Cannarella v Boyne River Painting Pty Ltd [1998] QIRC 260 (1998) 158 QGIG 222

1998 ' ---~.v-~,-.. ~··~~•--.-..~,~ ···--·-····- -- 1 of 2 -- 224 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE [26 June, 1998 tb:af the applicant was a '.Vo.rk::-r, there being a rclat1onship of ernph)jlrr.ient and that he \VHS disYni.~s'.:'-d). Section 24 tl1en goes or~ to provide that it is not u.nfawful to dis{J irninate in frt:: W(>rk area if a11 exernption in ss. 25 to 36 a_pphes. S.;:cticn 25 provides that a person 1D.ay ln;pose. genurn.c occupational requirements for a p{Jsilion. -~-1orenver s_ l 08 provides that;:-:, rienon rnay do an act th,u is r~dSonably necessary to prot.oct the he;,Hh and safety ot pe-opk al a place of work. l arn satisfied on i'hc balance of pn)babi!ities that it was a genn_ine ttccupationa.l requiri:~Ine,nt that the l'.~rnpioyee be able to negotiati; trestles and sca.ffolcL~. Jvfr Michael Lennon lest.ified that h.e hroughr. that to tht~ auentton of th.e. applicant in the tc-kphonc conversation and the applicant himsz';]f acknowle"-18ed it had be.e.n 11K•.ntioned. ln any ev(~nt, it v1a.s 1nip!icit in the joh de3{ription that tres4Je and scaff{)l<l work w'ould be rtt1uired. It W\A1td be: unirna ginab.k for ccn1rnerc.ial and dorne.stic painters to perfurtn. work on schr~)I and governme_m. contracts without being requinxl to din1b tresti~s, I arn also ;-;a~isfied ou the balance of probabllities that u;x)n reaching the second rung of the tr1."'stk, the- ap-f!Hc.ant hecarrie incapable of proceeding tarthec The Pr~0r:~pla,ce Health and Sajt·ty Art 1995 pfoces eertarn ohhgations upon empioyers to n1.sure-✓ workplace health a,.nJ safety ii:x f:.n:.pioye.es at work. h may weJi be that su.(·h prov;sion:-: require the- 1,;::mployc:r to prevent J}l:,rson.s, ,3\Jch as the applicant., trom placing their o~ln safr:ty at risk by ende.c1vouring !n cHtnb stroch.rres which \Vere bey,:-ind ~'tpacity. Such ,ibhgatiou:, \VL}U}d. be u1 addition to ob!.ig4-th.ms de0igned to prcveut other workers bc-1ng in.Jur~:-d by soi:ne xrtlshap (";-C(.-U_rring due to the- apphc.ant'.s i:1ahihty, In thi-s :,itnation, ,s. l G8 ,:;f th.e Di:;...-:riinination A.et would have n:tevance. The <llst.Tirninaii,:::m shown tiJ have oc<..urred here is discrirnination ~xcn1_pted ftDfft th~- provisions 0f the Dlscrirnination Act, particufo.riy by s. 25. Ai:.:co.rdi.ng1y1 I am satisfied, on the. bab.nce of pr<>babih.ties1 that the er:uployer did not disnllss the applicant tC;r the invalid rtason "discrinunation-'' that wot.dd contravene tl1e .Discr-inunation i\ct Bcc<!use o.f the en1pioyer'.s n.rista..ke,r1 be-Hef that hcc:11.i.-:,e lhe appH.:-tnH had no( 5tarted work, he had nut heer: t~uipJoyed, !ht: disrnissal rn.ay ha.vt~ taHcn within the- rne..:ining of the phrase •"h&rsh, unjust {)r tn1rea3on.ab!i~,' 1 a.s set out ins. 2:l 7(a) of the Act. HowKver 1 by virtue of the Re&rulaiion the provisions of Chaptx>:r .5 1 Part 2 in a.star .as a dfamis~<al is har~h. unjust or 11nre~1sson1ihle do nO! ;ippl y. A~•; a ge,ner-a] comrne:nt. it 8eesn-:: to n:if, to be highl~ irnprohah!.e that th,:: e 1:,:1ployc: disrmssed the applicant f()r any other re~Json than H1at he could no\ climb the t:restk.:; The fact of tllt~re herng no otl1~cr rc~.son suppcrts the Gnip1oyt_:r's t:>Vi(knr.e that 1Jw a:pplicant gl~ to the, _second rung of dk~ tn;.8tlt:: and C[Juld not pH).