When a Job Change Leads to Psychological Injury
A recent case highlights an important reminder for employers: it’s not just why you transfer a worker that matters — it’s what happens next that can lead to claims.
In Spicer v Tamworth Regional Council [2025] NSWPIC 198, an outdoor maintenance worker developed a psychological injury after being moved to a more physically demanding role. While his employer argued the transfer was reasonable, the Commission found that it was the nature of the new duties, not the transfer decision itself, that caused the harm.
The background
Gregory Spicer had worked for Tamworth Regional Council for over a decade. In 2015, he was diagnosed with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) — a long-term lung condition not caused by work.
For years, Mr Spicer managed his condition well. He was part of a team that understood his health needs, allowed him to work at a steady pace, and supported short breaks to avoid flare-ups.
Why was he transferred?
In June 2021, the Council made a management decision to break up his crew due to “poor workplace attitudes.” As part of that restructure, Mr Spicer was moved to the CBD maintenance crew.
He raised that he had health issues — referring to his COPD — but the decision proceeded without further discussion.
What changed after the transfer?
Earlier start times (5:00am)
Larger areas to maintain (including a playground the size of two football fields)
Short timeframes to complete tasks
A faster pace of work alongside younger, fitter team members
Over the next few months, Mr Spicer experienced growing fatigue, breathlessness, chest pain, and eventually a psychological breakdown due to the stress and pressure of trying to keep up.
What the Commission decided
The Council tried to rely on the “reasonable action” defence under section 11A of the NSW Workers Compensation Act 1987, which can exclude claims for psychological injury if they are caused by reasonable management decisions like transfers or performance management.
But the Commission found this did not apply.
“The injury was not caused by the act of transfer — it was caused by the working conditions that followed,” the Member said.
In short: the transfer may have been reasonable, but the injury resulted from the demands of the new role, not the decision itself. The Commission called the injury multi-factorial and found the employer had not proven the transfer or employment benefits were the main cause of the psychological harm.
Why this matters for businesses
This decision reminds businesses that:
You can have a lawful and reasonable reason to move someone…
…but still be held liable if the new role puts them at unreasonable risk, especially where there are known health concerns.
It’s critical to assess not just the decision to transfer, but how the new role affects the worker’s physical and psychological wellbeing.
Article by Amy Towers, Director – WHS, People & Compliance – helping businesses navigate compliance with confidence.