Baldwin v Department of Industrial Relations [2005] ICQ 6 (2005) 178 QGIG 196

[Extract from Queensland Government Industrial Gazette, dated 11 March, 2005, Vol. 178, No.10, page 196] INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND Industrial Relations Act 1999 – s. 341(1) – appeal against decision of industrial commission Geoffrey Baldwin AND Department of Industrial Relations (No. C89 of 2004) PRESIDENT HALL 1 March 2005 REPORT ON DECISION (as edited) In giving a decision from the Bench on 17 February 2005, the President stated: “With respect it seems to me that this is a clear-cut matter. Traditionally the Industrial Relations Commission in this State was charged with the responsibility of conciliating and arbitrating industrial disputes. In more recent times it has been armed with a number of judicial powers including the power to order that outstanding wages (in an extended sense) be paid. Necessarily it had to be given power to deal with the situation in which a respondent did not appear. The rules were amended to deal with that matter in the same way in which that matter has traditionally been dealt with in the Supreme Court, the District Court and the Magistrates Court. The scheme is that if somebody does not appear, if there is evidence that that person has been made aware by proper service that the proceedings were on, and if on the face of the documents there is a prima facie case, there is a discretion vested in the Commission to make the order in the absence of the person. There is of course a right of appeal from any decision of the Commission to this Court, but the appeal is only on the ground of error of law or excess or want of jurisdiction. An error of discretion will only be an error of law in the circumstances described in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499. There would have to be an error of principle or clear unfairness. The materials before me do not indicate an error of principle, neither do they indicate that the member of the Commission who dealt with the matter was clearly wrong. On the face of it, the member of the Commission correctly applied rule 62. It may be that evidence could be led to show that by inadvertence – and inadvertence is always possible when somebody is not present – the Commission managed to get it wrong. But that would not be an error of law or an excess or want of jurisdiction. It is not the case that the appellant is without remedy. The appellant does have a remedy. The remedy is by way of proceedings under rule 63. That rule requires the appellant to make a further application to the Commission to set aside the order made under section 62 and make other orders in lieu thereof. But that is not a matter to be pursued in this Court. This Court has no jurisdiction to deal with that particular matter. The appeal is incompetent. It is dismissed. There being no appeal to protect, there is no basis for a stay. The matter of costs is to be dealt with by way of written submissions.”. Dated 1 March 2005. By the Court, [L.S.] G.D. SAVILL, Industrial Registrar. Appearances: Appellant in person. Released: 1 March 2005 Mr C. Murdoch of Counsel instructed by Crown Law for the Respondent. Government Printer, Queensland The State of Queensland 2005. -- 1 of 1 --