Barker v Park Regis Hotels and Resorts Group [1995] QIRC 141 (1995) 149 QGIG 368

368 QUEENSLA D GOVERNME NT INDUSTR IAL GA ZETTE 126 May, 1995 ##ll#//llll//####f/11######/1#11## ## ####/J### ll##ll###ll # ####II# ##### C)l 11 NSI AND INDl lS I RIAi RI I ATION\ CO~IMl'>"JO:-- lnduwwl Rela/im,, let /'ICJ/1 , 295 - applrcdtion tor rdnst,rtc.:mem Andrew William Barker AND r \ u 1188/J 11/ I Y9./J Cltll I" l'Dl ~ I RIAL CO~t~IISSl0'-1.R HAI I 10 l\ht) 199 5 , \ppl ic, llllln for Rc111sta1emem l rst of Complaint:. leading Iv 1)1~nu,~al - llot cl .\ccomod:nion lndustr: 1-raudulcm "ConlrJ.. Arran )!em cnts "Valid" Reasons for Dismissal 1111hin s. 291 ( l )(b) Procedural Faimes, -· l 'nju,1 Dismi ~~ul Rein,1aune111 l mpracti<:al Compc113a1ion A,,arJcJ III lreu of Rc111s 1atemcn1 - Apphc.llion not Vc,aunus - Appl 11:a1ion h) Respondent for lo,1, ag.am~t Apphc:ml rcjcucJ. DECl',101' t-lr \\ 'a1"1ict.. rate i, :t ~le tra tkr He 1, 1hc propnct11r of the.' Parl.. Re gis I le11c l, and Resorts (iroup rhc rlar,lup of the group ,, thc P.srl-. Rcgi, Il lt1cl S) dnc.:) . The Qucen~land hotcb "h tch arc ,1 p.in of 1he group ore the blander I Intel (at Surfers Par.sdr,e) and lhc Gold Coast Ccntr.sl llotel (at Southport) :\1 one tune Olr111, llotcl ar Kangaroo Point \\ilS pa ,1 of the g, roup. Mr 1 utc at4uir.:d Lh<: Queensland hotel~ \\h ich fonn part of the group in th<: ,.:quence Olim~ ll 01el. Islander llo1 cl and Gold Coast Central 1101.:I At one umc Mr Tate O\\ncd all three uf the Queensland holeb <:on 1crnpor a11eo 11 sl, \\ hen Olim) llotel "a~ lirsi bought into tlu: group ii, condull was gi,cn over to a eorpM:uion spcc1.J lising 111 h()tcl managcrm:111 In the course of111ne. Mr r111e dec ided to mak,· a change. \,\ hcn the contr.ict \\ilh the corporJIIOn reached iLs tcnn. he appmntcJ \b Debbi.: Angus 10 managl! Ohms I lotcl on hi, behalf. Ms Angu,. wi th the informed consent of Mr Tate. chose 10 hring the Applicant 10 Bri ,t>,1ne \\ith her 10 help her ,,ith the managerncm of the Hotel Some laint anempt was made 10 argue that the . \pp lseant \\J, appoint ed as a.10111 1 manager ,, 11h l\h Angus. It,~ clear that the c•nl} parties 10 the pemrll imate conversation "ere l\ lr \\'a r\\id. J'ate anti \I ~ 11.:hhie Angu, l"hc Applicant I..MwS onl~ 1ha1 \\hrch he \\,L, told b, \lls An gu, M, , \n gus. who " nm, married 10 the •\ppli cant. was nt, 1 called a~ a witnc,~ h} 1J1c Applica nt. '.-. he wa~ at all t une~ J\ ailahlc. On this issue \he and \,l r Wan, icl.. I at,: ,,ere the onl) po~sihl..- "itne,SC) On :1 range of ,)thcr 1~sucs she \\':IS (potcnttall) I a \\llnc,s "h o mig.ht ha, e ~upponcd or ha,c corrohoraicd thc Applk,11n·;, e, idcnce Gi,.:n the closeness of 1hc n:IJt1on,h1p. I thinl.. that I should dr a" the inference.: that th.: i\pplicant did no1 call hrs '" tc because II would not haq: ad, anceJ hrs ca,c to do ,11. compm Jonej \', Dunkel ( I ?59) IOI Cl R 298. at 308 per Kiuo J. at 312 per 'vlc,vies J. and at 320 to 321 per Wrndc)tr J. ~lr \Van, iet.. Ta te unpre<:Scd me a,; an heincst "11n c,,. if a blunt ~pot..cn one I accept l\lr T,uc·~ evidence that managenal rc,pons1b1l11y \\a, a ll ocnrcd solcl) Le) Ms Ochbic Angus \\ h.:n th.: Islander llotel at Surfer, Parad1,.: "as added 10 the group Ms i-\n gu~ und t he Applicanl relocated to t h.il hnld . M, Angu, commenced to m,m age that hotel and continued tc> manage Olim, llotel. B, this time thc Apph can1 was carr: ing re,pon,ibilit, for the n,11ional (bur not the intcm,111onal1 n1.11kr1111g ol thc en111e group Wh~n t he Gold Coas1 Cent ra l Hurd JI Southport "a' acquired -\1s Angu~ wnunucd to he b,L,c<l at the Islander I lotc.:I hut added 1hc (i,)ld ( OJ~t <:entrJI ll otcl to 1h1: li, 1 ol hotd~ \\hich ~h..: was alrcad) managing. The Applicam ,untinucd 10 ha, e rc.:spnn\lhrlil} for national ma rk eung bu t added the ( iold Coa, 1 Cc.:n1ral I lotcl to the hNel, thJt he marl..ctcd. In ur aboell l\l ay I <)IJ ,I. in cnn<cqucnl'c of a deteriorat ing rcla1i1111,hip hct\\cen the Applicant and the !!Cncral mana)!Cr of th e S~dnc~ Park l{c gis llotd the Apphcam ".l.' rclrc,cd of Im marl..cting rcspon,ihilitrcs ,1 nh rc,pcct tn the \) dnc~ Park Rc gl\ lf o1cl. I k co 11 1inucd to he rcspnn, 1hlc fo r 1he n:i t 101w l marketing ol th<e ()ueensland hutd~ "11hcn the gmur In or ahou1 l·chruai') 199~. and a~ a cnnscqucncc of ce rt ain mattc" ,d1ich ~lr \\'amid. fmc·~ ,on P ,l r I homa., Rid1 ard Tare) haJ rar,c.:d "ith l11111. .\.lr \\ 'Jm ,cl.. I Jle .mJ lu, ,on 111c1 ,, uh :: \ lr Ro" Richmond of Emsl anJ Young Charred 1\cc1111n 1an1s and dbcu,!