Breust v Qantas Airways Ltd [1995] QIRC 216 (1995) 149 QGIG 777

776 QU EENSLAND GOVERNM ENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE !7 Jul y, 1995 7 July , 1995) QUEENSLAND GOVERNME NT INDUSTR IAL GAZETTE 777 fn,/11,,'r:..;.1/ N, ,,,.,,,,, I, I •'Ii , 2""1 J .1:,pli~Jlhlll l,•r I :11 ,1.r.: 11.·n ' ~•):i\'.!t ,1p r li c -1 11n 11 h> r <:~llll"l>ll ol 11 11 11 .\\ I) <11111.1\.'JI \fRlil \11\ l \ll'-'>lft\.lRII\II \rrh•:.tt.u•1 hi R\.ilhlJh:m:.:,,l ,, t ;_i1.. ,,\;.:~) ( 1 :· l h. I 111 1>!1>~ 111.·11• ( 111\c·mc I h; '•< 1· Suu::1 \\ "\·, : 1\ 1 \,,t, 1, • ,,; l h·d,1n n -i nl !' art 12 ( \ 111 ~1,kr~d l11ri t!:-ti .. n \.<:s.:r•,,I ,,,rl ~.llh.)'l ( h l ('11 f u.: - \;," .ll! "tl '· r f \!~•, 1 J • "" kc, 1~,,. t, 1 \1,th ,nt11.>. \pp1·cat , 1 (,1.;.111 •..·J I ·11.:r1..· , ,111 h.., t:i..;. ,,, to \\IH.:llwJ t1i.:- •\p1 1,t..,Ul! n~l~ <.L 1111,,·,. J ,u "h,· 11 11:r 1,11.: '\p p lit:; 11 11 n.:,1gm: <.J II i, t:c> 11 1111<11 1 !!l'\t11hl U;;,t ,l 111, • •- • I I"- -- 1 of 3 -- 778 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE [7 July, 1995 Applicant was dismissed he was dismissed on 28 June. 199-+. At that time the provisions of the !nduslria/ Relu11ons Ac/ I 990 were in the fonn "hich they took after the commencement of the J11d1111rw! Relations Reform Act 199-1. It was not until 21 Dccemher. I 9'H that the Applicant ·s solicitors filed the application in respect or the alleged dismissal. In the interim. bv the !nduslria/ Relr11io11s Am;ndmenl ACI I 994. the provisions reiating to d1smissai had been amended in significant ways One of the provisions mtroduccd h, the /ndusrrwl Relatwns Amuzdmenr .1ct i 99.J ,,as s. 622. l bat section was 111 the following terms: "Transitional pnnision about dismissals 622.(1) Part 12. Division 5. as it existed immediate!:, before the commencement of the lnduslrial Relations .•1me11dme111 ;Jct 199-i (the 'amending Act'L continues lll apply to a dismis,ai ,, i1hi11 the meaning of the Division that happened bei,,rc the commencement as if the amending Act had 11,ll been passed (2) Part 12. Division 5. as it exists after the comrncnccrncnt. docs not appl, to the dismissal. (3) This section expires 6 months after it commences." It follows that at the date on ,\hich it was tiled the determination of the application \\as controlled hy the prO\isions of the Act ,h tl1e:, were prior to the Industrial Relations Amendment .Jct 199-1. It is true that the six months referred to at s. 622(3) has elapsed and that s 622 has no" expired. Section 20 of the Acls lnterprciu/ion le; I 95 ✓ pnl\1dcs: "SaYing of operation of r·cpcalcd .\rt etc. 20.(1) The repeal. amendment or expir) ol an .-\cl or " prm ision of an Act docs not - (a) rcv1\c an;thing not in force {)f existing at the t11nc the rcpcaL u1ncnd1ncnt or e:--.pir_:, take-.: cftcct: or (b) alTcct the pre, 1,,us ore ration of the .\et or pro, isirn1 m ;_my thing ½uflcrcd. dime or hcgun under the -\Lt ui· prO\'i~ion: ur (c) affect a right. pri\ ikgt:. obli~ation ur liabilit: dcquitcd. ;H:crucd or rncurrcd under the .,\i.'.l or pro\ i~inn: Pr (d) affect a pcnalL~ incurred in relation tu t\11 n1'L:nc,: :trLi1ng under the ,\cl or prmis1on: or (c) affect an in\·cstigatiun. pnh.:ecdin~ nr rc1ncJ) it~ rclati()ll to .such a right. pri\ ikgc. 11,tbiht> ur [h:n;:i\t) (2) Am ,uch pcnalt, ma) hl'. imposed and cnforccd. amJ an, -.,uch invc:-itigation. proceeding ur rcn1cd: 111a: he hc~un. con1rnucd or cni"orccd. a'' 1!" the :\et or prm 1,ion had nu\ hcu1 repealed or amended or had not c,pircd (a) ~cction 1 ! uf the Cnn-1!11;.tl Cndc in :b p1mi:-d1n1cnt~ on cha:-gc:; in th.: pn)\ i:-;ipn-.: uftlic ('ode. n: (h) scclil'n !80 ui'tbc /'rnoilw1 und Sc11/i:11ce.1 1u /')92 • It ful!c,,'.