-~):.":ed further. Titere was cert.a.inly nothing in \he. haft daixn that the a.pphcanI w~ disrnit~scJ hei:._:;--n..r-:<~-:- be- was an AborigHw. Hi:,; accent dearl.v iudicate<l tw ~'as of i"t.alian extraction and sc does his nanM:- and he w~s hi.n-:d by the ernpk}yc-r who knew .fi_:.H \\1e1l the a_pphca.nt's n.an1e and whn ha<l. he.ard the act.Ynt ovej the- tch"'-phone What ,:..-ither pxiib]c rert~~on ,;,·a;.-: there ft)J· th~ dErnissaJ zhan tlcat the appLcan.t could nei chrnb l..~e tre,;de? Ther,.; was nene either a.dvance:d er JJ?paninf and th-.: appiica.nfs in 11hjhty t-o D(\g:ofr1te HH: t.r.:~stJe was rn_n-st appaH\nt frnm his apperrran..::-.:-. The r~s11or..denls e-vidt:~ncc is ck,axiy t.n he prefen:;:~d, Tf thf- apphc.a.m h~1.d workt'4'.1 as a paiutr::r son~- three year-, ago, .it tr.fo.y bt,: ar1 exp!anatifm that he, h~B only r~ct:ntly put on so rrrnch of the weight he- is .now c,,1.rrying, TI1t'. a.pphctition then mw~1 suhst-(u1tiaHy faiL I 1ia:y )Ubstanha.Hy because Pa.rt 3 of Chapter 5 of the Act is uol cxclw:hjtj by !ht·- Regulation, H i8 conunun ground th..:i! the apphi...'dnt ;,vas paid $1 GO by the rc.~p-ondent ''f<)r hi5 tn.)Ub}e'' and hJ,,_; rn.rKd ,<sccount tvas paid, The: rek:vant guvtnnncnt deparunect eventually paid $2))0() relocation t:XJA."·nses fron1 Ayr to En:ie-raid. .Bo\-vcver, the employer f~ik.d to give th(~ np;-1.rcpiiate n,.JtJ.c~ perind. The perio~.1 of ernploy1nn1t i.,va~s: less thtln onr•. y;:.u- _s;o the appli;,::anl ~v~~":: trHitkd ~o on,'. Wfe,ks !H.,tice l"f •Jn.(: weck.s p:iy in !ie,u of n,,..:ti;:.e by virtue of:; .. 21.6(4_). Be.caust~ of s, 226(9) of the A.:::t. 1 upon th~s apphcation 1.1.nder s. 2 I 8 he!ng nrnde., the Cornm.Lss~on is e,r.n_powen-:d to orde:r the ~;npioyer in pay tht", ,:.~1nployee the- ...~o.rnpt"-P..5:4tii,n that lhe e.rnploy,'7:: was required to ray u.ndcr s-tib.5ecnun (6), that L"- an a1n(.,1u.11J equal to tht total of tht~ ;:u1Jount;; due had the e1nploynlt,nt contir,tw.:i trnli1 thi:- end of th,~ rNJUir~~d :notice -r.x~ric.~. Z~C(\'.:pt ah:.· evlden..::\; thai: the ap-phcant. ....v.as to havt h(;t"':.TI _f.Al-id a! the .rate <Jt $.if; per bYJr f.:.)J 8 to 1G hour day:,· for 5 to -i d,1,ys per v/eek. _! adopt 9 ho-1.1xs r,{~f day as an ave1agt\ t0w.lhng $144 r~~.t day by 6 days per week a.s a.n ~verag-..:, a tcA:a1 of $864,00. I dedu(:t lhe $100 a.lrcady p1.ld. YI1k: applicant H":C'-~i1re-d ,;o:n1r)hrne1n;;iry ac<.:01r..rnodati..,1n aftl.':r his d,1.srnissal and tb•:-n Jett the area $0 that he was put to no other expense althou.gi"l. I consider I ant limite(l in this dektmina.tion to corr1pe1Lsation to the value of the notice period. There w;;;, ,, claim for $800 for the cos! of obtaming the reiocatior, expenses fron1 lhe. Departn1ent. 'That rnoney wa,s ex_pended 1u an appeai to the D0partment which initially refused the applicant's application but in anv event., ihe dispme '.,bout ihe payment of relocation expenses was between~ O<epart.ment a.nd the applicant and not the employer. 'TI1e pa ymenl of suet an amoum as comp,nsation does not fall within ,he provisions of s. 2 I 9(9) and the cornprnsation that lam permii!.,'od to award. l order the respondent pay to the a.pplicam the surn of $764.00 within a period of 14 days from the date of this dxision. The 1Com.missio.n orJ~.rs accordingly. B.J. BL1\DES. Commisswner, Appearances; --- ?vir S, Ro-y~:e of Australian industrial Rei:n3tah.--:,me:r11 Scrvict·.3, for the app1ic&11t. Mr 8. Lennon, instructed by Mr P. Nicholas of Andrew :\fokahy Solicitors, for the rc.>,JJondent. Rele,asc:d: 16 Jane .1998 26 June, l 998] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZE1TE 225 -- 2 of 2 --