Brisbane City Council v Queensland Services, Industrial Union of Employees [2020] QIRC 71

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION CITATION: Brisbane City Council v Queensland Services, Industrial Union of Employees [2020] QIRC 071 PARTIES: BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL (applicant) v QUEENSLAND SERVICES, INDUSTRIAL UNION OF EMPLOYEES (respondent) FILE NO/S: B/2020/18 PROCEEDING: Appeal DELIVERED ON: 13 May 2020 HEARING DATE: 12 May 2020 MEMBER: Martin J, President ORDER/S: The application is dismissed CATCHWORDS: INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – APPEALS – APPEAL TO FULL BENCH OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION – where applicant seeks interpretation of cl 18.1(a) of the Brisbane City Council Salaried Staff Award - State 2016 – where applicant seeks for the matter to be referred to Full Bench – whether the matter should be referred Brisbane City Council Salaried Staff Award - State 2016 Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 486(4) APPEARANCES: Written submissions received from both the applicant and the respondent [1] The Brisbane City Council seeks an interpretation of cl 18.1(a) of the Brisbane City Council Salaried Staff Award - State 2016 with respect to the calculation of the payment of overtime and penalties to employees covered by that award. The application arises out of a disagreement with the respondent about the correct construction of cl 18.1(a). [2] The applicant seeks a reference of that matter to a full bench under s 486(4) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016: “Before the hearing of a matter by the Commission starts, a party to the proceedings may apply to the President for the matter to be referred to the full bench.” -- 1 of 2 -- 2 [3] The applicant contends that the following supports a referral: (a) the potential width of the application of the correct construction of the clause, (b) the disagreement between the parties as to the correct construction, (c) the need to obtain a definitive construction of its application, and (d) the cost involving in reconfiguring the applicant’s payroll system. [4] It may be accepted that the correct construction of the clause is of importance to both the parties on this application and the employees to whom the award applies. [5] The respondent submits that the task of interpreting awards is a function of the Commission and specific provision for that is made in s 267(1). [6] The construction and interpretation of awards is one of the regular functions of an Industrial Commissioner. There is nothing in this application which takes it outside of the ordinary in the sense that this application, as presently constituted, requires the application of well-accepted principles. There is, for example, no need to apply any value judgments or to hear evidence or to make an assessment in the light of general industrial conditions. The matters to which I have just referred are not an exhaustive list of matters which might be taken into account but this is an application which is manifestly within the ordinary work of a member of the Commission. [7] The application is dismissed. -- 2 of 2 --