price Index (LPI) of total hours excluding bonuses in Queensland was 4.5% as of May 2008 compared to 4.2% for Australia as a whole. The LPI has remained constant over the previous five quarters. Queensland and Western Australia, the States with above average economic growth, have also experienced above average wage cost growth.

[91] Domestic Forecast: Another strong indicator that reasonable award wage increases are consistent with strong

employment performance is the evidence from industries that have a high proportion of award-reliant employees that are the recipients of minimum wage increases. ABS data indicate that the most pay scale reliant industries in Queensland are accommodation, cafés and restaurants (53.1%), retail trade (22.9%), health and community services (27.7%) and property and business services (27.2%). Employment has grown in all five of the top award-reliant industries with three showing employment growth at near or in excess of the Queensland average. Only accommodation, cafes and restaurants recorded low employment growth.

[92] In looking at the forecasts for the Queensland economy, the QCU relies on the Mid Year Fiscal and Economic

Review produced by the Queensland Treasury in late 2007, the Queensland Economic Review of May 2008 and the Budget Strategy and Outlook Papers from the 2008 State Budget. The Mid Year Review reported a positive economic outlook for Queensland with continued export growth and strong private and public sector investment. Growth of 4.75% is projected for the financial year 2008-09. Economic growth in Queensland has been higher than the national average for twelve consecutive years.

[93] Business investment increased to be 9.8% higher to December 2007. There has, however, been a moderation in

growth in recent times which the QCU submits reflects the completion of several major mining projects. Investment in 'other buildings and structure' and 'machinery and equipment' was up 50%. Business investment is expected to be buttressed by strong population growth and rising incomes leading to growing domestic demand.

Queensland Government [94] According to the submission of the Queensland Government, the Queensland economy is estimated to expand by

3.75% in 2007-08 and exceed growth nationally, forecast at 3.5%, for the twelfth consecutive year. Growth in domestic demand in Queensland is estimated to remain strong at 6% in 2007-08 but is expected to be partly offset by an ongoing detraction from economic growth by the trade sector.

364 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 15 August, 2008 [95] Consumer spending and investment are estimated to drive growth in domestic demand in 2007-08. Growth in

household consumption is estimated to strengthen to 5.25% in 2007-08. Business investment is estimated to rise further, however, the pace of growth is expected to slow noticeably from earlier in the cycle due to the completion of a number of significant projects. The public sector is estimated to make the largest contribution to growth in the infrastructure base in 2007-08.

[96] A significant increase in lending rates is estimated to negatively affect other sectors of the domestic economy.

While their adverse effect on disposable incomes and consumer spending has been partially offset by income tax cuts in 2007-08, the rise in mortgage interest rates is estimated to cause dwelling investment to decline for the first time since 2000-01 (when the GST was introduced).

[97] The Queensland economy, and the trade sector in particular, has also absorbed a range of adverse external and

domestic shocks since late 2007. Coal and base metal exports were disrupted in 2007-08 by flooding, port and rail capacity upgrades, as well as mine maintenance and expansions. Improved rainfall encouraged herd rebuilding with a resulting decline in beef exports. Tourism and other services exports in 2007-08 have been adversely affected by the appreciation in the A$ together with a deterioration in global economic and financial conditions. Thus the detraction from economic growth by the trade sector is estimated to widen in 2007-08.

[98] Growth in the Queensland economy is forecast to accelerate slightly to 4.25% in 2008-09 in contrast to an

anticipated easing in national growth to 2.75%. Additional income tax cuts and continued growth in wages are anticipated to support growth in disposable incomes. Growth in consumption, however, is forecast to ease. Business investment is forecast to rise further in 2008-09 reflecting ongoing high levels of capacity utilisation. A surge in the terms of trade is forecast to drive an additional wave of investment in mining and metals processing.

[99] A significant recovery in exports is forecast with overall exports growth forecast to strengthen to a four-year high of

4.25% in 2008-09. [100] In its submission, the Queensland Government outlined the following economic indicators: [101] Household consumption and retail turnover: Household consumption growth is estimated to strengthen to 5.25%

in 2007-08 after easing for three consecutive years from a peak in 2003-04. A strengthening in house price growth in 2007 has seen spending on other retail goods and consumer durables recover. In addition to solid growth in employment and wages, tax cuts partially offset the impact of higher interest rates on disposable incomes in 2007-08. Income tax cuts and solid labour market conditions are forecast to continue to support disposable incomes in 2008-09 while an increase in the terms of trade should also benefit wages in trade-related industries. Despite this growth, private consumption is forecast to ease to 4.5% in 2008-09.

[102] A rise in mortgage interest rates is estimated to cause a decline in dwelling investment in 2007-08 which in turn will

bring slower growth in housing-related expenditure the following year. Growth in spending on consumer durables such as motor vehicles is predicted to dampen in 2008-09.

[103] Dwelling Investment: Dwelling investment is estimated to decline 5.5% in 2007-08 after an increase of more than

90% between 2000-01 and 2006-07. This represents the first fall since the introduction of the GST. Dwelling investment is, however, expected to rise by a marginal 0.5% in 2008-09. New housing construction activity declined sharply in the first half of 2007-08 and leading indicators such as dwelling approvals and housing finance suggest further declines through 2008. Lower net rental returns have also discouraged investor activity. Renovation activity has also declined sharply in the first half of 2007-08 in response to higher interest rates.

[104] A recovery in new construction late in 2008-09 is anticipated assuming interest rate stabilisation. Renovation

activity is anticipated to rebound more strongly. [105] Business Investment: Business investment is expected to continue to increase, albeit at a slower rate than the very

strong growth recorded in recent years. The volume of business investment is estimated to increase 7.25% in 2007-08. Investment in machinery and equipment is estimated to rise 12.5% in 2007-08. Investment in other buildings and structures is estimated to grow 0.5% in 2007-08. Growth in business investment is forecast to strengthen slightly to 9.25% in 2008-09, with the level of investment totalling $36 billion, representing a doubling in real terms over the past six years. Growth in investment in other buildings and structures is forecast to pick up to 10.5% in 2008-09. Machinery and equipment investment is forecast to grow 8.25%.

15 August, 2008 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 365 [106] Net Exports: Exports in 2007-08 were suppressed. Import growth has also moderated during the year. Net exports

are estimated to detract 2.75 percentage points from overall economic growth in 2007-08. This is larger than the 2.2 percentage point detraction recorded in 2006-07. The total volume of exports of goods and services is forecast to rise only 0.5% in 2007-08. In contrast, the total volume of imports of goods and services is estimated to rise by 8% in 2007-08. Exports are forecast to improve substantially in 2008-09. The volume of goods and services exports is forecast to grow by 4.25% in 2008-09 representing the highest rate of growth in four years.

[107] Export returns are expected to rise significantly next year with contract prices for hard coking and thermal coal for

the 2008 Japanese fiscal year tripling and doubling respectively. As a result, Queensland's terms of trade are projected to resume a strong upward trend in 2008-09 after edging lower in the past two years. An easing in growth in private consumption and machinery and equipment investment is forecast to moderate growth in total imports to 6.75% in 2008-09. It is anticipated that net exports will detract 1.25 percentage points from overall growth in 2008-09.

[108] Employment: Following five years of above average growth, jobs growth is estimated to ease to 2.75% in 2007-08,

representing an increase in employment of more than 55,000 persons. The easing in jobs growth reflects a moderation of growth in domestic demand, particularly in the labour-intensive construction sector. The participation rate is expected to level out at 67% in 2007-08. Jobs growth is estimated to surpass labour force growth thus reducing the State's unemployment rate for the sixth consecutive year, to 3.75% in 2007-08. Jobs growth is forecast to moderate further, albeit marginally, to 2.5% in 2008-09.

[109] The rate of employment growth in 2008-09 is expected to be limited by available supply with unemployment

reaching very low levels and the participation rate expected to remain largely unchanged in the short term. As a result jobs growth is forecast to match civilian population and labour force growth of 2.5% leaving the year-average unemployment rate unchanged at a generational low of 3.75%.

[110] Prices and wages: Inflation, measured by movements in the Brisbane CPI, is estimated to strengthen to 4% in

2007-08 following an outcome of 3.3% in 2006-07. The housing sector has been the key contributor to inflation so far in 2007-08. A significant rise in petrol prices has also driven higher transportation costs while food prices have also increased. Partly offsetting these pressures has been the higher Australian dollar and subdued prices for retail and household goods in 2007-08.

