A federal tribunal has been called in for a public servant who claimed she was psychologically damaged by a seating arrangement.

The Defence Housing Australia employee has lost an appeal against her rejected claim for workers' compensation from federal workplace insurer Comcare.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal ruled that her bosses acted reasonably in response to her “disruptive” behaviour in the agency's Townsville office in mid-2014.

The furore was launched when seating arrangements were changed.

The woman claimed that a psychiatric condition had been aggravated by the conduct of her boss, accusing her of aggression in the form of folding her arms and pointing her finger during the discussion of seating arrangements at the DHA's offices in Townsville.

The public servant had earlier warned her bosses that she suffered from anxiety, requiring a window seat and not being in crowded areas.

After the agency's offices were renovated, the public servant and her team were temporarily moved to a new pod of desks.

The public servant then chose a new desk because she did not feel comfortable sitting between two colleagues, then chose not to move “because her back was towards the centre of the office”.

Instead, she occupied a third desk that was set up for members of a different DHA team.

This sparked the fateful the conversation with her superior that it was alleged involved “hostile” and “aggressive” words and body language.

Under the law, the employee had to prove her supervisor had acted unreasonably in order to win compensation for the aggravation of her condition.

This week, tribunal deputy president Bernard McCabe ruled that management was not out of line that day.

“I am satisfied the employer behaved reasonably, fairly and sensitively when the officer initiated the interaction with [the applicant] on June 2, 2014,” he found.

“I accept [the applicant's] behaviour was disruptive, and the manager in question understandably felt the need to provide direction.

“I am also satisfied the manager in question conducted herself appropriately and reasonably in the face of [the applicant's] difficult behaviour during the course of the short interaction.”