Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2016
  4. Millroy v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2016] QIRC 50

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Millroy v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2016] QIRC 50

Millroy v Workers' Compensation Regulator[2016] QIRC 50

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Millroy v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2016] QIRC 050

PARTIES: 

Millroy, Anthony

(Appellant)

v

Workers' Compensation Regulator

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

WC/2013/218

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator

DELIVERED ON:

29 April 2016

HEARING DATES:

31 March 2014 (hearing)

1, 2, 3 and 4 April 2014 (further hearing dates)

24 October 2014 (next allocated hearing date)

20 and 21 April 2015 (next allocated hearing dates)

11 June 2015 (Respondent's submissions)

10 July 2015 (Appellant's submissions)

22 July 2015 (Submissions in Reply)

HEARD AT:

MEMBER:

Brisbane

Industrial Commissioner Knight

ORDERS:

  1. The appeal is dismissed.
  2. The decision of the Regulator dated 29 May 2013 is confirmed.
  3. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to, the appeal to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be subject to a further application to the Commission.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - APPEAL AGAINST DECISION - whether injury arose out of or in the course of employment ‑ sales ‑ migration to digital sales environment ‑ where there were changes to systems, products and customers ‑ where there were specific customer appointment numbers to meet ‑ new business lead generation ‑ where there were weekly coaching sessions - psychological injury - whether employment a significant contributing factor - whether reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way - appeal is dismissed.

CASES:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003, s 32

Industrial Relations Act 1999, s 329

McDonald v Q-COMP (2008) 188 QGIG 180.

Eric Martin Rossmuller AND Q-COMP (C/2009/36) - Decision

Kudryavtseva v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator [2015] QIRC 053.

Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance [2006] QCA 48

Davis v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 009

Keen v Workers' Rehabilitation and Compensation Corp (1998) 71 SASR 42

Prizeman v Q-COMP (2005) 180 QGIG 481

WorkCover Queensland v Kehl (2002) 70 QGIG 93

Bowers v WorkCover Queensland (2002) 170 QGIG 1

WorkCover Queensland v Heit (2000) 164 QGIG 121

O'Brien v Q-COMP (2007) 185 QGIG 383

Canadian General Electric Company Limited v The Ontario Labour Relations Board (1956) OR 437

APPEARANCES:

Mr G. Barr, Counsel, instructed by Butler McDermott Lawyers, for the Appellant.

Mr P. O'Neill, Counsel, directly instructed by the Workers' Compensation Regulator.

Decision

  1. [1]
    On 19 November 2012, Mr Anthony David Millroy lodged an application for Workers' Compensation for a psychological injury he claimed arose as a result of his employment as a Media Sales Adviser with Sensis.
  1. [2]
    In this role, Mr Millroy was required to sell advertising to business clients.  Traditionally, the advertising Mr Millroy sold to his clients was predominantly in the form of yellow pages and/or print related products.  Over time, the type and mix of products he sold evolved in line with the emergence of digital advertising.
  1. [3]
    WorkCover rejected Mr Millroy's application for worker's compensation on the basis it considered Mr Millroy's condition arose out of reasonable management action.  On review, the Regulator subsequently confirmed WorkCover's decision to refuse Mr Millroy's application for compensation.
  1. [4]
    Mr Millroy has not returned to work since taking sick leave for depression and anxiety in early November 2012.  He is appealing the Regulator's decision, arguing his employment was a significant contributing factor to his illness and has submitted the management action taken by Sensis was unreasonable and/or taken in an unreasonable way.
  1. [5]
    Mr Millroy has provided the Commission with a list of stressors from 2009 until November 2012 which he says contributed to his injury.

 Issues for Determination

  1. [6]
    There is no dispute between the parties Mr Millroy is a "worker" in so far as it is defined in the relevant legislation.  Likewise the parties agree he has sustained a psychological injury.
  1. [7]
    The questions that must be considered in this matter are:-
  • Whether the workplace stressors nominated by Mr Millroy played a significant part in giving rise to his condition; and
  • Whether the actions contained within the nominated stressors were unreasonable management action or reasonable management action taken by his employer in an unreasonable way.

Nature of the Appeal and Relevant Authorities

  1. [8]
    In Kudryavtseva v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator)[1] Neate C considered the authorities in so far as they related to onus, noting:

"Although the onus to be discharged in on the balance of probabilities, the Commission, in dealing with the matter, must feel an actual persuasion before the alleged facts can be found to exist.  The mere possibility of an appellant suffering an injury on mere conjecture is not enough.  Inference must be carefully distinguished from conjecture or speculation.  There can be no inference unless there are objective facts from which to infer the other facts which it is sought to establish (See MacArthur v WorkCover Queensland (2001) 167 QGIG 100, 1010 (Hall P) and cases cited)."

  1. [9]
    Whether employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury is a mixed issue of law and fact.  In Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance[2], Keane JA, with whom de Jersey CJ and Muir J agreed, noted "the requirements of s 32 of the WCRA that employment significantly contribute to the injury is apt to require that the exigencies of the employment must contribute in some significant way to the occurrence of the injury".
  1. [10]
    The extent and limits of the operation of s 32(5) of the Act in so far as they are relevant to this matter are also well established.
  1. [11]
    In O'Brien v Q-COMP[3], her Honour Vice President Linnane referred to the Canadian authority of Canadian General Electric Company Limited v The Ontario Labour Relations Board[4] to assist in determining the scope of what is and what is not management action.  At page 443 it was stated:

"...managerial means something pertaining to or characteristic of a manager and it is equally obvious that the word 'manager' means one who manages ... The word 'manage' is said to be equivalent to conducting or carrying on a business or under-taking or an operation, to conduct affairs.  It is also said to be equivalent to controlling or directing the affairs of a household, institution or state, or as the taking of or attending to a matter.  It apparently includes the action of manner of conducting affairs or administering and directing or controlling any matter.  It is obvious ... that the essential meaning of the word is to control and direct and that must obviously include not only administration but direction of planning for any particular enterprise..."

  1. [12]
    I accept the factors nominated by Mr Millroy relate to management action.  As such, the onus lies with Mr Millroy in establishing the management action taken by Sensis was not reasonable or not taken in a reasonable way
  1. [13]
    In Prizeman v Q-COMP[5], Hall P stated that in determining whether action was reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer, in connection with the worker's employment, "it is the reality of the employer's conduct and not the employee's perception of it which must be taken into account."
  1. [14]
    There is also authority in decisions of Hall P for the proposition that "reasonable" should be treated as meaning "reasonable in all the circumstances of the case".
  2. [15]
    For s 32(5)(a) to operate there must not only be reasonable management action but that action must be "taken in a reasonable way."  The responsibility of management action being taken in a reasonable way lies with management.  Whether management action was taken in a reasonable way is a question of fact.  Reasonable people may differ from time to time about whether a particular management decision was reasonably implemented.
  1. [16]
    As such, in addition to determining whether the workplace stressors nominated by Mr Millroy were a significant contributing factor to his illness, my role is to embark upon an enquiry as to whether Mr Millroy's condition arose out of, or in the course of, reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way.
  1. [17]
    In Davis v Blackwood[6] in considering the manner in which the Commission should apply s 32(5) of the Act and determine whether whether management action was taken in a reasonable way, President Martin more recently noted:

"Sometimes, that may involve considerations of what else might have been done but that will be relevant to whether what was done was, in fact, reasonable."

  1. [18]
    In Prizeman v Q-COMP[7], Hall P wrote:

"And it must be remembered that it is a consequence of s 34(5)(b) of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 that, in determining whether action was reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way in connection with the worker's employment, it is the reality of the employer's conduct and not the employee's perception of it which must be taken into account."

  1. [19]
    In WorkCover Queensland v Kehl[8], President Hall said that "reasonable" should be treated as meaning "reasonable in all the circumstances of the case"; and in Bowers v WorkCover Queensland[9], he also wrote:

"The circumstances that a system of work or its implementation has miscarried does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that either the system of work or its implementation was unreasonable. Reasonable schemes reasonably implemented can miscarry".

  1. [20]
    Other decisions where consideration has been given to reasonable management action have reinforced:
  1. (a)
    what management must do is be reasonable, not perfect, and, although considerations of fairness will always be relevant, "reasonableness" does not always equate with "industrial fairness;" and
  1. (b)
    it is not necessary that management action be perfect or above criticism, and the term "reasonable management action" permits "failings, deficiencies and flaws provided the management action was sound, based on reason, was not arbitrary, did not involve any unfairness and did not produce an unfair result."

The Stressors

  1. [21]
    The factors identified by Mr Millroy and his representatives as contributing to his injury are:
  • Unreasonable Refusal of Leave (October 2009);
  • Introduction of I-Gen (Late 2010);
  • Continuing technical problems with I-Gen (2010);
  • Introduction of Value Packages resulting in an adverse impact on client spend (March 2011);
  • Ongoing problems with I-Gen (March 2011);
  • Continued pressure for sales notwithstanding a downturn in the economy (May 2011);
  • Forced redundancies leading to an increase in the sales workload (March 2012);
  • Renewal of value packages (March 2012);
  • Introduction of new and complex products (March 2012);
  • The allocation of a comparatively higher number of existing paid clients (March 2012);
  • Unreasonable expectations around client meetings (March 2012);
  • Excessive meeting and reporting obligations (March 2012);
  • Threatened with disciplinary action (March ‑ April 2012);
  • Weekly Performance Review Meetings (May 2012);
  • Mandatory requirement for qualified business leads (May 2012);
  • Increased workload following the departure of other staff (May 2012);
  • A requirement to promote digital products to existing clients (October 2012);
  • Threatened with disciplinary action after raising concerns about workload (October ‑ November 2012).
  1. [22]
    Mr Millroy nominated the period of October 2009 to November 2012 as the time during which the events contributing to his injury occurred. 