[111] Inflation is forecast to ease to 3.5% in 2008-09. Growth in the WPI in Queensland is forecast to remain steady at

4.5% in 2007-08 and 2008-09. Tight labour market conditions are expected to underpin growth in wages across a variety of service industries, in addition to strong wage gains in recent years in the mining sector.

[112] Population: Queensland's population is forecast to continue to grow at its long run rate of 2.25% in 2007-08 and

2008-09, translating into an additional 190,000 persons, or more than 1,800 persons per week. The State's population is expected to continue to grow at well above the national rate.

[113] Potential Risks to Economic Activity: Domestic inflation pressures represent the key risk to the Queensland and

national economy in 2008-09. The Reserve Bank of Australia forecasts underlying inflation to remain above its 2-3% target band until 2010, when a moderation in the pace of national domestic demand is expected to eventually ease capacity pressures. Risks to inflation include:

• a boost to incomes and spending from a higher terms of trade; • further increases in global energy prices; and • faster growth in world food prices.

If any of these trends eventuate or intensify, inflation outcomes may be higher than expected. [114] As households have been carrying a larger amount of debt and using a larger share of income for interest payments,

any further increase in lending rates may exert a greater impact on household consumption and dwelling investment than in previous tightening cycles.

[115] The possibility of a United States (US)-led global economic downturn represents a key risk to the Queensland

economy. The US remains a major export market for Queensland, and Asia has become increasingly exposed to global financial markets linked to the US. As a result, Consensus Economics downgraded forecasts for economic growth in Queensland's major trading partners in Asia from 4.75% to 4% for 2008-09 between December 2007 and April 2008. Any further deterioration in Asian grown prospects would adversely affect the State's exports in 2008-09 as Asia represents the largest destination for Queensland's goods and education exports as well as being the second largest source of tourism.

366 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 15 August, 2008 [116] Closely related to the weaker US economic conditions has been the financial market fallout from the US sub-prime

mortgage crisis. Any further rise in corporate borrowing costs, or decline in equity prices, may dampen business investment in 2008-09.

[117] Queensland's agricultural and mining production in 2007-08 was adversely affected by disruptions due to heavy

rainfall and floods. However, a significant rebound in crop production is expected in 2008-09. Any reoccurrence of adverse weather conditions has the potential to delay any such recovery in agricultural and mining exports.

[118] With the differential between economic growth in Queensland and the rest of Australia expected to widen in 2008-

09, Queensland may benefit from a greater inflow of interstate and overseas migrants than currently anticipated. As a result, population growth may be stronger than expected, which may benefit labour force and employment outcomes given current tight conditions in the labour market.

[119] Medium-term outlook: Economic growth in Queensland is projected to remain around its average growth rate over

the longer-term. Economic growth of around 4.5% per annum is projected for the period 2009-10 to 2011-12. QCCI [120] In the QCCI's submission the economic considerations that should be considered are as follows:

• skills shortages, interest rates, direct and indirect wages costs and the level of demand/economic activity are the largest constraints on business growth;

• growth for Queensland's major trading partners is estimated to ease from 4.4% in 2006-07 to 4.0% in 2007-08 and moderate further to 3.5% in 2008-09. The continued appreciation of the Australian dollar has suppressed exports in 2007-08 while strong growth in domestic demand has supported imports growth;

• a moderation in world economic growth, tighter credit conditions and significantly higher interest rates will significantly slow growth in the national economy from 3.5% in 2007-08 to 2.75% in 2008-09;

• the Queensland economy grew by 3.75% in 2007-08 (5.7% in 2006-07) with growth forecast to accelerate slightly to 4.25% in 2008-09;

• business investment increased by 7.25% in 2007-08 (17.9% in 2006-07) and will strengthen slightly to 9.25% in 2008-09;

• CPI is estimated to increase to 4% in 2007-08 (4.6% in 2006-07) with the unemployment rate at a 34 year low of 3.75%;

• Business confidence has fallen to an historic low and is attributable to higher interest rates, reduced consumer confidence and rising fuel and energy prices;

• Queensland's population is forecast to continue to grow at its long run rate of 2.5%; • Growth in the Labour Cost Index is forecast to remain steady at 4.5% in 2007-08 and 2008-09; • Economic growth is projected to remain at its average growth rate of 4.5% over the longer-term; • Queensland's business community has indicated that they are willing to absorb an increase in wages up to $15.00

per week. Any increase above this amount will impact negatively on profitability, investment, employment and force business to raise average selling prices; and

• Queensland's economic ability to absorb the same level of wage increase that occurred under the Western Australian decision is considerably less.

7. WAGE ENVIRONMENT QCU [121] The QCU submits that minimum wages play a crucial role in achieving wage justice for those unable to collectively

bargain and are particularly important in narrowing the gender pay gap. The Australian labour market performance provides no impediment to a decent real wage increase for minimum wages workers. The QCU submits that the July 2007 Wage Setting Decision of the AFPC reduced the real value of minimum wages, with 62% of minimum wage workers suffering a decrease in their real wages as a result of the decision. The recent AFPC decision increased weekly wages in real terms by 6 cents for 4% of minimum wage workers and reduced the wage of 96% of minimum wage workers by between 28 cents and $15.67 per week.

[122] The QCU submits that minimum wages workers are paid significantly less than the remainder of the workforce.

Based on the latest available data (May 2006), minimum wage earners earn on average $491.10 per week whilst the average weekly wage for all methods of pay setting was $852.30 per week. Thus minimum wage workers earn just over half the wages of other employees. Women are disproportionately represented amongst the ranks of minimum wage workers. The majority of minimum wage earners are employed in lower skilled non-managerial positions.


Nearly 60% of employees in the accommodation, cafés and restaurant industry are minimum wage earners. They are more likely to be employed on a casual basis. Nearly 48% of women who are minimum wage earners are employed as casuals whilst 38.5% of male minimum wage workers are employed as casuals.

[123] Minimum wage earners received on average 58% of average weekly earnings or approximately $348.60 per week

less than Average Weekly Ordinary Time Earnings which for the workforce as a whole is $818.90 rather than the $470.30 for minimum wage workers. The gap continues to widen between minimum wage earners and other workers.

[124] In its submission, the QCU referred the Full Bench to the four most commonly used measures of wages growth:

• the Average Weekly Earnings (AWE) of non-farm wage and salary earners which nationally for the year to

November 2006 for all employees increased by 4.4% and for full-time adult employees increased by 2.6% for the same period;

• the Average Weekly Ordinary Time Earnings (AWOTE) which nationally for the year to November 2006

increased by 3.0%; • average compensation per non-farm employee of Average Earnings on a National Accounts basis (AENA)

which for the year to December 2006 grew nationally by 4.2% seasonally adjusted or 4.0% trend; and • WPI which forms part of the expanded LPI Survey. Nationally the WPI is at 4.0% for the period 2006-07 and is

forecast and projected to remain at the same level. The QCU has relied upon the WPI in calculating the level of wage adjustment sought in its application, contending that the WPI is the best measure to assess the economic impact of wage changes to the employer as it is not affected by compositional change.

[125] The QCU application seeks a flat monetary adjustment of $29.00. The QCU has used an averaging exercise in

applying the WPI as a flat monetary amount whilst seeking to benefit those workers most in need viz. those at the C9/C10 trade level in the Engineering Award - State 2002 to arrive at its claim of $29.00. If the WPI of 4.5% was applied to the wage rates as they currently appear in the Engineering Award - State 2002, then the average increase to those classifications would be almost $30.00 per week overall with the trade level of C9 receiving an adjustment of no more than $29.00 per week. This would ensure the benefit of the flat adjustment at those classifications of trade level and below.

[126] The Full Bench was also referred to the Trends in Enterprise Bargaining series published quarterly by the

Department of Employment and Workplace Relations which reports that average annualized wage increase "per employee" for agreements certified in the December quarter 2007 was 3.7%. There are no comparable public Queensland data.

Queensland Government [127] In terms of the wage environment, the Queensland Government in its submission deals with the following aspects: [128] Fair Wages for Minimum Wage and Award Reliant Employees: The Queensland Government submits that there

should be an effort by the Commission to address the disparity between award rates and enterprise bargaining rates in the State Wage Case. The Full Bench was referred to paragraph [274] of the State Wage Case 2006 (2006) 182 QGIG 16 which acknowledged the statutory requirement that awards are not intended to be mere safety nets of wages and conditions:

"We accept that the legislative obligations placed on us mean that award rates should be adjusted with some

reference to general movements in wages across the community. One of the major indicators of general movements across the community are the wage increases that have been achieved through enterprise bargaining and in the community generally. As we have said previously the legislation does not require us to establish a safety net of wages and conditions. In that regard we are required to address the disparity between award rates and enterprise bargaining rates, as well as general wage movements across the community.".

