Blackheath and Thornburgh College v Mr AA [2006] ICQ 2 (2006) 181 QGIG 142

[Extract from Queensland Government Industrial Gazette, dated 3 February, 2006, Vol. 181, No. 5, page 142] INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND Industrial Relations Act 1999 - s. 341(1) - appeal against decision of industrial commission Blackheath and Thornburgh College AND Mr AA (C/2005/77) and Blackheath and Thornburgh College AND Mr AA (C/2005/20) PRESIDENT HALL 23 January 2006 REPORT ON DECISION (as edited) In giving a decision from the Bench on 9 December 2005, the President stated: "On 13 September of this year Commissioner Thompson of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ordered the reinstatement of a person identified as Mr AA at Blackheath and Thornburgh College. The order was that he be reinstated to his former position and on conditions at least as favourable as the conditions on which he was employed immediately prior to his dismissal. There was an order for the payment of a large sum of money (subject to taxation). The orders were to be complied with within twenty-one days. In fact there was an appeal. For present purposes I am prepared to assume that the Appeal was within time. There was also an application for a stay. The application for a stay was found to be so lacking in substance that it was dismissed instanter for reasons given from the Bench. That occurred on 10 October 2005. On 19 October 2005 directions were issued to ensure the proper hearing of the Appeal, on 9 December 2005. In fact there has been non-compliance with the directions order by the Appellant. In such circumstances rule 113 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2000 authorises dismissal of the Appeal. Dismissing an appeal rather than making arrangements which would enable it to be heard, albeit with difficulty, is not ordinarily an attractive course; but there is the circumstance that by fixing a twenty-one day time limit for the hearing of appeals, the legislature has indicated a view that appeals should be dealt with expeditiously. There is an application for an adjournment supported by an affidavit which, with respect, cannot instil confidence that if the adjournment is granted the Appeal would ever take place. On what I am told from the Bar table by Mr Merrell - and I accept what I am told - it appears that the orders relating to the original applicant (Mr AA) have not been complied with. Although he is being paid a wage, he is not (months after the release of the Commission's decision) working in his former position, neither has he been paid the sum of $45,500 (approximately) subject to tax as required by the order. Whilst I have some sympathy for the difficulties which the Respondent has faced I have to have a concern that from Mr AA's perspective the Appellate process has been used for the purposes of vexation. In all the circumstances I dismiss the Appeal. That leaves open the earlier appeal of 8 April 2005. I propose to arrange with the Registrar to issue directions about the hearing of that appeal. It seems to me that because of the nature of the issues there is no reason why that Appeal cannot be dealt with by way of written submissions. It seems to me that the fair approach is to reserve the question of costs and to take written submissions on that matter contemporaneously with the written submissions in appeal number C/2005/20. I adjourn the Court.". Dated 23 January 2006. By the Court, [L.S.] G.D. Savill. Industrial Registrar. Released: 23 January 2006 Appearances: Mr H. Walters directly instructed for the Appellant. Mr J. Merrell instructed by Wilson, Ryan and Grose, Solicitors, for the Respondent. Government Printer, Queensland The State of Queensland 2006. -- 1 of 1 --