Edwards v Carlton Hotel Pty Ltd t/a Regatta Hotel [1998] QIRC 290 (1998) 158 QGIG 421

420 INDCSTRIAL GAZETTE 24 , 1998 1998 GOVERNMENT .INDUSTRIAL GAZE1TE 421 !llurkp.lace Relation..;.. 2 ! '8 - appiicatJrm. for 1 "'"~"11,,n,e11 Craig Edwards CarHon Hote! Pty Ltd Rc.gaH.a i-1nk-l BLADES July l R{·.instate.n1d1t - E:xiensio.n of Tin1e .~- Apph~;ation fih:>-d 4 i day:-; om of ti1ne •- Applicant .saspet.'.l,ed reason for chsniissa1--Apphcxn's Separation Certlfi-.:at~- stated ~· Res_p,,,Jndent il!lnuts re.:isoH on Ce.rtiticate innxrect -· A_pphcant scught telephonic advice: frorn Solicitor - Failed to crn1tinu~ t..>f profe.ssienal CL\..~1.v - Reasons fc•1 delay not acu:,pte<l Application Refused. D.ECISI0:'1" l7ruk,r s. 212 of the li/crkplacr: R.datiuns Act .!997 (th,/- Ac·t), a.ppHctition to rt::r:aedy an u:ula.vvil.d dismissal rnust n.lli);:b within 2 l days a.ftG ,Jis:rni.~-;,:U takt'-s effect or further J)l:::r;cx..i the .v,,m""'"""' on iHl rna.de- tP th.e of frze app.hcant' z; di~miss~! R1;.gblta HnteL A.fhda.vlt :::videncc k,_no;:ved by ora1 d.0--.:..·1.nn..:-nta..ry "s;;iVlth:.;1-i:::e." \VJ.Y ,.11 furtt~0r wit11es~ st.att:-n1enL-: ;va_,;: also prodth.:t:d by tl1-: 21pphcan.!.. i\.hhiJugh th~s i~ ,,hviotL'.Jy ;nap_propn3t-::- w~1.y of ~duci-ng tr.1e ft'-SF~ }IH.1~)nt COibf::flied its ;ldrnission and ihe ''evid1;\nce.'"' l!'..:1B been co.nsider~tL Thf'. ;;ttiphc~nt was frr::•i i:~.rnpioyed ~d t1:v~ R~gaua I-Ic,tcl nu 2.6 Si:-pte-rnhf:r 1995 ,:x_,ntam.t~d a.., c,:tsuttl bar and bottle-shop ;1-th:.:.tHfa.nt the tinJe ot' tht: di.~:nus.saL .H~ re,,-;1de~ abeut :: ki1rnnetre frorn JLYid had frit:rHi.'- \Vho \\';~-ft_~ t.cfftl),{Jy~~-d therf \1r P;1:r...ryil "\Vho '-'-Pj""'.•Cafc'.d fOr ap~;rh .:ant u1 th.es~:·, proct'edings, \~'as fdeud afro err._ploy.:xi ~t Lhc Hu~d. the prilnt..i fa,.:ie position that :it should b;; (·0tt1pHed 1b<.rt- is al~o an onus an ap_phcant to _p¢:r:':1.1ade lhe Con.1r11i5sl<n1 to {;:,H~T('lS<-·- the: disct;;:'-t.1,:111 to .'six 1N~,;:;k_') \V:1s a suh>'taHiid dela:-/ that it rel ust..-1-tc.n1t:nt apphc.:.:1.ti~_11; he }cx:lg;;J the t:'-xphrnation for the the h.-~udship hJ tlw applicm1! if tbe acti-,_,n i;;; disrnisse-d ;-wd tht' cau.:,;e of acti:~,n k-ft the of !ht: rnspomle n! The ex,:;rc.ise of the discrc:twm tu grant an f-Akn.s!un of tin:.e is \.ln.f:;:_,.tt,;,':red and that di~cretion rnust be exerci~ed in tb_~ hgh\ of <Ji of tht\ clrcun:a.Stances of the particular case-, applican( s: a{)_phc;:it.ion .shows that if his e-videnG; be-: acce-pted 1 he 1nay srn.:ccss~fuL 'I11erc been .no a<; to the n-1erits :-illduccd by th.e resp.,_"Jndent. result that it should be accepted that the ~hcanf s Wt'le ha~1; 1ncrii, 01 at kast in t.