[129] The Full Bench was also referred to an acknowledgment by the Full Bench in State Wage Case 2007 (2007) 185

QGIG 422 of differences between minimum award wages and community standards and the role of the Commission in reducing the gap:

"In any event, we have reached the conclusion that the economic environment is such that, on this occasion, we

can take the step of providing real wage increases to most award-reliant wage earners and, in doing so, taking a


small step towards addressing the increasing difference between minimum wage movements compared with AWOTE… The increase we have granted should also impact positively on the gender pay gap.".

[130] As the Government submits, almost one-quarter of employees rely on the award system to provide wage increases

and there continues to be a considerable wage disparity between this group of workers and those who benefit from enterprise bargaining. In 2006 in Queensland, average weekly ordinary time earnings for adult permanent full-time employees who relied on award rates was $739.40 per week, compared to $1,056.60 for those on State registered certified agreements i.e. a difference of almost 30%.

[131] The reality is that, for a variety of reasons, not all employees are able to bargain with their employers for wage

increases. Like in 2006 when the Full Bench noted that "[t]here is no evidence that recent increases in award wage rates of pay have slowed the growth in bargaining", s. 3(o) of the Act (the requirement to promote collective bargaining) poses no impediment to the Commission granting the increase proposed by the Queensland Government.

[132] An increased level of earnings inequality is evident in both the Queensland and Australian economies. Reasonable

wage increases can make a contribution to alleviating income inequality and this is relevant to the object of providing fair standards in relation to living standards prevailing in the community.

[133] The extent of award reliance by industry of the low paid is illustrated in the following table provided by the

Queensland Government. Characteristics of Australian Low Paid Workers (Percentage)

Industry All Low Paid Employees Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 7.0 Mining 0.1 Manufacturing 8.4 Electricity, Gas and Water Supply 0.4 Construction 3.7 Wholesale Trade 4.6 Retail Trade 17.8 Accommodation, Cafes and Restaurants 9.8 Transport and Storage 3.7 Communication Services 0.7 Finance and Insurance 1.5 Property and Business Service 9.9 Government Administration and Defence 2.3 Education 7.4 Health and Community Services 15.8 Cultural, Recreational Services, Personal and Other Services 7.1

Source: Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey Release 5.0 February 2007 [134] The highlighted industries show the high incidence of low paid workers in the most award reliant industries. [135] The Queensland Workplace Industrial Relations Survey 2005 shows that awards are also the primary source of

determining pay for almost a third of all part time female employees. Thus women are more likely to be affected by minimum award standards by industry, employment status and occupation. The evidence is that female employees dominate industries which are highly award reliant and often low paid.

[136] 56% of low paid employees work for businesses that employ less then 20 staff in the private sector. Such businesses

are overwhelmingly award reliant and are often found in non metropolitan areas. The Queensland Workplace Industrial Relations Survey 2005 found that these businesses are almost always found under the Queensland industrial relations jurisdiction.

[137] The Queensland Government submits that a reasonable increase in award rates of pay for these disadvantaged

workers will help ameliorate their low income status. [138] Based on the ABS Household Expenditure Survey 2006, the mean gross household income per week for those in the

lowest and second lowest quintiles is $724.00 and $995.00 respectively compared to $1,036.00 for all households.


The average weekly expenditure of households in the lowest income quintile is $396.18 and $619.26 for households in the second lowest income quintile. Expenditure across all households is $830.13.

[139] For households included in the bottom 40% of wage earners, meeting the costs of food and non-alcoholic beverages,

housing and transport represents more than half of these households' total expenditure on all goods and services. The most disadvantaged families are families in the bottom income quintile who do not possess a home and are forced to rent. Of those in the lowest quintiles, 89.7% are in that category whereas it is 30.8% for all families. In Queensland, individuals who did not own a house comprise 30.8%, second only to the Northern Territory.

[140] Raising the minimum wage can help to improve the conditions of low income earners. The evidence is that workers

in the bottom quintile of households spend over 50% of their income on housing, food and transport. [141] Recent Developments for the Costs of Living: The Queensland Government submits that the most recent

published ABS data do not take into account recent increases to the basic costs of living such as food, fuel and housing which have increased dramatically in the past few years. The price of basic commodities such as food, fuel, health and education has been rising sharply in recent years in Queensland. In Brisbane the cost of basic commodities has risen on average by 8.1% over the past twelve months. Low wage earners spend a high proportion of their income on basic commodities. Without a reasonable increase in award and minimum rates, many low income earners will experience a decline in their standard of living as the cost of living increases.

[142] The level of affordability of home purchase has also decreased rapidly over the last five financial years. The cost of

renting a property has also dramatically increased in Australia with the average cost of a three bedroom apartment increasing by 82% since 1996.

[143] The Queensland Government submits that a reasonable increase in minimum and award wages can, and should, be

awarded to assist to stem the financial stress of low income earners. [144] Minimum Wages and Employment: The Queensland Government referred the Full Bench to s. 3(b) of the Act

which requires the Commission to have regard to providing for an effective and efficient economy, including high employment. It submits that there is no empirical evidence that reasonable, predictable increases in minimum award rates of pay and the Queensland Minimum Wage will adversely impact on employment or price award-reliant workers out of work. In this regard the most relevant evidence for the Commission to consider is that, at least since 1999, whilst the Commission has awarded a series of reasonable wage increases there has been strong employment growth and record levels of unemployment.

[145] Strong employment growth has lead to significant reductions in unemployment with the unemployment rate falling

from 7.5% in 2000 to 3.7% in 2007. Thus minimum and award wage adjustments have not significantly hampered recent strong employment growth. The Queensland Government referred the Full Bench to the following comments in paragraph [272] of the State Wage Case 2006 (2006) 182 QGIG 565:

"In many of its safety net decisions, the AIRC has considered the argument that increases in minimum wage

standards creates unemployment and has been unable to find any credible link between reasonable minimum wage adjustments and employment. There is nothing in the material before this Full Bench which would cause us to conclude that such a link exists. After almost a decade of safety net adjustments, the analysis of employment data in Queensland shows that reasonable increases have not had adverse implications and have in fact been associated with strong macro-economic performance in the Queensland economy, including strong employment growth and lower unemployment.".

and further at [271]:

"We have not been provided with any evidence that would support the proposition that a reasonable increase in the Queensland Minimum Wage and award rates of pay will adversely impact on employment in Queensland or award-reliant workers or any other persons out of work in Queensland.".

and to the comments of the Full Bench in State Wage Case 2007 (2007) 185 QGIG 422:

"A $24.60 increase can be awarded without adverse employment impacts. There is no credible evidence to suggest that past state, or national, wage cases have had any significant measurable impact, either to employment in the State generally or to the specific industries which are most award-reliant. A $24.60 increase this year would be compatible with continuing strong employment growth and historically low levels of unemployment.".

370 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 15 August, 2008 [146] The Queensland Government also relies upon the evidence that there is strong growth in industries that have a high

proportion of award-reliant employees (those receiving minimum wages increases) to support its contention that reasonable award wage increases are consistent with strong employment. Employment has grown in all four of the top award-reliant industries. In health and community services, property and business services and retail trade, employment growth was near or in excess of the Queensland average. Only accommodation, cafés and restaurants recorded lower employment growth. All of these industries in Queensland, however, outperformed Australia as a whole.

[147] In relying upon figures from the Reserve Bank of Australia's Bulletin May 2008, the Queensland Government

submits that Queensland, with Western Australia, is far outstripping the other States in its labour market performance.

[148] Minimum Wages and Inflation: Queensland Treasury noted that inflation pressures represent a risk to the

Queensland and national economies and the Queensland Government submits, this must be taken into account in deliberations on the state wage case. The increase in inflation in Queensland from a forecast 2.5% to an estimated actual increase of 4.0% over the year to June 2008 has contributed to the Queensland Government seeking a lower increase this year than it did in 2007. The Queensland Government does not want any decision in these applications to contribute to a rise in inflation.

[149] The Queensland Government is, however, confident that a $23.00 per week increase to award and minimum wages

would not affect the rate of inflation to any significant degree with the estimate being that such an increase would only increase average weekly earnings growth for the State by between 0.10% and 0.14% and average weekly ordinary time earnings growth of private sector unincorporated businesses by 0.48% and 0.77%.