>cd wi lh h im a proposal to ha1c lhd l li m1 com pk tc an independent financial report on the Qu eensland hu tcls. cummcncin;! "ith th,· Islander Rc.:son llotel TI1c ohJCCts "hkh \lr \\ Jm1ck 1.nc.: had 1n , icw II ere lhc ad,anlage to himself of h,1\ ing an 1mlcp c 11den1 rcpon nbout t he opcrn1ion~ of hb ()uccn,land hotels and tn ensure 1ha1 a report ,,a, a, ailablc.: to sho,, to h,~ banl..cr, lnerc ,,ere :><>me tunhcr d1scuss1ons bcl\\ecn t-.lr I ,llC and hr, ,l1n and the semor per,11n 11 el of Lrn,1 and Young.. ln the re sult J-rn,1 and Young "ere appointed 10 prepare an rnJe J)<!ndent rcport I he~ dtd ,u. Ihe report. Jmong~I 01her thmgs. rcc,m1mendcd "l'111tican1 ch,mge, 10 proccdurcs undc1 \\hrch rhc Quecn,land h1,1el ~ operated Mr I ate dec,drd 10 1111plcn11in1 the change, rccommrndcd t e, hill\. ·1he dec"11111, ~parl.cd the re<;icnJllf\11 of \lr, Dc.:hhrc Barker Ince Angu,) \\ hO,C ,IUthOnt) and ,tatu~ \ICrc ,er, ,uhs1an11,1lh ll rmmhhcd b~ the change, 26 May .1 995J QU EENS LAND G OV E RNMEN T I ND US TRIAL GA ZE TTE 369 It sec111, 111lcrahl) clear 1ha1 Mr I homos Richard !'ate. who in 1hc Loursc of' 1hc 11nplc111cn1aii on of th,· d1Jngcs hecame 1hc chicf c,ccull\c.: oniccr ,~f 1hc (.)u ccn,l,md hotel., on hehalf of hi, father. c:-.pcc1c cJ the ,\pphc,1111 to de pan ,, i1h hi\ \\ ife . I le did not. In 1hc c1)tir~c of 111 11c th e Applica nt told Mr ·1homas Richurd Tate th at th at he did 1101 rntcnd 10 resign I le diJ ~ at ahou1 the ,,11nc time a, hi, re,pon,1b1h11e~ \\ere lurthcr reduced. llcnccforth hc \I as It) he the national 111arl-.c1 ing 11n11 1agcr l'or (iold Cou\l Ccmral l lotcl onl) . ~honl) after hi\ Jcmolilln. thc Applicant h..·c.1m.: ill lie 1001.. "~t.. ka,e . \\"hib! he \\as m,,r) certain persons a,~oerated "llh 1hc ma nagcmenr of t he l'urk Reg,~ S)dnc) "e n.: brough t to th ,; (iold CC>a>l In lill !he lacuna kli h) 1hc departure ol \lr , Barl..c.:r anJ tu ..re-cstahlr\h .. 1he opcr,uion, of the Qucl·n,IJnd !Imel, It i<; put for the Rcpondcn l that J number of person., ,11, .,re of' ~ln ri cs ad\'er,c 10 lhc Applil'anr 1\crc hruug ht inro comae! "i1h one another and II i1 h \lr ·1hom,h Richard Iate. \\he, was lllhen1 i,e unawa re or onl) paniall~ ,l\\,1re of 1he ,tMics "l11d1 the) 1,1I J . and thJI in the lOlrrse 11 1· "rc- c~1nhl is hi n{ ' rhc npcra11o ns ol 1he (Juccnsland ho1cb un" ·onh~ trJnsac11 011, 1111 oh rng 1hc Applrcan1 came to light It is p111 for the ;\pplrc ,1111 that 111 hi, ah,cnce from ,,or!. ,t cahal de,elupcd A ,aric r~ 1lf pe1-:-o ns sought 10 scJreh out im: 1uc111s 11hich a eompc1c111 ",pin do1: 1or" might turn agai11,1 him. f' fforts \\CIC maJ, lu rc\\nl~ th,· hi,tclf\ of c.:,en1, ,,h1ch had been 1rc,11cd a, nl no mum.:111 at 1hc tune nl 1hc:1r occurrcn,c. I )O\\\oe, er all ol 1ha1 ll HI} he. ,II tr ia l lhc l{cspondcnl chose 10 J c fo nd 1lt c /\ pplil'a nr' s Jhmi,,<1! un thc t>,,,is or a litam or compla rms I hc c11dcncc.: on the compc:nJium ol Clllllplaini- \la:, detailed Ji took 11111 ,lt time to lt,·ar. In t he event. \\ilh one c~cep1io11 . 11 is 11111ecc",cr) h> deal "1th 1hc.: uu nplainh or ,, ith the c11111lrc1, 111 1h..- ,. \lclencc II hid, ha, h.:en gi, en upon them Gi\Cn thJI the con II c,::, may 111J1 he res ol ved 1111 huut m al-.rng find ing, rc lkc11 ng on th,· credit ol witnc"c' ,md th,11 finding, upon the ,uh,t,mcc: of the: co1npl,1111rs 111 l\l nec6,aril~ rmohc linJ111;1, about t he o,nduct 111 mdi, rJuJh. it " h..:ner 1ha1 I :,hould nrn Jo "' I <a) th.11 rt is unncce,,a~ 10 !!' ' to 1h,· menb of' e,tch ol' the compl a11 1t< hcc:n1,c Ihere w,1s ,me wmp l:unt n1.1Jc of \lr Barker 11h1ch i, 111 ,udt ~igndican,e. anJ upon 11h,c:h the C:\ldl.'1tle ,., in Ill) , JC\\ ,o t1,cnd1el111111g. a, 1\1 pcrrnn r,-.., , 1111,on .. 1 1h" 111,111c1. 11i 1ho111 rc li:rcn n· to 01hcr "'uc, ~,l\e (po1cn1 ial l,1) rn1 rhe quesri,1 1111 /"cn,1, I o umkr~ta11J the c:ompl,11111 it 1, ncc:cs-.ir) 1< 1 understand ,omc thi ng t11' ,, phc 1w111e no11 in 1l w acco111 modation i ndu,.11'} "h1ch. 1111hin the 111J11 ,1~·. hcJr< the ,1111\e\\h,tl u!!l) propcr n,tme "ll>lltrJ". I he ph.:n,1111cnf\n ,., 1:t111cepwalJJ ,nnpl) e11011g.h 1 her,· arc 111110.:, a1 \I h1ch !h,: ,wff of ac,u1111nnJu11on hou~i:s lind it neCC\\,tr:, Ill tra1 c:J l t1 nth,:r lo,~ tinns J11d '" rc,idc t he re liir shon pc, h,ds ol' LIiiie. l(Jther than rn,ur .:J,h uutlaJ, th,·, i,-itin~ ,1aff member'; cmplll)l.'r '"ll attcmp1 111 rc.:.ich JII .irran)!cmc.:nt 1111h an a..:<.:01111110Ja11011 h1111,.: •,1 the pl:c ce ol' de ,1111:111011 under "hich thnt a.:<.:0111111odat i11n hnu,,' 11 ill prm 1dc lodging, li,r the ,1 .cll m..-mhc:1 wetho111 eh.erg,: I he ll'lh 1JerJlrc 1 11 for the arrangement is. of u>ur.;c. th,11 rf th,· h,,,1 .1cu1111 111od:e11tm hou~c , uh,cquc111l) ,cnd, 1•11c 111' 11 , empln:,c:e, on hu,incss h> llu.: lo.a11n11 of the acc111n modat io 11 ho11 ~c hcnci11 i11g l'r1 ,m thL ,1rrangc:111en1. 1h,11 an:0111rn0Ja1ion l111u,e II ill rc,iprnl;tl~ h, pro, rdmg h1J.;ing., for the , i,nrng ,1aff member. • On or ah1.1ut 6 '),ptemhcr 199:< !he App l1ca111 arranged ·u• ni,110JJtrc1n fur hrrn,clf and hi, \\llc at '>CJ!!Ulls K.:,ort. I 11\\ n»·illc: I le diJ 11<11 pa) li,r rhat accoinmoda11011 . li e did ntll 11llb· to p .i ~ for i t. 111 n: tu rn li,r acco111 11111dal i1•n li,r one n igh! he .,~reed II irh ',c,1gulb Rc,on th,11 that re,11n would h11l<l a ··cnntrJ·· •~ Jit lur a~commnJ,111e1n for n,11 nighh at Jn) un, of the hotels \\I Ihm the i>Jrl. Reg is llotcl, and Rc:,on, t,rnup. \' i ✓ the Sydnc.:) P.irk lh·!d,. 