~ that the ;_1ppi1cation b to be dl"poscd of 1n accurU;ir1c,,_; with the prO\i,1,m, of the .\et ao !he; \\CJ"C pnor to the cnmn1cnccmcnt of the !nd1ntrial Relations 1mcndnzcnr Act /()t)..J. In the forn1 \\htch il touk μrior to the con1n1cnc~rncnt ol 1hl' fnc/11s!ria! Rciu!1<11n ,-1mc11dmenl -kt JYCJ-1. l)j\·i--iun 5 of I\1rt l 2 ()! the /11d11.1irial Relations Ac/ I 990 required that an application for relict' in respect of a dismissal he filed "ithin 21 da; s alter tk di,mi,sal. s. 295(2)(a). On 2 I December l 9'J-l. the Application \YilS ]55 da:,s out uf t11m:. Bys 295(2)/b) the Commi'5ion ,1a,. and in the circ11111stanccs of this case continues to he. crnpo,\cred to extend the t11rn1_1-one Jay period C\en where the application for c,ten,1011 \\as made after the expiration of the 21 da 0s Section 295(2)(b) was silent on the factors to "Inch regard wa, to be l1ad in exercising the pcm er to extend time. ( Jn normal nnnc1nlcs on·c mav assume tllat t.hc Commission 1s 1.0 ha, e rccard to the subject matte; and purpose of Di\ i,ion 5 of Part 12 Further. it ,ecms to me tl1c1l having regard lo the lcgi,lati,c history of the p<mcr to extend time. the Commission ,,uuld not be justified in requiring an .\pplicmt to ,how special circumstances In ih original form ··special circumstances" was \\hat the !nclusrriul l/e/011011.1 Acr I 'JC}{) required the :\pplicant 10 sho,v. sec I 990 1'-o 28, I l i 1( I). ll, , IX of tile !ndwrrial Re/a/ions .·1111endmrn1 ,IC! I 99:' the test hecamc ··jf ,he Commission considers that this \\0tdd be appropriate in the circumstc1nccs of the case.·· In rn, , ic1, it ,,mild he ,,rong su to read,. 295(2)(h) as to reintroduce a burden apparent!) abandoned h1 the I _cg1s1aturc. On a number of occa,1on, this Commission has applied the uhscn at ions of Bray CJ in / lmnki v .\filler ( I 'J68 l SASR 277 at 28(J: "It must he remembered that \\C arc dcaling here 1, ilh a di,creti,lJI and in my , ie" it ought not to be fettered bv am abs,ilute or inflexible rules It ckarly appears i"rnm these cases !li,ll ti, c pc<ranrnu11t matters to be co11s1dcrcd :ire the lcnl'th of the delay. the cxplanatio11 for the delay. the hardship to the plaintiff i1· the action is dismissed and the c;iusc of action kll ,tatuc- barred. the prejudice to the defendant if the action is allowed to proceed not\\ nhstanding the dcla~. ,1ncl the conduct of the defendant in the litigation."'. h,r m, self I ,,mild add three qualilicati011s One. the list Ill" rdv. J:lt factlir, is nut to be treated as an c,hausti, c list. I\\[)_ the tash at hand i, the c.,crcise or a stalut,,n p,mcr prd\ idc~ ~1_iid~mcc and a'.-isistancc. 1 \prlying_ thi.: pd'.-i'.--.agc nuy J1()t he rcnnittcd t1.) displace pcrforn1ancc or the swtutnr:. tasL !'hrc·.:. I L~-.·. c :-,l1:nc di !'llculty \\ ith the pn.lpn:-;ition tl1~1t the CtH111ni:<-,ion :-.hnuld c1Hhidcr ~1!1) d1stid,anlaf:;C \\hich tlic .