Champion v Hayward Pty Ltd t/a Tong Park Piggery [1998] QIRC 199 (1998) 158 QGIG 34

34 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 15 May. 1998 ###################IHUl-##################11################# ()lkENSLi\;s;D INDUSTRl;\L RELATIO�S C0\1\1ISSIO:S: \V,1rl.plc1n · lfrf,aiun, 1\,·1 1997 ,. ·21 � �1ppi1t.'ali(,n hlr rcin-.:1atc1ncm Brian ;\,,n,,.1 Ch;unpiun 1 ,Vo. ///(13� oj /9'171 E1'GJ:S:EERING ,\WARD-STATE COMMISSIO:--:EH l'l)W,\IWS Term ination of Emph" mcm - Di,mb,al -· Rl'in,1atc111cm - h id�11c.c - S:ik .,f 1-'i��c1 ·,.. Sak [)id ·Not Prr,:ccd - l)u1ic, Rtsalign�J - Po,11ion 1·\holi,l1�d Ar;.;�11� or \Va�c, .. Failurr Lo AUd,.,1..· Applicalll nr Rr,·i..,l':J H,.;a-..on for l)i,,ni,,,, 1 1:in1;1tncr /E mployc" Rda1i,m,hip - l.li,111i"al Har,h. Unjusl an<l Lnn.:a,llnahlc -('llmp01l',:Hi<m Awardt:<1. Dl·TISION l\1r H.'.\. Charnp1.i11 commcncc d crnplnym.;111 with Ha)",in.I 1-'I, Lt,1 lradl1H! a, Ton'..' Par� Pigg(I') ( 1h.: Plgg(:r�') in Sl..'pl..!lll�r J t)<.J.1. Hi, primal')' roh: ",..a, to pc11t ,rm ma in tcna 1h:� v.·t,rh: al the..: pi,t�cr�. Hb l..'n1plo: 1.ncn1 "·.�t' �'-l\·crncd h) the En�i1h.'crin� t\W.tl'<l - Stal..: \\"Hh nt, ('\her mdu,tnal in:-.Lnin11;nt in phK"t.:. Hi, �rnplo� nK:lll ,,u:-. H:rmin atcd on 2 ivlay i997 r,lHov.:ing n.:i..:cipl lf a kn.:r tla1.:d 21 April I 'N7 whid1 ,1a1ed: '·A" \:ou an.· a\v:_.re lh(" piggery ha!- hc.:cn �tlid and lhi: hand over day is dr;n,;ing 1,ear. under your ,,,\arJ your crnployrnt'nl i� tn h..: t.,;rmimHed by Hayward l'ty Ltd. Th�rl.': for W1-.! �ire oh·in!r.:. vou two ,,.cek:'1 notice as required under your awar<l a� from 1od�y. \,._,�� i.ll't.' no1 �u re a\ yet of the cxw.:l tla} the new pun.:hascr� take ln'CI'. You will 11'<''-' 10 co nt,K'I the n ev, <>wn er 10 appl, lnr a position u nder t he new l\1anagcmcm St:hemc.··. Hc was abo infornlcll thai prior t" the s,ilc o r the Piggcr) all staff were to tx: 1e rmi11a1Ctl wit h the' < :apacity i",>r lhc llC\\ ,,wncr, 10 appoint staff subject t o app li,ation. On 6 Jun e I 9'-J7 Mr Chainpiun lik<J an appli<:;11ion under Part 12 l)i,·i,inn 5 "' 1h.: w,,,-J,:p/<1,·e Relfl1iol/.\ Act IY97 seeking r..:licr:1 , follows:- That t hc applkan l h� rdn,1a 1cd in his liinncr po,ili(Hl (or as ncarlv �an he poss1 hk) without prc_judiL'e 10 t he. applicant's fonn�r ,.:ondition:-. oft,;mplt>ym(:nt. Thal 1h� n.:,pondcnt pay rcrnu ncralinn r,w ln,t wage, hctwc-en the dat" or 1�rn1ioa1i,m 21/4/97 amJ tlw date or rcin,rn\cmcnt. That 1h� n:,pomlcm pa� the a1,plic.1nt such amount of l.'lt111Jx;o�n1itm \\ hil'h th..:- (\lmrni:--!-.ion <.:rnhidcr" appronriatc. (I)) Sud1 funhcr or "thcr order a, 1lw Commission rnn,iders apprnpriat,,,". Th,· hcarin11 pnx:ccdcd a1 Dalby on 1 8 March 1998 wi1h wriueo .°'\uhrni:-.:--ion � pro\'ltkd 10 thi: Commi:,❖ ion in m.:cor<lan....·c wilh an agreed tirn.:,tahlc. cvlr B.N. Champion. A1iplicant: :Vlr E..I. Ha(kh. Ani mal An,-11d«nt al ·ro ni; Park Pii;f!cry: \<lr H.G. 1-lav;,_:ird. I lire,tor t>f I laym,rd PI> Ltd: and !'vh, T. Rcit.l. 1n,pe..:1t >r. H;n·in•• h,ud thl' 1,-rn1 inati>111 kncr on � I April l '-J97. t ill' s:ik of the pi�i:cr) ,lid nn1 1�-<"-'ccd. The r�a"<m gi,·..: n 111 rh-: ktt cr nr 2 :Vlay 1 997 was r�L'un finned hy r-"11' Ha v,ran.J ln hl� �tah .