Fighting At Work

Occasions may arise when two or more employees are involved in a dispute or fight at work.  This scenario is quite different to that which is specifically covered by section 6 (1) (a) relating to injury resulting from an act of violence.

An assault emanating from a dispute may fall into one of two categories:

  • where the dispute has occurred directly as a result of the manner in which work is to be carried out or performed; and

  • disputes arising due to personal, non work connected reasons.

While there are grounds for the former dot point to be reasonably within the ambit of 'arising out of or in the course of employment', the second dot point has little if any relationship or bearing on employment, and will not be compensable.

Consider the case of Ward v Kellog (Aust) Pty Ltd.

The employee entered the boiler room and urinated behind one of the boilers (although sanitary facilities were available).  A boiler attendant was incensed by this conduct and struck the employee.

It was found by the Court that fact and degree must be considered.

Part of the decision gave the following scenarios as being more clear cut than that of the Ward case, which was more difficult to clearly establish as having employment related links:

CLEARLY OUT

Had the worker elected to relieve himself in the Manager's office and had there been assaulted by the Manager.

Assault not arising out of or in the course of the employee's employment.

CLEARLY IN

Had the worker gone to some reasonably secluded portion of the vacant ground and had been assaulted by a fellow worker who had unusually prudish conceptions about how his fellow workers should comport themselves.

Assault reasonably within the course of employment.

Source URL: https://clik.dva.gov.au/military-compensation-reference-library/historical-information/comcare-operations-manual/volume-five-complex-liability/part-two-injury/work-and-ordinary-recesses/fighting-work

Findings in the Ward case

Occasions may arise when two or more employees are involved in a dispute or fight at work.  This scenario is quite different to that which is specifically covered by section 6 (1) (a) relating to injury resulting from an act of violence.

An assault emanating from a dispute may fall into one of two categories:

  • where the dispute has occurred directly as a result of the manner in which work is to be carried out or performed; and

  • disputes arising due to personal, non work connected reasons.

While there are grounds for the former dot point to be reasonably within the ambit of 'arising out of or in the course of employment', the second dot point has little if any relationship or bearing on employment, and will not be compensable.

Consider the case of Ward v Kellog (Aust) Pty Ltd.

The employee entered the boiler room and urinated behind one of the boilers (although sanitary facilities were available).  A boiler attendant was incensed by this conduct and struck the employee.

It was found by the Court that fact and degree must be considered.

Part of the decision gave the following scenarios as being more clear cut than that of the Ward case, which was more difficult to clearly establish as having employment related links:

CLEARLY OUT

Had the worker elected to relieve himself in the Manager's office and had there been assaulted by the Manager.

Assault not arising out of or in the course of the employee's employment.

CLEARLY IN

Had the worker gone to some reasonably secluded portion of the vacant ground and had been assaulted by a fellow worker who had unusually prudish conceptions about how his fellow workers should comport themselves.

Assault reasonably within the course of employment.

Source URL: https://clik.dva.gov.au/military-compensation-reference-library/historical-information/comcare-operations-manual/volume-five-complex-liability/part-two-injury/work-and-ordinary-recesses/fighting-work/findings-ward-case