Facelli v Mount Isa Mines Pty Ltd [1999] QIRC 71 (1999) 160 QGIG 267

266 QlJEENSLAND GOYERNJ\,1ENT [NDUSTRIAL GAZ ETTE 26 March, 1999 26 March, 1999 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUST RIAL GAZETTE 267 iliillitli#IH!il##!f ## #/!11# ###/lli!f#ifM###lfflff##ff###IHl####it##tffl###illl##ll####liit#######IHl############ff## ##-###i/ ##il#########!l### i#i #####IHIII# ## Q l:S ENSLANO l "iDOST!Ut, L RCLATIOJ\S C01'1MISSION Wo rkpi<'ce Relations Act l\i97 - s . 2 25 - a pplication for C<:>sts David Fa ~cJU AND Mow,t Isa M ines Pty Ltd (B908 vf 1998) CO M MISS IONER P IS!IU <. Applicatio n for cosL, - Previous dec1s 1on - l~xpen mpoo •- Costs award ed againsc appli ca nc - Scale l-' Ma g1s1r~tc·s Coun S cale - Applicant given .six mo nth s: t () pay c:o.-,u . DEClS!ON On 20 J4uuary l ')99 l rdcased a ,kci ~10 n finding 1ha1 ,he di smissal of David f'accil i from hi.s posi tio n of Locv Dr iver with Mc Isa Mi nes P1y Lid (the ( :ompa ny) w,,s 1H.>t harsh, u nj u,; t or u nrea,, 011ahk ( 160 (..)CHG ')6) . Lea ve lo appl y fo r cos ts wa s gra nted h) the Co mp«ny. Su ch appl ic:at 1on ha., n()w bee n matk pur.< u anl w .s . 225 of the Wo rkplaa .~ elations .-\ e t / 91/ 7. (The Act) T his ,s a case. where cos1s oug.l,t to be gr amed . Mr Facelli engaged i!l unsafe work prac:tices. contrary to Co mp,,n y policy and his m, inin~. Hi .s c,<mdu ct put n! risk th e .<aiety of h i;, fo!lnw e rnplo ye,:,s an d hi.< e mplo yer' s proper1y. ll is a ca.5c. whe re on th e applic ant ' s o wn wr~inn of the fac t.< it w as apparc n1 th,:r\~ wa~ no suhscanli aJ pro.5 pects of :;ucccss. 'Olis is a h<1 sis f or findin g that the applJcali on w as insti tuted w.1tho ut reas 1...maM c cause . (S ~ K,.nan v 1\11 sm1/icm Poftal and Te iecnmmunica rw11., Union (1992) 43 !R 157) . QGIU 26/3/99 -- 1 of 2 -- 268 QUE EN SLAN D GOVER NM ENT INDUS TRI AL G AZE TTE 26 March, 1999 Tile ca s~ ~gain ~I \1 r Facelli was comprmndcd hy the e xpen report of Mr Cole . This r epo rl, bas ed in pan upon Mr Facelli ' s initial re p(>rt ot th~ i ncident 1ru-\d ~ on th e day, show~d t·;xc0ss ~pecd to be: tlk cau se-. Alth<JUgh ~1r PaceiJi aLtempted l<..> n:!y (~n what l rc-ierred in the decision ;~s hi s ''n~iw version• ·. t hat is. his affidavit pr epared !or the dismi s~al hearing. Mr Coie fou nd that vers ion to be improhat>le. Mr Coie ' s re port had b ee n mad,: available 10 Mr Fa cell! ' s r"pr,:,sen 1a 1iv"$ some mont hs pnor 10 the h~:irmg . Ample opponun ll y wa; provided 10 considcr H-" con tt>;ntS c:tnd to (,htai n a sr!conct opinion. 'Irns w,,s nol don;.; nor did the appli cant caH a1, ~ xp en to gi ve e vide nce before the Co.nuni..::~ ion 10 C<)lJn tcr ~1r Cole's re poC1 . Th ~ Commi ~sio n thus h ad o nly one e xpGrl opinion before 11 wh i ct1 had 10 be accepted. Gi ven l hi-5 ~e! ()f c irtum.,1a n cts the Compa ny argued that the applit:an1 caused it to incur cost., becau.<e of an unreasonable. act or omission connected with !he .:onducl o f !h, appl ication. ($ . 225(1 )(1,i). T/H, applican t a r gued that af1u rec~ving and consid eno~ t he report, a fu 11he r coofore-nce t>c tore the Cornmi., s, nn wa~ ~()Ugh!. how ev er , the Company dec l in ct! to pa r11 cipate. This failu re 10 fu 11 he r co nfer, !he app li cam contended , .sho uld mili1a1e againM the gr~ nting of co~!> bc <:ause a hearing may have b een prc-vemabk. The Company d id not wi,h le> ci\gdge io" further conferent c bcc,uise t he report only corJi rmi:,d ,1 ~ vie w th,u dismi ssal had b ee n :tppropna te. T hat v,~w was no1 going to a lter. In the cir curn<tances ofch is ca;e that po.