The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) is a specialist tribunal that deals with employment and workers' compensation disputes. Unlike the Queensland Court of Appeal, which reviews trial court decisions, the QIRC handles appeals from decisions made by WorkCover Queensland or the Workers' Compensation Regulator. It is not a court in the traditional sense but has the authority to determine whether a claimant is entitled to compensation under the workers' compensation scheme.
Almost all workers' compensation related appeals to the QIRC published on the Supreme Court Library website in 2024 related to psychological injury claims and the employer seeking to avoid liability due to the "reasonable management action" defence. This article summarises those decisions.
Note on the 'Reasonable Management Action' Defence: In Queensland, employers often defend psychological injury claims under section 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ("the WCRA"). This provision says that if a worker suffers a psychological injury that was caused wholly or predominantly by "reasonable management action" taken in a reasonable way (such as decisions about performance reviews, rostering, or workplace discipline), the claim is not compensable. In simple terms, if an employer was doing its job properly- even if the employee found it upsetting – then WorkCover may reject the claim. These decisions often turn on the specific facts and how the management action was carried out.
State of Queensland (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries) v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2024] QIRC 53: The employer appealed the Regulator's decision to accept an injured worker's psychological injury claim based on workload stress. The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) dismissed the appeal, finding the injury was compensable and not excluded by the "reasonable management action" defence.
Firat v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2024] QIRC 137: An aged care worker alleged PTSD after verbal abuse by a patient. WorkCover determined that Ms. Firat's psychological injury, which she attributed to verbal abuse by a patient in her role as an aged care worker, arose from management actions that were reasonable and executed in a reasonable manner. This interpretation led to the conclusion that her injury did not meet the criteria for compensation under s32(5) of the WCRA. The QIRC overturned the Regulator's rejection, finding the injury arose out of and in the course of employment and directed Workcover to accept the claim.
Granato v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2024] QIRC 162: A child safety worker developed psychological injury after repeated exposure to graphic material involving child abuse and neglect, including reviewing case files and media related to serious harm. The worker also alleged inadequate support from her employer in managing the emotional toll of her role. The employer and the Regulator argued the claim should be excluded under s32(5) on the basis that the injury arose from reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way; namely, ordinary job requirements and decisions about support and supervision. The QIRC rejected that argument, finding the psychological injury was caused by the nature of the traumatic material itself and a lack of adequate mitigation, rather than management action. The claim was allowed.
Richards v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2024] QIRC 241: A correctional officer claimed PTSD following inmate violence and institutional inaction. The employer argued that that the injury arose from reasonable management action related to rostering, staff allocation, or disciplinary processes. The Commission rejected this, finding that the injury arose from a violent incident and the employer's failure to act on known safety risks, not from any reasonable management process. The claim was accepted, with a clear causal relationship found between the workplace incident and the psychological injury.
SAMI Bitumen Technologies Pty Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2024] QIRC 290: In an appeal against acceptance of a psychological injury claim, the employer sought orders compelling the worker to attend a further independent medical examination pursuant to s 556 of the WCRA to clarify whether lifestyle factors, rather than work duties, were the main cause of the injury. The injured worker resisted the employer's application, stating that he'd already undergone multiple assessments, a further examination was unnecessary, raised a concern about the inconvenience and impact on his health and personal responsibilities by attending yet another examination. The QIRC granted the employer's application, finding existing reports inconclusive on causation and that a further assessment was reasonably necessary to resolve the dispute. The outcome of the further medical assessment and whether the claim was accepted or denied thereafter is unknown.
The 2024 QIRC decisions reinforce that psychological injury claims under Queensland's workers' compensation scheme are complex and fact-specific. While the "reasonable management action" defence remains a powerful tool for employers, it is not a blanket exclusion. The Commission continues to scrutinise how management actions are carried out and whether the primary cause of injury stems from employment conditions or employer conduct, rather than personal sensitivities or performance management alone.
For injured workers, these cases highlight the importance of properly identifying the true cause of their psychological injury and presenting a clear, supported narrative. For employers and insurers, the decisions serve as a reminder to maintain thorough documentation and act with care when managing staff and responding to early signs of injury.
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.