½e t.errn;;, of ](ornickij rhat "the s:.ibsumfrvc apphc:11ion ivas nor without rn.e-.riti-, ·nris ~""plication cenainly dr)t:$ not \Varrant d1srnlssal .::m the: The a.pp1ica.J1t .alk-ges he becan1e= aviare of the diMnissaJ v~·hcn h~ sough: the Separar.ion C-:,;n.ifi.c2Je abcK1t _Nnven1ber and when provided 4 ~even,ber l 997 he bcc..1,1ne aware that the reason was "shortage of work". He ad1nitted thrtt he suspei:red disJnissal on 3 l October. The resJ--,X>nden: ci.Ht."".ges that disn1issal !L¥.1k effect 22 1997 wh.e.n applicant ]a~l worked. It ernt~rge<l in e\id.cnce tlu.t the apphcant norn1aliy paid a \\1ednesday f6r hours tvtn:ked over th..> previous 1\.1,)nday to Sum:L.iy. On. 22 (,ct0ber \Vedn,:sday), tl-ic appht:an.t ,vas p!Od at th..:-. condusien. of his :,:bif~ for the ht'JU.ts -i.vorked that day. ··n1at p-ro(:edure wa<;; .most irri:-gut.-u- and supports suhn1iss1011 that the ~pplicant was terrninalt.d nn 2:2 Octob~L ·n1ere direz;t evidence fron1 the re.sponde:nt '!o the dare of tl:tf disnUssai but the.re i:; c~theJ evidence which cxm1es frrnn the or,phcatinn it,;e.1f \Vhere.in lhe applicant, in seeking Vhtiou...-: orders, se.t:ks ih"1. ·']l:w..t resp<.Jwlent retnunera:t]{fU frJf lo.':-t wagc..s between the date of terminat1on of t!-nipioy.rnent <Ju 22nd October 1997 and the- date of d~~tern1ination of th,s i\pplicauon. ,.. I \V\Ji!ld iuf6.r on ba!itncc that the disrnissai 1.>ccurred on 2-2 October nx..-,,re cu:rrectly that the <lisn1is.saJ ''tt_:;ok effe(,"1,; OH 22 Octoh~r 1997. 'T11~: appi.ication ;J-.1.erefov.:~ filci.i 4 "J out t.in1.;:., ff fue 3t:1phcar1t' s, date of dismissal acct~pte<l, it was sou1e 31 days out 11mt:, '1ber.,; n<Ji a. 5ignihcant differ:::r.i<-t::- lte-t.W£,'en the "f'he appUca.nt d<iin1ed that Nov\~-rnber he: k,k,pho.ne-d ~ Svhcitor in Br}sbane t.o ''l('.4;;.k l::gal advice and wa.s tnid that he-c2tuse the reas,;,,m fi:x t,,;-rn1ination ,v21,.,;; ·'.shortztgt:-- of work;, his pro.'q.K:cts c.{ siJcce-ss w,~re 1ln.1ltt:.d. He 1,vas quoted tht; of bnn.gin_g 1h.t'. action r-tl bet\Vf'-tn $ ::;, 000 ~) $7 J)OO and therefore decided against ""·" ,co,.,m~ fu.rJH:.r. bt~ctrne app-trri'.'-nt to hm1 tk:tt wa:: a he that ft•nner a ·'shorta.gt nf filled hy a11.other eruployee. H.-.-~ hl:(:;trn.f a.ngry, b-oITO"Ned _ff:o:n::::y fro.tu his nK1fh(:.r tc assist with th;;. and thc:n took up \vith :l\1r Parrnyi \Vith th<~ result th£tt the apph(:ati.:.ln The apphcant s:aid that he d,;:Jubted 1 at th.: very beginning, that ·•-~hortage of wc,rk.'". proved to cuhnina.tion of pa:n. \V4.n1ings ,:md apphca11f s 3HituJe ;~'1d that tht rc~v,on. .~hown t)n tb_c Separa.tJon Cstrtificrtc 1v;is HOt :t\..'