Cahill v Wide Bay Group Training Scheme Ltd [2002] QIRC 24 (2002) 169 QGIG 231

15 March, 2001 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 231 ########################################################################################################################### QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1999 – s. 74 – application for reinstatement David Graham Cahill AND Wide Bay Group Training Scheme Ltd (No. B1993 of 2001) COMMISSIONER BECHLY 4 March 2002 DECISION This is an application for reinstatement by Mr David Cahill who was employed by Wide Bay Group Training Scheme Ltd as a trainee under the terms of the Training and Employment Act 2000. It is conceded that the procedures utilised by the respondent to effect the termination, breach s. 60(3) of the Training and Employment Act 2000. That Act at s. 60(4) provides that if the employer contravenes subsection (3), the employee is taken to have been unfairly dismissed under the Industrial Relations Act 1999, Chapter 3, Part 2, and subject to that Part has the remedies under that Part. The remedy sought is reinstatement. The employer resists that remedy as being impracticable. The applicant was employed as a trainee field officer to develop business for the employer in the placement of trainees in industry. Prior to employment as a trainee the applicant was employed as a sales representative to perform the same task. The applicant was first employed on 30 August 2000 and the employment came to an end on 28 August, 2001. The application was filed on 30 November, 2001. I am satisfied on the evidence led by the respondent and the applicant himself that reinstatement to employment would be impracticable. Each of the members of the small group that Mr Cahill would have to work with and who provided evidence indicated that they could no longer trust him and that his personality was such that it would be impossible to work with him even if he underwent counselling in an attempt to modify his behaviour. There also remains conflict between Mr Cahill and the Chief Executive Officer, Mr R. Tregidga. Compensation is the alternative. I am satisfied that Mr Cahill tendered a resignation from employment to his immediate supervisor on the day preceding his termination. I am also satisfied that Mr Cahill informed the Chief Executive Officer that he had given four weeks’ notice of resignation to his supervisor during the course of his dismissal. Mr Cahill was paid two weeks’ salary and other entitlements on termination. In all the circumstances compensation by way of the payment of a further two weeks’ salary ($1,309.00) is an appropriate remedy. I order that Wide Bay Group Training Scheme Ltd pay Mr David Cahill two weeks’ salary within seven days of the publishing of this decision in the Queensland Government Industrial Gazette. R.E. BECHLY, Commissioner. Released: 3 March 2002 Appearances:– Mr D.G. Cahill on his on behalf. Mr F. Kleinschmidt, with him Mr R. Tregidga for the respondent. -- 1 of 1 --