The Evidence

  1. [23]
    The Appellant relied on the evidence of the following witnesses:
  • Mr Anthony Millroy - Employed by Sensis as a Sales Adviser (MSA) for approximately eight years prior to his decompensation;
  • Ms Sharon Roberts - Employed by Sensis as a Team Manager for Production;
  • Mr Christopher Mills - Employed by Sensis as a Sales Adviser from 24 February 2004 - 22 June 2012;
  • Dr Tom Bell, Consultant Psychiatrist.
  1. [24]
    The Respondent relied on the evidence of:
  • Mr Timothy Rook - Employed by Sensis as State Sales Manager for Regional Queensland;
  • Ms Sue Elliot-Pink - Employed by Sensis as a Media Sales Advisor;
  • Mr Pete Aloi - Employed by Sensis as National Workforce Training Manager;
  • Mr Phillip Cross - Employed by Sensis as a Media Sales Advisor;
  • Ms Estelle Dunn - Employed by Sensis as Account Director.
  1. [25]
    Two medical reports in respect of Mr Millroy's injury prepared by Dr Tom Bell, Consultant Psychiatrist were provided to the Commission.  A further 61 exhibits were also tendered during the proceedings.

Stressor One - Unreasonable refusal of Mr Millroy's proposed leave to Vietnam for October 2009

  1. [26]
    Mr Millroy told the Commission he initially approached Ms Dunn in or around March or April 2009 flagging that he wished to take approximately two weeks leave in September 2009 to visit Vietnam with his partner and some other friends.  He said Ms Dunn told him she would only approve the leave once his numbers had improved.  He recalled later submitting a formal application around July 2009 with a view to forcing the issue.
  1. [27]
    Mr Millroy said he eventually confronted Ms Dunn about two weeks prior to the intended leave at which time she told him she would not approve his leave.  He said this made him feel very angry and undervalued, particularly in circumstances where he had achieved outstanding results in the previous sales cycle.
  1. [28]
    Ms Dunn's recollection of the leave incident was that Mr Millroy did approach her earlier in the year to advise he was considering going to Vietnam, but she did not recall him providing her with specific dates for the travel when he first raised the issue. In an environment where representations in respect of annual leave or extended annual leave were generally made prior to the commencement of an annual canvas, so that relief could be provided and targets adequately reflected leave, her evidence was that Mr Millroy had not made a formal application for leave.
  1. [29]
    Ms Dunn recalled Mr Millroy did approach her with specific dates later in the year. She confirmed she raised concerns at that time with Mr Millroy about achieving his targets.  However, her evidence was that Mr Millroy was already behind in his annual canvass at the time he formally applied for the leave.  She recalled telling Mr Millroy that she would approve the leave, provided he met certain benchmarks with his customer numbers.
  1. [30]
    Ms Dunn explained the consequences of Mr Millroy's failure to achieve a particular outcome prior to taking the leave to the Commission in the following way:

"Obviously if they take annual leave when they're already significantly behind in their market management, then when there's no ‑ if they request the leave within the campaign and don't give prior warning before a campaign starts, then they still have a close rate that they have to catch up on over that time.  So had he gone on leave without addressing the shortfall he already had, he ‑ when he came back from leave, and had I approved it, he would have been under significantly more pressure to actually complete his market, because they have ‑ have to complete their markets by a due deadline for print directories to go to print, yeah."

  1. [31]
    Ms Dunn's evidence is that she provided Mr Millroy with a specific target to meet to enable him to take his leave.  She said two weeks prior to Mr Millroy taking the proposed leave he had come to her and told her he had withdrawn his leave application. She noted this was not at her request and that had he achieved the benchmark, he would have been able to go on leave. Ms Dunn explained the reason why she wanted Mr Millroy to reach the desired benchmark in the following terms:

"And I'd suggest that, in fact, if he was struggling to meet his targets that it might also have been a good opportunity to afford him the leave to recharge and come back to persist with the rest of the campaign? --Again, as I've said repeatedly, before today he was already under pressure with his call rates. Had I given him leave of three weeks I think he had requested, there was no market relief for him for me to re-allocate market anywhere else and he would have come back late in that year and been under enormous pressure to complete his market.

....

All right? And that ‑ I wouldn't ‑ wasn't prepared to put him in that situation...he would have had to put in an enormous amount of work in a very short time frame to actually service his customers properly and see them all and finalise all their advertising."

  1. [32]
    In its submissions, the Regulator proposed an alternative date for the leave request relating to Vietnam, drawing attention to Mr Millroy's diary entry for the week of 1-7 November 2010, suggesting his recollection of the requested leave period was incorrect and instead proposing an alternative scenario whereby Mr Millroy raised the leave issue in 2009. 
  1. [33]
    Having considered all the evidence before the Commission about the leave issue, I am satisfied the "Vietnam" leave was originally flagged in the first half of 2009 by Mr Millroy.  I am also satisfied he lodged a formal application to take the annual leave after the annual canvas had commenced, in or around June or July 2009.
  1. [34]
    It was not uncommon for sales advisers to identify annual leave requests or extended leave proposals prior to the commencement of the canvas so these arrangements could be adequately reflected in individual and team targets.  Certainly, Mr Millroy took steps to do exactly that in the following year.  On the materials before the Commission, it appears Mr Millroy did not take steps to notify Ms Dunn of the proposed leave prior to the commencement of the annual canvas and only applied once the canvas had commenced.
  1. [35]
    In my view it was not unreasonable for Ms Dunn to be concerned as to whether the proposed leave would have further impeded his ability to meet his targets.  I also accept his role was not one where he was able to go on leave and continue to work. 
  1. [36]
    There is no evidence before the Commission to suggest Ms Dunn purposely or repeatedly held Mr Millroy's leave requests in abeyance, failed to respond to his requests or unfairly held back leave requested for emergent, personal or family reasons.  This is also not a situation where multiple requests for leave were arbitrarily rejected or went unanswered by Ms Dunn over an extended period; or where Mr Millroy is claiming Ms Dunn treated him any differently from other sales advisers in respect of the approval of leave.  There was also no submission made to the Commission that Mr Millroy would forfeit his leave if it wasn't taken at that time.
  1. [37]
    The materials prepared by Ms Dunn during the course of the Ms Dunn's manner in the Commission suggested she was a person who was generally consistent and direct when communicating her expectations.  As such, I accept Ms Dunn's evidence that she considered Mr Millroy would be placed under a significant amount of pressure on his return in the event he took the annual leave, without having hit the desired targets beforehand. She communicated her expectations accordingly and explained to Mr Millroy that he could take the leave at his proposed time, provided he was able to hit certain targets.
  1. [38]
    At the very least, this provided Mr Millroy with some certainty in respect of the parameters within which he would be able to organise and access the proposed leave period.  I also accept Mr Millroy withdrew his application for leave in circumstances where he had not hit the desired target in a fast moving and evolving sales environment.
  1. [39]
    Having not had his leave approved in circumstances where he had previously received a significant award for his achievements in the previous year, I can appreciate Mr Millroy's disappointment and anger.  However, in 2010 his request for extended leave was approved by Ms Dunn and no further complaints were raised by Mr Millroy in respect of annual leave approvals.  In these circumstances and in the absence of any medical evidence or opinion demonstrating the event took an adverse toll on his health, I do not consider Ms Dunn's actions on this occasion to be unreasonable or taken in an unreasonable manner.