.UJratt as i8 th.: practice- of rnar.;y en1r.1Ioyers. (f1 that the practic~~., en1pioyt~rs would n,~ed to take .n.olicc th.41 frti.;re are p~nr-Jtie::.: fo,r dehberately giving fail::-,.; t.X rnisletu.iiEg i nfrnLiat.ic,n to l)cpJrt1nent of .So<.iaJ Se-curit y). it may, applicant the name. of the SoJicitor whorn he s~x')kf: on 7 H¢ had ivfr P;1na.yi. aa articled ,;Jerk 1 rt:ad1ly avaihibk at the Hott~-1 and :iot (~:1-;plain why he did not ¼vith hi1n at that ~;11-l'y stage, 'il1-,~ .De-_r4f"trttait ot En1ploynk~nt 1 Training and Indu.str~aJ. ReioJiow,; puhiishcs infornva1on dcraihng the l1f('.>;.'.e.durc for lodging &n <-q,9lication and the lirr;jt is higl1light.ed in the .11-::fonrtitlon. \\t'hy l)t, did a.pprcach th.,~ l)epanrne-nt by s,vay cif sirnril-.'; tdepbone <-:aH is foJt expiainc.d, 'I11e advice appari=:-ut]y c,bu1it1t:d frorn U1e S01icitot was ,ery ,:upcrficic?.L Ii \\',,, grntuitous tdepht,i,ic advic~ from son,eonc: who r~-rrn.uns unidcntifit~d. I would ha~;e ,:xfH.-...ck<l ru1 apf)hcant sus_p}civ,:.::; -- 1 of 2 -- GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 24July, 1998 the rea.son for dismissal to have so lightly acr.epted advice that his prospt:,CL" wer0 limited. ff the applicant, suspicious of the reas,:m for th.e disrr,i;.:.saL was motivated cncmgh to ring a Sohcitor, l fail m se•c why, afkr being a<lvise<l ot the cost 1 he did not approach. the Dtpartnient or fl.Jr Pa.nayL Part of hi.~ reasons included lack of fund~ to seek legal advice. or to file the application hul if his mDther was prepared to loan hm, the money for the !.:gal costs on 15 Decemher) I fail to see why he could not have borrowed the fund:, fr,,m her to his apphcation at an apprnpriaie date before ik, expiration of the hrnitation _period. ·nie applicant ha, also claimed that he called into the Hold on 31 ()ctober to check the roster for the foHowin?'. wet:'.k and notK"ed that he ;va.\ not rostered for the next two weeks. l{e produc~d in e~"'ide,nce a staten1e_m:, unsigned, by Jorgan Neilson, who said he employed as a bottle-shop at!endant on or about 29 October and it was common knowledge h~ had beer;. err!ph::tyed tt:_. rep}a,::i:.-: Jason E<lwanL.;;. Tht;; applic:tnt had friend~ working aJ the Hotel, 1nctuding i\fr Ps1nayi, and it js unexpl<1ine<l how he did not know ~e-ilson had been ernp1oyed 1:) repJace. hffil t1nt1J 15 De-cernber. The absence t.if such k:n.;)wledge, considering his already ~'L1Spicious mind, i~ nKJSt unlikely. ] do not cv.nsider thar. the re-0s0n for the delay Js properly i;Xpiained. If the application f{»" an ,:.xtension refused_. the apphca.ni ;viH suffer prcjudict.,, I think that gt1es wlthout saying. nnk.ss of course, he has no case on fue merit, at all. The rnspon<lem company, Carlton Hotel Pty Ltd, sold the Regatta Hote] to aJl{)tl1er co1n1xnty and setdt:rrient of that transacti{m \.Vas finalised on 30 l\:cembcr 1997. Some of ,he staff were re-hired by th.e new company from thar date but there wa, nothing to require !:h~ new owner to employ tlie old stafL A change from one employer !