Chance v Zelows Travel Goods [1995] QIRC 294 (1995) 149 QGIG 1068

1068 QUEENSLAND GOVER MENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETfE [4 Au gust, 1995 11/l#/#l##l//l#####li###l/l/#ll#ll/l#/l##ll/1/111#1/####/1###1/#ll##ll##l/#II# ()l' l 1.1\J SI A~D 1, l)l'l,l'RIAI REI ATION<i COMMIS~ ION /11d11 s 1rial Relations .·kl /9')() , 29• - .iprlr.:ati,)n for rcm,tatemcnt I 1•rraine Chante A 'I) Ze lO\\S l'ru\'c l Goud, ( 0\ fMl.',S IO~ l·R ~l IT l· R 25 Jui~ 1995 1emiina1ion of [mployment - Di,mi,,al Rein~talemcnl I.Mens1on <'fTirne 7 Ua~ s Out of Time Re ference to Caf.C l,a" Arbitrated Matter - /\pp li cation t or Extension on ime Granted. DEC ISION -1he matter to be determined is \\hcther to grant an_ex1en s1on ~r ume 10 make an application ,cckin~ a rcrncd~ lor ,,ronglul dismissal S..·c11on 295(2) prm idcs.- ··c:!) An apphcauon mus t !le made - (a )" ,thin :! I da~ s after the dismi,~al. or (bi \\llhin the funher period th.: C'ommi,~1011 allo,1:. on an upplicotion made during M afi.:r the 2 1 da> s.'' 1 he applicant Mrs L. Chan<:.:. \\aS .:mplo~ cd h~ the resp(mdenl (Zc lo" ~ Tnl\ c l Good~) from I Ju ly I 992 to 19 Dccembcr 1994 ,is " casual ~hop a,s1s1:in1 On 19 December 1994 she "a.~ confronted b~ the Managc rc s,. \\IHI alter making certain statements to her. told her 10 lea, e. tn c, idence. the .tpplicanl ad, iscd she then \\enl home and then rang the Industria l Comm is~ion and ad"iscd them what had harpcned The) ad, 1,ed that the) ,1ould ~end out ,omc p~pcr "~r~ "h ich stwu ld be comp leted und rcwrncd as soon as pol,,1b lc. She "'luld then be cont.ictcd b) the Co,mrnss,on. She ~tatcd thn1 ~he "as Bi ' en no .iuvicc a~ to :111) tirnl' limit for 1he lilmg. of an appheatwn for rcinsta1cmcnt. fhc applicant lttrthcr advi,cd that alter contacting_ the ( omn11~,1on she teleph oned ~c, in l.cl0\1. the O\\ncr of the hu~mcss. t Ii.: ,lalcd ll' her that he had uln::ad) been ad, ised on the issue and \\3., not prepared 10 o, er rule the \l anag.ercs;. Inc appltc:mt then ad\' i~cd Mr Lc.: 10 11' thal he would he hearing from the lndusmal <:ontm1',1on th e applicant indicated ,he rccci,cd the C'ommis"on documents on 22 Dcccmhcr 1994 and pcnt',ed hut did not uirnpletc the document< priM 10 proccl!dmg. on an arranged hohda} on 23 Dccemhcr I 994 to \'i.Sll her la1111l) m :-:e\\eJstlc ,111<1 S} dney In cro:»-c,amination ~he adm1m lcdg.cd that she notiecd the rc lcrc ncc 10 2 1 da)S m the Cu 1111111 ,,1o n doeu 11wn1 but didn't hclie,c 11 apphed to her a, ~he h,td alread) heen 111 contact '"'h the C'o111mi,s1on. On her return from holrda)S. the document~ 11crc eomplc1cd and po~tcd 111 the Commi,:.ion ,omc 7 d,1), atlcr the 2 1 da) time limit. 'vlr Hcnnell for the rcspond..:nt argued that there were ~e ttlt:d p rinciple, in relation to g.ranung an e:-.1e 1hio11 of time. ~ ju,1ificd rcu~on rnu~l cxi; t. I le sta led that in th i:. case the applicant was n.:,ponsihlc for the del,1) . <ihc c ho :,c to go on holida~ \ ra1hcr than complete the documents ,1 hen it ,1 a, clcarl) ~ho11 n on the documenb that there \\as a 21 da~ limit Mr lk nncll ,tatcd that 11 \\.I S no1 111 the pub hc imcrc;t that an C\tl!nsion of ume should hc granted under ~uch cin:: umstanccs. Both ;1dvoca1cs rcfcm:d the Com mission to a statement h~ Ora~ ( J . in the ca,;c of ( lu11s{ 1 , • .\Ill/er I 9611. rcderal Court ol Sout_h /\u,traliil S.A.S.R. 277 \\h1ch h,1, been ollcn quoted 111 th 1, Commi~"on and other Tribunals IS?Ok I DO< -l August. 19951 QUEE SLA D GOVERNMENT INDUST RI AL GAZETTE 1069 .. h must he rcmcmhcrcd that "<.! arc dealing. here wi1h a di,crc11on and m my .,,,e,, 11 ought not to be fettered b~ an~ ab~olutc or innc,ible rul e~. It clearly appears from thc,e ca ses that five paramount mailers to be considered are the length of the delay. the e:-.planation for the delay, the hardship to the plaint iff 1f the action is d1~missed and the cause of the action lcli $latute barred. the prejudice to the defendant 1f the action is all1med In proceed notwi1hstanding. the delay. and tlu: cu11duc1 of the dctcndant in the Ii11ga11on •• I "111 deal "ith each of the mailers 111 tum (a) The length of the dcla} in this instance"~ minimal - ~0111e 7 da), . lhJ Tl11: C\plana1ion tor the dela) h) the applican1 wa!> that ~he "as no1 a wore of an} lime limit I thin!-. that ,1 hen this is comhincd "1th the fact that the ce,sa1i<>n of ernplO) mcn1 occu rred close to the Chri,tmas period "hen the appl icant "a~ lcU\ ing 011 pre-arranged holida) ). the reason for l.ne lodg mcnt is understandable. II is c lear 1ha1 tl1c applicant immediate!} contacted the Commission folio\\ ing cessation of cmplu) mcnt 111 obtain advice but onl) received the documcnta1iu11 on the do) i111111cd1atcl) prior 10 proceeding on the prc-Jrrangttd holida) . (c) 'Ilic hardship on the applrcnnt 1f thc c:\tCn)ion of time is not granted 1s tha1 the applrcan1 lo,cs an) right ()f redress undcr the lcg1,ta1ion. I he leg1slat1011 itself prO\ides a bendic1al right 10 d1smis,ed emplo) cc~ to take action for unfair d1sm1ss:il l'hi!> benefit should not be lightly taken :J\\il). (d) l'hcre is link prejudice lo the respondent if the matter i, allo\\cd to proceed. The Commis.,ion "a, ad, i cd that the ,1pphcant is seeking compensation and 1101 rcin~tatcment As a consc11ucncc the defendam 1~ not hampered m dn) \\:t~ ,11th regard lo ,taffing arr.ingcmcnl\ or the opcrauon <•f his hus111c,~ throu gh an: c\lc•n~ion of 111ne bcrng l,!rBntcd . In add11ion. the re,1m11dcn1 "as ad, bcd h} t he applica111 al an earl: s1agc ( December 1994 I tha1 the a pphc ant \\Ould bt· tal.111 g an Jpplrc.rtiun lor \\TOngfol dismi~sal if 1hc mJttcr ""' 110I re'()(\'Cd . (c/ I he conduct or 1hc defendant h.1s not been ,uch •" 10 li.11 c an 1111pact un the granting or non gr.inting ol the c..;ten~ 1on of lnllt' ,\II applicatiom seel-.111g an e.\len,1011 ol t11n.: 111u~1 bi: looked a1 h:I\ mg 1cgard 1<1 1he p:111icular circum,tanccs uf each case ,md applying a nurnhcr of print'iplc\ pre, iuusl: Jdoptcd h} th1, ( ·0111m1~~ion. In appl~ ing thc,c pnncipl1!$ to the pr.:scnt c,tsc. I 11oulu μrant the c,1ension of time. I ln,1 c, er mher 111:1110.:rs \\t·re rai~cd \\hich nccd Ill hc dealt with n 1c applicant 1,as emplo: cd as a c,asual for ~OnR' 11,0 and a-lwlf ~C ,lr.i. \1r Bennett suh111i11cd that thc applt cant fcll '"tl1111 1hc dclinit1011 o f a " \hon tenn Ca,ual cmplo:ec'". Such emplo~ccs arc e,cmr11ed h} rq:ulatinn from Part 12 (General Conditions of Emplo}mc111). Di,i'lun .5 ( Dism 1S\a l). ~11h• Dl\ 1si on > (Rcmcd1c, for l nla\\ful D1s111",al) of t he Acl I h. 1t rcμulation read~ "% (1 ) Part 12 Di,i-ion 5. '-ubdi\lsion 3 of the Act lines 1101 ,1ppl) to a shon tenn casu:11 emplo~e<' (2) In th is section ·s ho rt le rm cas ua l cmr> loyec' mean, a casual cmplo)cC othcr than a casual cmplo)cc ,1ho - (i) hy a particular emplo:er on a regular and ~))tcmauc bai.b. and (1i) for e,eral pcnod s of employment during a period of a least 6 momhs : and ( h) apan from the cmp loyt:r\ dcl: is1on 1101 10 oile r th .: person further cmplO) mcnL hau a rcJson.ihlc expccta1ion of firnher cmplo) men1 h) 1he crnplo) er.". fherc \\a, no dr,pulc h.:l\\ecn the parties that the cmplo~ cc "J, cmp lo: cd as a casua l l\1r 13cnnett ,tat cd that the emp!O)CC \\a, not cmplo)Cd on a rcgu ldr and S)'!>lema ti c basis. l:vidence "a s provided 10 1he Commission in the form vfan C\hihll to indicate that the hours of the app li cant , aricd as from week lo week and in th e las t 6 months prior 10 the d ismis~al from as lo" a, 7 to ~ high .is 38 a~crag.ing 16 per week. I lowcver. the record also shows 1ha1 the emp loyee ,1 o rk cd 011 c,cr} ~inglc week. Mr Dennett also questioned the rcahl) of her cxpcctmion of continued cmplo} ment. :v!r I ongland for the Jpphcanl on the other hand submitted that on 1hc \\Ording of 1hc rcgulation for a casual crnplO)cc 10 be e:\cludcd pu~uant to the rcgulation. all J crilcria need to he sauslicd I le maintained tl1 a1 no c, 1dc111.:c wa~ led 10 ~how tha 1 the app ii ca111 did n(l l ha,c a reasonable npcc1a1ion of continued cmpl0)111en1 The applica n1 in 1hi s case II as l'n1ployed as a ca~un l for ~omc 1\\0 and a-hJlf)ear:. \\ h1l~t she ma) not ha,e \\OrJ..cd ~11111lar hour.. evc1y \\CCk .,he " a~ crnplo)Cd cvcry week 1._,r a ccrn1 in numh cr C\I' hour,; e,dudmg th,,~e "CCI.~ \\hen .she "as pcmuttcd or ,ought Ill h:t\'e thc c11ui, alcn1 of rccrca1ion lea, c. Shc llcl> 111 f.ti.: 11:mploycd 0 11 d S) ,tema1ic and regular ha~is "ihe \\ :tS empl1)~ e<l continuous I) for morc than 6 months. I arn ,ati,lk'Cl that the .irplic·a111 had .i rc:1~011.ihl<" t'xpce1a1ion (in her min d) or limiter .:mplo) mc111. , \ccordmgl). on the c, idencc a, a1l;iblc to me. in the prclimllldf) asscs,me111 tha t I ca n make I am 1101 ~a ti s fi cd that 1hc applicant is e,cludcd Imm 1hc aforc',;11d d1smi"JI prtl\ 1>inns h~ , mu.: of rcgul,11100 9(,. 1lm, evc r funher cv1dcncc ma) he put for\q1ru on 11 11~ i~\uc ai the dl\mis'-11 hearing. One u ther 111a11cr "hich raised oy Mr lknnc 11 wa~ 1ha1 the Conuni,,ion m cu n,idc ring 10 grdnl an c,tl!n~1011 ol um.: ,hould take 11 110 accou nt the lil-..:1} outcome (1.c. slrnu ld et,ns id cr 1hc 1ncri1). Mr I ongland ,ubmitteu that the C:omm1ss 1on ,hould onl~ direct ii- ,11,en 11on to 1he pri nciple, outlined in ( /011.1k1 v .\fille r relc rrcd 1,1 carlic1 ·1here i~ ample precedent :is pointed hy l\!r Bennett 1ha1 ;i l'nbunJI in eonsidamg. ,Ill application lor e\len,ion or tun.: ha, discrcuon to iak.: into con,idcra t1nn other factors 1,hich go 10 mcrn \\here an ob, ious Ila" e,i\lS in tl1c applrc:uu·~ case ·1h..: app rnach lo he tah•n is nptly pu t 1,y t'1tlgero ld J. in Luc ic 1· \ 'ohm (45 Al R 411 ) where lli s llonour '1at.:d at page 4 Ii "'\\'hilst there arc ob, ious reason\ wh) there ,hould IX' no atll'mpl at a full 111, e~ugation of the merii- ot the ap pl ica11on Jor re, iew on an applica1i,111 for an extension of time. I \\nuld not e,dude lron1 consider.it ion m an approprial l! ca,c some ob, iou, strength or " cuknes~ in an .ipphe,1111 ·s case or ma tt er~ \1 h1ch m111ht 1u,t1f) the refi.t\al of relief. 11 the coun has a di5cretion to cto ~o where a ground for relii.:f is nrndc oul .. 15908 I DO C d -- 1 of 2 -- 1070 QUEENSLAND GO VE.RN M F.NT lNDUST RI AL GAZETTE I l a, m t• r.:gJrd to 111 1, prmcipk. the C1,mm1 ...,i1m ..:mN,krcJ the qt1c,1 i1111 ,1, 10 "h..: Ll 1c r the applic :i nt \\a~ c.,dmkd h;- rq11l :1\il>n 11 nm 1h.: 11p..:r,11ion n l 1111: J1,111i,,,1l prm is ion, ,11 the :\cl. 1lo\\c, er 1hc ( 0111mi,s1on "a, 11N prcpj1cJ 1,, 1dop1 th ,· , utim1 ,, 1111 1, n1· Mr lk 111 1cu 1hal 11 ,h 11uld go lunhcr u 11 J ..:111 1,H.kr 111j1tcr, ,uch .,, 1i1c 411c,11011 ol' \\hc1hcr 1hc Jppii,,1111 ",1, likcl;- 10 re,;cl\e the ,.u~ 11-11111>..:r of hour... ,,r r,•thJCeJ h,mr, Jlter Ik•emt>:1 I'l') -1 d th• cmplu~ m.:111 h.i<l not ,c.i,cJ 111 Il l\ , IC" 1hi, ;111!1 Ii i...: 111 ,1 11 cr, I? " the hcarl o t' th e apr li cnti un , 1 11,! Jrc ;nor.: proper!, J.:all "ith 111 the hc.1niw of thl' ,11h,1anti1..: ,1ppir-:,111<1n 11scll II hc'r, Jc1a1k<l ,:11Jcn c.: lJll he pr•" 1J,J h• 1i11. ( ommi ,~10 11 I he ( <lllllllb'-i()ll ·r.111h an c,1en,1<•n uf um..: 1,1 ,- .I llllhll :- i 99'- 111 ,d1i, h tn loJg-, 1hc ,1rp,1.:;11i11r Op.:rau,.: l)J1..:: '- \ l>c.:" 11111 I ,1en~ion ,,1 I 1m.: I .\ A u gu!--l , 1995 ➔ Augu~L. 199 5 I Q!JEENS LAND GOVERNME. T I DUSTRIA L GAZET TI::. 107 1 -------·---- ---- ·----------- - - --------- --- - --------- -- 2 of 2 --