AusPost worker claims compensation for mental stress

An Australia Post employee was given a second chance to claim compensation for “mental stress” after the Federal Court found an earlier decision failed to consider a key part of his case.

Hanson Fernandez, a postal transport officer and dock marshal for the Australian Postal Corporation (AusPost), will reappear before the Administrative Review Tribunal to contend he suffered psychological injury as a “significant” result of his employment.

AusPost denied liability under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 in August 2020 and had this decision affirmed by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) in May 2024.

However, Federal Court’s Justice Stephen McDonald found the ART denied Fernandez procedural fairness by its failure to give “proper, genuine and realistic consideration to a key part of his case”.

That key part referred to an event in February 2020 – cited as the day Fernandez’s injury occurred or he first became aware of it – in which a colleague allegedly claimed they would “escalate” a parcel issue.

Fernandez alleged the parcel issue was a “false complaint” because he failed to say “hello” to his immediate supervisor’s girlfriend.

The ART did not include any findings about these events, including any determination on whether Fernandez’s description of what happened with the colleague was accurate and whether his perception of what occurred caused or worsened psychiatric injury.

“In my view, this was a contention that was sufficiently central to Fernandez’s case that the tribunal was required to engage with and address it, in accordance with the authorities,” the court found.

“In saying that, I do not mean to suggest that the tribunal was necessarily required to resolve every minor issue regarding the events … but it was, in my view, obliged to engage with submissions advanced on behalf of Fernandez in relation to the contention that the conversation with [the colleague] was an aspect of his employment that contributed, to a significant degree, to his injury.”

An “unusual” feature of the ART decision was its conclusion on credit of various witnesses and preference for Fernandez’s manager and territory manager. The colleague from the February 2020 incident did not give evidence during the three-day hearing.

The tribunal’s preference for the manager’s and territory manager’s evidence could “potentially be understood as implicitly resolving certain factual issues” in favour of Australia Post.

While ordinarily it is possible to come to a conclusion on credibility findings, Justice McDonald said ART could not resolve the February 2020 issue merely on its preference for the manager’s or territory manager’s evidence because neither of them was present.

Fernandez’s application has been remitted to the ART for review.

The case: Fernandez v Australian Postal Corporation [2025] FCA 1144.