1hc: 1,1.tn d t:r Resort I Ime l at Su rli:rs l'arad1,c .1 11d the ( inld CuJ, 1 CcnlrJI I lotd .11 \outhport It i, th•· l.'I i dcmc 111' Mr \\ :11w1ck I al..: that the •\rplic:anL did not 1 1, , c: ,1ut h111 ii) 10 .:citc:r 11110 ··~11111,a·· <11ra1H!c:111cm, on hehalf 111 the Park Rcg i) C mup It \\a, urgucd fo r the 1\ pp l1ca11 1 th(I I his wrli: did ha , c that .1C11hori1) and 1ha1 she had e11hc.:r delc:ga1eJ Juthorit~ tu the \pplieant 111 rc,pcct of the particulJr 1ran,ac1ion or. 111 th.! .il1cnrn 1i , c. hod rat1l1cd the 1r,111,<1ctiun . In the t.: ircum,tances ol 1h 1s inc ident l lin d ii unrtcccss~ry Ill probe "hclhc r Nb Angu~ (a~ ,hi.: then "3 5) had authorrt) to conclude arrJngement, ahout --contrJ-· \11thou1 reh..rcnce 10 \lr \\'ar\\1C.:I. Ta te and \\hCther l\b Angu, might (k lcgatc any part of Iler autho ri l} to Mr !lurke r. It is unncct:$~a r) b.:cau,c 1he acco11111111da11on al 'ieagull, Re,on \\a, hooked. not for hu~incss purpose~. hut tor the pr" JIC purpo,.::s of the ApphcJnl and \1' Angu, 11 ho "ere st,1) ing o, cmight in I 0\\ 11S, ille II hibt in II ans it 10 Orpheus bland for rhcir honC.:) 'nll)on 1 here is ubsolutcl) no <.:\ rd.:ncc: that :\ls \n gus. at Jll) time. h.id aa1hot11) hl cmcr mto '\:ontra • ,trrang cmc.:nL, tor her pm ate purpose, and for her pcr~onal hcncfit. and I can1101 hc: lie \'c that a ny honc•.r and re 11 so nablc per so n 11 (1t1 ld hm e 1hought that she did Cena in I). t he Appli ca n1 did 1101 so thrnl... In.:, n,1bl~. th~ ',cJgulb Rc,on ,ou~lll 1,, dra,, on tlS ··c,>n1ra·· ,rc.:dit "ith 1hc P:trl. Re gis Group. The re4ues1 for uccomm0Ja11o n "as directed 10 Pa rk Rc:g is I lu te!. S, dncy. II was dea lt wi th h) a .'vh Jc>anne Pere). the general man.i~cr of 1ha1 ho1el. 11 ,, a, made b) the \pphcanl on behalf of 1he ~agull, Re ~on The fo1.:,1111ilc \\h 1ch he ~Clll to M, l'c.:rC) \\ft~ in th e: ltlllO\I ing 1c nn,:- " \\ e ha, c an ou1.:,1:111Jmg ·contr.i • "i1h \eJgulb Re,ort in I ,mn,viilc I \\:ls up the re 111id la'-1 )C:ar 1;,,r an l'J' Ot\ ~c mi nar. I ha d l\\ O n ig ht, contra mid lo date )ca gulls hm c not returned Rnb) n ·1oohc~ ha, .Jl hl called and would li l e one L11i11 (111 10/ (, -1 2/ 6) . l' kasc conlirm a,:t il abi lit) .tnJ ht'l()l:cng JI your C.:Jrl1es1 con, 1cncc". In Ill) , i..: " lhc f'<1cs imi k i, rni s lcmJi11g 111 cach o f' fo ur r cspc1.: 1,. One. it rcprc:,cnts Lh.11 1hc /\pp lieanl hu, rcc,:i,ed Jccommu<lJlion under the "wntra .. ,chcmc 111 the purp.hc.: of ,11tcnd111g an 110.\ ,cn11 n,ir . I l\o. it cuncc,ib th:11 t he ,\pph,.:ant "a, accompanrcd b} his "ii.: ·1hrcc. II re prc:scn l~ lhu t rhc t\pplican t ,lJ)Cd at the \e,t),!ulb Kc,urt for l\,o nigh1, ,tnd n1•1 1111,•. I our 1hc , 1, 11 10 '>c.e.,;ulls R,,lln did 11e11 occur in 1111d l9<JJ i\1< l'crc) returned rh;,: fo,,imilc \\1lh the addition of a hand \\lllkll llUIC: Ill the folJOl\lllg lc:1111'> - p1ca,c: ad,1~e \lhJI thc ·1ontr:1· J,·.1I "a , ti ,r \\" a, 11 ~our anrnnmod,1111111 lor 11 OA'.' ·nian i. ,1 --_ I he t\pplil.:a nt hnnsc l l' added lo the f'm:, imilc.: the f'o ll,1\\i 11 g Jllllt1lati<•n Yes II \\'a5 Ill) at.:commodJtion I "3.' there r.:prc.:,enung the ••r , 1p !!" In m) opinion th.il annotation 1111,rep rc.:s,·nwd t hc ll:tn sacti1>n 111 each of 1110 rr , pccts. 0111:. 1hc accommodminn had hcc:n for th e Applican t and hi, 11 ilc not for the \pplicant foo. the \pphcant haJ not 1-c,•n JI 1he \eagulh Rc ...irt rc: pre,enr rn g the Gr,iup . In Ill) npinion the 1rrcs1stihle inforcn,.: i, that 1hc t\pplic.1111 11as rerfc:ttl) \\ell :J\\arc lh,11 the 11,tn,actinn 11111, \\h1d1 h~ had c.:ntereJ \\llh S.:ag.ull, Rc~on 11,i- an illt: μ11i111mc 11nc. It goc.:~ \\llhout sa) ing tht11 ir "·as :t 11 ~1gg ral': !I i,111 of th e (>fli.:nc:c for 111 ..- Ap pl icant In tell Lrl,cho<'d, t1• \I s l'c:rc, \\ irh th e, ic11 to u,nccJJing th.: 1ruc nature of the trJn~a,ttun. In lhc circum,tan<.-cs I c1insrdc r 1h,11 th.:rc \\J, J ,,d id rc.:a,011 Jiir 1hc di:, 1111ssa l " i1l11n the mc, 111 ini; ol ~- 29 1 (IJ(h) of Ille /11d111,1ria/ Hdatw 111 . let /()I)()_ 11!1ich rc:,1~011 \\U S related 10 1hc \1 plicant', lUlldUCI II' .., alid" mc,111, , al iu under 1h c ..:0 11 11110 11 la\\', the rca,;on " as 1:ilid bccau,c di,honc,I) 111 the course of rh,.: c.:mp ln) mcnt did just ii~ J1'1m,sal al ll,mmon l,m. IJtJ<ttm Oei!p \, u I 1sl1111i: u11d Ice Cnn \· . 1111,// (188M) 39 Ch '.iJ9. A/ernnda ,. 11,•hhc? r. 1)9221 I KB 6-1 2. r;ri//i11 , •. lu11don 81111/.: o/. ·lu.11n,/w L1m11,•d ( 1919) 19 SR (NS W) 15-1 \\ lJ & II 0 . 11'1 //1 r lum l1t11 ,tcd,· Ja1111c,011 I 19571 .\R(!\'-\\' 1 5 P :\1 wut. the pr111c1ple ,~ ,thnut Jut) ,rnd inrcrc,1 rather than .:11111111,!lit) . In IJ~l'th ( /i,:1111rn/.1 l.111111ed 1· II usImel/ ( I933) <i <J C I.R 6<1 ut 8 1 Di ,1111 ,111d ,\k l 1c:man JJ put 1he 11wt1cr thu, · ISl48 _ I l>OC -- 1 of 3 -- 370 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE [26 May, 1995 ··conduct which in respect of important matters 1s incompatible with the fulfilment of an emplo:,ec·s duty. or invohes an opposition. or conflict between his interests and his duty to his cmplo 1 er. or impedes the faithful performance of his obligations. or is destructi\ e of the necessar) confidence bet\\een employer and employee. is a ground of dismissal ... That is ,,hy the dishonest facsirniks to Ms Pere:,. hiding the offence b1 deception and attempting to lure the Sydney Park Regis to return what the Group had not received. so compound the otknce. !"here was within the meaning of C/ousron & Co. Limited v Corrr [1906] /\C 122 at 129 misconduct by the Applicant \\hich justified the detennination of his contract of service against his ,xiii. For myse!L for reasons "hich I de,eloped in Crrnan, hinolea Proprie1ar_1· Limited (1995) 148 ()Cil(i 639 at 642 and floclgc1 v Buderim (jinger Limited ( 1995) 148 ()(i!Ci 644 at 646. I doubt that --valid .. at s.291 ( l )(b) means .. \ alid at common law" or .. othern isc , alid under domestic law ... On such an approach it will be fortuitous if Division 5 of Part 12 of the /\et gives effect to !LO Termination of Lmployment Convention. 