A Qantas baggage handler who has been on lighter duties since 2001 has won his appeal against a WorkCover attempt to have him moved to work with another employer.
Judge Peter Hannon criticised the airline, saying Qantas had changed its view as to what might constitute “suitable employment”, after providing suitable alternative duties for 11 years.
“There appears to have been some reconstruction of past attitudes to accord with the new approach,” Judge Hannon said.
In the course of the hearing into David Lawless’s appeal, it was also revealed that Qantas baggage handlers had a 20 per cent compensation rate until recent changes in work practices.
Evidence given by a Qantas safety advisor at Adelaide airport said that when she began in November 2009, more than one-fifth of the then 116 air services officer (ASO) employees had an ongoing compensation claim.
The high rate meant the airline was unable to provide permanent alternate work to the long-term injured.
The compensation rate had become such a problem, Safework SA imposed an action plan on Qantas designed to reduce the risk and frequency of manual-handling injuries.
An audit in June 2011 found the plan had reduced injury risks in manual handling.
The Lawless case, however, continued to roll along and he was provided with modified duties, mainly involving driving.
When difficulties arose with that task, he was allocated a mixture of tasks mostly done by either ASOs or by customer service assistants (CSAs).
“These tasks broadly fell into eight categories comprising assisting with the boarding of passengers on international Air New Zealand flights; marshalling passengers arriving or departing on regional flights; headset distribution; refuelling tarmac vehicles; refuelling other unleaded fuel vehicles; external/internal mail collection and distribution; escorting external contractors when they attended on-site jobs; and collecting the milk and restocking of refrigerators.”
The worker carried out these duties until mid-2012, when they were changed again.
Lawless’s case manager at Employers Mutual (acting for WorkCover) wrote to the worker and advised of its “decision” to return the worker to suitable employment with a new employer.
Lawless disputed the decision, claiming it was reasonably practicable for Qantas to continue to provide him with suitable employment and unreasonable for it not to continue to do so.
In his decision, Judge Hannon noted that the change of rotation policies designed to reduce the level of injury had the side effect of reducing Qantas’s options for rehabilitation.
“Some of the changes, such as the rotation strategy, reduced the opportunity to allocate specific lighter duty tasks solely to injured workers, and no doubt impacted adversely on ongoing suitable employment options for such workers.
“However, in implementing these changes, I find Qantas adopted an inappropriately confined view as to what might constitute ‘suitable employment’ by proceeding on the basis that suitable employment options should be confined to productive ‘normal’ positions in the terms described.
“The parameters for the identification of suitable employment did not have adequate regard to the history of the performance of alternative duties by the worker from 2001, or to the fact that, from mid-2007, Qantas had considered it practicable to provide him with a collection of duties drawn from different classifications.
“Nor did it have adequate regard to the fact that the worker asserted he had no difficulty with the notion of continuing with a collection of duties in the nature of those that he was doing over the period from 2007 to 2012.”
Lawless’s case will go back to the claim managers, Employers Mutual, to re-assess what steps it takes next.
He had told the court he remained ready, willing and able to continue with his duties at Qantas.