·1ncn t anti an L·n>!-.....,,-1.!.--:anunauon. So h� it. th1,,• \!mpl�')llll'nt i:i ,\·1r Chmnpi1m ,ra, not continut·,. .l 111 "'idence Mr H:l\ w,ml ,·nn1innccl that th..: t<:rminatinn wa, appropriat1 a, 1hc Company had d�t,'rmin,�J th�t i1 no 1..ngcr re4uircd the scn ices of_a nl::Jintcmrncl.' \\orb.er. Thi.:: Comn1i,,io11 act:tpt, thal lhCrl.· ��ha r�ductton JI) stock numhcr, and whil,t k•-.:--. 1Tl(ml'.) \\.1)ultl l'>I: ;\pcnl Pll ,nainh.·mrnce. a mainwnan..:i..: p1't,!:.!ramme wpul<l ,1iU flc n0cc:-.,ary. .:�, :-.uc:h it was tl'IC c, id,.._·n cc ur Mr" Ha� \\;.lfd lhal 111alnh.:n;.1nc� would be unc. ..ic1t�1ken by n;;1lignin� the dutu.!:-: nf pigg,..:ry V,!()f'k r:_ithcr 01,m hy ;.1 -;pcrilit· J�r�on. In rt�ard 1t 1 aho,ishm� tht' po,it�l,n and n:i1�nn \ for lh� Ji:.;mi:-.�.a1 the r\!-;p onde.nt in �uhmi:-.--.inn, ,tati:d:- --11 i, ,uh1 11i11c,I that the ill(:sl'ap:ihk crn1 du,inn from ,,II t>i' the evidenct is that 1hc pmi1i1>11 ,1f Mai11 1�11an,·c Work.;, \\ a, aholishc<l. \Vith thf hcndit of hi11d,idu. it i, ohvir«isl) regrettable t hat the 1 cnnma11on �,>li,·c gi\' Cll 10 �r ('ha111pion h> ·1hc Rcspomklll tlid n,� make any rckr.;ncc 1,, tlm1 aholi1i011. hul rdcm:d ,mly 10 1hc ContraL·t <>f Sale. l; ndcr ,. 2�0 or the Wodp/,1< e ll<'lo1io11, Act, the Commissi()n � ohli�t:tl to L'On�i<lcr \\.h1:1hcr the cmplt.l)i.:C.� \VH:-. notifit.:d of the reason foe th:-.n;l'."1'."1i.1L In thi:-- <.:a�c lh\'t1gh. lh\!rc wcn..: l,,o rca:-l>n:-. for <li:-anissat runnill" parallel wilh cad1 ot her. II wa, a tcrlll of the Con1rn,·1 that !hi R��j)Ol�(kllt <li�llli."'1... an ..!mpluyc�:-.� ant.I al the "-alllL" tintC. it had t,eetl decide d tn make Mr Champi,>1i', posit io n redundant i11 any ,-vent. :--,/,, doubt the Re,p1u1,knl hoped that the ,al<! would pro1:cc�I 1,, linalilY• and f10,n the C\ itiencc, it haJ I)() rca"'ll IO ,,isp,-..·1 '" or April 1997. lllll it \\nultl n,� pr0<:ccd. (ii, en ilia! 1hc Tcrmin,11ion N,,ti1:c pnn idcd to Mr Champu>n r datccl Ml) \<> 1he Con11·,,c1. the n if the sale h:id pr tx:eecl/d Mr Champi,111 could h;m, applied IP the ncl\' owner, for a pos1t1()(l \\ i1hou1 th..:- m;v.. o\,ncr,· thinking about whethi..:r or not to cn1ploy hi� having h!.!e n laimct.l hy any knO\\'kd�c 1hat it wa, th\.' prt:vinu� owner: , ·i.:v. lhat ._, �lai11 h.:11a1Hx \\'ork..:-r wri, nm nl.'�<.kd, In that ,cnse. � \.\.l)rdi11� t 'f the Tennirw1ion No1i<..'c. whik rx�rhap:-. di\adrantH�ing tb' JS May. 1998 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 35 R.:,p1,n dcnt in these pnK'Ccding,,. was 10 the definite advantage of the ,\pplkant at 1ha1 time. �o for a� ihat r<oti<.:e i� com:...·rocd. it mu�t he borne in mind that it \vas ,>h,·i,,u,h drafted wi1hou1 the assistance of �pc<:ialis1 industrial relations ps:t lpk. :11,at ,ubmission is based upon the terms of the Nrnice i1self. In that rq;anJ. I would refer t he Commission IO the p<x>r punctuation. in,·nrr<.>Cl ;pclhng. an tl wrong grammar. all of which indicat e a la..:k of ,--x:dali,1 ad,·ic c. 11 might well be that 1he Respondent's knowledge of ,�c oi(CI ic, of these situations b <ldidcn1 . 