Stressor Two ‑ Introduction of error riddled I-Gen

  1. [40]
    In his list of stressors, Mr Millroy noted that in late 2009 Sensis introduced a new computer system commonly referred to as I-gen.  He claims the system was riddled with problems resulting in constant queries from production billing and art teams, along with irate clients calling due to errors with advertising.
  1. [41]
    Whilst Mr Millroy concedes that it was reasonable for Sensis to replace numerous computer programs, including the Siebel system used by sales advisers, with a single system, he submitted the response by Sensis to the problems that arose during the introduction of I-Gen was inadequate and unreasonable.
  1. [42]
    Examples of the difficulties experienced by Ms Millroy included data entered on one day reverting overnight to previous and outdated information, and the requirement for "workarounds" that involved further keying work by a sales adviser.  He recalled other problems such as "lock-outs" and significant delays in respect of information being entered into the system, as well as incorrect or incomplete advertisements being published due to errors.
  1. [43]
    During the same period, Mr Millroy's evidence is that his close rate, that is, the average number of customer contracts he was required to 'close' each day was 1.91.  He claimed the close rate was not altered despite the challenges associated with the new system.
  1. [44]
    The Regulator does not dispute that there were problems, and for a period of time, significant problems brought about by the introduction of I-Gen into Mr Millroy's work environment.
  1. [45]
    Mr Mills, a fellow media sales adviser who worked with Mr Millroy at Sensis, noted that prior to the introduction of I-Gen, his employer was using numerous computer programs across its operations, many of which did not interact or communicate with each other.  He confirmed there was a genuine business case for the introduction of a new program and the intention of I-Gen was to create one system for everyone.
  1. [46]
    Mr Aloi's evidence was that in an environment where the business was moving increasingly towards the sale of digital products, Sensis had too many band-aid systems.  A decision was made to replace the one hundred or so different computer systems being used with one commercial package.
  1. [47]
    Likewise, Mr Millroy acknowledged the sales team were also attracted to the concept of moving to a new system in circumstances where the existing system (Siebel) was quite clunky and had not been updated for some years.
  1. [48]
    The Regulator argued the decision to replace the multiple computer programs across the organisation with one system was reasonable management action in circumstances where:
  • Sensis delayed the introduction of I-Gen twice because it wanted to ensure it was functioning properly;
  • Sensis engaged both external and internal coaches to assist staff through the adoption and transition to I-Gen;
  • Mr Millroy was provided group and individual coaching on the I-Gen system;
  • A designated help line was established, where problems could be lodged by staff and resolved by systems experts;
  • A complaints section was made available by Sensis to deal with customers complaints arising out of the introduction of I-Gen;
  • The I-Gen software suppliers would provide updates and repair difficulties;
  • Sensis employed additional administrative support staff in the form of the Sales Contract Coordinators to assist MSAs with keying in customer contacts and other details;
  • Over a period of time, Ms Dunn arranged for administrative support and assistance for Mr Millroy on the new I-Gen system; and
  • Sensis introduced I-Gen Road to provide on-road functionality and access that was previously available through the Siebel system.
  1. [49]
    As well as maintaining that his daily close rate target during the  I-Gen introduction period was unreasonable, Mr Millroy, Mr Mills and Ms Roberts characterised the impact of the problems with the new system in the following terms:
  • Erosion of customer confidence in Sensis as an organisation for which media sales advisers generally, and Mr Millroy in particular was the human face;
  • The venting of that erosion of confidence by the making of complaints to Mr Millroy in an irate manner;
  • Consumption of significant amounts of time to undertake additional training, utilising "workarounds" that took far longer to input, dealing with customer complaints and taking far longer to input the data into the I-Gen system than was the case under its predecessor; and
  • Detrimental impact upon job satisfaction with feelings of frustration and disappointment resultant upon deficiencies brought about by the I-Gen inadequacies.  
  1. [50]
    It is clear on the material and evidence before the Commission that for a period of time after the introduction of I-Gen, Mr Millroy and other staff around him experienced difficulties.  I accept Mr Millroy spent periods of time learning the new system and correcting challenges that arose due to both user and system errors.  It follows that the need to address these challenges would have, in turn, eaten into the available time Mr Millroy had to engage with customers. 
  1. [51]
    I can appreciate Mr Millroy's frustration in respect of the problems that arose with new I-Gen system.  However, as the Industrial Court recognised in Bowers v Workcover[10] at 2 per Hall P, it is not always the case that because a system of work or its implementation has failed that either the system of work or the implementation was unreasonable.
  1. [52]
    Although I accept Mr Millroy's evidence that there were significant problems with I‑Gen at the time of its introduction, it is clear it was accepted that it was necessary to introduce a new system, particular given the emerging nature of digital advertising.  On his own evidence, Mr Millroy was supportive of such a move.  When the problems with the system began to emerge, his employer, over a period of time put in place measures to attempt to address the system errors and the subsequent challenges that arose with customers as a result of the new system.
  1. [53]
    It is also unfortunate that members of the front line sales team, of which Mr Millroy was a member, wore the brunt of customer complaints which emerged as a result of the new system.  However I accept, on the materials before the Commission, that whilst the I-Gen system and its introduction into the workplace came with its challenges, Sensis took steps to try and address these as they arose. 
  1. [54]
    In particular, I note the implementation of a service line for customer complaints, the provision of administrative support for sales team members, including Mr Millroy, who provided assistance with keying contracts, individual coaching for Mr Millroy and, whilst not directly in response to the introduction of I-Gen, a recognition that certain targets would need to be reduced over time to reflect an evolving digital market and the re-packaging of products.

Stressor Three ‑ Continuing technical problems with I-Gen (2010)

  1. [55]
    Mr Millroy submitted there were ongoing problems with I-Gen resulting in an increase in query rates and omissions with much time spent correcting errors.  The Regulator submitted both Mr Millroy and Mr Mills embellished their evidence about the length of time there were serious issues with the operation of I-Gen program.
  1. [56]
    The evidence provided to the Commission by Mr Millroy, Mr Mills and Ms Elliot‑Pink supports Mr Millroy's position there were ongoing technical problems with I-Gen which flowed into 2010.  I accept Mr Millroy experienced difficulties keying in new contracts and details about his customer's requirements in relation to artwork and billing.
  1. [57]
    I also accept the evidence of Ms Elliot-Pink, Mr Rook and Mr Cross that during this period the system gradually stabilised and further, that as time went by, many of the errors arose do to user error rather than problems with the system itself.  It is clear Ms Dunn also took reasonable steps to provide Mr Millroy with further coaching and support in the use of I-Gen.  The evidence highlights Ms Dunn identified additional administrative support for Mr Millroy in circumstances where it was taking him extra time to key in customer contracts.
  1. [58]
    As such, I am satisfied that in respect of the I-Gen system, Sensis took reasonable management action to address the system errors and challenges that arose with its introduction and ongoing operation.  In its early stages there is no question the I-Gen system was far from ideal, however there was a clear business case for its introduction. I also accept Sensis took reasonable steps to address both the system and user challenges that arose in the latter part 2009 and 2010. 

Stressor Four ‑ Introduction of Value Packages and Adverse Impact on Client Spend (March 2011)

  1. [59]
    Mr Millroy submitted value packages were introduced to the product mix, further expanding and complicating customer product offerings.  The Sales team were incentivised to sell value packages, which he claims adversely affected total client spend. The shortfall had to be made up from the sale of other products and new business which absorbed more of his time.
  1. [60]
    Essentially Mr Millroy's concern with the introduction of the value packages was that the customer spend for the previous year was reduced in circumstances where a decision by the customer to purchase a value package led to an overall reduction in customer spend for essentially the same mix of products.
  1. [61]
    Mr Millroy claims sales advisers were required to make up the shortfall in overall client spend, notwithstanding a reduction in other targets.  This point was generally supported by Ms Elliot-Pink who indicated she would try to upsell another product to the client, or propose an increase in the advertisement size to offset the reduction in client spend. 
  1. [62]
    Mr Millroy told the Commission that he enjoyed selling the value packages.  Ms Dunn and Ms Elliot-Pink explained the new packages were designed to be more attractive for Sensis customers.
  1. [63]
    Although Mr Millroy and other sales advisers were encouraged to recover the short‑fall in dollar spend for each client that arose as a result of the value packages, I am satisfied Sensis understood sales revenue, in circumstances where an existing client did not increase its advertisement size or purchase another product, might decline.  This occurrence was later acknowledged in a reduction in particular targets for media sales advisers in the 2011-2012 canvas.
  1. [64]
    Although I appreciate the crux of Mr Millroy's complaint in relation to value packages is related to his concerns about the potential for revenue shortfall and the additional work he was encouraged to undertake to make up that shortfall, it's difficult to accept the introduction of value packages in 2011 could be characterised as anything other than reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way given the changing nature of advertising during this period.

Stressor Five ‑ Ongoing problems with I-Gen (March 2011)

  1. [65]
    In his list of stressors Mr Millroy submitted the problems with I-Gen continued into 2011, resulting in a significant increase in angry and affected clients, who were incorrectly billed or had problems with their advertising.  According to Mr Millroy, support staff were removed, with more administrative responsibility being devolved to individual sales people, including himself.
  1. [66]
    As with stressor three, I accept the challenges with the I-Gen system were largely resolved by the end of the 2010 canvas. Whilst it is not difficult to envisage a scenario where customer advertising could have been incorrectly billed from time to time after this period, I consider it more likely than not that this was more the exception than the rule by early 2011. In part, this is supported by Ms Elliot-Pink's experience who was quite clear in her recollection that she did not have a significant number of her clients impacted by I-Gen system errors around this time.

Stressor Six ‑ Continued pressure for sales notwithstanding downturn in economy (May 2011)

  1. [67]
    In his list of stressors, Mr Millroy submitted the annual 2011 canvas on the Sunshine Coast was impacted by a severe downturn in the local economy, resulting in an increase in the number of business closures, cancellations and a reduced customer spend.  He claimed that throughout this period Sensis continued to demand extreme sales numbers.
  1. [68]
    The Regulator submitted Mr Millroy's allegation was not made out on the evidence pointing to steps Sensis took during this period to reduce close out rates, customers numbers and sales targets to address both the economic downturn and the introduction of value packages.
  1. [69]
    In his later submissions, Mr Millroy conceded the evidence indicated for the 2011 campaign that decreased close rates and negative targets were applied in response to the economic downturn.
  1. [70]
    Having considered the materials before the Commission in respect of this stressor, I am comfortable Sensis acted reasonably in relation to the setting of workloads and putting in place negative targets during this period.