[150] The Queensland Government referred the Full Bench to the following comments by the Full Bench of the Western

Australian Industrial Relations Commission in paragraph 35 of the 2008 State Wage Orders (2008 WAIRC 00347) in awarding a $29.00 per week increase:

"We have had regard in this decision to the information placed before us regarding the national economy but we

note in particular, and agree with, the comment contained in the information supplied to us by the Minister that the direct aggregate wages impact of a $29.00 increase to the minimum wage proposed by the Minister on inflation and employment at a national level is likely to be quite small and the likelihood of the increase precipitating a wage price spiral is very low.".

[151] Despite receiving substantial submissions which warned against an increase of a quantum of the magnitude of

$21.66 per week on the basis that it would have an inflationary effect, the AFPC in the Australian Fair Pay Commission Wage Decision July 2008 at p. 12:

"The Commission acknowledges that minimum wage increase may affect wider wage growth in the economy and therefore inflation. However, it considers that the direct effect of a moderate increase in minimum wages on aggregate inflation is likely to be minor. Wages paid to employees who are directly reliant on the Commission’s decision comprise only a small percentage of the economy’s total wage bill.".

[152] The Queensland Government submits that overall wage outcomes in Queensland have moderated over recent years,

particularly in the private sector. The WPI increased from 2001 to the end of 2005. Since then the all sector WPI and the private sector WPI have stabilised at over 4%. This stabilisation of wage inflation has occurred against a background of declining unemployment and strong output and employment growth.

[153] It is further submitted that one of the consequences of increases in minimum wages can be reduced business profits.

In Australia at least, there has been little evidence of declining profitability with the profit share of GDP, at 31%, at its highest level in 30 years. Reasonable minimum wage increases, according to the Queensland Government submission, can moderate these 'excess' profits and channel them as wages to the poorest paid in the community.

[154] Protecting the low paid is an essential element of wages policy and it is inherent in the legislative requirements for

the Commission to promote fair wages. In Queensland the price of basic commodities such as food, housing, health and education has been rising sharply in recent years and much more steeply than the CPI overall. As mentioned previously, low wage earners spend a high proportion of their income on basic commodities.

[155] Productivity: The Queensland Government submits that the moderate increase in minimum wages awarded over

the past decade have not contributed significantly to inflation and nor will an increase of $23.00 per week this year. One measure of productivity is output performance. Overall, Queensland's output performance has been relatively strong with total gross value added increasing by 34% over the period 2000-01 to 2006-07. Total Queensland output


growth was particularly strong over 2005-06 to 2006-07, particularly in construction, finance and insurance services and communication services. Output has been growing more strongly in Queensland than for the Australian economy as a whole each year since 2000-01.

[156] Output performance in the most award reliant industries has been reasonably strong in Queensland over the period

2000-01 to 2006-07, particularly in property and business services. The performance of retail trade and health and community services has been close to the State average. These two industries account for a quarter of total employment in Queensland. Accommodation, cafes and restaurants recorded slightly below average output over the period. The Queensland Government submits that overall, the data indicates that minimum wage increases over recent years does not appear to have impeded industry output in Queensland, particularly in industries with a high concentration of award reliant employees.

[157] Profit and Compensation of Employees: Most Queensland industries have experienced strong profit growth over

the period 2005-06 and 2006-07. Of the four most pay scale-reliant industries three have experienced above average profit growth i.e. retail trade, health and community services and property and business services. Accommodation, cafés and restaurants have experienced near average profit growth. The data suggests that recent adjustments to minimum wages do not appear to have reduced business profitability in Queensland.

[158] According to the Queensland Government submissions, the data also shows that the share of total factor income paid

to Queensland employees remained relatively constant. In focusing on the four industries with the highest concentration of award reliant employees, employee compensation as a share of total factor income remained relatively constant for retail trade and health and community services. Employee compensation declined by five percentage points in accommodation, cafes and restaurants over this period, increasing the profit share of factor income. In property and business services, strong employment and output growth has been accompanied by a redistribution of factor incomes from profits to wages. Thus, despite increases in the minimum wages in recent years, employee compensation and profits in the award reliant industries have remained relatively constant in most industries in Queensland.

8. SOCIAL FACTORS [159] The QCU application seeks the maintenance of fair wages i.e. by maintaining the real and the relative value of award

wages. The claim is particularly directed to those award reliant workers who are not in a position to bargain either through their own capacity or the reticence of their employer. The QCU submits that even with the granting of the increase sought in the application there will remain a significant gap between award wages and the outcomes from bargaining agreements.

[160] The QCU contends that recent increases in award wage rates have not slowed growth in bargaining as the numbers

of award reliant employees has reduced. There has been a decline from 20.5% of the workforce in 2002 to 20% in 2004 to 19% in 2006. Awarding the claim will, according to the QCU, ensure that the wages of award dependent workers will increase in a way that is comparable to increase for others in the community. By using the WPI and averaging it across the wage rates appearing in the Engineering Award - State 2002 to arrive at a flat monetary amount the claim is designed to benefit those workers most in need.

[161] The Full Bench was referred to the following comments of the Full Bench in State Wage Case 2006 (2006) 182

QGIG 565 at [269]

"…We agree that the WPI is the most useful indicator of wage trends for the purposes of determining this application…".

and further at [282] that

"…we intend to continue the practice of award flat dollar increases as this has the benefit of targeting lower paid workers with a proportionately higher increase.".

We concur with those comments. [162] In establishing a fair standard for wage adjustment, the QCU submits that the issues of wage disparity and poverty

should be considered. The pattern of wages growth means that there is a continuing issue of wage disparity that needs to be addressed in the interests of ensuring fair wages in line with standards generally prevailing in the community e.g. the disparity between those workers who rely on pay scales to provide wage increases and those who benefit from collective and individual bargaining. The reality is that not all employees are able to bargain with employers for wage increases. The Full Bench was referred to the following comments of the Full Bench in State Wage Case 2006 (2006) 182 QGIG 565 at paragraph [273]:


"The rate of increase in income levels generally is something that should be taken into account in deciding what adjustment is necessary to ensure that wages and employment conditions provide fair standards in relation to living standards prevailing in the community. There is no evidence that recent increases in award wage rates of pay have slowed the growth in bargaining.".

[163] We endorse those comments. [164] We also recognise that there is a range of people who are vulnerable to poverty and that this includes an increasing

number of 'working poor', where individuals or households fall below the poverty line, even where they are in paid employment.

[165] Another social factor raised by the QCU in its submission is the fact that housing affordability (buying and renting)

has decreased significantly for many Australians in recent years and that it is particularly marked for employees reliant on minimum wages and pay scales.

[166] This submission by the QCU on social factors has received support from both the Queensland Government and

QCOSS. Both organisations dealt extensively with these social factors in their respective submissions. The views expressed by both the Queensland Government and QCOSS on social factors have been outlined in other sections of this decision.

9. LEGISLATION [167] Whilst we have been referred to various provisions of the Act during the course of submissions by the respective

parties and have dealt with them throughout this decision, the QCU particularly referred the Full Bench to the following legislative requirements:

• s. 3 of the Act that provides for a framework for industrial relations that supports economic prosperity and

social justice. This framework is promoted through ensuring wages and employment conditions that provide fair standards in relation to living standards prevailing in the community (see s. 3(f)) and by promoting and facilitating the regulation of employment by awards and agreements (see s. 3(i)); and

• s. 126 of the Act provides that the Commission must ensure that an award, amongst other things, provides for

secure, relevant and consistent wages and employment conditions (see s. 126(d)) and provides fair standards for employees in the context of living standards generally prevailing in the community (see s. 126(f)).

10. CONCLUSION Conclusion on the Matters to be considered [168] Legislative Parameters: In determining these two applications the Full Bench has a discretion, however, the

discretion must be exercised within the general legislative requirements of the Act. The Act requires this Commission to balance economic and social factors in deciding state wage cases. Section 3(g) and s. 126(f) of the Act focus on the importance of ensuring fair wages and conditions in that this Commission is required to ensure that wages and employment conditions provide fair standards in relation to living standards prevailing in the community. As noted previously, the Commission is not restricted to providing a safety net for wages and conditions.

[169] The Full Bench is also required by s. 3(b) of the Act to concern ourselves with an effective and efficient economy,

with strong economic growth, high employment, employment security, improved living standards, low inflation and national and international competitiveness and by s. 3(f) of the Act to promote the effective and efficient operation of enterprises and industries.

[170] International Economy: The world economic outlook is clouded by uncertainty over the extent of the slowing in

the United States economy, the tighter credit conditions triggered by the sub-prime mortgage fallout and rising inflationary pressures tending to limit the extent of any accommodative easing in monetary policy around the globe. Additionally, economic growth in Queensland's major overseas trading partners is also expected to moderate. Despite the condition of the international economy, the state of the Queensland economy leads us to the view that it can support a reasonable and fair wage increase to the Queensland Minimum Wage and award rates of pay.

