No compensation – Back injury reported too late

An employee who waited nearly a month to report a work injury to his employer has been denied compensation. He had been required to provide notice as soon as practicable after the injury occurred. 


[Full text of this case: Kelp Industries Pty Ltd v K [2016] TASWRCT 2 (6 January 2016)]


Kelp Industries Pty Ltd disputed liability to compensate Mr K, an operator at its kelp factory, on the basis that he failed to provide formal notice of his lower back injury as soon as practicable after it occurred.


Relevantly, the company made an application under s81A of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas) for a ‘reasonably arguable case determination’ by the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal of Tasmania. The application was handled by Commissioner Chandler.



It was the company’s evidence that:

On 26 August 2015, Mr K told the company’s acting general manager, Mr V, that he had lifted a large piece of wood from a crate into a furnace. Mr V reminded Mr K of the requirement to roll, not lift, large pieces of wood and asked him if he was hurt. Mr K replied that he was okay and did not wish to complete an incident report. Although he continued to work, Mr V took over Mr K’s job of filling the furnace with wood.


A toolbox meeting was held where Mr V, to prevent a recurrence of the incident involving Mr K, reminded employees not to lift large pieces of wood.


On 21 September 2015, Mr K provided Mr V with an incident report, advising him that he was suffering back pain as a result of lifting the piece of wood nearly a month earlier.


Mr K had not reported pain or discomfort in the intervening period; rather, he had performed all the tasks required of him without complaint.

Mr K submitted that he did notify Mr V of his lower back injury on the day it happened. His workers compensation claim form included the initial medical certificate for the injury, issued on 21 September 2015. The issuing doctor had certified the injury to be consistent with lifting a large piece of wood and the certificate indicated he had partial incapacity to work.


The issue for Commissioner Chandler to determine was whether Mr K should be rejected on the basis he failed to give notice of his injury as soon as practicable in accordance with s32(1)(a) of the Act. This section provides that a worker shall not be entitled to compensation for an injury unless the employer was notified of the injury as soon as practicable after the occurrence.



Commissioner Chandler accepted the company’s s81A application for a reasonably arguable case determination:

“In my view a reasonably arguable case determination should be made. Although it is common ground that on 26 August there was an incident involving the worker placing a large piece of wood in a furnace, it is the contention of Mr [V] that the worker did not at this time advise that he had suffered an injury and when specifically asked, stated that he was okay. It is my view that if this evidence was accepted following a contested hearing, then the employer may be able to avoid the claim on the basis that it was unaware of the nature of the worker’s injury… until it received the incident report almost one month later and hence, arguably at least, did not have notice of the injury as soon as practical. I therefore determine that a reasonably arguable case exists.” 

In accordance with s81A(3)(c), Commissioner Chandler determined that compensation was not to be paid by the employer.


Kelp Industries Pty Ltd v K [2016] TASWRCT 2 (6 January 2016) 


By James Harkness



This article was originally posted on Workplace OHS a part of NSW Business Chamber – Australian Business Consulting and Solutions has a dedicated team of WHS/OHS experts who can assist you with your specific WHS/OHS issues and problems.