Stressor Seven ‑ Forced redundancies leading to an increase in sales workload (March 2012)

  1. [71]
    In his list of stressors, Mr Millroy noted there were a number of forced redundancies throughout the company.  He indicated almost half of his team were made redundant with the remaining team member's workload, including his own, being adjusted to absorb a number of additional high-spend customers.  As a result, the dollar value of Mr Millroy's customer list increased.
  1. [72]
    As Mr Millroy had not had prior dealings with many of these clients he claims he was required to undertake extra preparation ahead of his meetings.  Many of his new clients had been treated poorly or were unhappy with the level of service they had been previously provided, which resulted in Mr Millroy having to manage their complaints.
  1. [73]
    Although Mr Millroy initially claimed half of his team were made redundant, the evidence before the Commission indicates the redundancies predominantly occurred within another team of media sales advisers in the Sunshine Coast office.  In turn, it was their high-spend customers which were then re-allocated to the remaining members of the other team, including Mr Millroy.  Around the same period, Sensis took steps to re-allocate a series of lower-spend customers, from the remaining advisers including Mr Millroy, to a separate division of telephone sales staff who engaged with those customers over the phone.
  1. [74]
    Evidence from the Respondent suggests the redundancies were implemented by Sensis in response to falling revenue.  Further, that there had been prior indications redundancies were being considered within the organisation.  This evidence was not disputed by Mr Millroy.
  1. [75]
    As I understand it, Mr Millroy's main concern with the redundancies was extra amount of preparation he was required to undertake in order to manage the new clients he was allocated, in an environment where clients were already upset.
  1. [76]
    Mr Millroy submitted the continuity of customers on his list in 2012 dropped to 55 per cent, as compared to prior years where the continuity fell within the range of 80 to 92 per cent.  He argues this resulted in a significant increase in his workload.
  2. [77]
    Ms Dunn's evidence was that irrespective of whether a sales adviser was servicing a new or existing client, there was always an expectation that "it was the consultant's responsibility to prep every single one of them (their clients) thoroughly each year because there were a change of products".
  1. [78]
    The Regulator argued Sensis was not asking Mr Millroy to do any more than what was already expected of himself and other sales advisers.  Further, that Mr Millroy had performed these duties with higher close rates and more customers in previous years, which meant there was no reason for Sensis to suspect Mr Millroy's performance of his duties in 2012 would place him at any risk in relation to a psychological injury.
  1. [79]
    In relation to the evidence before the Commission as to the extent of preparation required for individual high-spend clients, Mr Millroy submitted it was quite involved.  On the other hand, Ms Elliot-Pink was of the opinion the allocation of new, high spend customers did not necessarily result in an increase in workload.  Having considered the evidence of both advisers, I suspect the reality lies somewhere in the middle, depending on the nature, size and business operations of the client.
  1. [80]
    Although it is clear Mr Millroy requested a new mix of clients during the same period, expressing to Ms Dunn his boredom with his existing client base, I accept Mr Millroy was required to undertake additional preparation in 2012 to manage the new clients he was handed following the redundancies.  In turn, I accept this would have, at times, increased his workload depending on the client.  I also accept there was a greater degree of risk associated with higher-spend clients not renewing their advertising, which could have resulted in increased pressure in relation to sales targets.
  1. [81]
    However, I accept it was necessary and reasonable for Sensis to implement redundancies due to declining revenue and an evolving advertising environment.  It is clear the organisation took steps to alter sales targets and alleviate the increased workload for sales advisers by arranging for other staff to absorb some of this work.
     
  2. [82]
    As such, whilst it would have been a challenging period and I accept it would have been necessary for Mr Millroy to familiarise himself with a larger number of new customers than in previous years, I do not consider the redundancies and in turn, the reallocation of new customers to Mr Millroy to be unreasonable management action; or reasonable management action taken in an unreasonable manner, particularly in circumstances where lower-spend clients were swapped out of the lists and there was already a pre-existing obligation to prepare for all clients, irrespective of their status.

Stressor Eight ‑ Renewal of value packages (March 2012)

  1. [83]
    Mr Millroy claimed the value packages had to be renewed which created further work around the same period as the redundancies.
  1. [84]
    In his evidence to the Commission, Mr Millroy explained the process of identifying which client's value packages were coming up for renewal was labour intensive and not as simple as pressing a button.  He submitted this added a greater degree of complexity and stress into his role at around the same time he was asked to take on high-spend clients re-allocated as a result of the redundancies.  He confirmed that some clients were "were difficult, some were dead easy".
  1. [85]
    In cross-examination, Mr Millroy acknowledged he was provided with a list of upcoming value package renewals and on his own evidence confirmed there were approximately eight to ten clients that he was required to visit urgently due to the timing of their upcoming renewal date.
  1. [86]
    The Regulator argues no additional work was created through the value package renewal process and instead Mr Millroy was already obliged to visit clients with the only difference being was that it was necessary to slot in the visit six weeks prior to the expiry of the package.
  1. [87]
    Essentially, my understanding of Mr Millroy's evidence is that he was concerned about the intensity of the work around this period, in circumstances where he was required to prepare for a series of meetings with clients he had not previously engaged with, at the same time as it was necessary for him to lock in meetings with "value package" clients.
  1. [88]
    Although I accept this was no doubt a period of high intensity in an environment where Mr Millroy also had to contend with other changes associated with the migration from print to digital advertising, I don't consider the request to visit customers six weeks prior to the renewal date so onerous as to fall into the category of unreasonable management action or reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way.
  1. [89]
    Certainly, it added to the growing pressure associated with the changes being introduced by Sensis at the time, but in my view the actions of Sensis do not fall into the category of unreasonable management action or reasonable management action taken in an unreasonable way, particularly in circumstances where Mr Millroy estimated the number of emergent value package clients was approximately eight to ten which was less than four per cent of his total client list.

Stressor Nine ‑ Introduction of new and complex products (March 2012)

  1. [90]
    In his list of stressors, Mr Millroy indicated new products were introduced including very complex mapping advertising and social media marketing.  His evidence was this added additional time, between five and ten minutes, to his client meetings.
  2. [91]
    Ms Dunn's evidence was that Mr Millroy was highly skilled at selling these products, though noted less than five had been sold across her entire team during the nominated period.  She did not accept the product significantly added to the workload.
  1. [92]
    Whilst the introduction of new products was a further change, I do not accept the proposed stressor falls into the category of unreasonable management action or reasonable management action taken in an unreasonable way, particularly in circumstances where Mr Millroy received extensive training in respect of the new products and where the nominated stressor falls within a period where Sensis and its customers were transitioning to a digital advertising environment.

Stressor Ten ‑ Comparatively higher number of BOTS clients (March 2012)

  1. [93]
    In his list of stressors Mr Millroy noted that he originally had 213 BOTS clients (established, paying customers) whom he was expected to service.  However, he further estimated he had approximately 280 clients in total which he says exceeded the number of clients serviced by his Brisbane colleagues.  Mr Millroy maintains Ms Dunn unreasonably directed him to contact customers on a new business list, which further increased his workload and essentially took his customer base up to 283.
  1. [94]
    Whilst there did appear to be some confusion between the parties around how customer lists were calculated, Ms Dunn's evidence was that in 2012 Mr Millroy was allocated 219 clients with an additional requirement to write 15 new business customers.  This gave Mr Millroy a total of 234 clients, of which it was accepted he could lose 16 of those existing clients over the course of the year.
  1. [95]
    The Regulator argues Mr Millroy included "non-spend" or "new business" customers in his client list which inflated his customer numbers.  Instead, it submits Mr Millroy had approximately 219 clients noting the number was consistent with previous years and also similar to the number of paying customers allocated to other sales advisers in his region around the same period. 
  1. [96]
    The Regulator argued the evidence supports the position that "non-spend" customers represented a potential source for new business, but did not form part of Mr Millroy's client numbers; and that it was inappropriate for Mr Millroy to compare the workload in his region to that of another.
  1. [97]
    Essentially, this stressor came down to an argument about whether it was a requirement for Mr Millroy to contact all additional new business clients on his list in an environment where, Mr Millroy argues it was not compulsory to do so.  In turn, he claims this requirement increased his customer base and added to his workload.
     
  2. [98]
    In an email sent to Ms Dunn after he commenced sick leave in November 2012, Mr Millroy requested clarification as to his total number of clients, raising concerns about what he considered to be an increase in his client list. In her response, Ms Dunn noted:

"This is your amended list from that time.  It includes all customers, paid and unpaid, with all Acquire leads."

And later;

"You are absolutely correct that the unpaid customer from your leads need contacting, as these are your New Business leads opportunity that needs to be addressed weekly and reviewed every Monday with you.  This has always been a standard part of your job requirement..."

  1. [99]
    In my view, it is clear from the materials before the Commission that there was an accepted distinction between the number of Mr Millroy's assigned BOTS customers or "paid customers" (approximately 219) and the list of new business or "un-paid" customers provided to Mr Millroy, from which there was an expectation he would generate new "paid" customers.
  1. [100]
    Whilst the question of whether it was unreasonable for Ms Dunn to request Mr Millroy contact additional new business leads should to be considered in the context of his overall workload and targets, in my view, Mr Millroy has not demonstrated that his BOTS numbers or existing paying customer base increased to 283 or anywhere near this figure.

