Employment a 'contributing factor'
Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Q-COMP, 20 July 2011
A mineworker was awarded damages despite sustaining an injury between shifts, as it was determined the injury was connected to his employment and happened at a location he was 'enticed' to stay at.
The Queensland Industrial Relations Commission granted compensation to mineworker, Mr Lang, who between his shifts, slipped while showering in employer provided accommodation.
The centre where the incident took place provides accommodation and all meals free of charge to mineworkers under a certified agreement with Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd, during their rostered on periods of work.
Q-COMP accepted the claim, finding the injury was connected to his employment, and occurred while the mineworker was undertaking his ‘usual routine’.
Leighton Contractors disputed the claim arguing that time off between shifts was of a ‘completely private nature’, which the ‘course of employment’ did not extend into. It relied on the High Court decision in Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd, which found that it was necessary to characterise the periods of work of employees.
The company submitted it was not necessary for the employee to live at the accommodation centre, because they were free to find alternative accommodation in the nearby towns.
Q-COMP accepted mineworkers were ‘encouraged or enticed’ to stay at the centre, with the offer of free accommodation and meals, and that Leighton Contractors had a policy stating employees had to live locally. Thus they provided the centre to enable employees to comply.
Industrial Magistrate Dianne Linnane accepted Q-COMP’s submissions, finding there was ‘no realistic alternative’ accommodation in the area, and that Leighton Contractors attracted workers to the mine by offering free accommodation, meals and transport all provided at the centre.
Her Honour ruled that Mr Lang’s employment was a significant contributing factor to his injury, and that he was entitled to compensation. “Showering facilities were provided at the Marley Accommodation Centre and it was a normal incidence of employment that workers would shower at the centre on a regular basis,” she said. The appeal was dismissed.