\rpllcant 111a:- c'\pcric11ci.: 11' denied the opportunit: to lit it-ate the claim. l'lH:rc is lorcc rn the suhin1<.;:-iion that the !t1S'.) ut· the rq~ht to lit1gak tlic cL.11111 1s itself a rck,ant disad1anta:cc. It is trnc that c,cri applicant ,cd.111l' an c\tcnswn of time \,iii face that d:S<1chant:1gc. lrnkcd. thl'. c:\lcrhinn 01· t:me ,,ill al\,ays he so11gh1 f<1r that ,er) reason It i, ht)\\C\cr difiicu!t to think nt an~ other di:iad\;mta~::c \\lilch ti1c \prl1ca11t 1rn~JH suffer. I ,,as at one time atlJ·aclcd '" the 1\pplicant ·::, sub1nis~ion that the pa:,;~agc :-,ought tu di')tinguish bct,1ccn applicants 11ho had a rcmcd: 111 ,mother rla,-c if the c,Jcn:-.ion of ti,nc \\a:i not granted and ,1pplicanh \\·ho had nn --iuch altcrnat.i1c r,:med1 a1a1lablc to them lhL· pllint. I sh"u!d sa). 1, 111;.ttcr!a! here bccau:->c the Applicant'~ ~~d;_ir} lc\cl Jc;1ics.; hirn acccs~ to the _\u,traii,m Industrial RclatH,ns Court amL not being an ,mard cmpltl:cc. he ha--i no remedy under lndu.,!/'i(li F!.eit.1fl 1 ;1n fer }()!)] \\I;; 1, ,,,,_~\\ Sillllh \\ ak~ ]d\\ 1~ 1Lc prop ...~r L.1\\ or tlls: cnntral"l) ! l\l: tili:-uz.:k tci acceptance uf th:1t \ ic\\ is tli~1t if the cnn:-;cqu~ncc uf :·l'.fLhin.~ J(l ~rtmt the c\_tcn:-;iun of ti111c i:-, that the cn:-;h incurred in in this lom1rnssion 1, ill he tlmm n ,111 ay and further \.:o~.h incurr...-:d in initiatin<s proc::cdin~~:-. 1-.;bc\\licrc. public polic} \\Ot!ld >-,t.:c1n ti1 he best :-en cd hy alio\\ ii1t2 th,~~ t.:\tc11:-,i 1 _1n 11f ti111t: \\ ith '-iOlHL hl.'c;.1t~1tton I ha\ c come tn the cunciu:-iion th,n unc h LC lonk at tile r..:;dity of the di:-iad\antapc \\hlch will l1o\v frun1 lo:')~ uf the opportunity l.O pre,, the claim. There is. Im c,ampk. J d1-..11nct1011 bd\\Ccn an applicant scc~rnμ_ tn t1c rcin~tatcd in the unplo) nl ;1 larg:..? organ1'.-.at1on 111 \\ hich L·n1plo_:, Cl'.'.-- arc d11un:\ n1ou:-. and \ ;1e>:l!ll lC"i c;,d::;t. and an c1nploycc \\ hP. ht1\ in~ frH:nd ;_\ hctkr 7 July, 1995] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 779 empioymcnt, docs not seek reinstatement but seeks a declaration and a very modest sum by way of compensation. I notice that 111 Cullen r Austole! Trading Pty. I.id ( 1994) 55 LR. 86 at 28B accepted that it was appropnate to take mto account the apparent strength, or ,,eakncsses of the Applicant's case. Such an enquiry seems to me to be an aspect of the approach for which I conlrnd. i add. of course. that the Commission must not go beyond apparent strength, or weaknesses and prejudge the case. and that it will sometimes he m the nature of the case that one cannot assess the :\pplicant' s prospects of success. The Applicant was. as I have said. I 55 days out of time. By \\ay of explanation the Applicant tells one that he ,,as initially distressed by his dismissal and unable to think clear!\ Without abandoning its contention that the Applicant resigned. tl;c Respondent is prepared to accept that in all the circumstances of the case the Applicant's claims of distress and poor judgmcnl arc like Iv to be true and is prepared to have the matter dealt with on that basis. The Applicant says that he then took a holidav hcHmd the nations shores. The Respondent had encouraged him to d1; so. Indeed. the Respondent provided the two return tickets as pan of a ··golden handshake... As I understand it the Respondent docs not seck to build on the delay flowing from the vacation. Upon his return to Australia the Respondent became m,arc of the existence of a remedy in respect of disputed dismissal hut. in consequence of comments in newspapers. concluded that the remcd, available under the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cwth) was m;t available to persons 111 his salary bracket (or \rnuld soon cease tP be so) and assumed that any Queensland legislation ,,otil<l he (or ""'n would be) to the same effect. l must sa\ that I