Braund v Marty's on the Beach [1998] QIRC 56 (1998) 157 QGIG 92

92 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 13 February, 1998 ###################1/###################################ii## QlEE�SlA\D 1:\°Dt;STRIAL RELATJO:-;S C0'.'.1"'11SSIO\ WORKPLACE RELATIO;'\S ACT 19'>7 lndu.<tricd Rdmi,m.v Acl 1990 .s. 295(2) - applicalit>n for cxiension of time\ Jadyn Fay BraunJ /No. lJ28.J nf 1997) CHIEF I\Dt 'STRli\L C0\-1'v11SSIONER HALL 2 Fclm,ary 1998 Application for Ex1cn.sion of Time - Pos,ihili1y o f Rem-,dy Known to Appli.:an l - !\o Evidence of Ex.tent of Hardship to Applicaol i f Exte nsion Not Granted - Lirnit<d Prospect.< of Succ<0ss - Applic,,tion Di,mis.s�d - Application f,>r Rei nsllllcm"nl D"rn1s<cd. D[CISI<>\ Oo !he applicant·, .:vidcnc.:: she. was di.,mi.,,cd on Chri.<tm a.< Eve J9'>6. 11-,r application for rcin.,tah:meot wa.s filed on IR February J<)•)7. h wa., .sewn weeks out of ti me. I n Pe1rurh v f>avy Ki11hil/ Fluor Dame/ .loin£ \l,:11f1<re (!996) I�'.\ QGIG 543 at 543. the Pr�,iJcnt ohscrved that, <ldav (l �i,t \Vt!eks \va...-.; · ·a $uhstantial dday in th,:� conll.'.Xt of the statUh)ry r.::4Lii rcment that a rc instat�m<nt ,,ppltcat,on 1'e lodg�d wi1h 21 day.< n f a disrni �sa).'". ·nl� applicant did not g,iv...: �\·id�1K...:. thnug.h she: wa\ prc!i�flt in the Con1nu8.•m1n. Shi: a....5=t:':.ns. hy hl."r appli-.�<.1llon. that sh'--· wc.i.'i unaware of the 21 day 1imc limit. I con.-.idt:r th;11 10 he inh,:r.: n1ly prohahk. llow..;Ycr. th;;! cxplanauun for the dday g1;-cn hy lh,: appli<:ation mak<.s it plain 1hat thi.: appfo..:an t wa..-. aware sh� h ad a r�mt:d;·. The ,.,:xpl,rn<=Hil)O for hl.!r f:Lilurc to :-:et.>k prompt ::1th·1cG was th:,t sht' was cvalu<-ttiog th� impact whi\..'h purs(.ting the n:mcdy might ha\·t: upon h;.;r pro�pco..:ts o f oh1aining emp)oym�nt with other �1nploycr.,;. Clearly if the extension of time is not grante d th,• applicanl will lo.,� hi:r remedy. S( ) evJdi.;nc� ha� bt:>en giv1Jn a.-? to wh;;>th..::r ..;ho remains unemployed or th0 �xtcnt of hll)" uns:mplnym..,nt that ,J,., ha.< andurecl. h is, thdd'orc. impos,1hl.:: t<> form any vi,·w of the ext�nl o f 1he hanlship that a rcfu,al nf the appl1.:a1it1n will c::w,c her. An applic<mfs pro�p1;<.:t� of succt:,;� :1t the �uhstamjve h�(tring ar..: vt:ry nften nol tak'-'n i nto a..:c�>Unt in th� h...:aring c,f an application f(lr cxtcnsi,>n of time hccau,e ,,r lhc linutad amount <if c:\"ldcm;c availabk. "'" Wilder i- Jn/111 Dani,,/ rmdin:,; as Ll. llouka..N,mdah (1997) 15:i QC,I(, I 124 at 1124. How<V'-'f. for r�a�<111s th at I dcvdopcd in that case. whore it app"ar$ that an applit:ant has no. or wry limited. prospc<.:ts o f $L1<:ccss, th<0 duty of 1he Comrni.-.�ion i� to rt'ji.:cl the- ;.,pp1icatlon for t!Xlc.:n...;;ion of tim t!. I n t.his case there i, an issue as t<.> whe.ther the: applic alll wa, di.,mi.,,-:d or had ;.1handoo1.;d ht!r ,.;mpk,ym-:.01. AH rck•vam communi.._:atiou was oral. Th.: nnly paC1it:s to the conver�ation were the appli<Cant and :Vlr '.\fat1y D:m1ja no..<ki. 1hc \,lanagcr aud Licen.,cc o f the rs.,spon,lent. J:u.rthcr. there is a rea l likc lih<K>d th,,t the :tppl,cant. who was cmploy-,d a..< a c:L5ual till in. W<lul<l be held to h,, a ;.hon 1crni t'it.Sllal ,·mpl<>F<- 11:, such ..,he would be cxdu,kd trom the pr,,tection of Lhc Ac t hy 1he ,>pcra1ion ,,f $. 290(:1) o f th,, Act and,. 96 nf lho /nd11sIria/ RelaIim1.< Rex11/mio11 1990. llic rccord of IH'l\Jr� \Vork1;< d sho,v.� HH:h tlrarnali..: wc\!kly v;u•ia,ion:-: a$ to mak� i1 unlikely th:11 the a pplicanl nught he. held 10 he engage,! c,n a regular an,I sv:.;1c ma1k h;L�i:-.·. On th� view c.' f tht:" �vitknc<.· mo.'-1 ht.!n\!fi.;;ial h.) lhc: a1>plic,int. ,11<· w:,s employed for two day.< .<hon ,,1 6 nwnth.s. In th e. unlikdy cVdll that the applicatll wa., ,11,x-:;..,ful . there would !)-, rchl '-hff1<.:ulLie.,r,; ju fram ing an appn,pri:ih? r,:in�aatem....nt llrd,; _.r ,)r in dctcrtninmg that whidt ;.he had ln.st. The delay dne.< nol �cem 10 have caused lhc rcspondem any particular hard.ship. Any hardship to th<> respontfont would flow from the decision of the. Commission gn,nling the application. Sec tion 295(2) w.sts an unfrtten.:d .slatutnry discretion. Reference to authonty i.s not a suh.stitut;, for balancing the factors in a particular case. Jn this case it se-,ms to me 1ha1 the balance is squarely ag ainst granting of the cxt<0nsion e>f time. l rt:jcet 1hc applica1ion for exte.nsion of time. The applic ation for reinsta tement. bc.ing our of time. must also be dismisss,d . Dated thi.s second da)' of February, 1998. D.R. HALL Chid Industrial Commissioner. Appearances:- Mr C. Gnffin of Nicol Robinson and Kidd for the applicant. Mr G. Hyland of Hyland Hinckfu.<.< for the respondent. Operative Date: NIA. Decision - Extcttsion o f Tim� Refused. Reka�cd: J February 1996 #######il##############i/###############11################### 13 February, I 998 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 93 -- 1 of 1 --