Australia: Stress claim on appeal in WA District Court – Meaning of Discipline, Wholly or Predominantly and Unreasonable and Harsh

Last Updated: 29 September 2017
Article by Ashley Crisp



In August 2014 Mr Suleski claimed weekly payments of workers' compensation for total incapacity from 22 August 2013 – the date of the alleged injury – and continuing together with statutory allowances against his employer Pilbara Iron Company Services Pty Ltd.

Mr Suleski alleged he was suffering stress and anxiety which was caused by experiencing bullying and threats made by his management from 22 August to 10 December 2013. The diagnosis of the alleged injury was an adjustment disorder.

Pilbara Iron denied liability and the claim went to a hearing before an arbitrator, Mr Nugawela, at WorkCover WA in 2015. On 19 August 2016 the arbitrator delivered written reasons for decision allowing Mr Suleski's application and ordering Pilbara Iron to pay Mr Suleski workers' compensation payments for total incapacity and statutory allowances.

By an amended notice of appeal, Pilbara Iron sought leave to appeal against the arbitrator's decision and sought various orders including that the decision of the arbitrator be quashed.

Expectation of discipline?

His Honour noted that – At WorkCover WA

"...Mr Suleski accepted that a meeting on 22 August 2013 related to performance issues, and that the meeting was a contributing factor and contributed to a significant degree to his psychiatric disease (stress), but maintained that:
  1. the meeting was not discipline;
  2. if it was, the meeting was not the whole or predominant cause of his incapacity; and
  3. if it was, then Pilbara Iron's actions on 22 August 2013 were unreasonable and harsh."

He also noted – "Pilbara Iron's case before the arbitrator was two-fold. It argued that Mr Suleski's psychiatric disease arose wholly or predominantly from:

  1. Mr Suleski's expectation of discipline, in which case, the arbitrator should not have turned his mind to whether Pilbara Iron's conduct was unreasonable and harsh as this concept cannot apply to an expectation (McPherson v State Print (Unreported, WASC, Library No 960697, 15 December 1996)); or, alternatively
  2. actual discipline which was not unreasonable and harsh.

9 Pilbara Iron's primary argument was that of an 'expectation' of discipline."

The issues before the Arbitrator

"Therefore, the issues before the arbitrator were:
  1. whether, apart from the PMP meeting on 22 August 2013, there were any other employment-related matters or events, such as bullying and harassment, which were significant contributing factors to the contraction of the disease;
  2. whether the implementation of the PMP at the meeting on 22 August 2013 was discipline, and if it was, whether the stress that caused Mr Suleski's psychiatric disease:

    1. wholly or predominantly arose from a matter mentioned in s 5(4) of the Act, namely discipline or an expectation of discipline; and
    2. if there was actual discipline (as opposed to an expectation of discipline) whether the discipline was unreasonable and harsh on the part of Pilbara Iron."

The Arbitrator's findings

The arbitrator found:

  1. that Mr Suleski's psychiatric condition wholly or predominantly arose from an excluded matter in s 5(4) being the implementation of the PMP at the meeting [99(a)];
  2. that the implementation of the PMP at the meeting on 22 August 2013 was disciplinary [99]. In brief reasons the arbitrator, citing FAI General Insurance Co Limited v Goulding [2004] WASCA 167, found that the PMP meeting amounted to actual discipline; [99(d)];
  3. that the actions of Pilbara Iron in implementing the PMP were both unreasonable and harsh:

    1. because each of the reasons given by Pilbara Iron for implementing the PMP were unreasoned and unjustified and therefore unreasonable and amounted to harsh conduct as a justification for implementing the PMP 'against the workers' understandable and steadfast refusal to sign the same'. In so finding, the arbitrator found:

      1. that it was unreasonable for Pilbara Iron not to accept (or to disregard) Mr Suleski's explanations in relation to issuing warnings to subordinates and to instead implement the PMP [100(a)];

      2. that there was no reasonable opportunity for Mr Suleski to complete the role description for transport operator and that it was unreasonable for Pilbara Iron not to accept (or to disregard) Mr Suleski's explanations in relation to the provision of the role description and to instead implement the PMP [100(b)];

      3. that it was unreasonable for Pilbara Iron not to accept (or disregard) Mr Suleski's explanations and instead to implement a PMP in circumstances where [100(c)]:

    2. Mr Suleski had not been provided with any or any adequate leadership training [88(b)];

    3. Mr Suleski's mid-year performance review was selectively downgraded on Ms Bufton's email instruction [88(c)]; and

    4. Pilbara Iron departed from its own procedures in managing Mr Suleski and placing him on a PMP instead of a development plan [88(f)].

