The Facts
The plaintiff served as an ambulance officer with the defendant for 15 years. He ceased employment in 1999, suffering from post traumatic stress disorder and an obsessive compulsive disorder which he alleged was caused by attending many traumatic and distressing scenes over the years in the course of his employment.
The defendant had in place a program to enable its employees to recognise signs of dysfunction result in from work related stressors. The program was referred to as 'Priority 1'. The program involved education of senior officers in stress recognition and stress prevention.
The plaintiff alleged that during his final years of service, he made a number of complaints to senior ambulance officers of his desire to be transferred from the Gayndah Station. He complained that this was due to him not coping well with his duties, and he felt that his skills were deteriorating in such a remote location.
The Decision at Trial
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to have in place an adequate system of psychological counselling and treatment, and that senior officers were not adequately trained to identify signs of stress or dysfunction in employees. He alleged that he did not receive any counselling, psychological support, treatment or intervention.
The trial judge held that the defendant had not properly trained senior officers to identify signs of stress or anxiety in their employees. The plaintiff's 'cluster of complaints' in his last years of service should have led a properly trained senior officer to recognise signs of psychological distress so as to recommend or refer the plaintiff for psychological evaluation or treatment. The trial judge found in favour of the plaintiff and awarded him $569,635.31 in damages.
The Decision on Appeal
The defendant appealed arguing that even if training of the kind referred to had been established, the plaintiff's supervisors could not have been expected to recognise any signs of psychological dysfunction in him.
The Court of Appeal upheld the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's action.
The Court of Appeal said that bearing in mind the plaintiff's proficiency in his duties and his ambition (he was a highly experienced and well regarded ambulance officer), it was difficult to see how a layman in the position of any of the plaintiff's supervisors, even one trained to recognise psychological dysfunction, would have been able to discern in the plaintiff's 'cluster of complaints' that the plaintiff was suffering from such a dysfunction. The Court of Appeal pointed to the fact that no one supervisor was privy to the total 'cluster of complaints'. In addition, there was no explicit indication from the plaintiff in his complaints that he was suffering from stressful experiences in the course of employment or that he was not coping.
The Court of Appeal held that it was reasonable for the plaintiff's supervisors to treat his complaints and demands as claims for an improvement in his conditions of employment rather than as an indicator of psychological dysfunction.
The Court of Appeal observed that a supervisor could reasonably have considered suggesting that the plaintiff seek psychological assessment or treatment as unnecessary and inappropriate to a valued ambulance officer of high proficiency whose reasons for seeking a transfer appeared to be perfectly reasonable and normal. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal held that even if the plaintiff's superiors had been trained as suggested, they would not necessarily have responded in the manner that the plaintiff says they ought have. The situation may have been different if the plaintiff's complaints were clear and unequivocal reports or signs of psychological dysfunction. The Court of Appeal also pointed to the 'Priority 1' program, which it accepted was a serious attempt by the defendant to discharge its obligations to care for the mental health of its employees.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