11 might also well be 1ha1 1he Rc.,pondcn1·, p,..,,:1p lc ,kills <:ould be improved. However it cannot, in nw ,uhrnissi,>n. lie ,aid v.ith any sincerity tha1 Mr Champion·., position \l,,�L:-. ll1H aholbh(:tl:·. Rt.·li.:n.� n�c \\ a'.'- abo made 10 tht: J'X>:-.�ibility that the dismiss.al was ,..-,,n>-(c li,r actiun 1;,kcn for umlcrpaymem of wages. The evidern;e of Ms l{cid. ·111 ,pcc1or. app oimctl pursuan t 10 the \\!orkeloce Rela1io11., Ac, /997, ,-,•,c:,kd 1hat approxima t ely S 100.00.(X) in total l<>r arrear s or wages had b,xn , ·ollc( t c ·<l from the Respondent ove,· the last four year.-: for wages owing "' ,ari,,11, cmploy-,e, incl uding 1hc applican1. So be it, the Commission doe, m� :i,ccpt th'11 1h,.; <kcision h> di,miss t he appli,an1. was as a result of a claim 1�\f \\:1�•-..·,. Sccti,lll 220 ,if 1 hc \\lorl:place Relwions Au 1997 states:- "ln ,h;iding "·hcthcr a tli,mis,al was har,h, unjuM or unrea�onable . the 1..'ommi�"ion lllU\l l."<..Ul'."lidt:r 1 .i) "h,·th.cr th,- cmplO)CC "''L' nrnificd of t he reason for dism issal; and 11) t he opaa1io nal rt'quiremen 1' of lhc employer·� undertaking, ,•.,tabli<;hmcnt or sen ice: and ! ii l 1hc t:rnpl,,ycc·, conducL capacity or performance: and 1,1 if the di,mis.,al rdatcs to the employce· s conducl. capacity or p�,1·nrnunc1,: - , 1 1 '-'hct hc,· the c1 11ploycc had h.xn warned .ilx1u1 the 1:ondun . ...:.apa..:ily or pc:riormarn:e: or 111) ..vht:1h�r lhc 1.!lllploycc wa� give n an oppcwtunity co rc�pond to 1hc alkg.i1liun ,1t->ou1 thl' t.·onduct. <.:ap..tdty or pc11'ormarn: e; an d ,d I un) t1th1..·r m:.mcr� lht' i:ommj!->�ion con:...ide.rs rclcvan1.··. The rc,p,,ndcn1 faikd 10 .i<l,i�c Mr Champion of the revi� reason fnr thl' dt\llH?aJ ��\!fl Lhnu::?h 1hc original reason {a sale of the piggery) was not rdc\'ant loll,,w111!-! th,· i'uilurc 10 prn,:cctl with 1he comrac.;1 of sale. As a long term ,·mplo,a the Comniission is of the view t ha1 Mr Hayward should have kno" ledge Pi' 1hc rdc, a111 kgislation applkahk 10 the condu,1 of a husiness fllt.:lutllnf th� Of¥an 1,mion of l;.1bour. . The Commi,,ion accept, the ,:,·idenc e 1 hat the specific maintcnanee 1"'11"'11 had h,-cn rcalignl'd 10 cnahk the work to be unc.JertHken by other \\clrk�r,. In t.',m,idering dismissal applications the Comrni�sion ,,,-�n,>wkd�c, th:,1 an cmplo)<:r is cn1i1 lcd to rc,trucwre and reorg,mise their \,_.,,rJ...phlt\.' lll �nsurc l)ptimum lcvd!-t of at:hicvcmcnt are attained, In a Jhmi,,al appli,;a1iun the Co nunis�ion Im;; a responsibility to enliven tile j'f\l\ hion\ of !hi: \\'nrkploc(' He!ati<n1, · Act /997 when· (.'Onsidcrino t he 1nan:1�l'llh,:nt tlf th, h . � . . e - c 11111,,n 1-.:,ou1 cc aspc<:t, ol 1he restructured workpla�c. In Clllh1<kration oflh� provi,ions of thi:: \Vorkploce Relations A('/ I 'JY7. th..- �: 1<lcncc. c�hihits and .suhmis.,io11s, th..: Commission is s111i,1ied tha1 t he d,,m,,,al '"" h.i;,h, unju,i anti unrcasonahlc. The ultimate reason for t he d"n'"·'al "• '" m,1 • . , , ,,, , C . . . , . '· ton,c..:ycu hl ,�1r hampion in acc.:ordance with the h:,1mnt1Th:m � of lhl;.' .