[171] Australian Economy: Growth in the national economy is expected to slow from 3.5% in 2007-08 to 2.75% in

2008-09. Higher interest rates are expected to have a greater impact on consumption than in previous cycles. Business investment and exports are forecast to support economic growth in 2008-09. Export growth is forecast to strengthen significantly as a result of increases in mining and agricultural production. National employment growth


is forecast to moderate from 2.5% in 2007-08 to 1.25% in 2008-09 causing the annual-average unemployment rate to rise to 4.5%. Inflation is expected to stay about the Reserve Bank of Australia's target band of 2-3%, at 3.5% in 2008-09.

[172] There is nothing, however, in the condition of the Australia economy which would lead us to the view that the

Queensland economy could not support a reasonable and fair wage increase to the Queensland Minimum Wage and award rates of pay.

[173] Queensland Economy: All parties providing a position on the Queensland economy generally agreed that it

continued to deliver a solid performance and that the forecast was for positive economic prospects over the next twelve months although there is a moderation in some segments of the economy. Those parties, other than the RCEAQ, submit that the Queensland economy can support a reasonable and fair wage increase.

[174] The Queensland economy is estimated to expand by 3.75% in 2007-08. Growth in domestic demand is estimated to

remain strong at 6% in 2007-08. Growth in household consumption is estimated to strengthen to 5.25% in 2007-08. Business investment is expected to rise. Other sectors of the domestic economy are forecast to be negatively affected because of the significant increase in lending rates with the mortgage interest rate rise estimated to cause dwelling investment to decline for the first time since 2000-01.

[175] Growth in the Queensland economy is forecast to rise to 4.25% in 2008-09 whereas the national economy is

anticipated to ease to 2.75%. A significant increase in exports is forecast with overall export growth forecast to be at 4.25% in 2008-09.

[176] Jobs growth is estimated to ease to 2.75% in 2007-08 with the participation rate expected to level out at 67% in the

same period. The unemployment rate is expected to decline to 3.75% in 2007-08. The rate of employment growth in 2008-09 is expected to be limited by the available supply.

[177] Inflation, measured by movements in the Brisbane CPI, is estimated to strengthen to 4% in 2007-08 following an

outcome of 3.3% in 2006-07. The CPI is expected to ease to 3.5% in 2008-09. The Queensland WPI is forecast to remain steady at 4.5% in 2007-08 and 2008-09.

[178] Queensland's population is expected to continue to grow at its long run rate of 2.25% in 2007-08 and 2008-09. [179] We have also taken note of the following risks associated with forecasts to both the national and Queensland

economies, raised in the Queensland Government submission:

• the key risk being domestic inflation pressures which may result in a higher than expected inflation outcome; • increased interest rates; • the possibility of a US-led global economic downturn; • any future rise in corporate borrowing costs, or decline in equity prices, resulting form the US sub-prime

mortgage crises; and • should adverse weather conditions like those experienced in 2007-08, occur in 2008-09, then this would have

the potential to delay recovery in the agricultural and mining sectors. [180] Wages: Employees who rely upon state wage cases to obtain increases in wages should receive the benefit of real

wages growth. Real wage growth would give effect to s. 3(b) and (g) of the Act. Growth in the minimum wage and award rates of pay has not kept pace with the growth in average weekly earnings for full-time adults.

[181] The Queensland Government urges the Full Bench to address the disparity between award rates and enterprise

bargaining rates in this decision. We agree that the issue of wage disparity continues to exist and should be addressed in the interests of ensuring fair wages in line with standards generally prevailing in the community. The reality is that, for a variety of reasons, not all employees are able to bargain with employers for wage increases. No evidence or material has been adduced that shows that recent increases in the Queensland Minimum Wage and award wage rates have slowed the rate in bargaining. In those circumstances we find that s. 3(o) of the Act is no impediment to us granting a reasonable and fair increase in award wage rates.

[182] We were also referred to the statistics that show that women are more likely to be affected by minimum award

standards by industry, employment status and occupation. Female employees dominate industries which are highly award reliant and often low paid. Awards are, in fact, the primary source of determining pay for almost a third of all part-time female employees. There is also the evidence that 56% of low paid employees work for businesses that employ less than 20 staff in the private sector and that these employees are overwhelmingly award reliant. One way of improving the conditions of such low income earners is by raising award wages and the minimum wage. We


agree with the submission that a reasonable increase in award rates of pay for these disadvantaged workers will help ameliorate their low income status.

[183] As low income earners spend a high proportion of their incomes on basic commodities, many will experience a

decline in their standard of living as the cost of living increases in the absence of a reasonable increase in award and minimum rates. We note the Queensland Government submission that some of the ABS data do not take into account recent increases to the basic costs of living e.g. food, fuel and housing which have dramatically increased in the past few years. Low income earners are experiencing financial stress as a result of these costs of living increases particularly with the level of affordability of home purchase decreasing rapidly and the cost of renting properties dramatically increasing. A reasonable increase in minimum and award wages will assist such low income earners in dealing with their financial stress.

[184] We note the submission that in light of the income tax cuts provided this financial year, no increase or a lesser

increase in the Queensland Minimum Wage and award wages should be granted. Rates of taxation are a matter of government policy and various adjustments have been made in recent years. These adjustments have not just benefited the low paid. In our view it would be unfair to deny wage rises to the most vulnerable employees on the basis that some taxation relief flowed to them when it has also flowed to the broader workforce.

[185] We also note the QCCI submission that recent changes to the Superannuation Guarantee legislation have added a

cost impost on employers while providing a benefit to some employees. We consider that the cost impost to be a factor to be taken into account in balancing the needs of employers and those of employees. However, we repeat the comment made in respect of tax cuts, that one group of employees, in this case the low paid, should not be expected to bear the brunt of the cost impost by being awarded a lesser increase to award wages and the Queensland Minimum Wage as a result.

[186] We agree with the Queensland Government submission that minimum and award wage adjustments over recent

years have not significantly hampered recent strong employment growth. The most relevant evidence is that since 1999, this Commission has awarded a series of reasonable wage increases and yet this has been matched with a period of strong employment growth and record levels of unemployment. The evidence before the Full Bench also shows that there is strong growth in industries that have a high proportion of award-reliant employees i.e. those receiving minimum wage increases. Employment has grown in all four of the top award-reliant industries.

[187] The QCU continues to support the use of the WPI as the best measure for assessing wage trends. The WPI is the

Reserve Bank of Australia's preferred measure of wages growth. The WPI for 2007-08 for Queensland is 4.5%. We agree that the WPI is a useful indicator of wage trends for the purpose of determining this application as the AWOTE and the AAWI are not adjusted for compositional change. However, we consider that any decision should not be based on one indicator alone but take into account the range of economic data that is presented.

[188] Another indicator to be considered is the average annualised wage increase per employee for agreements certified in

the federal jurisdiction. In the December quarter 2007 this was 3.7% [189] There is some concern about the level of inflation in Queensland. The forecast for inflation in 2007-08 was 2.5%

whereas the estimated actual increase is now 4%. The Queensland Government is most concerned that any decision of this Commission does not contribute to a rise in inflation. The Queensland Government is, however, confident that a $23.00 per week increase to award and minimum wages will not affect the rate of inflation to any significant degree. It is estimated that such an increase would only increase average weekly earnings growth for the State by between 0.10% and 0.14% and average weekly ordinary time earnings growth of private sector unincorporated businesses by 0.48% and 0.77%. Any decision of this Commission will only affect this latter group.

[190] There is no reliable evidence before the Full Bench that a reasonable increase in award and minimum rates will

result in reducing business profits. In fact, the profit share of Gross Domestic Product is at 31% which is the highest level in 30 years. Of the four most pay scale-reliant industries in Queensland, three have experienced above average profit growth (retail trade, health and community services and property and business services) whilst the accommodation, cafés and restaurants industry has experienced near average profit growth. Such data would suggest that recent adjustments to minimum wages do not appear to have reduced business profitability in Queensland.

[191] Social Factors: Whilst we have dealt with the issue of wage disparity earlier in this conclusion, we are also mindful

that those experiencing poverty should also be considered. We recognise that there is a range of people who are vulnerable to poverty and that this includes an increasing number of the 'working poor' where individuals or households fall below the poverty line, even when they are in paid employment. We accept that, in recent years, housing affordability has decreased significantly for many Australians and that it is particularly marked for those


employees reliant on minimum wages and pay scales. Housing affordability affects not only those living with mortgage stress after purchasing a home, but also those who are facing substantially increased rents.

