- Casino employment (card dealer)
- Stress, mental (effect of employment decisions)
- Stress, mental (chronic)
The worker had been employed as a casino dealer since 1999. The worker had a non-compensable low back condition. As a result of this condition, the worker required accommodation in his job. The employer considered the provision of an ergonomic chair, but concluded that it was a trip hazard. Instead, the employer accommodated the worker by assigning him to one specific pit, in which the bet limit was higher and the clientele tended to be more belligerent and challenging, and to dealing one game only, which was particularly complex, without rotation to other games. The issue under appeal was whether the worker had entitlement to benefits for chronic mental stress (CMS).
The appeal was denied. The Panel found that the totality of the incidents described by the worker, which contributed to his mental health condition, amounted to a combination of interpersonal conflict and employer decisions about his employment. These incidents did not rise to the level of workplace harassment or egregious behaviour or abuse, and therefore, were not workplace stressors that gave rise to entitlement to benefits under the CMS policy. According to the worker's testimony, it was being consistently assigned to the VIP area, being unable to rotate through games, and thus not being able to contribute with the skills and abilities he had developed over the years, that were the primary causes of the worker's mental stress condition that developed. The employer's decision to accommodate his low back condition in this way was employment related, and therefore, a reaction to this assignment was not a basis for entitlement for CMS, unless the employer's decision making involved egregious, abusive or harassing conduct. The evidence did not support this conclusion. The Panel also found that the behaviour of the employer or co-workers did not rise to the level of workplace harassment or egregious or abusive behaviour.The Panel found that the conduct of the difficult customers in the VIP area did not rise above the level of normal interpersonal conflict in this workplace. The worker made it clear that managing difficult customers was a usual part of the job for which dealers were trained. There was no evidence presented of the actual frequency that such conflict emerged, or on the number of dealers in the VIP area who would also be routinely facing difficult customer behaviour. The Panel was not persuaded that being assigned one game for an extended period of time was objectively more stressful than moving through a rotation, or that all other dealers consistently were assigned different games. Accordingly, the Panel did not accept that the stressors the worker faced in the workplace were more than the stressors faced by other workers in similar circumstances.