~i tion wM a rnasonable o ne. For chc rc "< on., mnl ir,e.d by !he Company, l am i nd in :;(I LO agree that the pwv isinn~ o f s. 225(l)(b) of the Act have been ~at is lied. Th~ a pp ii cam argue d tha t it wM open 10 him to c.hallcngc the diffs:rnnt dis~1 pl inary p.:na hi es imposed o n him and Mark James. th •~ h ead sh unter. Whi k: J sa id in th; d eds ion lhat ~1 r James w a:-: ex treme ly f or tunate to r em~in in the Company' s err1 pl◊y 1 the pe.na lty of d isn ti~:ml wa:: not 111con 5: 1s1e r: t nor was tt harsh, unju~, oc unrtaso nah!e. \j lt 1m ately. Mr facd l1 as th e Loco Dnve.r w a.s respo nsible for th,• safe operat io n and passage o( the train. Jk tailed 10 ex~rdsc thnt respon:(i.tl ility in ,t .safe ma Iuu:r . For th e. se r~asons ws t.~ will be awarded agamot Mr F.,ce ll i. ·nh~Con1Jx my ha .~ tender-;! d an affida v it o f !'foal o·connor. Pri ncipa l L e ga l AdYiser for the Co mpany dcu,1 ting trd vd . ac.cornrnoctatio n and a s~ociated t:Ost~ incurred"' the <kle ncc of Lhe app l kation . in adcl1t1c,n a sch e,du le of costs in a-:cord anc:e with S t;,le (j o f t.he M agistfat~s Coort Scale was rrovidcd . The 101: t! ,w wu n, of costs .soug ht wa s $ 13,853.15 . Co un, ei f<.,r th~ a ppl icant qu,·rie d the use o f Sulc G and c.:J1ain COS!.$ cl a imed for ar.d hy a Compan y ofticor, otherwise t he balan~e of the daim wa., uncha llenged . Th e q1rnntnm of co sts to bt awa rded i5 d i.scr~tionary . R llle 11 l of the lndusmal Co1tr1 R11IP-s 1997 provides 1ha1 the Cornmi.<sion may allow cost.< a.s fixed by th•.: Co nu111ssi 1..•n. hy r..:for,::n<.·~ to (1 Court Scale:- or su<..:h (•\ h"·r ba .'ii~ c\$ the Co01.1ms .,i on rnay dc1"'"":rnuot'. , I propose h.> tis.: Scale F ,,s the ba ~is for dc 1ernuuin,g cos t,, 1ogc.1hs:r wi th rcasoaahle travel e:q.>en5es for Counsel, ai rfar es and accommidat i<,n for v.ritn e.sscs iLnd witn.: "s e xpcn;..;~.~ for ~1r Co le. The s~ witn.;.s., expcnSt!.~ hav~ been detern u n~d in accordance with th e seal ~ of allowances payable to a pr,,fc~,.0na{ wi111c, s tn a civil uct i<>n in the Supre m<.' Court. I have ,kc1dcd to not itldud e in 1hc awa rd cost s incurred hy C<m1pany employ~e,, in the <..:oo.rsc of dcfr:.ndlng the rnauer. \V hile an arguab le c~,s e e xi $1S fo( their relJl1hur~e .me nt. in th h: matter 1 ha v~ d ete r ml n~rl such co~ ts ar<~ mor<: a ppropr iately borne by th"' C0 n-4x,ny. In t he ,:in:unJ.;t ,rn <.:os l have decided to award $9 .422 in aists. In accortlancc with, . 350 of th e J\<,1 1 certify that 11 was , n the mterest of )'JSt 1cc-. chat Co un sd ht:, heaHL The "''"«rd of costs 1s subsia111tal. Mr Facdli ,hou ld he giv.'11 "r~a.•ona bJ e period of time I <> p,1y . A ccordingly , the C<,mmi .~s i on or d,,cs t hat [)av id Facdli do pay l ll Mt Isa M in.;s Pt y Ltd S9 .~22 in cos ts with Ill 6 montll.i M th,! da te of r~ka se o f Un~ (kc ,sion. ()n.kr ac<:,ordingl y. G.K . flSt! f. R, Comm , .ss ioner Appearm1ces:- M, J\. \1acSpo rran (Darri, 1e r) in s 1n 1t~cd b y N;,l! P"Y"" S0Ji c1 1ors for th e appl ic:ant . Mr J. Murdoch ( Bnrris kr) 111struc1 ed hy 'I.fr ,--; . O'(\>nnor for 1h c r .; spondc n1. ###lffl###-###/i/l#;i#llii#########i#liill###il##!l#itltil#!lillt####li#ltli/1##1111###-/1##/l##ii# #/t# iif!#ll##ll!l##########ll##l!ll##it##~liiHl#ll##l#l#ll##l#I####// 26 Mar ch , l 999 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT !NDUS T R[AL GAZETTE 269 QUH , 26/3/99 -- 2 of 2 --