Contact Us

Zenergy News

22 Apr, 2024
The annual Zenergy Leaders Forum is one of the premier events on the senior health, safety & sustainability calendar in Australia.  This is a non-ticketed invitation only event hosted by Zenergy. Attendee numbers at the Zenergy forum are 150 and will include executive, people and culture directors, CEO, COO and directors of health & safety and HSE personnel. The topic for this year is “Integrated Psychosocial Risk Management”. All of the event information is below and reach out to your account manager at Zenergy for further details.
22 Apr, 2024
This article has been reproduced with permission from OHS Alert, and the original version appears at www.ohsalert.com.au . A commission has cautioned that society's "significantly raised" bar for what constitutes consent for physical interactions is "even higher" in work-related environments, in upholding the summary dismissal of a worker for inappropriately touching a colleague. In Perth, Fair Work Commission Deputy President Melanie Binet said that regardless of the intention of the worker, who claimed he was simply moving his female colleague "out of the way", his conduct was a valid reason for dismissal. Workers should be "on notice" of the increased scrutiny of behaviours, given the extensive social discourse and media coverage on sexual harassment issues, she said. "This is particularly so in the mining industry in Western Australia where a parliamentary inquiry [see related article ] focused community attention on the odious frequency of sexual harassment and assault of women in the mining industry." The Deputy President added that recent amendments to the Commonwealth Fair Work Act 2009 that specifically identify sexual harassment as a valid reason for dismissal (see related article ) "reflect a societal recognition that sexual harassment has no place in the workplace in the same way as violence or theft don't". The worker was an Alcoa of Australia Ltd advanced mechanical tradesperson when he was sacked for inappropriately touching the colleague in an office at Alcoa's Pinjarra Alumina Refinery in September last year. The worker claimed he turned his back to the colleague to squeeze between her and a desk to go to speak to another person and his hands made contact with her lower torso. Afterwards, the colleague's partner entered the office and found her visibly distressed. He confronted the worker, accusing him of grabbing the colleague's buttocks and squeezing it. The issue was escalated, and the worker was summarily dismissed after an investigation concluded he sexually harassed the colleague by making "unwelcomed and socially inappropriate physical contact". Alcoa found the worker breached codes and policies that he had been trained on, which stated that harassment was not determined by the intent of the person who engaged in the conduct but by the impact on the recipient. The worker admitted touching the colleague but claimed this only occurred because the room was crowded. He said he did not intend to behave in a sexual manner and apologised to the colleague as soon as he found out she was upset. He claimed unfair dismissal and sought reinstatement in the FWC. Deputy President Binet found the worker's accounts of the incident were inconsistent, with the parts of the colleague's body that he touched changing in his various statements. She accepted the colleague's evidence that the worker groped her in an "intimate sexual location" and his conduct caused immediate and ongoing effects to her health and wellbeing. The worker could have waited until there was space for him to pass between the desks, requested the colleague to move from the gap or gently touched her arm to get her attention, the Deputy President said. "There was simply no justification for him to turn his back then have his hands at [the colleague's] buttocks level, touch her buttocks and consciously push her out of his way," she said. "I am not convinced that [his] conduct was intended to be entirely without a sexual nature," she concluded. She stressed that even if she was wrong on this point, this type of unwelcome touching could objectively be seen as being capable of making recipients feel offended, humiliated or intimidated. The Deputy President also slammed the worker's representatives for choosing "to follow a well-worn but discredited path of blaming the victim" by accusing the colleague of inviting the "accidental" contact by standing in the narrow walkway. "Women should be able to attend their workplaces without fear of being touched inappropriately," she said in dismissing the worker's case. "It is a sad inditement of the positive work that has been undertaken by employers, unions and regulatory bodies in the mining industry that young women like [the colleague] are still frightened to report incidents of harassment for fear of being ostracised."
22 Apr, 2024
An Afternoon of Fun and Fierce Competition: Our Team's Lawn Bowls Adventure
16 Apr, 2024
Empowering Women in Safety: Insights from the Zenergy Safety Ladies' Lunch
16 Apr, 2024
By Jason O’Dowd. Recruitment - Health Safety Environment & Quality
16 Apr, 2024
Safety blitz to prevent deaths and injuries from construction falls WorkSafe Victoria recently launched a statewide blitz to tackle fall risks on building sites, such as unsafe or incomplete scaffolds, inappropriate ladder use, steps, stairs and voids or falling from or through roofs. The initiative was launched after nine Victorian workers died in 2023 as a result of falls from height, including four in the construction industry. The number of accepted workers’ compensation claims from construction workers injured in falls from heights also increased to 441 – up from 421 in 2022 and 404 the year before. Construction continues to be the highest-risk industry for falls from heights, making up a third of the 1352 total falls from height claims accepted last year. Of the construction workers injured, 160 fell from ladders, 46 from steps and stairways, 31 from buildings or structures, 27 from scaffolding, and 13 from openings in floors, walls or ceilings. WorkSafe Victoria executive director of health and safety, Narelle Beer, said inspectors would be out in force with an extra emphasis on ensuring employers are doing everything they can to prevent falls. “As a leading cause of injury in the construction industry, falls from height is always a priority for our inspectors – but they will be making this a particular focus as they visit building sites over the coming weeks,” Beer said. “The safest way to prevent falls is to work on the ground. Where that’s not possible, employers should use the highest level of safety protection possible, such as complete scaffolding, guard railing and void covers.” Beer said WorkSafe Victoria can and will take action against employers who fail to ensure the highest level of risk control measures are in place to protect workers from falls. “A fall can happen in just seconds and it can turn your world upside down – so there’s no excuse for taking shortcuts when working at heights,” she said. The statewide blitz will be supported by fall prevention messaging across social media, newsletters and online, reminding employers and workers that fall can be fatal or cause life-changing injuries. Source: Australian Institute of Health & Safety (AIHS)
More Posts
Share by: