Bradley v Suncoast Gold Macadamias (Aust.) Ltd. [1995] QIRC 664 (1995) 150 QGIG 1686

1686 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZE TT E f 15 December, 1995 ####################################################### QUEENSLAND IND UST RI AL RELATIONS COMMISSION /nd11s1ria/ Relations Act 1990 s. 295 - application for reinstatement Michael James Bradley AND Suncoast Gold Macadamias (Aust.) Ltd. {No B917 of 1995) COMM ISSIONER EDWARDS I December 1995 Tennina tion of Employment - Dismissal - Re instatement - Casual Employee - Restruc tu ring - Application for Costs - Both Applications Refused. DECISION By appl ication filed on 30 May 1995 Mr Michael James Bradley appl ied for reinstatement to his former position of Ma in tenance Fitter with Suncoast Gold Macadamias (Aust.) Ltd. (the Co mpany). At t he hearing the appl ican t conducted his own case ·with the respondent represented by Mr L. French of the Queensland Confederation oflndustry Limited, Union of Employers. Mr Bradley was employed by the Com pany since 1992 as a maintenance litter involved on th e installation of machinery. ma inten an ce requests. emergency breakdovms , re pai r work. prev entative maintenance, mod ifications to equipment an d to train staff with basic maintenance and trade skills, such as welding, grinding and d ri lling overha ul and repai r equipme nt etc. and to do mai ntenance on most of the associated facto ry eq ui pment. During the earl y pa rt of 199 5 the Company decided to rest ru ct ure its maintenance department which res u lted in maintenance wor k be in g perfonned by contractors. At the hea ring the Commission extended assistance to Mr Brad ley as he had no knowledge of the re levant provisions of the Industrial Relations Ac/ I 990 and in fact he had no t read such provisions but ha d atten ded a free legal advice seminar provided by a solicitor. It was th is session that resulted in Mr Bradley making an appli cation. ln addition he received advice fro m t he local District Industri al Inspecto r. The su bm issions of Mr Bradley rel ated to his personal vi e ws that as a permanent full-t ime casual em pl oyee th e Company had no right to tem1 inate his e mp loyment. Other aspects of his submissions related to the nature of t he wo rk he was perfom1ing an d to h is hours. A review of exh ib it 2 shows that he did not work a regular nu mber of hou rs per we ek. Mr Brad ley did not address the issue of the operational requireme n ts of the Company nor the fac t that t11e wo rk he was undertaki ng had been rest ruc t ured resulting in contractors being engaged. I le infom1e d the Commission that at the ti me he was dism issed t he re were other posit ions avai labl e an d wh ile he may have been eligible to apply fo r such positions he did not bel ieve tha t the Company gave h is interest any consi de ration. The submissions of the Com pany were clear ly that Mr Bradley as a casual separated under s. 29 1 of the Industrial Relations Act I 990 which relate to the operational requirements of tl1c business. Jn su pport of their decisions to restructure, the Company indicated that there was no suggestion whatsoever of any problems in regard to the appl ican t's conduct, capacity or pcrfom1ancc and at no stage did the employer cast any aspersions on the ability or performance of Mr Bradley. In view of the eviden ce and submissions l accept that as a result of restructuring the Company's operations the wo rk performed by Mr Bradley is now undertaken by contractors. As such this application only proceeded because of t he lack of Mr Bradley 's knowledge of the Industri al Relations Act. As already outl ined special assistance was extended to Mr Bradley as the Commission was of the opinion that Mr Brad ley d id not have a full appreciat ion of Lhe claims being made by the employer. Mr Bradley continued with the case and d id not seek to make any add itio nal submissions except for the submissions relat ing to his personal views of the dismissa l. As such I refer to Lhe observations of Sangster J. in Purins v. K/isme1s ( I973) 6 S.A.S.R. 493 at p. 517: - "Any party being a person not under disabi li ty is entitled to conduct his own case bu t, if he chooses to do so, he cannot, in my opinion, be heard to complain of any inadequacy on his 0\\11 part in the discharge of that se lf-imposed task. The posi t ion as to irregularity is. in my o pi nion, the same as the position on matters of substance - if a party conducting his own case fails to pu t before the Cou rt evidence on some essential maner on whi ch th e onus lies on him. he mus t fail. This would be so, in my opinion, whatever th e reason for a party choosing lO conduct his own case. I woul d strongly oppose giving any encou ragement or advantage to a litigant by reason of his conducting his own case:·. 17477_1.00C I I 15 December, 1995] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE The ap plicat ion is refused. In relation to the ap pl ication by Mr French for costs I have al ready indicated t ha t Mr Brad ley had li m ited knowledge of the legislation and expressed his personal views to the Commission. (n so doing the material was presented expeditiously and wi thin a normal time fr ame. Accordingly, the Commission will not depa rt from the principle that each pany should meet their own costs. The applicat ion for costs is refused. I order accordingly. KL. EDWARDS. Commissioner. Appearan ces:- Mr M.J. Bradley on his 0\\11 behalf. Mr L. Fren ch on beha lf of Queensland Confedera ti on of Industry Limi ted. Uni on of Employers. Operative Date: NIA Decis ion - Reinstatement - Compensation Re leased: I December 1995 # ### ################################ #### ############### 1687 17477_1.DOC -- 1 of 1 --