should have thou 0 1It that a gentleman with the Applicant"s CL;mmercial experience \\010d. if exercising proper prudence in the dd"cnce of his m\n 111terests. have sought prol"cssional advice at that stage. Ultimatch. the ·\pp Ii cant did consult \\ ith his solicitor I !is solicitor ga\,C him certam advice and ,,rote tll the RespL,ndcnl seeking the reinstatement ,,f the Applicant lo his previous position or lo a similar position ,uid. in the alternative. adjustment of the Applicant's separation racka.l'.c l"l1e prospect of "formal proceedings·· being ··commenced·· ,;a, express!} advertcd to. lhe letter was dated 12 October 1994. lhc fnduslrial Relatwm Amendment Act 199-1 commenced llll -+ November 199-+. ll imroduccd ncnhcr a prospecti\ c nor c1 rctrospccti\ e barrier to application by an employ cc m th<.1 Applicant's salary bracket. It \\'as not until 21 Llccembcr 199-l that the Application ,,a, lilcd. The rca,on given. that the Applicant \\a, ,,ailmg 10 see the Queensland lcgblal!on i,. a, a mattc:r of tirst imprcss1011. a little diflicult lo accept. l lo11c, er. on rclkction. in :m memory of the confused public comment,; at the ti!l1c ii is unJcrstandahlc, r,art1cuiar!y \\ hen it i:.; borne 111 ni;nd th1-ll \\ h~1t i:i ll!l\\ s. 622 ,,as nut grouped ,, ith the a111cnd1111.111ts to Di, ism11 5 of Part !2 hut appeared Ill the Schedule to the A111endme111 .lcr fn am· c1 cnt. the 0\pplicanl had hy this time taken professional a<h ice and was entitled to rel 1 on it. l \\'Ould not ,, ish with resp,xt to e111bracc t.hc ohservations of !.ord /)cnning .i!R in Rex and Co ,. Gho,hl 1971 J 2QB597 at 60 l., 1,. "So Dr. Ciho.sh is out or lime. llis Counsel admitted that 1t ,,as his. Counsel's. mistake. and asked us lll e\lcnd the tirnc lhc diflcrcncc bl'.l\\Cen l\\ll \\CCL and four \\eck, "not much If llr. (jlrnsh had any merits which 1,ere \\'ortln oi' considerat1011 ,,c ,,ould certa111ly c,trnd the time. \\ e nc,~r like ,l lit1~,1111 1<; ,ufkr by the mistake of his la,,:, crs ... a~ Jid Cornmrssioncr \\\~1n 111 J)unn \' (hid'!l.\lund I ollcihul/ ·L1oci(lfio11 ( I 99-!J l-16 Q(il(i 3(, at .,8. ln light ol the dcc"1011 :11 Ronde/ r Worsln ( 1969) ;\( 191 the decision seems to me to he over!~ rohust in the shit\ of the burden of error to a respondent In an) event. counsel \\as not here engaged. Rcrncdic:-. a:.2<.UJ!'.:'it .,011c1tors arc better understood than n;rncdics against counsel ·!"!1erc is authority for the more modest proposition that a solicitor, error \,ill operate less severely against an Applicam than a personal error. ,cc ,Wen 1· Sir Alfred .tfcAlp111e and Sons Ltd ! l 968 J I All E.R. 543 at 555-6 per Diplock I.. J.. al 56 l per Salmond L.J and C'/lcrnsk 1 v ,,[illi!r [ I 968 I SASR 277. al 282-3 per Bray CJ rl1e more iimllcd proposition is consistent with the enquiry into the Applicant s explanati"n as a relevant matter. I think that I should adopt 1t. It is argued that the Applicant will sufkr little or no prejudice if his claim is lost because reinstatement and re-emplo; ment arc impracticable. and because the sum paid to the Applicant hv wav of a "golden hand-shake·· exceeds the amount of compcnsati:in \\i1ich he is likely to recover. But for s. 622 there ,,ould be great force in the latter submission. The Applicant received more lh-an the salary ,,hich he 11ould have earned over a six month period El en in an uncapped regime the submission has considerable force I laving regard to the pattern of quantum decisions in this Commission. I have re,crvations about the Applicant's prospects of recovering more than nominal success. l lowever. the pre-November I ')94 Queensland legislation ,,as. of course. a mirror of the Commom,ealth legislation. There arc decisions of the Australian lndustnal Relations Court which would support the ,mard of a sum in excess of the "golden handshake". The principle, to he applied in this Commission arc the same. I cannot assume that a compensation claim \\ill be unproductive. Further. the Respondent's confidence lhal rc111statcment and re-cmplo) mcnl can available remcdv under s. 297( I) will be held not to be practicahle remedies may be 1;11Splaced. In !.idc/1 v Lcmhke (1994) 127 i\LR 3-12 at 360 Wilcox CJ and Keely obsened: --·1 he precise meaning of 'impracticable. in this context should he iclt to another day: the question i, one of general importance ,1nd it ,v.1o not fully argued in this ea,;c. llut. althoul'.h •impracticable· docs not mean •impossible·. it means more th;n •incom cnicm· and 'difficult'. The imposition of such a stringent limi1atio11 011 the court's pm,cr to ,mard compensation. i-ather than order rcinstiltement. is inconsiste11t ,, ith the notion that Parl1a111cnt intended the Court to ha\ c an open discretion 11 hethcr to intervene at all."_ ( ira: .I ( al 368) adopted a more rigorou, approach: "Rciw,tatcmcnt is therefore required ii it c:111 be done. If the cmplO\ er is still crnplo} ing or able to cmplov ,omeonc to perform the ,arnc or similar tashs. then reinstatement ,,ill be rll"act1cablc.·· :\dditi"11ally. for rea,ons \\l11ch I dC\ eloped in ( ·/)\1 11 n ,. /ii11o!rn f'm;mu"n Umitcd (1995) i-+8 ()(il(i <,,') al r,.i,-.i and 1,hicli l do not here repeal. \\hilst in llie ordi11an c,1scs rcirbldtcmcnt ,, ill be the appropriate remcd 1 if it is not i1npra~ticablc. the test at s. 297( I) in its original form is "appropriatcnc,," not ··praclicalil\ ·- r!1c Cornrn1,,,ion may well decide in all the cirrnmst;mces of ;he case that rc111stalcmcnl or re-cmplo:, menl is appropriate though a burden to the respondent. (ii, rn that resolution of the question ,\hcthcr the :\pplicant rcsigncJ or ,1 a, dismissed depends on an analysis of a com cr,ation or cum er,:1tions het,,ecn t1,o per.sons and that I ha\ c 1101 heard the c1 idcnce. I cannot a"cs, the strength of the ·\rplicant·s case 011 this 1:-i"lllC. ·1 he Rcspon,lcnt frank!:- concedes that the passage or time has not rcsultcJ in the una\ailabilit, or cniei:Ii 1,ilnc'5cs ,,ho '"nIIJ h:1,c been ,11:iiL1ble if the :\pplicatio11 had been l1lcd more prompt!; I he prc1ud1cc upon \\h1eh the Rc,pomlcnt rcilcs is that as t 1111 c goe, 11, llllman rcc,illcction Lidcs. ' -- 2 of 3 -- 780 QUEENSLAND GOVERNM ENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE [7 July, 1995 In S1one - Tolcher 1: Geor ge West on Food l.i111itf!d ( 19 93) 1.:13 QGIG 92 1 at 92 1 Moynihan I' dealt with a si rnil ar arg,urncn t tinder the l n du strta l Rela tions Act 1990 111 its origi na l fo rm by ohsc1Y111:,? : " Moreover, i n the C\'C ll l that the Commission dcci dc ti Hie dismissal was harsh and opp re ssi ve in t he r dc"an t sense t he foct that the pos ition. !i.ir cxampl::. mi ght ha\c bee n ii!lcd in t b1e mean tim e. is ,:apablc o i' being accom 111<1dme<l by an approp11a1.,· cxcrc,sc of thc Comnms1on ·s nowcrs. .. The Com mi ssion 110 longer hu s t he power to withhold <>r mou ld 1'<.:l iet' thm it once did . The pas~agc i, no1 di r ectly applicable to t he cu rr-:: 11 1 mancr. ll owcv~r. it s eem s 1.0 me th at lying behind I !is llonour ·, re marks is that no tio n that a triai held with dil'ficuHy i s b..:w:r than a tri al not held at all. This is not a ca re in ,~11ich the Rc spo n(k nt reli<.:, ,rn a ::n111nd relat ~d to L110 A ppli ca n1 ·s condu ct. capaci ty or pcrt;,11 11ancc . fh, Ap plicant will can') th e burden of proL1f. I he , uh,ni ss i nn ih,,t memories la de i~ put on a ..~tan,b to rrn,011 and cornnwn experience ·· bas is. No cv1 d<: 1Kc spcx·iiic to thi, 1\p pl ication ha, been addu ced . Tile li me whi ch w i ll 11<1\·c d apsccJ by \ht: ti me ill whi d1 tl 1i.: t ri al is hel d wi ll nol c.,wc<l th..: Jc la), c.,pcrkncd in tr:, it1g (·1 ,· il matters in many j 1.1 r is ui c1io11 s. Crn1sci011, th ougll I ;1111 th,, t. if credibi li ty become~ ;1 ma jor issu e. th e pos,i hility th at n:co lkct i(Hl has faltered lllay grcml: hun.Jc 11 the Com mi s~io ncr hearing the ma tt er, I am in c.l i ncd lo the vie\, t hat the po1.c 1J1 ial burJ -: n Joe::, not outweigh lhc desirability of granting the Ap plic ,m 1 a hearing. l Jhi matc ly o n~ 1nu .sl cq1lual \! . ,v~igh and h ;,1 l "1 n ct 1h;; ~tlJHp~ting factors. nN all of H'hich po int i n the same din:ction. 011 bahincc I C()llSi<lcr lllJi. j should gran t th e CX tCJlS J(')Jl ( 1 1' ti me and j do. I tu m th l: n to the Rcspondent·s chalk ngc to th ;; jur isdicti,m ol the Commission. l'hc tcr;n:,; or th o.? c c)1Hra c1 <.1f ~rn plo~me n1 wcr(! n.:dth.: \.·d tn \\ r it in g and ~ignl'U by th e p;irtics. Cla u,c l'.'.' i, in the fnll()\\ i 11 g. ll·nm · ··(;o"crning I.aw and ,Ju r i.~dittion 12 ( I ) Thi, 1\ gr <.:c mcnt , ha il be gm cms:J b, a nd .;nn,tnicd 11 1 accord ance ,,ith the Im, rw the li me bc i n;! i ii fo, ._,; n, \. c\\' South \\ alc, . (2) The Suprc'mc Coun ,,r t\~1 , S(Hilh Wa le, ha~ c.,du,i , 1.: Jur i -;<l icl;on to c n h: 1'1a1 n : tn ) ;.H.: tam in r..: ~pcct i,f th i~ / \g J'Cl'. 111CfH .··. Jt i:.; (.t'niln( ,n grnund that U 1c t·!au ;'\;..' i:> .;; f! Ci.: ti\ \! and i!1,l1 ·,c_;, . :,, ou th \\ 'a le~ la\1 1,; the p:1,p cr !,m of th e c,ll):r:u.: t. The Rcsrondc nt ·., ~uh 1n1s.,i,,11 ,, th:tl I)" ish)ll 5 of Part 12 ,, f th,' !ndusrrrul Neiat1011s Au I 9(//) is di r ec ted hl altc'ri ng and 1r,r nwtli I;- i nμ 1hc opcr;,t 1n11 of 1.hc rig lll, and obligaiions or the partic, lo the conu·act of cmpi, ,y mcnt. It 1s ,uhmi llcd that such ,: ,; tatla,: 1:- to 1,c ,ons t ru.:<.! as intc11dc d to appl) h • cnmra..:t~ the g1"·..:rn,n!:! l .i" or " hi ch i, that or the c(>tn nri of the k g 1s ! at11rc in qu~st i on . I r 11 11.: put, aside t h<.: Cl'l llll) 11 ti,)u, ca se of a c on t rac t n,i \\Ork l llnkr ,1ll i,:il i~ pc r i<'J1111e<l in the cnuntr) ,1r 1he kgis !amre in ques tion. the ,1.:wa d limh ( ) f the argum,·1 11 ,cem, w me tn he: , upiinrted h: lhc ob~cn·at ion, of !.mlwm CJ 111 \ /rn eu ,. liomurd ( ! 'JJ () / 62 Cl .11 ()S .tl 79 as dcq:Jopccl in Lxpu rt e R,cl::mlson: Re lli !dn:d / 197 2; 2 '.':SW I. R 423 und Cio.ll)!!r ,. Smner (ll/ 8:- 1 i (, IJ C i. R 5-18 i l ,l\\ ,·1 ,: r. non, ithsLand ing \1r K i tl' \ pt.:r~u asivl! t1rg.u n1 c nL. J am tuwhl.: tn ac cept 1l 1c first limb ol'th c propo,i 1ion . J h a.\t: prc,· 1c)u:,;, I) lP CtHiO!l l /'ri,:o!eu l 'roprtL'lor'.· J. rn:ucd (1995i 14 8 QC~l(i 6j l). !wd Ot: <.: a~ ion lo c-x:J ,u inc lhc 1n,,.