NSW real estate agency allegedly treated employee ‘as less than human’

A former property manager alleged she was yelled at, shunned, and treated “as less than human” by her former Central Coast-based employer.

Editor’s note: This story first appeared on HR Leader’s sister brand, REB.

Almost six years after she quit Pearl Beach Real Estate, a former holiday property manager has been in a legal fight to secure a lump-sum workers’ compensation for asserted psychiatric injury.

Having initially had her claim shut down by the insurer and an appeal panel appointed under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, the property manager achieved some reprieve in a recent NSW Supreme Court decision.

“I think there is an error on the face of the record,” Associate Justice Michael Elkaim said in his written reasons.

“This might also be described as denial of procedural fairness to the [property manager] whose statement and written submissions have not received appropriate, if any, consideration.”

The court was told that less than a year into her role at Pearl Beach Real Estate, the property manager was subjected to “yelling and verbal abuse” from a sales manager because she contradicted his orders to a cleaner about the removal of barbed wire and other material.

She said she believed this job was better suited for a handyman.

Over the next few months, the property manager said the “tension was palpable”, and she was allegedly made to feel ostracised by the sales manager and her boss, treated “as less than human”, and had to endure “unseemly conduct” from the sales manager.

By February 2019, after allegedly being threatened “with the sack … for no given reason”, the property manager went to a lawyer and quit.

On referral by her lawyers, she was assessed by a consultant psychiatrist to have a Whole Person Impairment (WIP) of 15 per cent.

When the insurer did not accept this, the property manager was referred to psychiatrist Dr Anand and medical assessor Professor Glozier, who both found her WIP to be at 7 per cent.

Relying on the latter’s evidence, the property manager opted to discontinue her compensation proceedings.

However, her condition worsened and the original consultant psychiatrist found her new WIP to be at 19 per cent.

An appeals panel was appointed under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) and had the second psychiatrist and medical assessor redo the reports.

When both arrived at 9 per cent, the appeal was dismissed.

In an appeal of the panel’s decision, the property manager said it had not given “sufficient reasons” for rejecting her submissions and had not considered errors made by one of the assessors.

In its defence, Pearl Beach Real Estate claimed her complaints were “misconceived” because the appeal panel “meaningfully engaged”.

Justice Elkaim was satisfied an error had been made by the appeal panel in relying on Professor Glozier’s report, given parts of it were copied and pasted from the first assessment and had failed to consider parts of the property manager’s submissions.

The appeal panel’s decision was set aside, and the compensation issue will be redetermined by the Personal Injury Commission of NSW.