�..:L opinion t hat the employer/employee ant.I is 1herefore not prepared to order Remedi�s and Sanctions for Unlawful Dismissal Se\:tion 222{5) of the Workplace Relmions AC/ /997 states:- "lf satisfied an employer has dismissed an employee for an iiwalid reason. the Commission may (in addit ion to an order under subseuions (I) and (2)) order 1he employer to pay the employee an amount of not more than the monetary "alue of 135 penalty un its.", The applican1 wa� dismissed for a reason which was correct at the time of ser"ing of the documents but with the lapse or time was incorrect at the time that effect was given to the decision. In considering the ques1ion of a penalty the Commission is of the opinion that the employer in realigning his workforce had int ended \o make the 1x,sition redundant. A., such hi, management of the human resource aspe<;ts wa s not to a level expected of an employer. The Commission does not ac cept 1h01 t he employer intentionally failed to cnnvcy to the employee the new reason for the dismissal nor do I a\:cepl t hat based on the evidence the dismissal was because of the applicant ' s successful claim for wages. In C(msideratiun of all of these factors together with the evidence th e C ommission i, not prepared to invoke s. :?22(5) of the Ac1. Sec:1ion 222(3) of the Workpli1ce Relarions Act f'J97 state�:- "(3) When deciding the amount of compensation payable under subsection (1)(b).the commission- (a) must not awar<l an amount that is more than -· (i) if the e mployee is not employed under an industrial instrumenl, industrial agrce111en1 or EFA - t he les.,cr of the remunerat ion under subparagraph (ii) and an amount pre:,cribecl unc.Jcr a regulation: or (ii) otherwise - the remuneration the employer would have been liable 10 pay the employee for the 6 months immediately after the dismiss:11. paid a, the rate \he employee received immediately before the dismissal; and (b) may take imo account any amount paid to the employee hy or for lhc employer on t he <li�m.issal.". The Commi�sion is of the view that Mr Champion could have made greater efforts to ohtain emplnymem a, during the period ,ince his dismissal he made application 10 only a few establishments. Whether he would have anained �ulXess as a result of increased effo11 is unknown. The important indu�trial consideration is effort rather 1han outcome. Mr Champion conducL, an operation ,L, a p:111-time primary producer and owns one block of land of 240 acre-,. on which he presen tly accommodates about 19 calve, and young cattle. He rnnc.:c.dcd that he spends, un average. about one day each week t ending tu t hem. In all probability those canle will ret urn an inc:ome. l.n partnership with another person, he is lhc proprietor of wmc S,500 acres lowartls Tara, He indicated t hat he has had 1hc land since about October 1997. He advised thal his partner prnvide s the necessary li nancc. and he performs the physical work to improve the property. At the momcm he i:- engaged in lcndng. Since last October , he has cut timber, made fence po�ts, and erected p<>St a nd wire fcndng over alx>u1 1.5 kilometre� on t he land. He indicated that he performed the work at week -ent.ls an d at time� <luring the working week. I n Rd,e! Liquor Pty l.td tlas 8/acl, Nugxen l-lorel-Mmcl. Mor<111hah 153 QGIG 5 3 9 -541 the Pre.,ide n1 of t he l ndusuinl Coun st aled:- "'The object of the compensation is to re,torc the employee