-~1nmt !,i di, 111 is sa ! m Di,·i~it 111 5 of Part 12 I thcr,· , aiJ (at <, .1 1) .. J): "0 11 th e most cursMy per us al or l )iv 1sion 5 of p,trt 12 o r I ll e Industrial Relmions ,le ! /990. i t is i m 11 1cdi mei:· apparent thm 1he Di,·!.sio n 1, intcndcd to rcp li rntc Oivi.,inn 3 of pan VI/\ of the tnr./usmar Rdauo 11 s Act I 988 IC"a ·th; Rl'lercn cc 1." the :v1,ntstcr·, Second Read ing Speech - pcrmi,sab k fo r the purpo,e nf c o11 Ji1min& an intcrprctilti on (, leis i,11apr e w1 io11 .. let 195-1 ~- 141\( I )fl:J ·- confin ns onc·s impn ::,.,,on . Rcgrc ttahl:·· lhe v(;rb •dism,,, l 1as been substitlll-:d for 1.hc , ·c rh ·tc rmi 11 atc' and :he noun •d i,m i ss al • for •lc rm in mion • l\ 11 l\\ i th s1an di 11;; th at \ ari:n m11. , . 2li8 an(I t he Minister ·, \ ccllnd Re ading '-i pecc h ma!- •~ pl. ,i n th at. iil,.c th e r\u,trali,m l .cg i slanm::. th~ ()uccnsland Le2, isimurc was co nce rned to gi\'C cflccl to 1hc I LO C1>11VC1Hi oo l ;i J, l\Vll as Tcnn ina11on nf h nploym(;n t Com cntion. 1982 . That Com en tion do1:s not cmpl oy 1h c n oun •dism1,sili' a nd thc ,·erb •di, 1111ss' . It e1nploys th e wrm~ · 1c rrni 11 atio11· ·tcrmin,llc · ,m d ·1e. n n11ia!ed .· B; .i rti ck 3 the. tcnns ·1.er111ina tio11 · :i 11 d ·t rn11 i na ti o11 ol'c mp!o) rn cm· arc dd incd to mea n · t-:nnimnion or ,:mplo,rrn:nt at th.: ini tiuti \C n f' th.: cm pl ,i )cr· . :S:l, <ldinit ion :1ppc;:rs o f' ·tcnn i natc' and ·tcrm i nat<..:<.I' hut no rea son u ppcars for d<! n\ i n\! a c;llrrcsponu ing mean i ng to tbose parts or , pccd i. 11· · <.1 i s1ni~ s<1 l' am.l •dismis~al rrom e 11 1p l ") ·111cn t • an; di lforcnt l :, comtni cd th.: k~ islati Ye scheme ,qi ! 111i :;c arn •Dismi s,al' is a \'. urd ,,r vet; (HHh:g. uou~ n 1c aning. ( ;r a/;0111 \' \ fi11istcr for lmiu.,11:1 w 1d Com111crc-e (JII(/ .\/0 1/0,1 I I '> 331 l. R. 156 at l (i4 p.,;r l·ivl,'ihh ,, n J. 11 c11n be used a; a CP!l\t'!li<.:111 c, prcs si lin li lr the ,kt<:m!i 11:1tion of an cm rlo ymcnL ibid it ;c.:m, 10 me thil! th,· c:>. prcs, ion •di ,mi,:; 1111 cmp lny ec.· ill I )i\ is i on 5 or P;1n 12 can be read ns rdi.:rring lo ·11 dctc 1111 in ati on oi' cmplo1 mc1n init ia ted b) an cm ploy,·r· an d th at •J irn1i~,· and ·<11,..mi s ,cd· may he gi wn n wn:, pontli ng meanings On balan ce I t on~idcr t ha t •d ismiss·. · <1 1~ 111 isscd · an d 'd i" mi $s a1· m Oi, 1., i,,11 5 nf l' art 12 ~hnu ld b..: gi\(; n th-:: sam e mc::ming a, ·tcnnin :11i.: ·. ·t~1m inat1.: d· ,tlld 't.:nlll!l,Jl l,) Jl' al Dh·ision ..> ol l'arl VI,\ ,,r Ill~ ii1d1 1s 1r ia l N<·lono 11 s Act i 988 rC ' mh; . n 1c: other reas(} n for use of t!ic p;: r cn thesisc is th at the cx r 1c·s siu 11 'dismiss,;d frnm his cmplo} mcnt' a, oith <.k t,· rn1i1ia1 io:i of th<.: is, uc \\h;.; thcr Di ,·ision :'i or i';,n 12 i, ahout lcrm1nat in11 vi' the c,1nt ract (If' Clliplo} :nc11t ur ter mi 11 atinn of 1hc n: !atinn,hip .,f 1:m p h, ~·cr iill<.i cnqi lo:, cc The i" 11c is (;11<.: oi1 ,, hid: dilfr rc' nl mcu1bc1 ~ of the I 11 J t1, trial Rc lati111 1 Coan l) f Au~1ralia h~n'e c:-.prc~scd cJ ift'cren t \ 1C\\ ,. s<.:-.: Siag,an 1· .\ 'one/ 1' 1, i .td (1994) 122 !\l,R 3 :;3 and .. i/'/:S\/ ,1 , . Sk iflc cl 1:nr in nri11g /'1, 1· I.iii ( 1994} 122 ; \ I.I { -17 1. I hi l\C Il l ){ h:,d t ile ac.h anta μc of arguin;.;n t upon th e p PnH . It i:'\ nnt ne,1..~s~ary f()r mi: !.\> d c: citk it On t il e fa<: ts \ lr Si11 gL·r (t,n beha l f of 1hc Rc,pnn d,' ll l ) b, >1 h r<: p 11J i ,1te<l 1h c ,·,1mra,·1 or cmploy 111 -:n 1 <11\d d.: c is i1<.: I~ r11 pturcJ t he r1:loti nn,d1ip pf emp!o) <.: r and emp l1>: cc on 27 \.l ;1 y I 9') ..L... { >11:..'<..:- ag;1iu It is uim ~c:..! :-.sar~ t <.> t~~oh ~ \\ h..-tb~ r I ) j\ Ls io n 5 o f !';,rt I '.' is ab nut ,~nmnation of 1hc rcl ;1t1<1! 1, l1ip nr c1np l11~c r and ~n1p h lyc,: ">r 11.!rm i na1 iun u1 · the co 1Hrrn;t nf employ1n1;nt. E'-Cl1 lin th <:) Ii~ po:hcsis th. ,t til e Di, is11H1 is ab,;,,Jl t,; nnmation ,, I' tk <;,lnt 1act ,,r e111pio , mc1ll liic target 11f the Di, i,inn is thc: e, 11 1du(·I 01· t h..: c111pi o;. t.: r. !l <> i t h.: UHHra-:tual <:flee t o t' tl a: wnuuct. In . Ii' /:',\ I f. I Sl.il/c,I l :'11_',!m<1eri11g l'iy l.11i ( l')'J.J ) 122 ,\ LR .J 7 1 at -HQ ( ;ra: .I . ohst!n~i.i: · ·t ht.: Corn cn~ inn. thc r...! for~. fr><.:u~ --~s t.il) \\ h,t( t ht: ~rnp fo ) er ha::,. dnnc 111 bring :1h ou 1 l11,; .:nd or the -::rnp! ,n 1nen1. lt i~ t hs: t.:mnh>~-..:r ·s a ct nr ac ts \, hich 1s nr an.: n:gar d...: d a~ the " !t: nni; lii( i"n ... A, ,\ rtit:k 10 i ll11,1r att:S. th~ cmplo !er':. m:t ,lr ~H;t, .11..: !(1 h~ rcg ;.1rtit.:d as the ~-1.~·r minn li nn··. i rn :."p ,.,· ...:tnt.: t l i' th ei r , .: li dit\·. Illil t ,\rti ck co,11c 111 pl. 11,:., 11 ,.u 1k ,1 pp ropriat,; bod: \;u ul d ..J ..:c !ar~ lh ttt th :..: ciapln)nh.::n r cn 1H10u ~d . no l \\ 1tl t,t: 1ndJ ng fth.! i..! rnpJoycr·~ act nr :.Kls ,.,·hich an h•un1~d to " 11..: rnH nat iP11" H ;nu:-. : he r~ n1 -:-rnbt.:rcd that U1t: C'(, n,cn ti<H 1 ;, ,.i n mten l~1t , t.H 1~d 11 1:- 1r un)t::nt \\ l uch 111ay hHl<-! cou1~tn,~~ \\ ho,:; !a\ \. ~h.:tt:p! "i 1hc po:-::-.ib ili ty t h a l an cn 1plo1(·r can b:· w11hJ1t:rd i at:1 bnng ahnu1 t hf..'. 7 Ju ly, 1995 ] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUS TR IAL GAZET TE end of the empl c>y lll cn t as we ll as countries li ke Austra li ~ wh..:rc the law r '< j cct~ this notion. T il e Convention covers all possibililJes by focusm g on the act or Llic employer. \\hCt.hcr effecti ve or no t to bring ab ou t the end of th e cmpl oym.:11 1. and treating tha t act as t he ··termination.. . Subdivisi,ln B is not on!) intc11dc<l to gi\'C dfcc l t ,> t he Conventi on. 1n some n.: spccl~ it ech oes the prohibi ti ons ft Hmd in the Convention. Th e proh ibi tions -:xpresse<l in Art~ 4 :.m<l 7 ol the Convention lwve found their way into s. I 70DE anJ s. I70 Dl' rcspccl ivc l y. The cnti tlcrm:nts gi \ en h~ Art, l I a nd 12 ;u-c rcl kcted in a proh ibiti on in s. 170 l>B . The structure of 1hc provision~ of Subd i\ ision B is proh ibitivc. There ,ire numerous provisio ns that "an employe r must not l cn n i nate an cmpio~ cc •s employment unless..: ·. The fi>cn is thus nn th;; cmplo,.i:r's rnnd uct. ra th cr than on ib c! kc L" (cmphasi, iludcd). In my opinion if an t:mployec is dismis sed in Quee ns land 1d1i ls1 performing w0rk in a ,u b, ta nti al \\ 'J : under a comrnct the proper la" of "h id, i s th e la w of another Sl ate or count.rv. Liu, Cnm111 1s, ion li a~ 1unsd1c!1<1n . I order t hat the ap plication <.>f Raymond l <c;: inakl lln.:u ~t file d 2 1 December I'>94 be for all pur po~cs treated us madc with t he period dt:scribcd at s. 295(2)( t, J \1h ich period I fix a, 1:xpir1 11g 0 11 22 lkc cmbcr. 1994 . Dated th is twc nty-scvcnth day of .lune. I'195. D.R. HAI.I.. Chid' Ind ustr ia l Commissioner. Appearonc&s • F. Dawson of Cleary flua rc llart Grant !'or t he !\p pIi ca nt. l' .M . K i tc in strnttcd h~ 1\1. Whi 1d 1rn1 , e f nr 1hc Rc s ron,knt. Upcrative Dak · 27 .I unc 1995 Ik:cision - ex tens ion ol'ti mc :; ranted Released: 28 Ju n~ 19'J5 ## #ll#ii#ii### ### #ll/i####l/ll##lillil#llil##ll ### ########f/ ##/l#f/##!/# 781 15592. I DOC -- 3 of 3 --