Stressor Eleven ‑ Requirement for 13 Appointments per week

  1. [101]
    Mr Millroy initially submitted his team was advised that the minimum expectations of management were 13 customer appointments per week, plus service calls and issue resolution.  The team was told management wanted a "multi-touch" policy.  The output was set at the signing off on 1.3 BOTS per day from day one.  In addition, the team were provided with a new business target and a digital only target.  The team was also expected to grow their BOTS numbers significantly.
  1. [102]
    Mr Millroy told the Commission he advised Ms Dunn in early 2012, on behalf of his team, that the proposed number of meetings was too much but that she was not receptive to his concerns.  Instead, he said he left his discussions with Ms Dunn in no doubt that if he pushed any harder (in relation to his concerns about appointment targets) that he would be managed out the door in a short time.
  1. [103]
    The evidence of Mr Rook, Ms Mills and Ms Elliot-Pink indicates that, at best, Mr Millroy was mistaken that the proposed 13 customer appointments each week did not include additional service calls and customer issue resolution.  Although, it is the case that Mr Millroy's employer promoted a multi-touch policy.  In this respect, I note it was not unusual for sales advisors to meet with customers more than once during an annual canvas.
  1. [104]
    Likewise, the 2010 and 2012 "Go-To-Market" launch presentation and accompanying information confirm that 2012 was not the first time Mr Millroy or his other team members were provided with targets around digital clients or new business.
  2. [105]
    Having considered the "Go-To-Market" launch presentation and accompanying information for the 2012 canvas, I am satisfied the BOT close rate for this period was 1.15 rather than the 1.3 noted by Mr Millroy in his original list of stressors.  The daily close rate proposed in the 2012 annual canvas was also significantly lower than the 1.8 close rate listed in the 2010 canvas.  Likewise, the proposed customer meeting target for 2012 was less than that actually achieved by Mr Millroy in past years.
  3. [106]
    As I understand it, Mr Millroy considered it unreasonable for his employer to put in place a target of 13 customer meetings each week for the 2012 canvas given his views about the increased complexity of product offerings and the need to spend more time with the customer.
  1. [107]
    The Regulator argued Mr Millroy was provided with extensive support and assistance to help him achieve the weekly appointment targets, including:
  • Weekly meetings with Ms Dunn to discuss Mr Millroy's progress against targets and to put in place goals and strategies for the following week;
  • Monthly campaign meetings where media sales advisers, including Mr Millroy would attend one-on-one discussions with Ms Dunn to discuss their progress against targets and ongoing sales strategy;
  • Preparation strategy meetings with Ms Dunn followed by on-road coaching; and
  • Administrative support.
  1. [108]
    Having considered the materials before the Commission and in particular the "Go‑To‑Market" presentations for the years 2009 through to 2012, the evidence dealing with the emergence of new products and the migration from print to digital advertising, I am satisfied the targets put in place for Mr Millroy and his team in the 2012 canvas were reflective of the changing nature of the Sensis business at that time.
  1. [109]
    I accept the market was moving away from print and towards digital advertising.  In a practical sense this meant that sales advisors, including Mr Millroy, over a three to four year period moved from selling Yellow Pages print products to digital advertising.  Throughout this period, Mr Millroy and the remaining members of his team were obliged to undergo training and learn about the new products and then promote them to customers.  In this respect, the 2012 "Go‑To‑Market" Launch presentation allocated 10 days of start-up training, with a total of 179 "sell" days and "46" non-sell days.
  1. [110]
    Whilst I accept meeting lengths would have varied from time to time and it would no doubt have been quite arduous to go back and correct the length of every meeting he attended, an analysis of the Mr Millroy's diaries for the 2012 year indicates the duration of his appointments over a period of a week varied between 12 to 20 hours per week, depending on the number and type of appointments he arranged.
  1. [111]
    These appointments involved a mix of initial as well as, where warranted, second and third follow up meetings or phone calls.  For a complex and in some cases, high spend customer the first meeting or call could last for up to two or more hours.  Less complex clients would range from 30 minutes to an hour.  A second or third follow-up meeting would range from 15 minutes to an hour depending on the client and the nature of the meeting.  Likewise service calls, issue resolution and artwork meetings would follow similar timeframes as the less complex customer appointments.
  1. [112]
    Essentially, Mr Millroy attended a mix of customer appointments during the week which ranged from 30 minutes to more than two hours.  The target number of appointments was set at 13, however Mr Millroy did not always achieve the proposed target.
  1. [113]
    The question of whether or not the target set by Sensis was excessive needs to be considered in the context of preparation and travel time, as well as his other meeting, reporting and work obligations.

Stressor Twelve ‑ Excessive meeting and reporting obligations (March 2012)

  1. [114]
    Mr Millroy claims all team members were required to attend a sales meeting on Monday morning which extended until 11.30am.  Additionally, Mr Millroy was required to attend a Monday afternoon meeting to set expectations for the following week and also review the previous week.  Mr Millroy then had the remaining four days to attend upon thirteen clients, source new business and action other requests.  On average he claimed a meeting with each client took four hours, however it was often more.
  1. [115]
    Mr Millroy noted in his list of stressors that he was also required to undertake daily reporting.  This included a requirement to physically prepare a report relating to his sales in dollar value which took anywhere between five to 30 minutes per day.  He was also required to input front row sales on his IPad which recorded all of the appointments he attended in a day.  He estimates this took approximately five minutes per day to complete.
  1. [116]
    A review of Mr Millroy's electronic diary highlights the weekly team meeting he was required to attend was generally held on a Monday morning, from 8.30 am until 10.30 am, rather than 11.30 am.  I accept that from time to time the team meetings ran overtime, particularly in circumstances where additional training or presentations took place.  Likewise, in some cases they ran for a shorter period or were cancelled.  In some instances, it appears Mr Millroy had appointments or calls booked in immediately after 10.30 am.
  1. [117]
    Based on his diary entries, I am satisfied Mr Millroy was generally free to make calls, plan his week or attend to customer appointments from Monday, 10.30 am onwards.  His regular review meeting with Ms Dunn often took place on Monday afternoon around 5.00 pm or late on a Friday afternoon.  Ms Dunn's evidence was that the review meetings had been occurring for some time and would generally take half an hour at most, other than in circumstances where Mr Millroy had not adequately prepared for the meeting.
  1. [118]
    In his list of stressors Mr Millroy claimed the average duration of a meeting with a customer was approximately four hours and sometimes longer.  Mr Millroy told the Commission the time taken to prepare for each customer would vary.  A low spend customer might only take forty minutes preparation whereas a high spend, national customer might take him days.  He allowed 30 to 40 minutes for travel and a further two hours for each customer appointment.
  1. [119]
    Mr Milroy's representatives summarised the average time taken to complete a transaction with a customer in the following terms:
  • Preparation: 1 hour
  • Travel (2 appointments)  1 hour
  • Initial Consultation 2 hours
  • Second Consultation .75 hours
  • Subsequent consultation .25 hours
  1. [120]
    His representatives later submitted Mr Millroy's workload was excessive and unreasonable in circumstances where he was required, in addition to other work obligations, to spend an average of 30 to 39.5 hours per week attending to client appointments based on a client list of between 215 and 283, and up to a further 5.7 hours per week attending and preparing for review meetings as well as undertaking other reporting obligations.
  1. [121]
    The difficulty I have with the number of hours above is that the foundations upon which they are based are not entirely accurate.  For example, given the reasons set out in Stressor Ten, I do not accept Mr Millroy's had 283 paying-customers.  Further, having considered the evidence and materials before the Commission and in particular, Mr Millroy's work diaries, I am not persuaded that it took Mr Millroy, on average, up to five hours to prepare for, meet and close for each client on his list.  
  2. [122]
    Likewise, although I accept Mr Millroy was obliged to chase new business from the "unpaid customer leads" list he was provided, I do not accept that every one of these potential clients, resulted in an appointment, let alone an obligation to spend the proposed average of five hours closing the deal or attending a four hour meeting.  Certainly, one of the weaknesses identified by Ms Dunn throughout her review meetings with Mr Millroy was his lack of engagement and reporting on new business leads.
  1. [123]
    Having reviewed Mr Millroy's diary entries which recorded meeting times for various customers, and also a colour code to denote how many meetings he had attended with a particular customer, I am also unable to accept Mr Millroy's claims that his average meeting extended for duration of four or more hours.
  1. [124]
    Whilst allowing for the possibility that some meetings may have extended for a longer or a shorter period than that recorded in his diary, Mr Millroy's records indicate he attended a mix of meetings during the course of the week which ranged from an hour and a half down to half an hour or less.  In some cases, follow-up meetings were held over the phone.  It's clear from his diaries he would also attempt to efficiently cluster meetings into similar areas on certain days of the week which would have reduced travel time.
  1. [125]
    Whilst I accept preparation was an essential part of Mr Millroy's role, the time taken would have varied depending on the nature of business.  On his own evidence, Mr Millroy found some clients very easy to close and others not so easy.
  1. [126]
    In relation to Mr Millroy's reporting and internal meeting obligations, I accept the team meetings, whilst they may well have run over from time to time, extended for two hours and a further half-an-hour set aside for his one-on-one meetings with Ms Dunn.  I also accept the evidence of Ms Dunn and Ms Elliot-Pink in respect of the small amount of time it took to the sales advisers to address their remaining electronic reporting obligations.
  1. [127]
    As such, although I do not doubt the gradual evolution of Mr Millroy's role from selling print advertising to digital advertising, in an environment where his employer was also having to manage change within its own operations, brought with it additional challenges and obligations, I am not persuaded the customer appointment and reporting requirements placed upon him by Sensis management in 2012 were unreasonable.

Stressor Thirteen –Threatened with disciplinary action (March ‑ April 2012)

  1. [128]
    Mr Millroy claims he approached his Manager, Ms Dunn prior to a sales meeting in March or April 2012 and argued that thirteen appointments per week was too high, unrealistic and unreasonable. She threatened him with disciplinary action and refused to take Mr Millroy's case to her Manager.
  1. [129]
    Ms Dunn recalls Mr Millroy raising concerns about the number of appointments but was of the view it occurred later in the year.  Under cross-examination, she did not specifically recall saying the words, "the business can take a very dim view of this if you progress it".  Instead, she told the Commission Mr Millroy had started to resist doing his job, which would have led to a transition into a behavioural performance management program.
  1. [130]
    The Regulator argues this stressor should be treated with caution in circumstances where Mr Millroy failed to document his alleged meeting with Ms Dunn and her subsequent comments and did not seek to get the union involved notwithstanding his role as a union delegate.
  1. [131]
    Having considered the materials before the Commission, I accept it is more than likely Mr Millroy complained to his Manager at some point about the target of 13 appointments.  Ms Dunn's evidence was that she continually had to reinforce to Mr Millroy that the targeted weekly appointments were a requirement of his role, in circumstances where he had previously achieved similar or greater targets in previous years.
  1. [132]
    Whilst I am not persuaded Ms Dunn directly threatened Mr Millroy's employment in response to his comments about union involvement or his complaints about workload, I am satisfied she more than likely inferred that the consequences of Mr Millroy failing to carry out the requirements of his role could include disciplinary action, in circumstances where he had fallen behind in his targets, where she had been conducting weekly coaching sessions to address gaps in his performance and where he presented as being resistant to a number of her directions in respect of weekly appointments and new business leads.
  1. [133]
    In circumstances where it wasn't possible for Ms Dunn to excuse Mr Millroy from his job requirements in relation to new business leads and appointment numbers, I consider it was reasonable for Ms Dunn to indicate that disciplinary action may well have been the next step.