[192] If the Commission is to establish a fair standard for wage adjustments then there must be a recognition, not only of

the issue of wage disparity, but also of those in paid employment who have found themselves vulnerable to poverty in recent years.

[193] Costings: The Queensland Government estimates that the granting of its proposal of a $23.00 per week increase

would:

• increase average weekly earnings growth for Queensland by between 0.10% and 0.14%; and • increase average weekly ordinary time earnings growth of private sector unincorporated businesses by 0.48%

and 0.77%.

[194] It is the latter figure that is relevant given that any increase granted by this Full Bench will only impact on private sector unincorporated businesses. In estimating the cost impact of its proposal to the 2007 State Wage Case, the Queensland Government estimated that the granting of $24.60 per week would increase average weekly earnings growth for Queensland by 0.16% and that it would increase average weekly earnings growth of private unincorporated businesses by between 0.68% and 0.74%.

[195] There has been no costing provided to the Full Bench of the QCU's claim for $29.00 per week increase. Conclusion on the QCU and AWU Claims [196] Queensland Minimum Wage and Award Wages: The applications before the Full Bench seek a flat dollar

increase in award wages and the Queensland Minimum Wage of $29.00 per week. The increases sought by the QCU and AWU are supported by QCOSS.

[197] The QCU originally claimed $27.00 per week and amended this figure following the decision of the Western

Australian Industrial Relations Commission to grant a $29.00 per week increase. The QCU has submitted that we should maintain the nexus established in the State Wage Case 2007 decision and grant the same increase in Queensland as the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission granted. The QCU contends that the Queensland economy is as robust as the Western Australian economy. This is a contention which cannot be supported by the economic data and one that we have already rejected.

[198] We dispute the position of the QCU that the Queensland economy "is as robust as the WA economy which is

running at 7.5% for 2007-08". The following economic data for 2007-08 show that the Queensland economy is somewhat different to that of Western Australia:

Queensland Western Australia Economic Growth 3.75% 7.5% Wage Price Index 4.5% 5.75% Inflation 4.0% 3.25%

[199] In the State Wage Case 2007 the same economic data on the Queensland and Western Australian economies for

2006-07 were as follows:

Queensland Western Australia Economic Growth 5.6% 6.3% Wage Price Index 4.5% 4.7% Inflation 3.3% 3.9%

[200] Any analysis of the abovementioned data would reveal that there are substantial differences in 2008 between the

state of the Western Australian economy and that of Queensland. We prefer the Queensland Government's contention that while economic growth rates for the two States have been above the national average in recent years, these rates will diverge according to projections in Budget Papers from the respective State Treasuries.

[201] In particular, estimated economic growth for 2006-07 was 5.6% for Queensland and 6.3% for Western Australia.

However, in 2007-08 projected growth will be around 3.75% for Queensland and 7.5% for Western Australia. In 2008-09, projected growth will be 4.5% for Queensland and 5.75% for Western Australia. Based on current data and projections it is thus not possible to say that the Queensland economy will perform as strongly as the Western Australian economy into the future.

376 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 15 August, 2008 [202] Economic conditions in Queensland, whilst still healthy and ahead of the rest of Australia by most indicators, do to

some extent, show signs of slowing. Any increase to the level of inflation arising from wage increases granted in these applications is also of concern.

[203] The Queensland Government proposes a $23.00 per week increase which it considers is responsible and affordable.

The impact of a $23.00 per week increase on the private sector unincorporated businesses, where it would apply, is estimated to be between 0.48% and 0.77%.

[204] The QRTSA supports an increase in line with the Queensland current rate of inflation of 4% which equates to

approximately $21.14 per week. The QRTSA's proposal does provide the basis for a reasonable increase in award rates and the Queensland Minimum Wage. The QCCI submits that only a $15.00 per week increase in warranted and this position is supported by the QCGA with the RCEAQ submitting that no increase should be granted.

[205] We have already indicated that we intend to continue the practice of awarding flat dollar increases. In all of the

circumstances we have decided to increase the Queensland Minimum Wage and award rates of pay by $23.60 per week i.e. an increase of 4.45% on the Queensland Minimum Wage and an increase of approximately 3.8% on the C10 rate. Based on the Queensland Government's estimation of its proposal on the private sector unincorporated businesses, we are of the view that the Queensland economy can afford an increase of $23.60 per week. The amount we have determined will assist in delivering fair wages to low paid, award reliant employees, in particular, to women employees who comprise the majority of award reliant workers and those on the Queensland Minimum Wage. Moreover, such an amount is not inconsistent with enterprise bargaining outcomes and accordingly, should help to prevent any widening of the gender pay gap.

[206] Allowances: The QCU and AWU applications seek a 4.7% increase in award allowances which relate to work or

conditions which have not changed and service increments. The Queensland Government proposes a 3.7% increase, the QRTSA a 4% increase, the QCCI and the QCGA support a 2.4% increase whilst the RCEAQ does not support any increase.

[207] We have decided to increase award allowances which relate to work or conditions which have not changed and

service increments by 3.8%. [208] Operative Date: The parties appearing in this application, except for the RCEAQ, have supported an operative date

of 1 September 2008. The operative date of this decision will be 1 September 2008. [209] Wage Fixing Principles: The parties were in agreement that the current statement of principles, through a

statement of policy, should remain with the necessary amendments to reflect the changes to the operative date, the quantum of wage and allowance adjustments awarded in this decision and any other consequential amendments to be made. We will issue a new statement of policy with respect to the wage fixing principles with this decision.

[210] Also released at the same time as this decision is a declaration of general ruling to reflect the outcome of this

decision. D.M. LINNANE, Vice President. D.A. SWAN, Deputy President. G.K. FISHER, Commissioner. Hearing Details: 2008 23 June 4, 31 July Released: 7 August 2008

Appearances: Ms D. Ralston for the Queensland Council of Unions. Mr D. Broanda for The Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland. And the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia (Queensland Branch) Union of Employees. Ms V. Semple and Mr J. Hartley for the Queensland Government. Mr S. Nance for Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited, Industrial Organisation of Employers. Mr G. Trost for the Queensland Cane Growers' Association Union of Employers. Mr K. Law for The Restaurant and Caterers' Employers Association of Queensland Industrial Organisation of Employers. Ms C. Dowling for the National Retail Association Limited, Union of Employers. Mr J. Goos for the Queensland Hotels Association, Union of Employers. Ms J. Kay for the Queensland Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association (Industrial Organization of Employers).



Industrial Relations Act 1999 - s. 287 - application for declaration of a general ruling

Queensland Council of Unions AND Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited, Industrial Organisation of Employers and Others (B/2008/45);

and

The Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland AND Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Limited, Industrial Organisation of Employers and Others (B/2008/50) VICE PRESIDENT LINNANE DEPUTY PRESIDENT SWAN 7 August 2008 COMMISSIONER FISHER

DECLARATION OF GENERAL RULING - STATE WAGE CASE 2008

This Commission declares by way of General Ruling that all awards be amended to include the following provisions: 1. Arbitrated Wage Adjustment

(a) Except as otherwise provided herein the wages or salaries prescribed by all awards for full-time adult employees shall be increased from 1 September 2008 by an additional sum of $23.60 per week in all award rates of pay.

(b) The rates for junior employees shall be increased by applying the percentage in the junior wage rates clause

applicable to the employee concerned to the relevant minimum classification rate for a full-time adult employee. (c) All part-time employees shall receive, on a pro rata basis, the additional sum appropriate to the minimum

classification rate they are employed under. (d) The rates for adult pieceworkers shall be adjusted by the Registrar in accordance with the practice previously

followed in relation to General Rulings declared by this Commission. (e) In the case of rates of wages or salaries for adult employees expressed as a wage or salary for a period other than a

week, the increase consequent upon this Declaration shall be calculated as follows:

For: Annual Salaries weekly adjustment multiplied by 52 Fortnightly Wage/Salary weekly adjustment multiplied by 2 Daily Wage weekly adjustment divided by 5 Hourly Wage (40 hour week) weekly adjustment divided by 40 Hourly Wage (38 hour week) weekly adjustment divided by 38 Casual Rates* (hourly) hourly wage (as calculated above) plus 25% Casual Rates* (daily) daily wage (as calculated above) plus 25%

(*this would apply when the casual rate is stated as a money amount)

(f) Each award amended to include the rates of pay arising from this Declaration of General Ruling shall include a notation that:

"The rates of pay in this Award are intended to include the arbitrated wage adjustment payable under the 1 September 2008 Declaration of General Ruling and earlier Safety Net Adjustments and arbitrated wage adjustments. [Disputed cases are to be referred to the Vice President.] This arbitrated wage adjustment may be offset against any equivalent amount in rates of pay received by employees whose wages and conditions of employment are regulated by this Award which are above the wage rates prescribed in the Award. Such payments include wages payable pursuant to certified agreements, currently operating enterprise flexibility agreements, Queensland workplace agreements, award amendments to give effect to enterprise agreements and overaward arrangements. Absorption which is contrary to the terms of an agreement is not required.

