Chief Executive of the Public Service Commission v Together Queensland Industrial Union of Employees and Others [2013] QIRC 67

CITATION: Chief Executive of the Public Service Commission AND Together Queensland Industrial Union of Employees and Others (CA/2012/289) - Decision <http://www.qirc.qld.gov.au> QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1999 - s 149 - Arbitration if conciliation unsuccessful Chief Executive of the Public Service Commission AND Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees and Others (CA/2012/289) VICE PRESIDENT LINNANE DEPUTY PRESIDENT BLOOMFIELD COMMISSIONER THOMPSON 30 April 2013 DECISION [1] On 31 January 2013 CA/2012/289 was referred to this Full Bench for arbitration. On that same date Together Queensland Industrial Union of Employees (Together Queensland) filed an application (CA/2013/8) for an interim increase in wages of 2.35% for all employees proposed to be covered by the determination being sought in CA/2012/289. [2] CA/2013/8 was heard by this Full Bench on 13 March 2013 and a decision was released on 28 March 2013. In that decision the Full Bench determined that it did not have the jurisdiction to make an interlocutory order pursuant to s. 149(2)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 (Act) to provide an interim wage increase in this matter. Thus the Full Bench dismissed CA/2013/8 for want of jurisdiction. [3] Following the release of its decision in CA/2013/8, the Full Bench issued a Further Directions Order in CA/2012/289 which established directions for its further conduct. Together Queensland complied with Direction 2 by filing its Outcome Document by 15 April 2013. The Chief Executive of the Public Service Commission was required to file his Response to Together Queensland's Outcome Document by Monday, 29 April 2013. [4] On 18 April 2013 Together Queensland filed an appeal against the decision of the Full Bench in CA/2013/8. That appeal is C/2013/15. The President has listed C/2013/15 for mention on 7 May 2013. It is not known when that appeal will be heard and/or determined. [5] On 24 April 2013 the Industrial Registry received correspondence from Minter Ellison, Solicitors for the Chief Executive of the Public Service Commission (Exhibit 8) which raised issues in the current programming of CA/2012/289 given the lodgement of the appeal in C/2013/15. That correspondence sought to have this matter listed for further hearing by the Full Bench so that the issues raised in the correspondence could be considered. The Full Bench listed the matter for hearing on 29 April 2013. Further, the Full Bench vacated the requirement for the Chief Executive of the Public Service Commission to file his Response to the Outcome Document by 29 April 2013 pending the outcome of the Full Bench's deliberations at the hearing on 29 April 2013. [6] The issues identified by Mr Chris Murdoch, Counsel for the Chief Executive of the Public Service Commission, about the timetabling of CA/2012/289, given the lodgement of C/2013/15, are briefly summarised as follows: • if Together Queensland's appeal to the President was successful, and the Full Bench was required to deal further with CA/2013/8, that would mean that CA/2013/8 would necessarily proceed and be determined before the application in CA/2012/289 could be heard and determined; and • any Response by the Chief Executive of the Public Service Commission to Together Queensland's Outcome Document (required to be filed by 29 April 2013) may be in quite different terms depending on whether any application for an interim wage increase in CA/2013/8 was successful. Thus it would be unfair to the Chief Executive of the Public Service Commission for him to have to provide his Response to Together Queensland's Outcome Document until it was known firstly, whether the application for an interim wage increase could proceed and secondly, if it did proceed, the outcome of such an application. [7] The argument advanced by Ms Ralston, for Together Queensland, in opposing the application by the Chief Executive of the Public Service Commission essentially relied upon the suggestion that any application for an interim wage increase in CA/2013/8 could proceed in parallel with the application for a determination in CA/2012/289. We do not accept that argument. The manner in which the case in CA/2012/289 will be progressed will be significantly impacted by any outcome arising from CA/2013/8 should Together Queensland's appeal be successful. This is because any case which the Chief Executive Officer of the Public Service -- 1 of 2 -- 2 Commission might conduct in arbitration proceedings in CA/2012/289 will be totally dependant on the outcome of proceedings in CA/2013/8. [8] In this respect, Together Queensland submitted that any material filed in CA/2012/289 could, at a later stage, be amended should it be successful not only in its appeal in C/2013/15 but also in any deliberation by the Full Bench in CA/2013/8. Such a process does not appear to the Full Bench to assist either the Full Bench or the parties in the progressing of CA/2012/289 and has the potential to lead to a large waste of resources (and time). [9] A further argument advanced by Together Queensland was that the Chief Executive of the Public Service Commission had delayed seeking to have the directions in CA/2012/289 vacated and that this should be taken into account by the Full Bench in its assessment of his request to vacate directions in CA/2012/289. The argument relied upon the fact that the Public Service Commission was apparently notified orally of Together Queenland's intention to file an appeal on 3 April 2013. The fact is that Together Queensland did not file its Notice of Appeal until 18 April 2013 i.e. the final day for lodging such an appeal. The Chief Executive of the Public Service Commission could do nothing whatsoever to raise the issue of future programming of CA/2012/289 until such time as the Notice of Appeal was actually filed. In this respect, we take no issue with the time taken by the Chief Executive of the Public Service Commission to write to the Industrial Registry (4 working days) requesting the vacation of the directions in CA/2012/289. [10] Mr Martin for the Queensland Council of Unions supported the submissions of Together Queensland. [11] In all of the circumstances it is the view of the Full Bench that Directions 3 through to 10 (inclusive) of the Further Directions Order dated 28 March 2013 be suspended pending the outcome in the appeal to the President in C/2013/15. The Full Bench will further list CA/2012/289 within approximately 48 hours of the release of any decision by the President in C/2013/15 to discuss the reinstatement of the suspended provisions, modified as necessary to accommodate his decision, and as many of the currently listed hearing dates as possible. [12] Order accordingly. D.M. LINNANE, Vice President A.L. BLOOMFIELD, Deputy President J.M. THOMPSON, Commissioner Hearing Details: 2013 April 29 Released: 30 April 2013 Appearances: Mr C. Murdoch of Counsel instructed by Minter Ellison Lawyers for the Chief Executive of the Public Service Commission. Mr J. Martin of the Queensland Council of Unions. Ms D. Ralston and Mr K. McKay of Together Queensland, Industrial Union of Employees. Mr P. Eldon of The Australian Workers Union of Employees, Queensland. -- 2 of 2 --