Stressor Fourteen ‑ Weekly Performance Review Meetings (May 2012)

  1. [134]
    Mr Millroy claims Ms Dunn subsequently moved to weekly performance reviews for up to two hours per week, which Mr Millroy was required to attend in addition to all of his other duties.
  1. [135]
    Essentially, Mr Millroy's representatives have submitted that he was being micro‑managed to such an unreasonable extent that it inhibited his ability to complete the core tasks of his sales position.  Further, that this added to a workload that was already excessive and unreasonable.
  1. [136]
    The Regulator tendered coaching reports relating to Mr Millroy for the period September though to November 2012.  There is no dispute the one-on-one coaching meetings between Ms Dunn and Mr Millroy occurred on a weekly basis, generally on a Monday or Friday afternoon and where possible after 4.30 pm or thereabouts so as not to interfere with Mr Millroy's weekly appointments with customers.  A review of Mr Millroy's diaries and emailed appointment requests from Ms Dunn indicate the meetings were generally set down for half an hour, though I accept that from time to time they may well have run over tendered. 
  1. [137]
    The review meetings set down in 2012 were not the first time Mr Millroy had participated in coaching sessions. Ms Dunn would instigate coaching sessions where sales advisers were falling behind on their targets.
  1. [138]
    The coaching approach adopted by Ms Dunn with Mr Millroy in 2012 included an email appointment request for a half hour coaching session.  At these meetings, a standard coaching form was completed by Ms Dunn and more often than not signed by Mr Millroy.
  1. [139]
    The main agenda items for the meetings included a review of weekly targets against actuals, and the development a plan identifying appointment numbers, targeted customers and new business leads for the forthcoming week.  A reference to any additional coaching or administrative support would be included in Ms Dunn's notes.  For example, in the follow-up section of the report, Ms Dunn would often include the names of staff nominated to assist Mr Millroy with preparation.
  1. [140]
    Ms Dunn's evidence is that her coaching meeting with Mr Millroy would take half an hour where Mr Millroy was prepared.  In circumstances where he was not prepared the meeting could take an hour or longer.
  1. [141]
    The wording on the completed coaching forms provided to the Commission is quite perfunctory.  At times Ms Dunn can be seen acknowledging where Mr Millroy has some wins in respect of close rates or appointment numbers or making an allowance for where he may have had a slower period due to leave.  Ms Dunn also included notes on customer appointment numbers, close rates and new business leads along with commentary as to how Mr Millroy's actual numbers compared to his targets.
  1. [142]
    On occasion, Ms Dunn nominates herself to follow-up with particular customers in the follow-up section.  Monthly review forms, provided to the Commission follow a similar format, but venture into more details in respect of strengths and weaknesses, sales strategy and agreed support, coaching or administrative assistance.
  1. [143]
    The majority of the 2012 coaching forms submitted to the Commission recording the outcomes of Mr Millroy's coaching sessions repeatedly highlight shortfalls in respect of new business leads or the follow-up and reporting of those leads.
  1. [144]
    Whilst I can appreciate the weekly review meetings may well have been a further imposition on Mr Millroy's time, the materials provided to the Commission highlight he was falling behind in his appointment numbers, new business leads and overall sales targets.  As his line manager, Ms Dunn had an obligation to assist Mr Millroy to identify and overcome the hurdles preventing him from achieving his targets.
  1. [145]
    Some of the challenges for Mr Millroy included last minute cancellations of customer appointments or "stand-ups" which in turn impacted his capacity to "close" customer sales. Other challenges included a lack of follow-up and reporting on new business leads which in turn impacted his new business sales targets.
  1. [146]
    In my view it was reasonable for Ms Dunn to set up coaching sessions to assist Mr Millroy in his role.  On paper, she appeared to take an objective and consistent approach towards these sessions week after week.  At most, the agreed follow-up at the conclusion of the meeting was often captured in five or less short points.  
  2. [147]
    In respect of how she conducted herself during these meetings, Mr Millroy did not raise concerns about how he was spoken to by Ms Dunn or his treatment during these meetings, though I note his comments about feeling as if he wasn't able to do his job properly.  Certainly, whilst giving her evidence Ms Dunn presented as an objective and professional line-manager who simply wanted to assist Mr Millroy to hit his targets.  In a fast moving and competitive digital sales environment, her approach, although at times somewhat mechanical and process orientated, appeared to have been reasonable in the circumstances.

Stressor Fifteen ‑ Mandatory requirement for qualified business leads (May 2012)

  1. [148]
    Mr Millroy claims he was then imposed with a mandatory minimum of three qualified business clients per week which he says were unreasonable given the other demands that had already been placed on him.
  1. [149]
    The Regulator argues it was perfectly reasonable management action for Ms Dunn to require the Appellant to comply with his obligations to provide three new leads, and to ensure they were qualified, particularly in circumstances where achieving new business targets were part of Mr Millroy's role.
  1. [150]
    The 2012 "Go-To-Market" Launch Presentation notes provided to the Commission sets out the obligations of Sales Advisers for actioning leads, including self-sourced leads. 
  1. [151]
    A system within Sensis was set up to electronically feed leads to advisers.  Sales Advisers were required to follow up or action those opportunities within a particular timeframe and then log updates into the system.  Self-identified leads were also required to be entered into the system.  The policy notes that Sales Advisers will be removed from the rotation list where they don't action a particular percentage of the leads.
  1. [152]
    There is no dispute Mr Millroy was in breach of the lead rotation policy on multiple occasions during 2012 and on other occasions before this.  In a practical sense this meant that he was either not following up a dedicated percentage of the leads or he was not logging his actions in the system within the required time where he did follow up the leads.  As a consequence, Mr Millroy was regularly removed from the electronic lead rotation list after receiving warnings about his non-compliance.  This resulted in him missing out on leads for new business and appointments and in turn impacted his capacity to hit his new business targets.
  1. [153]
    Ms Dunn explained to the Commission that she was then obliged to:

"...set a mandatory number of leads he needed to log each week, and, to help support him with that process, if he found brochures or newspapers or other directories or business cards..., I actually set up a support process where he could give them to Deb Mills, our business administrator, and she would check to see if they were an opportunity...".

  1. [154]
    Ms Dunn explained this was the only way for Mr Millroy to generate new business requirements in circumstances where he had been removed from the leads rotation list and where it was a requirement of Mr Millroy's role that he generate new business sales.
  1. [155]
    As I understand it, the crux of Mr Millroy's complaint in respect of the qualified business leads is effectively the additional demands this requirement placed on his time when he, from his perspective, was already overloaded with work.
  1. [156]
    I accept that a requirement to source his own leads and then take steps to qualify those leads, either through the office administrator or off his own back would have no doubt added to his workload.  I also accept Mr Millroy may not have been sent electronic leads that always led to a sale and may have had days when he did not have a chance to log his actions on the system.  Certainly, some of the materials before the Commission suggest Mr Millroy was not always happy with the quality of the leads being sent through to him.
  1. [157]
    However, in circumstances where the same role requirements applied to all advisors in the team, it appeared Mr Millroy was either unable or unwilling to comply with the lead generation policy. Given sales advisers were required to achieve a new business as part of their role, I consider it was reasonable for Ms Dunn to put in place a requirement for Mr Millroy to source and record leads.

Stressor Sixteen ‑ Increased workload following departure of other staff (May 2012)

  1. [158]
    In his list of stressors, Mr Millroy included:

"Following Chris Mills and Geoff Mays leaving Sensis due to mental health issues which had developed due to work related stress, approximately eight weeks ago the big dollar clients of theirs were moved into everyone else's load including Mr Millroy's.  These clients then swapped for low spend clients however they required more work than the low spend clients."

  1. [159]
    Essentially this stressor raises the same arguments as those in Stressor Seven which deals with Mr Millroy's concerns about the impact of the reallocation of work after the initial round of redundancies in early 2012.  He argues that a reallocation of "big dollar clients" while swapping out lower spend clients led to an increased workload.
  1. [160]
    From a team morale perspective it was most likely unsettling to have two other team members depart so shortly after the previous round of redundancies, however the question to be answered here is whether the reallocation of "big dollar" customers led to an increased workload for Mr Millroy and, if so, whether this was unreasonable management action, or alternatively, reasonable management action implemented in an unreasonable manner.
  1. [161]
    The "Go-To-Market" launch presentation for the 2012 canvas provided to the Commission indicates customers were equitably divided across the sales team.  Ms Dunn's evidence was that Sensis attempted to reduce the workload during this period by having herself and Mr McCann absorb some of the work and though transferring other experienced sales advisers and a digital specialist into the Sunshine Coast office from other locations.
  1. [162]
    Although I accept it would have been necessary for Mr Millroy to familiarise himself with additional customers, albeit a much smaller group than after the March redundancies, I do not consider the departure of Mr Mills and Mr Mays and in turn, the reallocation of new customers to Mr Millroy, to be unreasonable management action; or reasonable management action taken in an unreasonable manner, particularly in circumstances where lower-spend clients were swapped out of each advisers customer lists and there was already a pre-existing obligation to prepare for all clients, irrespective of their status.