In essence the arbitrator found that Mr Suleski contracted an injury in the course of his employment (which was a disease caused by stress) and found that the condition wholly or predominantly arose from the PMP implementation meeting on 22 August 2013. However, he also found that the PMP implementation was both unreasonable and harsh.

Subjective perception of proven facts

His Honour then stated –

"I now turn to consider the principle for which Azmitia is authority. The arbitrator referred to the 'reality test' in Wiegand v Comcare Australia [2002] FCA 1464 [24] as considered by McCann DCJ in Department of Education v Azmitia [2014] WADC 85. (An appeal from the decision of McCann DCJ was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in Department of Education v Azmitia [2015] WASCA 246.
The grounds of appeal focused on the arbitrator's finding that the worker was totally incapacitated for work and McCann DCJ's conclusion that the finding was open on the evidence and involved no appealable error. The appeal did not raise any issue concerning the correct test of causation in a stress claim). Although the arbitrator refers to McCann DCJ's observations at [58] – [60], the paragraphs he has cited in his reasons are not from Azmitia. They are taken from McCann DCJ's judgment in Pedley v West Coast College of TAFE (Unreported, C21-2006 (McCann DCJ) 8 November 2006) which is cited at [16] in Azmitia.
In Azmitia McCann DCJ held [16], [19]: A stress claim is compensable if it is caused by a worker's subjective reaction to objectively proven facts. It is not necessary for a worker to prove that his or her subjective perception of proven facts was reasonable. (See Wiegand v Comcare [2002] FCA 1464; Gallin v Central West Coast College of TAFE [2006] CM-21/2003; Pedley v West Coast College of TAFE C21 – 2006 [26], [50] – [51]).
In my view, to the extent that ground 1 challenges the arbitrator's finding that the implementation of the PMP at the meeting on 22 August 2013 was the cause of Mr Suleski's psychiatric condition, the ground does not establish any error of law or give rise to a question of law and I dismiss ground 1 to that extent. In my view, the finding was the correct finding.
Accordingly, I dismiss ground 1 of the amended notice of appeal to the extent that it alleges the arbitrator was wrong in law in finding the cause of the stress-related disease was the implementation of the PMP."

The Performance Management Plan

His Honour then examined the Performance Management Plan and considered its content and implications and stated –

"In my view the arbitrator's finding that the implementation of the PMP was 'disciplinary' was correct. His finding that the PMP was not purely a training tool but was similar to the warning letter the employer provided the worker in FAI General Insurance Co v Goulding is correct.
The letter provided to Ms Goulding was very critical of her work performance and attitude and set out performance standards she was required to immediately adopt and maintain. The letter advised her that her performance would be reviewed in a month's time and should her behaviour not comply with those standards, her position with the company will be reviewed and the review may result in the termination of her services. The purpose of the PMP and the language of it are very similar to the letter the employer provided to Ms Goulding."

His Honour continued –

"In my view in deciding what is discipline, the three questions posed by Cooper J in Chenhall [25] (cited above [137]) are relevant and should normally be posed and answered. However, it may be that in certain factual circumstances it is unnecessary to ask the three questions posed by Cooper J. Nor will the failure to ask those questions necessarily result in an error of law being made."
His Honour went on to state "In my view placing Mr Suleski on the PMP was clearly a matter of discipline. Whether further disciplinary action, up to and including the termination of employment, might be taken does not mean the PMP was not discipline. Nor does it mean the implementation of the PMP was only a preliminary step taken to determine whether disciplinary action might be taken." And "I am of the view that a warning letter from an employer to its employee raising concerns about the employee's work performance, and actions taken in respect of unsatisfactory work performance to manage and address the employer's concerns about work performance, would generally be regarded as discipline for the purposes of s 5(4)(a). I am supported in that view by Murten and Goulding."

On this issue His Honour concluded –

"The arbitrator's finding that the PMP implementation meeting on 22 August 2013 was a matter of discipline was correct and was not in error. Accordingly, I dismiss ground 2 of the amended notice of appeal. I also dismiss Mr Suleski's cross-appeal."