1982. It seems to me to be more like!) that the I.cgislature intended the Commission to build up its own body of case law upon the content of th<.: term .. valid... I do not suggest that the common law is to be ignored. I he common I.J\\ is alter all the accumulated wisdom of many generations. I do seek tn suggest that to consider common hm principles without regard to the objects of the /\et or of the Convention is to take a nano,, approach which sits ill with the apparent purpose of the Legislature. Here. of course. all of that is of little moment. The principles asserted b) Dixon and McTiernan .I.I in 8/vrh Chemirn!s_ Lim ired v liwhnell ( 1933) 49 Cl.R 66 at 81 and by the Privy Council in Clouston & Co, L11n11ed v Corn [ I 906 I AC 122 at 129 arc propositions of common sense as \\ell as principles of la\\. There is no countenciling factor. e.g. <:v1dencc that other cmplo)ccs discmered to be misusing the .. contra .. system were more favourably treated for no apparent reason. The C\ idencc of Mr Thomas ·1 ate satisfies me that in tins case the reason to \\hich I have referred \\as present to the employer·s mind and. in the emplo:er·s mind. sufficient justification in itself for the dismissal. !'his is not a case in which I have had to consider the difliculties of construction which may ari,e when an cmplo,cr dismisses for accumulati, c reasons some (or one) of which arc \ a lid and some (or one) oh\11ich arc not valid. In the premises. ifs. 291 (I )(b) stood alone. I should hold that there was a, alid reason for the Applicant's dismissal. being a reason related to l11S conduct. It is the effect of s.292 (I) that even where the reason for dismissal is valid and related to the employee·s conduct. an employer may dismiss the cmplo:, cc on!) if the employer first gi, cs the employee a reasonable opportunity to defend against the allegations made. Here that did not happen. The Applicant \\as dismissed immediately upon his return from sick lea\e. In my \ ic,\ s.292 ( l) 1s an absolute bar. It docs not matter that the omission to grant an opportunity tu defend is not causally related to the dismissal. compare I loclgn \ /!uclerim (jinger /.imilcd ( 1995) 148 Q(il(i 644 at 646 In the premises. it seems to me that the dismissal contravened Division 5 of Part 12. J hmc of course considered \vhethcr there was compliance \vith s. 292 (!) in rdation to an 1 of the Respondents· cmnpiaints with "hich I have not dealt. If there had been such compliance I \\ou[d hme dealt \\ith the evidence relating to the complaint. The difliculty is that the non-compliance with s. 292 ( l) \\as all pcnading. It i, true that ccrtam letters \\ere .. sent .. to the Applicant \\hilc he was on sick le:l\e and that the letters called upon him to respond to particular al legations made against him or. in one case. to respond to a demand. But the letters were not .. sent .. to the Applicant by utilising the services of Australia Post. They were .. sent .. by way of what was (charitably) said to be an internal mail system. The witnesses called by the Respondent were not adamant as to how the internal mail system worked even when people were at work. There is nothing in the evidence before me to justify a finding that it functioned suflicientl, well to ensure deliver) of mail to the Applicant when he was not at work. Indeed. l find myself unable to reduce to writing what the system was. The inference that the system \,orkcd cannot be drawn from the Applicant's unexplained receipt of t\\0 letters. even though these letters were of advantage to him I reject the claim that least in respect of some complaints there \\as compliance with s. 292 (l). !he conclusion that the Respondent contravened s. 292( I) does not conclude the matter. By s. 291 (2)(a) a reason is not valid if. having regard to the emplo;cc·s conduct. capacity or pcrfonnance and the operational requirements (presumabl, of the employer·s undertaking. establishment or service). the dismissal is harsh. unjust or unreasonable. Division 5 of Part 12 replicates Division 3 of Part VI /\ of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) and. as appears from the Minister·s Second Reading Speech, is intended to do so. Prior to the passage of lndustrial_Relations RejiJrm AC! 1993 (Cth) and as an outcome of the Termination Change and Redundancy Case (1984) 294 C/\R 175 and (1984) 295 C/\ () 673. federal awards sought to protect employees against oppressive use of the power t<i dismiss by \\ay of a clause in the following tern1s:- •• 1. An employer shall not dismiss an employee in a manner or for a reason which is harsh. unjust or unreasonable. For the purposes of this paragraph. •dismissal' shall include -- (a) the tcnnination of employment b) the employ er with or without notice of tenmnat1on: (h) the expiry of a contract of employment for a specified period of time without renewal under the same or similar terms: le) the termrnation of employment b) the employee with or without notice of termination in circumstances where the termination results from harsh. unjust or unreasonable conduct or action on the part of the employer towards the employee. 2. !