Stressor Seventeen ‑ Promote digital products to existing clients (October 2012)

  1. [163]
    Above and beyond his normal workload, Mr Millroy claims management demanded Mr Millroy contact and preferably visit existing digital clients to try to upsell them to a more expensive product.
  1. [164]
    Ms Dunn's evidence is the Sales Advisers were of the opinion this was a good idea in circumstances where the customer may have previously cancelled their print advertising and experienced a downturn in business as a result.  She told the Commission it was not a requirement of Mr Millroy's role and the initial contact was intended to be by phone to gauge their interest, if any.  Where interest was expressed, the expectation was that an appointment would be made with a view to closing a sale.
  1. [165]
    In terms of the evidence, the contention in respect of this stressor is whether or not management demanded Mr Millroy contact digital clients as part of his role requirements, further adding to his workload, or whether it was an optional activity generated to assist sales advisers hit their targets as they moved toward the pointy end of the annual sales canvas.
  1. [166]
    Having reviewed the documentation and recorded outcomes for the weekly coaching meetings and monthly reviews held during this period and considered the evidence of both Mr Millroy and Ms Dunn, I am of the view that the idea of upselling to digital customers was more than likely a suggestion that was heavily promoted by Ms Dunn with a view to pushing her team to hit their sales targets.
  1. [167]
    Ms Dunn presented as a manager who would be quite direct when it came to setting out her expectations. The outcomes recorded in the weekly review documentation make no mention of upselling digital customers in respect of print advertising, despite Ms Dunn being quite prescriptive in terms of targets for new business and weekly appointments which were both a requirement of Mr Millroy's role.
  1. [168]
    Nonetheless, in circumstances where Mr Millroy claims he was already feeling overwhelmed, I can appreciate that yet another suggestion in respect of upselling to digital clients may well have further contributed to his perception that he wasn't able to keep up with the workload.

Stressor Eighteen ‑ Threatened with disciplinary action after raising concerns

  1. [169]
    Mr Millroy advised Ms Dunn that his work load and targets were unrealistic.  He claims he told his manager he was stressed and that his canvas was the most stressful to date.  His lack of new business sales was highlighted, and he was made to feel inadequate and that his work was not appreciated or worthwhile.  Mr Millroy claims he was threatened with disciplinary action and was told that if he did not like it he should move on.
  1. [170]
    Mr Millroy told the Commission he raised concerns with Ms Dunn about struggling with his workload on a number of occasions throughout 2012.  At one point, in his oral evidence he said Ms Dunn had responded by saying he needed to become more efficient but did not revisit his previous claims that she has suggested he move on if he did not like it.
  1. [171]
    An analysis of Mr Millroy's electronic diaries in the weeks and months before he took sick leave indicates he was logging between 13 and 19 hours of customer appointments in his diary, leaving him between 25 and 19 hours in any one week to attend to internal meetings, appointment preparation and new business lead generation and follow-up.
  1. [172]
    The Regulator argues the Appellant was not required to book in 18 appointments each week and it is clear from his diaries that he was not spending anywhere near the time, in customer appointments, that he indicated in his stressors and oral evidence.
  1. [173]
    In my view, it is more likely than not Mr Millroy did complain on a number of occasions to Ms Dunn about his workload in an environment where she was not prepared to excuse him from his role requirements and consistently continued to insist he meet his targets in respect of weekly customer appointment numbers and new business leads.  Mr Millroy was also a representative of the media sales advisers in the upcoming enterprise bargaining negotiations.  In that context, it is more than likely that he also raised concerns about workloads and other work-related matters on behalf of himself and other sales advisers in the workplace.

Medical Evidence

  1. [174]
    In his patient notes for an appointment with Mr Millroy on 6 December 2012, Dr Tom Bell, a consultant psychiatrist recorded:

"Sense of dread.  Black cloud.  Feeling ill.  Has vomited.  Went home crying.  V Agitated.  Went into work ‑ lasted ½ an hour ‑ couldn't stay there.  Couldn't think straight ‑ Went to GP ‑ 19/11


Building up for 7 months (March 2012) ‑ the deepest roots go back to 2009.  In March, half our team were made redundant.  We realised v quickly that it got tough for those of us who were left.... I've been doing this job for eight years. I am pretty good at it.  But I was being managed by someone who made me feel worthless.

....

I've been on Avanza for two months now. It makes me doughy in the morning. I am so forgetful. I lose things..."

  1. [175]
    In his report of 10 February 2014, Dr Bell presented his clinical findings in respect of Mr Millroy's injury as:

"The diagnosis of this work-related psychiatric injury has been Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood.  The disorder has persisted for longer than 6 months and it is, therefore, considered to be a Chronic Adjustment Disorder."

  1. [176]
    In the same report, Dr Bell opined Mr Millroy's employment was a significant contributing factor in the development of his injury.  Regrettably, Dr Bell's initial report did not include a description of Mr Millroy's work, any previous medical history or a summary of the work factors that may have contributed to the injury.
  1. [177]
    In a second report prepared by Dr Bell on 5 August 2014, Dr Bell noted there were a couple of other issues that may have contributed to Mr Millroy's stress in the period between October 2009 and November 2011, including the "grave ill-health" of Mr Millroy's brother during 2009 which involved Mr Millroy caring for him for a period of time; and a later separation from his (then) girlfriend.
  1. [178]
    That aside, Dr Bell concludes that Mr Millroy's injury arose predominantly as a result of the overwhelming stress he experienced in the workplace.
  1. [179]
    Whilst there was no reference to the workplace events contributing to Mr Millroy's stress in his first report, Dr Bell incorporated Mr Millroy's list of stressors into his second report in response to a question from Mr Millroy's representatives around the circumstances of the workplace conduct which were relevant to the development of his injury.
  1. [180]
    Whilst Dr Bell conceded the contributing factors largely mirrored the list of stressors provided to the Commission by Mr Millroy, he explained the lack of detail in his notes in respect of those contributing factors in the following terms:

"...he would be telling me about the work problems, but it's just that I am not recording it because I've heard it before or I ‑ I ‑ you know, I knew about it or I don't recall every single thing that he says in a consultation.

.....  

not everything he says about work is going to go into those note."

Were the workplace stressors nominated by Mr Millroy a significant contributing factor to his illness?

  1. [181]
    Given the evidence of Dr Bell, I have concluded Mr Millroy sustained a psychological injury which was diagnosed as Chronic Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood.
  1. [182]
    There is no question that stressors complained of by Millroy were provided to Dr Bell and subsequently found their way into his second report.
  1. [183]
    I am satisfied however, that although Mr Millroy may not have spoken to Dr Bell about the nature of the work events he perceived had contributed to his stress to the level of detail set out in the attached stressors, it is clear from Dr Bell's appointment notes of 6 December 2012, that Mr Millroy referred to various events in his workplace leading back to 2009 including redundancies, work load and his interaction with his Manager which he said left him feeling worthless.
  1. [184]
    To the extent that they may have contributed to his stress, Mr Millroy gave evidence to the Commission, as did Dr Bell in respect of a number of external, non-work events that occurred in his life during the period of 2009 until 2011.  These events included the ill-health and subsequent death of his brother and a separation from his (then) partner.
  1. [185]
    Dr Bell's evidence was that although these events may well have added to his stress, it was Mr Millroy's concerns about his work that overwhelmingly contributed to his injury.  Mr Millroy was somewhat ambivalent about the period of time during which he and his partner assisted his brother, suggesting it was something that he just needed to do for him.  Likewise, he indicated he felt some relief when his relationship with his girlfriend finally ended, noting that they had not been getting along for some time. 
  1. [186]
    In the absence of any other evidence highlighting external factors which may have contributed to Mr Millroy's psychological injury, I find his employment with Sensis was a significant contributing factor to his psychological disorder.

Did Mr Millroy's condition arose out of, or in the course of, reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way?

