TasWater employee entitled to workers compensation after crash in company car while on call

A TasWater employee injured in a car crash has won out on their bid for workers compensation – despite the utilities body claiming the supervisor wasn’t technically on the job at the time. Find out why.

A TasWater employee who took the utilities body to a tribunal after they were injured in a car crash while on-call has been found entitled to workers compensation.

A TasWater employee injured in a crash while on call has won out on their bid for workers compensation – despite the utilities body claiming the supervisor wasn’t technically on the job at the time.

The male employee – who holds the position of senior development compliance officer – works normal hours from Monday to Friday, but is also rostered as an on-call duty supervisor during some weekends.

On September 16, 2023, during which time they were on call from 4.30pm on Friday through to 7.30am on Monday, they were rear-ended by a bus on Cambridge Rd, while at the Mornington roundabout intersection.

At the time, the employee was driving a company car on the way to the shops.

They suffered whiplash of the cervical spine in the crash.

In a recent TASCAT decision, it was noted that TasWater disputed their liability for the employee’s claim to compensation on the basis that the man’s injuries had not occurred while they were in “the course” of their employment.

Lawyers for TasWater argued that there had been no reason for the man to have left his home on that afternoon, as he had not been called out for work.

It was noted that it was a rare occurrence for a duty supervisor to actually need to physically attend call-outs, and that they would most often be speaking with other employees over the phone.

They submitted that if the man was found entitled to receive workers compensation benefits, it would be the equivalent of requiring an employer to provide indemnity to workers on a “24/7 basis” – a suggestion which TASCAT Deputy President Alison Clues rejected.

The man’s lawyers submitted the injuries had happened in the course of his work, which included during “interval periods” of his employment.

Ms Clues noted that because the employee was paid a supervisor’s allowance while rostered on between Friday and Monday; that he must be available over the phone and must be able to attend sites if required, that he was paid to be “available”.

“In the circumstances, the injuries occurred when the worker was performing duties imposed by his contract of employment and the injuries therefore occurred in the course of his employment,” Ms Clues wrote.

Ms Clues found a reasonably arguable case did not exist.

The employee was found to be entitled to workers compensation.