Wholly or predominantly?

His Honour then turned to a consideration of whether the stress wholly or predominantly arose from actual discipline or an expectation of discipline – ground 3 amended notice of appeal and stated –

"A further issue arises as to whether each of the matters in subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) of s 5(4) can exist together at the same time or whether they are mutually exclusive. ...Therefore, in my view, once the arbitrator found that the stress suffered by Mr Suleski wholly or predominantly arose from discipline, being the implementation of the PMP, he implicitly found that the stress did not wholly or predominantly arise from an expectation of discipline. As, in my view, he was correct in his finding that the stress wholly or predominantly arose from the implementation of the PMP, which was a matter of discipline, it follows he was correct in failing to find that the stress wholly or predominantly arose from an expectation of discipline.
Therefore, for this further reason, I dismiss grounds 2 and 3 of the amended notice of appeal."

Was the conduct of the employer unreasonable and harsh?

As to whether the conduct of the employer was 'unreasonable and harsh' his Honour said –

"I now turn to consider the challenge to the arbitrator's finding that the employer's actions in implementing the PMP were unreasonable and harsh. The words in the expression 'unreasonable and harsh' in the definition of 'injury' in s 5 must be given their ordinary and natural meaning: Housing Industry Association Limited v Murten (Le Miere J) [24] – [25]. 'Unreasonable' means 'not guided by reason or good sense; not based on or in accordance with reason or sound judgment; exceeding the bounds of reason; immoderate; exorbitant': Macquarie Dictionary (5th ed). It can also mean 'irrational, not based on or acting in accordance with reason or good sense, going beyond what is reasonable or equitable, excessive': New Shorter Oxford English Dictation. 'Harsh' means 'unpleasant in action or effect': Macquarie Dictionary (5th ed). It can also mean 'an action which is severe, rigorous, cruel, unfeeling': New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. What is unreasonable and harsh will vary according to the circumstances of the case."

His Honour continued –

"Whether discipline of a worker is unreasonable and harsh on the part of an employer is a question of fact and degree: Housing Industry Association Limited v Murten (Le Miere J) However, the true scope of the inquiry undertaken by an arbitrator in deciding whether a worker's discipline is unreasonable and harsh on the part of the employer must be ascertained on a proper construction of the Act and therefore does involve a question of law. It is not to the point that the ultimate decision as to whether the discipline was unreasonable and harsh on the part of an employer also involves questions of fact: Jenkins v Western Australian Department of Training [1999] WASCA 199 [35] (Anderson J (Malcolm CJ & Ipp J agreeing); Bednarczyk v Natcorp Investments Limited (Unreported, FCt WASC, Library No 970363, 23 July 1997) [5] – [6] (Franklyn J)."

As to this particular case His Honour found –

"Whether the employer's actions were unreasonable and harsh must be judged by having regard to all of the circumstances that I have earlier outlined, including the circumstances leading up to the decision to implement the PMP, the way in which the decision was made and how Mr Suleski was informed of it, in the context of any work policies or procedures or codes of conduct and how it impacted upon Mr Suleski personally.
In focusing on Mr Suleski's belief or perception that he was being unfairly treated, the arbitrator failed to have regard to the proper statutory construction and purpose of s 5(4) by which an employer is entitled to take administrative action to manage the performance of its workforce, the purpose of which, as observed by the High Court in Comcare v Martin [46], would be defeated if the operation of the exclusion were dependent upon the subjective psychological drivers of the employee's reaction to the administrative action. It follows I would uphold ground 1 of the notice of appeal insofar as it alleges the arbitrator was wrong in law in finding the implementation of the PMP was unreasonable and harsh and set aside that finding."

Appeal Orders

  1. Leave to appeal be granted.
  2. The appeal be allowed.
  3. The decision that the implementation of the performance management plan (PMP) was unreasonable and harsh be set aside.
  4. The issue of whether the implementation of the PMP was unreasonable and harsh be remitted to the Workers' Compensation and Arbitration Service to a different arbitrator for further determination in accordance with these reasons.
  5. Orders 1, 2 and 3 of the orders made by the arbitrator be set aside.
  6. The cross-appeal be dismissed.

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.

Kott Gunning is a proud member of

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Ashley Crisp
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.