  1. [187]
    The second key issue for determination before the Commission is whether Mr Millroy's psychological injury was withdrawn from the category of compensable injuries by the operation of s 32(5) of the Act.
  1. [188]
    This requires consideration as to whether his injury has arisen out of, or in the course of, circumstances that involve reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by his employer in connection with his employment at Sensis.
  1. [189]
    This is a matter where a global assessment of the stressors is warranted.
  1. [190]
    In determining the question of reasonableness, I am mindful that it is a question of fact to be determined having regard to all the circumstances of the case.  Significantly, it is also the reality of the employer's conduct and not the employee's perception of it that must be taken into account.
  1. [191]
    Mr Millroy's representatives argue that over time the demands and targets associated with his role became onerous in view of the market transitioning from more basic print products to digital.
  1. [192]
    They contend he was required to take on higher dollar value clients with a low percentage of continuity, had additional reporting and meeting requirements imposed upon him that took him away from the core task of selling, was directed to contact 70 more customers than those notionally identified as his existing "spend" clients, was directed to physically visit his existing digital clients, had to generate and qualify three new business leads per week, and later set up 18 appointments per week (the latter being an obligation unique to Mr Millroy) and otherwise had to meet targets that increased in the order of seven per cent as the campaign progressed.
  1. [193]
    In those circumstances, his representatives submit the management action taken by Sensis was unreasonable and/or taken in an unreasonable way.
  1. [194]
    The Regulator contends this matter is very much a clear cut case of reasonable management action in relation to each of the matters raised by Mr Millroy.  Further, that much of the evidence given by Mr Millroy and Mr Mills was, to quite an extent, embellished and exaggerated.
  1. [195]
    Instead, the Regulator is of the view Mr Millroy and Mr Mills disagreed vehemently with a number of decisions made by Sensis (in particular to do with the redundancies) and to that extent, their issues more closely relate to industrial relations concerns rather than workers' compensation matter.
  1. [196]
    Certainly the evidence before the Commissions indicates the period between 2009 and 2012 was a time of immense change for Sensis and business advertising more broadly.  As advertising migrated from print to digital, Mr Millroy and his colleagues moved from a situation where they were selling print advertisements associated with Yellow Pages, a well-known and established brand, to a far more competitive and challenging digital advertising environment.
  1. [197]
    In the same period, Sensis made a decision to replace and upgrade its existing computer systems and software with the all-encompassing "I-Gen system".  There is no question the introduction of I-Gen was accompanied by a number of significant and for a period of time, ongoing system errors and challenges.  This adversely impacted customers and sales advisers, including Mr Millroy.  In particular, Mr Millroy was required to spend time learning how to use the new system. 
  1. [198]
    To make matters worse, the Sunshine Coast then experienced a downturn in its economy in 2011, resulting in advertising cancellations and decreased sales.  At the same time, Sensis continued to actively encouraged Mr Millroy and his colleagues to promote emerging new digital products. There is no question this would have involved additional training.  Then, in 2012, with declining revenue and profits, Sensis implemented a series of redundancies that led to the reallocation of work and customers amongst the remaining sales advisers in the Sunshine Coast office, including Mr Millroy.  Whilst his customer numbers did not increase significantly, Mr Millroy was required to spend time familiarising himself and building relationships with a larger number of new customers than in prior years.
  1. [199]
    Even before the migration to digital advertising, it is clear on the evidence the Media Sales Adviser role within Sensis was a relatively fast-paced, competitive job that required high energy, motivation and enthusiasm.  In return, Advisers received a salary, bonuses and rewards commensurate with their performance against targets.
  1. [200]
    It is clear the role also demanded a high level of organisation and effective time management skills in circumstances where the annual canvas was accompanied by set deadlines.  As time progressed, additional programs and systems were developed that were able to record daily closes and monitor business lead follow-up amongst advisers, including Mr Millroy.
  1. [201]
    It is also clear some advisers were able to manage their time better than their colleagues.  Other advisers were able to undertake or delegate administrative tasks in a manner that more effectively freed up their time to focus on their core job of selling. 
  1. [202]
    Where advisors struggled to hit their targets or role requirements, Ms Dunn would arrange coaching sessions to assist them with planning and future actions.  A simple review of Mr Millroy's coaching documentation reveals a line-manager who took a no-nonsense, task orientated approach to addressing gaps in the performance of her team.  For example, in a meeting where Mr Millroy complained about the workload, he recalled Ms Dunn's response focussed on what else he could do to undertake his role more efficiently.
  1. [203]
    On paper, Ms Dunn's language is direct and to the point.  She would identify both strengths and weaknesses in an adviser's performance and then work with them to develop a plan to hit their weekly or monthly targets.  
  1. [204]
    She would often accompany advisors, including Mr Millroy, out on their customer visits, locate resources to assist with administrative tasks and take steps to offer additional coaching, training and general assistance where required. From time to time she would also take on the sales appointments of members in their team.
  1. [205]
    As a witness, Ms Dunn presented as perfunctory and professional.  Whilst she may not have been the warmest of Managers, the evidence before the Commission indicates she engaged with Mr Millroy in a professional and consistent manner.  Certainly, this is not a matter where Mr Millroy is claiming he was treated unkindly or that Ms Dunn was aggressive or unprofessional in the way in which she engaged with him.
  1. [206]
    Mr Millroy presented as a very amiable fellow. There is no question that he was pretty good at sales.  In 2007 he won a national sales award and was rewarded by his employer with an overseas trip to France.  Later, even when participating in coaching sessions, Ms Dunn continued to make a number of positive notes about his performance, including his effectiveness in digital sales.
  1. [207]
    That aside, the reality is that there were periods of time where Mr Millroy struggled with elements of his role.  In particular, he was unable or unwilling to comply with the follow-up and recording of new business leads and often experienced difficulties achieving the minimum 13 customer appointment target set down by the organisation.  In turn, this impacted his ability to hit his targets.
  1. [208]
    Mr Millroy argues that his available time was impeded with the requirement to take on higher dollar clients with a low percentage of continuity, attend to additional reporting and meeting requirements, identify additional new business leads and generate minimum customer appointments.  In turn, he contends these and other factors including challenges with the new I-Gen system, the requirement to upsell new digital value packages and a failure by his line-manager to accept his concerns about mounting stress levels, eventually led to his decompensation in mid-November.
  1. [209]
    Whilst I accept there were a number of changes that occurred within Sensis from 2009 until 2012 that required Mr Millroy to learn new systems, new products and build new client relationships, the reality is that it was necessary for Sensis to move with the times in order to remain competitive.
  1. [210]
    The manner in which some of these changes were implemented was not ideal.  There were clearly a number of teething problems along the way which were also compounded by other economic challenges Sensis had limited control over.  However the evidence before the Commission, in my view, demonstrates that on balance, along the way, the organisation took reasonable steps to address many of the issues that arose.
  1. [211]
    I accept this would have been a challenging time for Mr Millroy who was used to a relatively stock standard set of products and a stable customer environment.  However, having considered the materials before the Commission, I am not persuaded that the impost on his time, in respect of achieving the minimum appointment numbers, new business lead generation, internal meetings and customer preparation, was as significant as is claimed.  Further, many of the stressors complained about, were essentially pre-existing requirements of his role.  For example, whilst it may not have always been necessary in the past for Mr Millroy to put as much time and effort into his annual preparation for a customer meeting due to a high percentage of continuity, the reality was this was a requirement of his role.
  1. [212]
    I am also satisfied the organisation took reasonable steps to address a number of the issues complained of by Mr Millroy.  For example, over time, customer support lines were established to assist in the resolution of grievances that arose during the transition to I-Gen.  In the latter part of 2012 and at various times in 2010 and 2011, Ms Dunn also provided support and assistance through a weekly coaching session.  The purpose of the sessions was to assist Mr Millroy to focus on key elements of his role such as minimum appointment numbers and new business lead generation.  Given the circumstances, I consider it was reasonable for Ms Dunn to hold the review meetings and put in place targets which were designed to assist Mr Millroy with his role.
  1. [213]
    As such, I have formed the view Mr Millroy has not discharged the requisite burden of proof in respect of demonstrating the actions taken by Sensis were unreasonable management action or reasonable management action taken in an unreasonable manner.
  1. [214]
    Accordingly, I order:
  1. (i)
    the appeal is dismissed;
  2. (ii)
    the decision of the Regulator dated 29 May 2013 is confirmed; and
  3. (iii)
    the Appellant is to pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to, the appeal to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be subject to a further application to the Commission.

Footnotes

[1] Kudryavtseva v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator [2015] QIRC 053.

[2] Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance [2006] QCA 48

[3] O'Brien v Q-COMP (2007) 185 QGIG 383

[4] Canadian General Electric Company Limited v The Ontario Labour Relations Board (1956) OR 437

[5] Prizeman v Q-COMP (2005) 180 QGIG 481

[6] Davis v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 009

[7] Prizeman v Q-COMP (2005) 180 QGIG 481

[8] WorkCover Queensland v Kehl (2002) 70 QGIG 93 at 94

[9] Bowers v WorkCover Queensland (2002) 170 QGIG 1

[10] Bowers v Workcover (2002) 170 QGIC 1

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Millroy v Workers' Compensation Regulator

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Millroy v Workers' Compensation Regulator

  • MNC:

    [2016] QIRC 50

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Knight IC

  • Date:

    29 Apr 2016

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Bowers v Workcover (2002) 70 QGIC 1
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2002) 70 QGIC 1
Bowers v WorkCover Queensland (2002) 170 QGIG 1
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2002) 170 QGIG 1
Cite 2 - (2002) 170 QGIG 1
Canadian General Electric Company Limited v The Ontario Labour Relations Board (1956) OR 437
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1956) OR 437
Cite 2 - (1956) OR 437
Davis v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 9
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] ICQ 9
Cite 2 - [2014] ICQ 9
Keen v Workers' Rehabilitation and Compensation Corporation (1998) 71 SASR 42
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1998) 71 SASR 42
Kudryavtseva v Blackwood [2015] QIRC 53
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QIRC 53
Cite 2 - [2015] QIRC 53
MacArthur v WorkCover Queensland (2001) 167 QGIG 100
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2001) 167 QGIG 100
Newberry v Suncorp Metway Insurance Ltd[2006] 1 Qd R 519; [2006] QCA 48
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2006] QCA 48
Cite 2 - [2006] QCA 48
O'Brien v Q-Comp (2007) 185 QGIG 383
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2007) 185 QGIG 383
Cite 2 - (2007) 185 QGIG 383
Prizeman v Q-Comp (2005) 180 QGIG 481
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2005) 180 QGIG 481
Cite 2 - (2005) 180 QGIG 481
Cite 3 - (2005) 180 QGIG 481
Stephen Horace MacDonald v Q-COMP (2) (2008) 188 QGIG 180
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2008) 188 QGIG 180
WorkCover Queensland v Kehl (2002) 70 QGIG 93
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2002) 70 QGIG 93
Cite 2 - (2002) 70 QGIG 93
WorkCover v Heit (2000) 164 QGIG 121
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2000) 164 QGIG 121

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
CREATE Foundation Ltd v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2016] QIRC 1242 citations
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.