<, ,mother dearly involves a terrninati0r: of c,r,e. contract of err..p!oyrncnt and the cornrnencement o.f a new contract The- applicant had no guarante-s::. therefore, that hi;, employ.msent would have continued beyond ,o i)ecemhtT with th~ Regatta Hotel. Ifo could not have been lr&11sforred to another Hotel in the en1ploy1nent of Carlton tlie conifXUty ceased i.rt the busin-e~s of Hotel owuernhip. It was con.ffnon kno,vledge arnong thG ernr;ioye;::? th~tt the Hotel \~'as up for 1-:lany e1npioy~::.s- were not .re-hired by fur_\ purch,1scr. T'ne applicant's cornpensatHm wouid then he. quitt~- {jnJlted "Vere be suc(:essfuL W1ien n1e;1sured a.gain:-:! the costs Jnvo}verl in S{:.eJ;ing :redt..,\SS, the net resu.H. rnay be insign!ficant. Rcin.~taterne-nt is of cvur~\:' out of lh¢ quet'.tio.rL The first notifi<:;;tmn that lhe re.'p0i1dent had lh"J the appliccmt was contesting his disr.nL-ssai was on Decc-rntn:~r 1 only 7 days before- the sak com.Juded ..After the saje, the. c1T1t,11oyees left the respondent's ernployrnent \1-a·itb some travdling interstate, The .ret;p,)HK.1ent points to the fa.ct th~i1 had Jr he-en notdlc~.! at a re-a.sonable tirne, it m.ay have hecn ahle to obtain statcxncnt, from !lic,,e employee., hdore they departed. Oth(·J lh,m that, rnh:v;mt \Vitnc:sjes wnuid apt1ear to be available ~tround the Br.~shane area. 'The applicant do(•.s :B.'~)1 apJ_)eM to have. betn paid any tt>nnina.tion pay in lieu of notice_ ~ lon.g tenn c.::.suat he ;va~, probably ent1tlzxi to the twnefits p.rovided for by 226(4) of the Act rdatmg l(> periods of notice. However. Cl refusal of thi~ apphcation does not proc]ude the. applicant fn)fn put~u.ing: r.i.ghts by \Yay of an apphcation um.it.::r (9) tn :u1 Industrial rv1ag~.stn.ttL His nght to paytntnt .in lieu of notict\ ho\vever 1 be snbje{'t to provi.stons of a l-\-::rle-ral P._._10.'dJd that the respondent claixned goYcrned tht app1icanfs t.mployment the delay advano-:d by the applicant not accepkd as a rea~unabk ~~xpiana.tinrL Even thotigh tllt, apphc'lnt .';.11Spcctcd the re.a.sou ~'shortage- of ,;,vork'' in the initial st::tges~ h.~ failed to properly and diligent! y pursue hfa fr,rmcr employer 1.H"a.l) j 5 .Dt'cen1ber, at ':vhich tir:o:.e he was suh~1:1ntrnHy <...Yu.t of tin10. Funhenn\'.re, he V/Lt.\ ~ucc.cssful, cc,n.ip·ensatton would be hrnit(;d because tht•• i:.rnp1oycr ,vent out of hu..,;;irh~ss Sf)TIK: 8 nr ;_) we;;;ks after the disnri.ssal exten::.:ion. of ti1ne-. The Conurrission orders accordingly. BJ. BLADES, Commissioner Appearances:- Mr M. Panayi, Bells Solicitors, for the Applicant. Mr S. P.tw!owski, with him Mr .M. Procter, of Queensland Chamber of Commerce and lndu.,try Limited, lndustria! ()rgam,aJion of Employers, for the Respondent Rdea,ed: 9 July 1998 24 1998 QUEENSLAND GOVERNNIBNT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 423 -- 2 of 2 --