Conner v Training Recognition Council & Anor [2003] QIRC 171 (2003) 174 QGIG 275

26 September, 2003 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 275 ######################################################################################################################### QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Training and Employment Act 2000 – s. 230 – appeal against council decision Allan Robert Conner AND Training Recognition Council and Another (No. AT1 of 2003) COMMISSIONER BROWN 17 September 2000 DECISION This is an appeal by Allan Robert Conner (the appellant) against the decision of the Training Recognition Council (the first respondent) to cancel his training contract with Ms A. Lewis, trading as Chisel Hair Design (the second respondent). The appellant was employed as an apprentice hair dresser pursuant to a training contract entered into by the parties in January 2003. On 21 June 2003, the second respondent applied to have the training contract terminated due to her changed circumstances, specifically her health, which she alleged caused her to be unable to adequately train the appellant. Following an investigation by the first respondent, the training contract was cancelled in accordance with s. 63(1)(a)(ii) of the Training and Employment Act 2000 (the Act) effective from 18 July 2003, this being conveyed to the appellant and the second respondent in writing by letter dated 17 July 2003 signed by Ms Jenny Rowe. Section 63(1)(a) reads as follows: “63.(1) If a party to a training contract can not perform the party’s obligations under the contract on any of the following grounds, the party may apply to the council in writing to cancel the contract– (a) if the party is an employer– (i) the employer has ceased business; or (ii) there has been a substantial change in the employer’s circumstances and the change has affected the employer’s capacity to perform the employer’s obligations under the contract.”. -- 1 of 2 -- 276 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 26 September, 2003 At the request of the appellant, the Apprenticeship and Traineeship Ombudsman conducted a review of the first respondent’s decision to cancel the training contract. The Apprenticeship and Traineeship Ombudsman’s opinion, advised to the appellant by letter dated 8 September 2003, was that the first respondent’s delegate had made an “appropriate decision” and further had acted within the authority of the Act. The Act at s. 233 requires the Commission to deal with appeals as quickly as possible. All relevant material was presented to the Commission prior to the date of hearing. At the hearing the parties were invited by the Commission to make further submissions. The appellant in his submissions expressed the view that the reasons advanced by the second respondent supporting her application to cancel the training contract were contrived and designed to allow the second respondent to improperly dispense with the appellant’s services. The appellant further submitted that the trading hours of the business of the second respondent were largely unaltered subsequent to his departure. The appellant conceded that subsequent to the termination of his training contract he had attended at the second respondent’s premises, during business hours and with a client present, with a video camera and pretended to record, however, he stated that the camera did not contain film. Ms Rowe for the first respondent submitted that the Council had conducted itself properly and in accordance with the Act and that the conclusion reached was the correct decision. The second respondent (Ms Lewis) submitted that there were genuine medical reasons which caused her inability to continue to train the appellant and that this changed circumstance affected her capacity to perform her obligations under the training contract. The second respondent expressed concern over the appellant’s actions with the video camera at her premises. The second respondent requested that the details of the health matters which led to her inability to perform under the training contract be treated confidentially. The first respondent complied with that request. This caused some concerns for the appellant who, by and large, had no knowledge of the cause of the second respondent’s problem. It should be noted that the appellant was broadly aware that the second respondent claimed that her problems were stress related. The Commission was appraised of the cause of the second respondent’s stress related problems and given the sensitive personal nature of the problem, the Commission agrees that it should not be disclosed. Suffice to say that the stress related problems of the second respondent arose through a verifiable medical condition. Whilst acknowledging the disappointment of the appellant at having lost his employment, I accept that the reasons for the second respondent’s changed circumstances are genuine. I accept that this caused the second respondent’s inability to perform the training requirement under the Act constituting changed circumstances pursuant to s. 63(1)(a)(ii). I also accept that the process of investigation undertaken by the first respondent was appropriate and that the Ombudsman’s review was also conducted properly. I further accept that the conclusions of both the investigation and review were reasonable. In all the circumstances and having considered the submissions and material presented, I am not prepared to interfere with the decision of the first respondent to cancel the training contract between the appellant and the second respondent. The appeal is dismissed. D. K. BROWN, Commissioner. Hearing Details: 2003 15 September Appearances: Mr A. Conner on his own behalf. Ms J. Rowe, with her Mr R. Tom and Ms K. Mitchener, for the Training Recognition Council. Ms A. Lewis, with her Messrs N. Holden and L. Riddle, for Chisel Hair Design. -- 2 of 2 --