Increases made under previous State Wage Cases or under the current Statement of Policy, excepting those resulting from enterprise agreements, are not to be used to offset arbitrated wage adjustments.".


(g) Existing allowances in all awards that relate to work or to conditions which have not changed and service increments are to be increased as from 1 September 2008 by 3.8%.

(h) Increases to wages or salaries and allowances shall be expressed as follows:

(i) on annual salaries to the nearest $1 (with 50c and above being taken upwards); (ii) on fortnightly and weekly wage rates to the nearest 10 cents (with 5c and above being taken upwards); (iii) on daily wage rates (including casual) to the nearest 1 cent (with 0.5c and above being taken upwards); and (iv) on hourly wage rates (including casual) to the nearest 0.05 of a cent (with 0.025c and above being taken

upwards).

(i) In giving affect to this General Ruling, the Registrar shall have recourse to a Member of the Full Bench, as may be necessary, on the Registrar's own initiative or an application by a party to an award.

(j) Awards which prescribe or require alternative methods of adjustment shall be adjusted as follows:

Where a Member of the Commission has approved a method of calculation of wage rates as agreed to by the parties to an award other than as expressed herein the Registrar may amend the award concerned in the agreed manner which will be regarded as satisfying the requirements of this General Ruling. This method shall also be applied to adjust the rates of wages or salaries for junior employees (other than juniors whose rates are expressed as a percentage or fraction of the rate prescribed for an adult employee or for an employee who is a senior).

2. Queensland Minimum Wage

(a) The minimum rate per week for all full-time employees in Queensland is $552.00 per week. (b) An employee is an employee as defined in s. 5 of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 who is not -

(i) a disabled person or a person working in supported employment services; (ii) a person whose services are paid wholly by commission or percentage rewards; (iii) a piece rate worker; (iv) a volunteer; or (v) an apprentice or trainee under the Vocational Education, Training and Employment Act 2000.

(c) Award free employees who are engaged on a permanent part-time or casual basis shall be entitled to a minimum

rate of the Queensland Minimum Wage divided by 40 for each hour or part thereof (including hours worked in excess of 40 per week).

(d) Notwithstanding clause 2(b)(iii), piece rate workers entitled to a rate derived from a weekly rate for full-time

employees shall be entitled to derive that rate from the minimum rate per week for full-time employees as stated in clause 2(a), if that minimum rate exceeds the otherwise nominated full-time weekly rate.

(e) Award free employees under the age of 21 shall be entitled to a minimum rate of pay calculated as a percentage of the Queensland Minimum Wage, or the equivalent hourly rate determined in accordance with clause 2(c). The junior percentage rates are as follows:

Age Percentage Wages Per Week 17 years and under or 1st year of experience (whichever yields the greater rate) 55% $303.60

18 years or 2nd year of experience (whichever yields the greater rate) 65% $358.80

19 years but less than 3rd year of experience 75% $414.00 3rd year of experience 85% $469.20 20 years and over 100% $552.00

(f) This General Ruling shall have no application to employees whose engagement is governed by an industrial

instrument other than an award, during the currency of that industrial instrument.

15 August, 2008 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 379 3. Date of Operation This Declaration shall apply from 1 September 2008. Dated 7 August 2008. By the Commission, Operative Date: 1 September 2008 [L.S.] G.D. SAVILL, Order - Declaration of General Ruling Industrial Registrar. Released: 7 August 2008 ##################################################################################################


Industrial Relations Act 1999 - s. 288 - application for statement of policy

Queensland Council of Unions AND Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited, Industrial Organisation of Employers and Others (B/2008/45);

and

The Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland AND Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Limited, Industrial Organisation of Employers and Others (B/2008/50) VICE PRESIDENT LINNANE DEPUTY PRESIDENT SWAN 7 August 2008 COMMISSIONER FISHER

STATEMENT OF POLICY - STATE WAGE CASE 2008

1. Role of Principles The purpose of the principles is to provide guidance to the Commission constituted by a Member sitting alone. Howsoever constituted the Commission will have regard to s. 3 of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 and must have regard to s. 126. 2. When an award may be amended or another award made without the claim requiring consideration by a Full

Bench. In the following circumstances an award may, on application, be amended or another award made without the application requiring consideration by a Full Bench:

(a) to adjust wages to provide for a total minimum rate in accordance with Principle 3(e); (b) to include previous State Wage Case increases in accordance with Principle 4; (c) to incorporate Statements of Policy and like decisions in accordance with Principle 5; (d) to adjust allowances and service increments in accordance with Principle 6; (e) to adjust wages pursuant to work value changes in accordance with Principle 7; (f) to reduce standard hours to 38 per week in accordance with Principle 8; (g) to adjust wages and employment conditions in accordance with Principle 9; and (h) to make orders under Chapter 3 Part 4 of the Industrial Relations Act 1999.

3. State Wage Case Adjustment In accordance with the State Wage Case 2008 awards are to be amended by way of a Declaration of General Ruling in the following form: • a $23.60 per week increase in all award rates of pay,

subject to the following:

(a) The operative date will be 1 September 2008; (b) There will be absorption of the State Wage Case adjustment to the extent of:


(i) any above award payments; and (ii) award wage increases since 1 February 1992 other than safety net, State Wage Case, work value, minimum rates

adjustments;

(c) Above award payments include wages payable pursuant to certified agreements, currently operating enterprise flexibility agreements, Queensland workplace agreements, award amendments to give effect to enterprise agreements and overaward arrangements. Absorption which is contrary to the terms of an agreement is not required.

(d) The following clause is to be inserted into all awards that have been amended to give effect to the Declaration of

General Ruling:

"The rates of pay in this Award are intended to include the arbitrated wage adjustment payable under the 1 September 2008 Declaration of General Ruling and earlier Safety Net Adjustments and arbitrated wage adjustments. [Disputed cases are to be referred to the Vice President.] This arbitrated wage adjustment may be offset against any equivalent amount in rates of pay received by employees whose wages and conditions of employment are regulated by this Award which are above the wage rates prescribed in the Award. Such payments include wages payable pursuant to certified agreements, currently operating enterprise flexibility agreements, Queensland workplace agreements, award amendments to give effect to enterprise agreements and overaward arrangements. Absorption which is contrary to the terms of an agreement is not required. Increases made under previous State Wage Cases or under the current Statement of Policy, excepting those resulting from enterprise agreements, are not to be used to offset arbitrated wage adjustments.".

The above clause will replace the offsetting clause inserted into awards pursuant to the Statement of Policy determined in the State Wage Case 2007 (2007) 185 QGIG 422.

(e) Where the minimum rates adjustment process in an award has been completed, the Commission may consider an

application for the base rate, supplementary payment and State Wage Case adjustments to be combined so that the Award specifies only the total minimum rate for each classification.

(f) By consent of all parties in an award, where the minimum rates adjustment has been completed, award rates may be

expressed as hourly rates as well as weekly rates. In the absence of consent, a claim that award rates be so expressed may be determined by arbitration.

4. Statements of Policy and Like Decisions Statements of Policy and like decisions established and/or revised by a Full Bench of the Commission may be incorporated into an award in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act. Where disagreement exists as to whether a claim involves a Statement of Policy or a like decision, the Commission may refer the matter to the Vice President for consideration by a Full Bench. 5. Adjustment of Allowances and Service Increments

(a) Existing allowances that constitute a reimbursement of expenses incurred may be adjusted from time to time where appropriate to reflect relevant changes in the level of such expenses.

(b) Adjustment of existing allowances which relate to work or conditions which have not changed, including shift

allowances expressed as monetary amounts and service increments, may be adjusted by the percentage that each State Wage Case adjustment bears to the C10 total rate at the time that each State Wage Case adjustment is made available.