\ dismissal is unjust in the absence of a \alid reason for dismissal connected with the capacity or conduct of the employee or based on the operational requirements of the undertaking. establishment or service of the employer. The burden of proving the existence of a valid reason for the termination shall rest on the employer. The following. among other. shall not constitute , alid reasons for dismissal. namely race. colour. sex. sexual preference. martial status. family responsibilities. pregnancy. handicap. religion. political opinion. national extraction or social ongrn In that context the words .. harsh. unjust. or unreasonable .. had been held to impose. inter alia. a requirement of procedural fairness. In Bostik (lust; Pt_\' !.td v (jorgevski (No I) ( 1992) 36 FCR 20 at 35 (irn) .J. said:- 15148 I.DOC 26May, 1995] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 371 •• ... Although the procedural requirements of the clause will vary according to the circumstances. thev are intended to be real. An employer genuine!~ investigating an allegation of misconduct or neglc~t of duty. or some other act or omission which might provide a ground for dismissal. is required to carry out a proper investigation. and not merely to go through the motions. The employer is required to ascertain whether there arc any mitigating factors. either associated with the alleged ground for d1sm1ssal. or arising from the employee· s past record and future prospects It is not intended that an employer should be able to substitute a court proceeding for its own investigation. ic. to overcome procedural deficiencies b1 establishing to the satisfaction of the court that the dismissal concerned would not be harsh. unjust or unreasonable on substantive grounds. There ma 1 be cases in which the conduct of an employee has been so gross that the court is able to be satisfied that no reasonable employer could have taken any step other than to dismiss. \vhether or not all appropriate procedural steps had been foilowcd. In such a case. it may be appropriate to a\v ard damages only up until the time of the judgment. or such othertime as might have marked the completion of appropriate procedural steps. The example posed in Lane v Arrowcrest Croup Pti Ltd (Uas ROIi Al!O\ Wheels) ( l 990) 27 FCR 427 at 456 is perhap~s mtended to represent such a case. In other cases. it cannot truly be said that no relevant breach of the clause arose from a failure to cany out proper procedural steps. Had proper inquiries been made. the employer might have considered that conduct which appeared to justif_v dismissal at first sight did not do so when all relevant factors \\ere considered .. In B_1·nu• v Australian Airlines Limited ( 1994) 47 I-CR 300 at 35 (jra) .I. elaborated on the proposition as f1.illo\\s:-- •• ... Cases such as Wheelf'r v Phi/1jJ ,\!orris 1-td ( 1989) 97 ALR 282 and Hostik (Australia1 Ptv Ud \ Gorgnski (No I) ( l 992) 36 FCR 20 est,iblishcd clearly that a clause such as cl I I (a) has both substantive and procedural aspects. In my view. those authorities are correct. Plainly, it \\OU!d be harsh. unjust and unreasonable to dismiss an employee for an offence which he or she had not committed. In a proceeding m wl11ch a breach of the clause is claimed. the court is required to detennine whether. as a matter of fact the cause which the employer ad, ,meed as th~ ground for dismissal existed. The court will detennine that issue on the e\ldence before the coun. not merely on the evidence available to the employer. In dctennining that issue. the court must inevitably take into account the credit of the various witnesses called. /\s Gregory (supra) illustrated. the court may even take into account facts which have occu_ned since the dismissal. in determining \\hat possible developments ought to have been taken into account by the employer. So far. the procedural aspects of a clause such as cl 11 (a) have been seen as confined to the need for the employer to make a proper mvcstigation of the facts and to consult with the employee about those facts and their possible consequences: see Gregor_i at 471 and 473. Wheeler at 306 and Bostik /1\o I) al 34. in the judgment of Gray J. In my vin,. that analysis has been inadequate The use of the word .. unjust .. in the clause is mtcnded to import the requirements of natural justice or procedural fairness into the process of terminating employment. There is a trend in the law to imply an obligation to afford natural justice to a person whose rights may he affected by a decision. That trend is not confined 10 decisions in the public arena. It has been accepted for many years that a decision to deprive a person of membership of. or ekctcd office in. a trade umon would be valid only in the absence of bias and after the person had been given a proper opportunity to be heard: see Au.11ra/ian Workers' Union v Howen (No 2) (1948) 77 CLR 601; Wishart v Australian Builders l"ahourers' Federation ( I 960) 2 FLR 298 at 300: Lynch v ,\!cLachlan (1962) 3 FLR 59: Egan v flarmdine ( 1975) 25 Fl.R 336 at 362-4 in the judgment of J B S\,ceney and Evan JJ: Clark v Print in[; and Kindred Industries Unwn ( 1976) 26 FLR 521 at 525 -6: Campbell v. Corman ( l 977) 18 ALR 108 at 112: Cle1rnrrh v Barrow (1978) 20 Al.R 359 and Cairns , Jenkins ( 1979) 42 FLR 188. The rationale for this is that the decision may involve deprivation of livelihood. Other decisions