Anderson v Darling Downs Bacon [1997] QIRC 592 (1999) 157 QGIG 11

]() QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZErrE 9 January, 1998 9 January, I 998 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZE1TE I I ########################################################## QliEE;\SL/\\D 1\Dl.SfRIAL RELATIO:slS CO!V1:'>11SSIO:'i Workplace Relations Act /997 s. 218(1) - applica1ion for reinstatcmenl ,. 218(3) - applica1ion for extension of time Daryn Ander.son Darling Downs Bacon (No. 8140} of /997) COMMISSIONER llAl.l)WIN 19 Deccmha 1997 ;\pplicat,on for Extcn.<ion of Time - Prciudice 10 the Applica n1 - Some Prospects <>f Success - Applu:ation Gran 1ed. DECISION ']bi.< ,s an apphcaiion for an cxionsion of 1ime in which 10 make an applica1ion 10 rcme,1y unla ....1·u1 dismissal under s. 2 1 8 of the Workplace Relations A<· t /997. The applicanl' s employmen1 with the re.<pondcnl came 10 «n end ,m 27 June 1997. ·rnc ;,pphcauon for rein.<litlemem was filed on 30 July 1997. II was I 2 day.s beyond lhe lime allowed hy s. 2 J 8(3)(a). Die applicanl's rnhmission wa., that he had newr previously experience d tl1snus.,al and wa, nol aware either of he• statutory nghls or 1hc requiremenl 1ha1 lhc application h" lodged within 2 1 days of 1he dak of d1.<mi�sal. Fu11her. that he did lodge a di.<missal applicauon within four /4) days of hcc1.,ming a wart! of hi$ s1alu1ory righL�. Th� re.spondcn11 s �uhmis�ion referred in some detail co four prt!viou-.: �ase.s of 1h1.< CommJ$Sion which i1 was suhmitted were relevan1 to the present applica1ion. These were Rt,y John,-011 v Discovery Ba_r Devrlopm�11t., Pty Ud /I 996) LS I QGIG I010: Roris Vega11 v Mascot/ii// Pry Ud Tradmg As Natio1Jwide Realty Browns Flaim (1995) 148 QGIG 815; A1111ie St<>wers v Col,·n:s Meal Company ( 1')97) J 55 QGIG 1123: a.nd Carolyn Sue Wilda v John Da11iel trading as LJ. Hooker Nundah (1997) 155 QGIG 1124. "Jne respontle nl's argumen1 wa.� thal the in.•tanl dismi.s.<al wa.< con.s,stenl with the company's hchaviour in the pa.,t where other employees had he.en found lo be adJUSling llme shcelS and referred 10 the •pplican 1 's own sta1c:m, nt of ma1c>.rial facis where he state s, "( have never docked •n ybody off before . I have no1 been in any previous trouhle with DDB in 1he four yearsI wa.s employed 1here.". In con.<idermg this application I have been pa11icularly anracte,1 111 the exercise of my di.scr e1ion und e r s. 2 I 8(3)(h) to the guidelines sel ou1 in the ea,, of Ulowski v Miller (1968i SASR 227 and to Chief Industrial Comrnissioner Hall's vkw as expres.sed in Breusr v Qa11tas Airways lunited /1995) 149 QGIG 777, of the correct constnrttion and operation of ,. 295(2)(h) o f th" i,1d11s1rial Rdationt Act 1990. The length of 1hc delay of 12 days I find 10 he of no grca1 significance . 'lbe explana1ion for the delay I find rea.1onahle in thal 1he ..μplicant did nOI recc:1v,;, any professional advice al lhe time of the disrrussal llul on rccc.ivmg professional advic.:c approxima1ely 29 days laler, the applitanl acted J1ligcntly an d lodged the applica tion within a further four (4) days. lbe prejudit:e to the applicant if the application d�.s 1101 proceed could be• .<ignifican1. '[be applicam's suhmis.sion i.< that he has no< previou.<ly hcen di.smis.scd and although on the respondenl'.< suhmi.<sion he h,t< found dllana11vc work, h•• pres<:nl work his1ory shows a .summary dismissal for misconduc1. To haw such an employment record 1f 11 is no1 appropr1a1e c.:ould consti1u1c real prc:J udice 10 1he applicant. nic prejudice 10 the re.,pondcn1 if the applicauon were to he grnn1.,J docs n,)l appear significant. 'lbc applicant was a low level employee in a large organisa1ion and on the re.<pondcnl's suhmission ha< already ob1ain�d other work. h is difficuh to .see how granting this extension could constitute prejudice to lhc rcspond,.nt. The l as1 considera1ion con<:erns wha1 prospecLs 1hi, matter has of succ�ss al a hearing. If on 1he applicant's suhmission the mailer had little prospecl of sucCeS$ I would sllll be inclined to granl this application. However, the appli<::ml appears to have heen summarily dismissed for misconduct for in.<erting another e mployee's time card in the time clock. Jn the applicant's .,1a1ement of material fa.:L< relied on to support the application. item (ii) state.< tha1 ··Toe circums1a.nce., <>f my dismissal were 1ha1 my superior, Brei 1Jp1on. rc4ues1ed thal I clock him off . .. ". n,., responden1 submi1s 1ha1 the applicant'., behaviour constituted the misconduc1, and placed stress on a Company Notice headed "Anention all S1aff' (cxhihi1 I). Th� No1ice purports 10 indica1e to .staff the senoo<ness of the offence of handling an()ther person's 1ime card and in ordinary circun,,1a.nces ii i.s clear 1ha1 this would he a serious matter. Paragraph 2 of the Notice sta1c.< "unless authorised hy your supervisor''. On the awlicam ·s ma1erial the superior in.struc1.:d the applican1 10 "handle the. timecard''. On the respondent· s material the nature. of the illSlruction 10 the applica.n1 hy his .supervi.rnr l;p<on is not dcah with. On httlancc it app�ars 1ha1 the applican1 has some prospec1s of .<ucces.s should this maue.r go 10 a hearing and since a reiu.;al of this application could consti1u1e prejudice 10 the applicant I hereby gran1 the applica1ion for the c,Xlt',n.<ion of time. 1).8. BALDWIN, Commissioner. i\ppeara11ce.,:- Mr K. �laLsen (Groom & Lavcrs, Solicitors), with him Mr D . Anderson. .\1r J. Pani (Employer Services Pty. Ltd.) with him Mr D. Mya1 for the Respondent. Opcra1ivc Dale: ';-;/A [)ec1.<ion - Ex1cnsi,ln of Time - Application Gra.nic.d Released: 19 Decemt>er 1997 -- 1 of 1 --