(c) Existing allowances for which an increase is claimed because of the changes in the work or conditions will be

determined in accordance with the relevant provisions of Principle 7 - Work Value Changes Principle. (d) New allowances to compensate for the reimbursement of expenses incurred may be awarded where appropriate

having regard to such expense. (e) Where changes in the work have occurred or new work and conditions have arisen, the question of a new

allowance, if any, will be determined in accordance with the relevant principles of the Statement of Policy. The


relevant Principles in this context may be Principle 7 - Work Value Changes or Principle 10 - First Award and Extension to an Existing Award.

(f) New service increments may only be awarded to compensate for changes in the work and/or conditions and will be

determined in accordance with the relevant parts of Principle 7 - Work Value Changes Principle.

6. Work Value Changes (a) Changes in work value may arise from changes in the nature of the work, skill and responsibility required or the

conditions under which work is performed. Changes in work by themselves may not lead to a change in wage rates. The strict test for an alteration in wage rates is that the change in the nature of the work should constitute such a significant net addition to work requirements as to warrant the creation of a new classification or upgrading to a higher classification.

In addition to meeting this test a party making a work value application will need to justify any change to wage relativities that might result not only within the relevant internal award structure but also against external classifications to which that structure is related. There must be no likelihood of wage leapfrogging arising out of changes in relative position.

These are the only circumstances in which rates may be altered on the ground of work value and the altered rates may be applied only to employees whose work has changed in accordance with this Principle.

(b) Where new or changed work justifying a higher rate is performed only from time to time by persons covered by a

particular classification, or where it is performed only by some of the persons covered by the classification, such new or changed work should be compensated by a special allowance which is payable only when the new or changed work is performed by a particular employee and not by increasing the rate for the classification as a whole.

(c) The time from which work value changes in an award should be measured is the date of operation of the second

structural efficiency adjustment allowable under the October 1989 State Wage Case Decision [132 QGIG 1199]. (d) Care should be exercised to ensure the changes which were or should have been taken into account in any previous

work value adjustments or in a structural efficiency exercise are not included in any work evaluation under this Principle.

(e) Where the tests specified in (a) are met, an assessment will have to be made as to how that alteration should be

measured in monetary terms. Such an assessment will normally be based on the previous work requirements, the wage previously fixed for the work and the nature and extent of the change in work.

(f) The expression "the conditions under which the work is performed" relates to the environment in which the work is

done. (g) The Commission will guard against contrived classifications and over-classification of jobs. (h) Any changes in the nature of work, skill and responsibility required or the conditions, under which the work is

performed, taken into account in assessing an increase under any other Principle of this Statement of Policy, will not be taken into account under this Principle.

7. Standard Hours In approving any application to reduce the standard hours to 38 hours per week, the Commission will satisfy itself that the cost impact is minimised. 8. Award Amendment to Give Effect to a Certified Agreement Subject to s. 129 the Commission may include in an award provisions that are based on a certified agreement whether or not there be consent by all parties to be bound. Without limiting the matters to be taken into account by the Commission, the Commission should consider whether inclusion of the provision will act as a disincentive to enterprise bargaining. If the effect of grant of the application will be to increase wages payable under the Award, the Commission is to insist on submissions about how future state wage increases are (if at all) to be absorbed into the increase. [The Commission is not restricted to hearing submissions about future state wage increases.] Where such increases distort relativities, the Commission must ensure that the relativities and the wage increases are separately expressed.

382 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 15 August, 2008 9. First Award and Extension to an Existing Award

(a) Any first Award or an extension to an existing award must be consistent with the Commission's obligations under Chapter 5 of the Act.

In determining the content of a first award the Commission will have particular regard to:

(i) the existing wage rates and conditions of employment applicable to the employees to be covered by the

proposed Award; (ii) relevant Statements of Policy and like decisions; (iii) relevant wage rates in other awards; and (iv) the maintenance or establishment of appropriate relativities within and between awards and the need for skill

based career paths.

(b) In the extension of an existing award to new work or to award free work the rates applicable to such work will be assessed by reference to the value of the work already covered by the Award.

(c) The proposed Award or extension to Award is not a device to circumvent the requirements which the parties would

have to comply with in the event they had sought to have an existing certified agreement amended, or a new agreement certified or an award amended to give effect to a certified agreement.

(d) The matter may be referred to a Full Bench with the approval of the Vice President.

10. Economic Incapacity Any person, natural or artificial, bound by an award may apply to, temporarily or otherwise, reduce, postpone and/or phase-in the application of any increase in labour costs determined under this Statement of Policy on the ground of very serious or extreme economic adversity. The merits of such application will be determined in the light of the particular circumstances of each case and any material relating thereto shall be rigorously tested. Any decision to temporarily reduce or postpone an increase will be subject to further review, the date of which will be determined by the Commission at the time it decides any application under this Principle. 11. Reference to Full Bench An application to amend an award outside these principles may be referred to a Full Bench with the approval of the Vice President. Members are to monitor proceedings to ensure that referral occurs where it is appropriate. 12. Duration This Statement of Policy will operate until reviewed. Dated 7 August 2008. D.M. LINNANE, Vice President D.A. SWAN, Deputy President. G.K. FISHER, Commissioner

Released: 7 August 2008

##################################################################################################

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Electrical Safety Act 2002 - s. 174 - application for stay

Chief Kitchenware Pty Ltd AND Chief Executive of the Electrical Safety Board (Queensland) (C/2008/32) PRESIDENT HALL 6 August 2008

ORDER

15 August, 2008 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 383 FURTHER TO the Mention held before Mr D.R. Hall, President, on 6 August 2008 and By consent of the parties, the Court orders pursuant to s. 174 of the Electrical Safety Act 2002, that: 1. The operation and implementation of the decision of the Respondent to issue an Electrical Safety Notification to the

Applicant on 1 July 2008, pursuant to s. 206 of the Electrical Safety Act 2002, be stayed in respect of bathroom fan/light/heater combination equipment which have a "Vosslohe Schwabe" brand, plastic heat lamp lampholder, until the hearing and determination of the Notice of Appeal filed on 4 August 2008, in proceedings number C/2008/33.

2. All issues about costs are reserved. Dated 6 August 2008. By the Court, [L.S.] G.D. SAVILL, Industrial Registrar.

Operative Date: 6 August 2008. Order - Stay Released: 6 August 2008

##################################################################################################

INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 - s.561 - appeal against decision of industrial commission

Troy John Clarke AND Q-COMP (C/2008/4)

PRESIDENT HALL 7 August 2008 ORDER

HAVING HEARD Mr Clarke for himself and Mr Rashleigh of Counsel for Q-COMP on 7 August 2008, I order: 1. That the matter be adjourned to a date to be fixed. 2. That the matter not be re-listed until such time as Mr Clarke, on application to the Court, demonstrates that he has

secured legal representation or is capable of arguing his case himself. 3. That time run under the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2000 in the ordinary way. Dated 7 August 2008. By the Court, [L.S.] G.D. SAVILL, Industrial Registrar.

Operative Date: 7 August 2008. Order - Application Adjourned Released: 7 August 2008

CONTENTS

(Gazette No. 16—pp. 319-384)

INDUSTRIAL COURT NOTICES

PageDECISIONS—

Dorothy Ann Smith ANDQ-COMP........................................................319-350

Queensland Council of Unions AND Queensland Chamberof Commerce and Industry Limited, Industrial Organisation of Employers and OthersThe Australian Workers’ Unionof Employees, QueenslandAND Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited,Industrial Organisation of Employers and Others:- State Wage Case 2008 .................................350-376

DECLARATION OF GENERAL RULING - STATE WAGE CASE 2008—

Queensland Council of Unions AND Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited,Industrial Organisation of Employers and Others and The Australian Workers’ Unionof Employees, Queensland AND Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited,Industrial Organisation of Employers and Others ...............................377-379

ORDER—Chief Kitchenware Pty Ltd AND

Chief Executive of the Electrical Safety Board (Queensland) ............................382-383

Troy John Clarke AND Q-COMP............................... 383

STATEMENT OF POLICY - STATE WAGE CASE 2008—

Queensland Council of Unions AND Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited,Industrial Organisation of Employers and Others and The Australian Workers’ Unionof Employees, Queensland AND Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited,Industrial Organisation of Employers and Others ...............................379-382


© The State of Queensland (SDS Publications) 2008Copyright protects this publication. Except for purposes permitted by the Copyright Act, reproduction by whatever

means is prohibited without the prior written permission of SDS Publications. Inquiries should be addressed to SDS Publications, Locked Bag 500, Coorparoo, DC, Q, 4151.

_____________________________BRISBANE

Printed by Government Printer, Vulture Street, Woolloongabba15 August 2008

the queensland government industrial gazette 15.08.08.pdf · the queensland government industrial...

Documents