involving such deprivation have been treated sim!lar!v: see Ridge v Baldwin [ 1964] AC 40: Petr v Gre~·hound Racing Associatwn l.rd (No I) [1969] I QB 125: f/eatley v fosmanian Racing and Gaming Commission (1977) 14 ALR 519 and Calvin v Carr I 1980] AC 574. This is so. despite the fact that membership of trade union and involvement in a closed occupation may im ol\ e no statutory right. but may be based onl) in contract. It is odd that the same vie\\ has not been taken of a decision by an employer to exercise a right to tcnrnnatc a contract of employment. The professional punter or greyhound trainer loses his or her livelihood by being warned off racecourses or dcpnvcd of a licence. Other forms of earning activit) remain available to such a person. In a similar \\3). a dismissed employee is deprived of his or her li\elihood. The deprivation is particular!) sc, ere in a time of persistent high unemployment. Its severity is increased if the dismissal is expressed to be on the ground of some alleged dishonest act: the disclosure that a person was dismissed from prC\ ious employment for such a reason will constitute a substantial barrier to gaining other employment. For these reasons. I am of the vie\, that a clause such as cl I !(a) requires that an employ er contemplating tenninating the emplo) mcnt of an employee is obliged to afford procedural fairness to that employee Not to do so would he UnJUSt Had the statutory barrier lo harsh, unjust or unreasonable dismissal (s l 70 DE (2) (Cth) and s. 291 (2)(a) (Qld)) stood alone it \H)uld. I think. have been similarl 1 construed. I find it difficult to accept that s. I 70 DC (Cth) and s.292 (I) (()Id) were intended to diminish the protection \\hich s. 170 DE (2) and s. 29 J (2)(a) would otherwise confer. It seems to me that s. 170 OF (2) and s.292 (I) \\e_rc mtcndcd to add to the procedural requirements of the harsh. un_1ust or unreasonable barrier by putting beyond doubt that in all cases. save those at s. 170 DC (b) and s. 292 (2). the employee was entitled to defend against the allegations made The Legislative d1spla 1 of abundant caution docs not. to my mmd, constitute an impediment to holding a dismissal to be harsh, un.1ust or unreasonable for procedural reasons. I notice that 111 Liddell v Lembke ( l 994) 127 ALR 342 at 358 Wilcox C.J. obsen,cd:- 15148 I.DOC -- 2 of 3 -- 372 QUEENSLAND GOVE RNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE [26 M ay, 1995 ··()f co urse. i t will olicn be poss ible to argue tbat the conduct 1h a1 br eac hed one or more of th ose sections was conduct 1hat " as har sh . unrcasnnahlc ,i r unjust. 1t mi gh t be thought. for example. that a dismis;al in violation of the procedural fain1 e,s requin.:mcnts ot" s. 170 DC wou ld always be har sh. unreasonable or unju~l: sec 8ostik f,'/ustraliaJ l'ty Lid 1· Cior~e1·ski (~o I ) ( 1992) 36 FCR 20 and flyrne v Austmlian Airlin es Lid ( I99 -n 47 FCR 300: 120 ALR 274." On e may add that. i r contravent i on of s 170 DC (C ·1h) or , . 292 (I) (Old) always r ende rs the dismissal harsh. unj ust or u nreasonabl e. ii is understandahlc t ha t rc!i..:f follows fn> m Ihc contra\e nti0n even 1f the dismi ss al \\Ould h ave occurred if the contraventi on had thll. The dismi ssa l i tsel f becomes unlawfol because it cannot hal'c been for a valid rea so n. I lowsoc,\'Cr all of !hat m ay he. in t he circumstanc,~ of this case \\'here each of tlw A pplican t and hi, wife were de moted. the Appl i cai11 ·s pos i1.io11 \1as adverti sed whilst he occupi ed i 1. th,; lo cks to the Ap plicant's (>nice we re ch an ge d wi th ou t notice 10 him an d the Ap plicant was pl aced under t he au1hori ty of a ge nIlcm an with a prime ministerial gr as p or in n:c ti Ye. it seems to me tlrnl ii was harsh. unjust and unreasonabk 10 p re sent U1e App lican t \\'ith a wr itten 110Iicc of tcnnination contai ning detai led al le gations bu t to give hin1 no opport unity to answer them. I f I he wrong in th e 1•ic· \1· which I ha ve taken of the relaiions hip be tweens. 291 (2) (a) and s. 2 92 (I). I would reac h the same conc l us itm on th e ba.-;is that t he right to procedural fo i mess 1101\·ing from t he harsh. unjust or unreasonabk harrier include, a ri ght to miliga tc as we! I as a righ t to defend. com r ,in: Byrne v . I ustrn!ian Airlines l .imited ( 1994) -17 FCR JOO at 35 & per Gra) .I. I k n: the App li cant \\aS <l enic<l the op port un i ty to miIigatc. (,iven t he other factors he was. lo my mind. treat,~d uniu ,tly. The di sm i ssa l took pl ace on I August 194 4. Thc or der~ which we re ma d..: i11 res pect of i t arc th ose sct forth at s.297 i n i ts original i t>rm . ,cc s. 622( I J. In i t:; origi,wl fo rm s. 29 7 is the .:a U,l' or som e di fficulty. T he HOrd '"may" usc<l in rcb tion 10 a powcr in <l icaies th at th e pO\~C r ma) be excrdsc<l or not exerci sed al di scrc1.i 1111 . :lcls !111e1preto1ion Act 1954 . s.]2 CA ( I ). It is hom:\'er <l i ftiCtJ ll to accept th at. not withstanding !he deta il in wh ich th e pl'()h initi (,ns on disnmsal arc spel l ed out at Di\·ision 5 or Part 12. t!1c Commissi on is to have a , er) general discre ti on to tkn) re li d on the ha si~ nf "appropr iateness·· I consider it more lil..cly that th e i ntent of the l.egislaturi: \,as that an or<ler wou ld he made to put t he e mp loyee in the sam e pos ition (as