Anstee v Acting Deputy Registrar [2000] ICQ 11 (2000) 163 QGIG 357

24 March, 2000 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 357 INDUSTRIAL COURT OF QUEENSLAND Industrial Relations Act 1999 – s. 341 (2) – appeal from decision of acting deputy registrar June Margaret Anstee AND Acting Deputy Registrar (No. C10 of 2000) PRESIDENT HALL 14 March 2000 REPORT ON DECISION (as edited) In giving his decision from the Bench on 10 March 2000, President Hall stated:– “By section 74 (3) an application for reinstatement may be made by (a) an employee or (b) with the employee’s consent, an organisation whose rules entitle it to represent the employee’s industrial interests. The general rule is that “…the signing of a name by an agent acting within its authority is a signing by the principal” Motel Marine Pty Ltd v. IAC Finance Pty Ltd 110 CLR 9 at 13 per Kitto, Taylor and Owen JJ. See also generally Laws of Australia, v.8, chapter 1, para.1 and the cases there cited. To reach the conclusion that an agent may not sign an application for reinstatement on behalf of the dismissed employee, one would have to find some indication in s. 74 that the general rule was not to apply. As a matter of drafting, in my recollection, that is ordinarily done by saying “an employee personally”, whereas s. 74 says “an employee”. I note the argument based on s. 74 (3) (b), which refers to an organisation making the application with the employee’s consent. The history of that provision is of course that in the absence of the phrase “with the employee’s consent” an organisation whose rules entitle it to represent the employee’s industrial interests might make that application whether or not the employee had consented. It seems to me that that particular provision is about limiting the authority of a registered industrial organisation, rather than in a back-handed way suggesting that the agent other than an industrial organisation may not sign the application form on behalf of the employee. The mechanics of appointing an agent are described at rule 7 of the Industrial Court Rules 1997. The Rules are, of course, by s. 711, continued in force and effect. I am satisfied in the circumstances that the document which is exhibit 1 was a document which does comply with the Act and does comply with the Rules. It should have been accepted. In all those circumstances I set aside the decision of the Acting Deputy Registrar refusing to accept the application which is exhibit 1. I direct that the application be filed and stamped with a filing date of 8 March 2000. In all the circumstances of the case there could not be any application for costs, I adjourn the Court.”. Dated this fourteenth day of March, 2000. By the Commission, [L.S.] E. EWALD, Industrial Registrar. Appearances:– Ms J. M. Anstee, appellant. Mr F. Pulsford, Crown solicitor, as Friend of the Court. Released: 14 March 2000 #################################### -- 1 of 1 --