a, far a, pra c1it:ablc 10 the finan,ial position in which t he employee would have been, but for the wrongful dismissal. Compar e Chenen· v. Klemzix Nursing Home ( 1988) 55 SAIR 544, 55 1 - -2 an<l suhsequent cases in thi, Commission,". Prom the eviden,e Mr Champion opera tes a business which over a period of t ime may he a financial success or o1herwisc. If financial success is achieved Mr Champion v,�>uld re1:Cive 1he benefits by way of goodwill and other rnpital e nhan ceme111s. As such his financial gai n during the ahovc period would be renec1ed by a financial amoum which cannot be quantified by 1he Commission, Alt ernatively. fina ncial succe,;_, may not be achieved but t he method, of c.Je1cnninati on would be suhjected to the type of accounting methodologies adopted. In consiclering Cheneri• ,·. Kelndg Nursing Home t he Commission has attempted w detennine a suitable level of comp,::nsa1ion 26552_1 DOC 'I -- 1 of 2 -- 36 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE \\l1ich rctle.:ts the fuwrc hcndit, that Mr Champion may �ain hy hi, busi ness venture:-.. The Commission ac·ccpts the ,uhmi»ion, or the appl icant that his gross weekly wage was approximately S456.50. Thc· indusion or superannuation of approximately S:\5.00 per week rcsuh, in the total remuneration h�ing $49 I .50. l:Jascd "" the r<.'muncrntion tlc1cnnincd under the \·\lorkf'locc Hdwions Act / 'J97 the total di!!ihil ity wou ld be S49 I .50 x 26 = $1 �.779.00. He ha, received an amount of $7.355.ll0 from the respondent l<>r 1ermina1i,,n pay and ca111ing, whid1 ck-.es 1101 indudc the possibility of pn>lit and remuneration from husintss wnt urcs lc::aving a IKtlancc uf :'.5.-12-l.OO which can lx quamilicd. The Commission dctcnninc, that thi, amnunt should he discounted in ,·icw llf the w(>rk that Mr Champion ha, u ndertaken on propcr1ics in which he may ha\'C an lm..:-r1.:-;1 und woulJ b1.?ncli1 hy hi, rcr:--.nnal lahour either through wage!-- or goodwiU. The Commi��ion th.)C, 1h)t han: maLcrial aY;.1ilahk- Lo acc.:ur.Jld)' quantif) ,u ch t.•l'l<wl� in mtil'l(:Wry term,. A, pr,;villu,ly indkattd these efforts indutkd kncing lo.:uning limber. pllSb cl<:.). at1c1l<..ling to �auk on 8\'eragc nn..: <lay per w�1.:k a, well a, 01hc-r weck-..::nU WtH-k. The amounl l�> h: 1..ktcnnincd mu:-.1 give rec.:\>gnition 10 :-.uc.:h fauors. Ba�<l on the submi:,.�ion;-; uf the p:trtics th..:- Commis"ion <lcti.:rrninc, that an amnunl or$2.0CXl would he appropriate. Thl' Commission thcr�forc ord�t" that the. amoun1 of S:S .-12-1.00 he p;,id hy th,; n:spontknt to the applic,mt w ithin '.!1 day, or the 1b1r of this decision. Costs I n rc.:btion to the 4ucstinn of crn,t:-- the parti�� ;.lr� al tibl..!rty I() ma�e applkalirn1 t(1 h:tve 1h� malh.'r of ,:o-.b heard and 1..ktermin..::tl. I order accordingly. K.L. El)WARDS. C.1mmi,sio11er. Mr S.R. Bla\'kland lin,tn1c·1rd lw Pc1cr Sha11n1111 ,'v. .-\ssor i(llCsJ n11 bd1all' ,.,1 1hc �pplicant. Mr F. I.. l. ipp<'II \ inslruc·tctl h, Carn"'" & Win,hip ) on 111.·hall' <>I' th;.; rc:--rx 1rn.len1. ############lfff#/flf##/f.##lf######lffl#ll##lt##II-#######-############ 1 5 May. 1 998 1 5 l'vhty. 1998 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 37 -- 2 of 2 --