n.::c1rl) as ..:,m he done) as i f the employee has not h..:e n <l i sm i ~scd. but that ,n selecting which order the Coinnussion \rou ld base i ts decisi on on ··appropriateness". For ri:,Iso 11 s which I ha ve dcvcl npc:d i n Cowan \' Trinolea fropr i etarr l.im il<! c.l (1995) 148 ()Crl( i (,39 al 643 -4 it ,~.:ms to me that in tb(· ordinar: case: rein st ate ment will be thc appropri ate rcmc<l} if 11 is 1101 impract ical. To hold a sicw elf the l ikdihood of the ~,u tn m1<: in th ..: ordinari ca se is on e thing. To fo il to disciiargc ,, sta tutory obligation to test aga i nst II sta ndard. here ·· ,,ppropriatcne,s". i ;, 4uitc anotlu;r. On the fac ts ! am sat isli cd that it would be futile to order tlie /\ppl i ca nt"s rcinstatcnu:m. It is to be bom~ in mind that an on.kr for re insta tement is a r es tora tion of the st atus quo and i~ 1101 ,1 guarantee of ftliure emp loyment. co mp are St. Jostph ·s College ,, H,1rrr Culhane ( 1994) 1-17 ()GIG 1548 at 1555 per Mackenzie I' (i i \en th e lit.in) o f compla irlls. some base d on "discoveri es' made after t he or iginal dismi ssa l. and the vigour \\'ith w hich thi, case has been fot1ght. i t seem, to me tlw t the i ne\'it ah le consequence of :.1 r-.- instatcmcnt or,kr is that there "ill h..: cvrnpl ian cc II i th s.292 ( I ) followed by dismissal. On the e\·idence which I h a\'C heard t he likcl iiwod 1s that i1 sucI1 a d1smis,al \\'ere cha ll enged i t \,·ould be 11 .: ld to be bona lide and law ll 1l. In the premise,. I do not rrnpose to <>rdcr rcin, wtemenI nfthe Appl ica nt. I n my view th e power to make an ord ,; r n.:quiring the cmpi<Jye r w pay the employee compensation a1 s. 297 (2)(c) is 1101 to be .: .xe rci ~c d to punish Lhe employer a;; a 11Tongdocr. hul 10 pu t :he: employee in the sa me posi tion. so far as money can do i t. as if the dismissal had not occurred. compare Ciriggs v. ll<!alth f:q11;1>1111?111 I f ir !! and Supplies l'ty_Ltd (No B6 I 4 or 19 94) (umepon cd ). 28 A pril 1995 . at 5 per Bougoure C. I lcre. of co urse . i t" the unj ust di~rni ssal conlrfl\'t!ni ng s. 292 { I } had nol occurred on the Appl i can t ·s return from sick leave. he wou ld have resumed \1 ·ork in circu mst,mc <:s in wh ich his tenure was r rccarious. I le had ahus.::d t he '"con t ra· · schc,m:. T he evide nce sho\1·s th aI he had no expl ana tio n to gi·,c . I k h ad misl ead his em ployer when the ·· contrn·· credi t was calk:d in. I !is e ~p lan at ion. irritation and l oss of patience with ,v1s Pc rC ) . is nei th er plausible nor atkqua tc . Prov id ed th e requirement, of proced ura l foincss were met on ly magnanimi ty st ood bc1 11 cc11 i\·1r Harker and di smissa l. I ha\'C considered awardi ng the App li cant what. in o th (: r jurbdieti on s. is known ,1, nomin al damage;. On balance. I ha\ e deci de d to re frain from taking that course. The ,\et r lainly p<:rcc i, cs of tl1c ri ght 10 defend at s. 292 ( I ) us a ri ght of valuc Here the Applicant \1 as dcni.:: d that righ t. The Ac t sets i tS face againsI unfairness in t.::rmination of employment. I kre the i\ppl icmll \laS treated unfairly. It is po ssible t ha t if granted t he righ t to defend and explain in th e cirwm stanccs of Aug ust 1994 the ,'\p pl ic;mt.. who in Mr War11·ic!; Tat ,·s asses sment of him wc1s \Cf)' young. 111il) ha,c su cceeded in per su adi ng Mr W an,·ick Tate th at th e mat te rs all eg,~ll again~! him were idle and " ithout basis or. as in tl1e c ase of the mailer relatin g lo --contra" . anr ihutablc to immaturit) and i nadequate tra ining. I certai niy can not assurnc that the J\pplica nl would 11 01 have been alk)\> cd 10 resign. In all the circumstances. ha,·ing regard to the Appl icont"s previous an d pr ese nt sa lary, the diminu ti nn in his empl oymen t pro~pccts lloHi ng from the circ um stance that he was dismissed and <lit! not res ign. ;ind the we ight which t he /\et gi,·..: , to the ri tht, " ·hich he \\8S den ied. I ha\·c deci ded to a\\ard the / \pp liealll fr,t:: modest sum or eight hundred and l illy cl(,ll;irs. I turn now the the qucsti1,11 of costs. By s. I 06 th.; Industrial Commi ,s ion has jurisdiction to award cosI, in al l proceedings bcl<irc i t. including ma tters d is111i~scd or not proce eded \1·ith for " •.tnt ,,r jur i sd iction. but. except 11h cre the Act o th erwise pe nni ts, no wsts are ;o he al lowed for an} cou n~cl. solici tor or age nt in proc ee dings before th e Commi ss ion unil's~ 1hc Commission ce rt ilies that it is. or was. in th e interests of.justice tlwt <:ounscl. so licitor or age n t. as thc ca,e m ~y he. sh ou ld be. or \\as. h.;ard . Se cti on 300 <1 utl H>ri,e , Lh(; Com111 i,, i 1.>n Jo a\\'ard t:n, ts (>I' repr ese nta tion agai nst the applican t "hcthcr or ll()t the Commb:-:ion ha s ce rt ilk d unde r s. 106. i i" the Commission co nside r~ the Applicution LO be fri \· olous or \·cxatious. Sect ion 300 is i rn:kva11t here . The; compk x itie, of the i ssu c•s of law ;md of fact an<l the need for pug.nacity in c.ross--cxamin at i on j usti ficd the Responden t" s d,xis iun to br id counsel and I c o.:rti l)· i t LO hal'C been in Ihc interes t, ofju s ti ce th at counse l \\'8S heard. It is commonly sa id Ihat the principles go,·crning the exercise or the po"e r ::it s. I 06 arc co nn:nicntly ga ther ed together in Ihc Presiden t' s j udgment in Goldmw, ,, Daw <_;en eral .-lustroiiu 1'1_1 /,I(( ( l 993 J 144 ()GIG 379 l be g 10 di ffer. It seems to me to he tokr.ibly dear th ut I lis I lonour's remarks arc dir ec ted to 1hc case in 11h ich co,ts arc sought against an unsuccessful μarty. ·1 o li mi t the cases in \1hi di costs wi l I follow the event i, not tn pr<ll'idc a sp ring--hoard for the ,l\\a rd of cos ts wntrnry to the C\ent. The .'\pplican t hen; has ,;cn rrcd a declara 11 on and the a" ,1 rd of morc th an a nomin al sum I con, i <lc r il mappruμri ate to a\,ard cosIs n f th..: action ag,iinst him 15148 _ i.l)()(" 26 M ay, 1995] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDU ST RIAL GAZETTE 373 I should add that I wou ld have come to th e sami: r esu lt if I had appli ed the de cision in Goldman v. Dara •·_Cenera! Aus1ralia Pty Ud ( 199 3) 144 QGIG 379. It is. of co urse. a fundamental error to construe a 1k cisitl11 as i f i t we re a sta tute. However. it seems to me that guidance i s to he de rived from 1he cases upon s. 347 of the industrial Relations Ac1 1988 and i ts p red ecessor s. 197 ( /\} of the Conc1liatio11 and Arbi1ra11011 Act 190 4. Secti on 347 pr ovides:- '"( l ) J\ party to a proceed ing (incl udi ng an appeal) in a ma tte r arising under this Act sha l l not be ordered to pay costs incurred by any other pa rty to the proceeding unless t he fi rst-mentioned pai1y ins1i tutcd the proceeding vexatiously or w ithout n:ason abl c cause. (2J In subsection (I): ·cos1s" includes all legal and professional costs and disbursem ent~ and expenses of wi t nesses. " . The cases concentr ate on the phrase ·•without reasonable cause ... the adverb -- vexatiously'• being trea ted as either ad ding nothing or as r~qu iring proof of mon: than unreasonableness. In Kanan v. Austrafian Posral and_Te/eco111munica1ions U nion ( 1992} 43 I R 257 at 264 - 5 Wi lcox J suggested a pr ac tical tes t for d c1cn11ining. in a particular case. whe t he r a proceeding was insti tu ted w it hout reason able causL· : ··1t seems to me that o ne way of test ing whether a proceedi ng is institu ted •wi thout rcasonahle ca use· is to ask whethe r. u pon the facts app arent to the app li cant at th e time of institu ti ng the proceeding. thcrc was no subs tantial pr,ispcct of success . If success depends upon the resoluti on in the ap plicant"s favour of one or more arguable po in1s of lmv, it is inappropri ate 10 stigmatise the proceeding as being •without reasona ble cause·. But where. on the applica 11 I·s O\v11 version of the facts. it is clear that the proceeding must fa il. it may properly be sa id that the proceeding lack s a reasonable ca use ." Sec als o fle1dt v. ('Ju:vsler A 1,stralia Ltd ( 19 76) 26 FI..R 257 at 274- 275 (Nort hrop .I); R v. Moore; l;\parte Federated. .\.fiscellaneous Workers · (111ion o/Aus tralia ( 1978) 14 0 CLR 470 at 4 73 (Gihbs J): \ ·aqvi 1·. Ml'IJ (SA; l'tv /.I(/ ( 1981) 36 J\I.R 379 at 382 •- 384 (Evatt .I): Mar.1// ,·. Ad11111 .1Q11 (supra) al 125 - 126; 4 7-4 8 (St John and Wilcox .IJ ): S1a11dish v. l1i1il·e rsi1y of Tasmania ( 1989) 28 I R 129 at 13 8 -- 139 (Loc kha11 J): Can ceri \". Taylor (1994) 55 IR 316 (Moore J): Foxcro{I v. The Ink Gr oup /'1_v l.td ( 1994) 57 IR 65 (Wilcox C.J .). In my view i f t he Appltcant had succeeded on the argumen t th at the gr ou nds ior dism iss al we re cumulative and not (in th e ca se of the "contra "' ground) ~evc rahle. his case was argu ab le. Put simply. this is an example of an unsuccessful case not a misconceived case . Cos1s should not be awa r ded against the Appl icant. At c>n<: time J \~a s aUrac1ecl to Mr llorncnwn- Wren ·s submission thul cos ts ,ho uld be award ed on '"i ssues... In aucmpling to do that I I,>un d t he evidence to be i ntcr wo ,·cn. lt is difficult to anrihute the cost or examining a particular wi tn es$ to an is~ uc. Further. havi ng re gard 10 the President's commen ts i n Goldman v /)a/o General Australia l ' ty Ltd ( 1993) 144 QGIG 379. I cons ider that s. 106 is 10 be approached in a broader and more robust way. I reject the Rcs pondcnt·s appli ca tion for costs. I al so rcjc.ct th e App li ca111·s ap pli ca ti on for costs. The Applican t 's case was ""not u nworthy ofconsids:ration'' (compare R. v. ,\foore; 0.po rt e Federated .\fis,·ellaneous Workers ' Union of Australia ( 197 8) 14 0 CLR 470 al 473 pe r Gibbs J.). The Respondent was at ri sl; nf an order requi ri ng the App li cant ·s reinstatement. It was pro pe.r lo r th e Respondent to mount a detcncc. J do not consider the defence to have b ee n so conducted as 10 auract the ope ration <>f the pr inci pk in Ciold111a11 1· Doto Gene r al Austra lia ft y Ltd (1993) 144 QGJG 379. I declare that the di sm i ssa l of the App li cant by the Re spondent on I Au gust 1994 contravened D iv isi on 5 of Pan 12 . I order that t he Responden t pay to the Applicant the sum of eight hundred and fifty dollars no late r than 22 days after the date of this decision. Dated this l<:n th day of May . 1995. D.R. HALL. Chi ef Industri al Commissioner. Appearan ces : - R.H. Stcinit7. of R.H. Stcini tz & Associates for the A pp li cant. A.A.J. llomem an -Wren i ns trucl ed by Goss Downey Came for the. Respondent. Operative Date: NIA D ec ision - Compensati on Ordered Re l eased : IOMay 1995 ##1/##1/#######1/1/1/#########li########### ################## -- 3 of 3 --