Federated Clerk's Union of Australia, North Queensland Branch, Union of Employees v Cairns Based Hospital [1995] ICQ 29 (1995) 150 QGIG 1401

1400 ME T INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE [24 November, 1995 QUEENSLAND GOVER 24 ovember, 1995] QUEE SLA O GOVERNME T INDUST Rl AL GAZETTE 140 1 QUl:E\JSI A\JD 11\DUS I RIA i COUR I lnd11.11rial Rela1w11s AcI 199() s 118(2) - appeal from dcc1~ion ol indu)lnal commission I edcratcd Clcrh' Union of Australia, :-Jonh Quccn5land I3rand1. Union of l;mplo}ccs AJ\D Cairn~ BJ)c I lo,pual ( \"o C":!9 nf I 9951 JUSTICE MACKENZI I . l'RESIDl·.NT 9 1'o, emh.:r 1995 Appeal - Decision or lndus1ria l Commission - Dispu te Ma nning Lc,els of Ward Clerks - Lx1ra 1-unds Could h.: Gramed - <\ppro, al of Chief Execuli,e Required S1atu1or> Ood1es - Temporal') I mancial Accommoda11on - A ll eged Error of Law - the Considerauon of FIO\\•On - Repercu,,1ons of Similar S1aning Shonagcs - l\o Demonslrauon of I rror of La\1 S 319 of lndu.\lrl(I/ Relmions Ac1 /990 - Appeal Di,missed JUDGMENT The Federared Clerb • Lmon of Au,1ralia. '-orth Queensland Branch. Union of Employee, (FCUNQ) appealed against 1he decision ofan Industrial Co111m1"mncr 111 "hich he declined 10 m,11'e an order m 1hc appdlanr", fa\l>Ur in a d1,putc concernmg mann111g le,els of Ward Clcrl..s at Cainh Ba,e I lospi1a l. The Industrial Commissioner "as clearly conccrn.:d o, er 1he claim, and 1he decision rcflec1s 1h1s concern. llo"e' er. he 1001,. the , 1c" that he )hould 1101 deal 1~i 1h the issue 111 isolation The decision , l1tms 1ha1 he "as a"are of and 1001' mto account lhJI an~ order he m,idc \\Ould required re~ource~ 10 be d1vcned from other areas of the heahh S)Stem which the e, 1dencc c,iahlished m:rc also slrctchcd for rcwurcc:, The firs1 ground of appeal i, 1ha1 a passage in the dcc1,ion to 1he c:llcct thm !here \\ere no mcdiam,m, for ohlaming adduional funding ,~as "rong in la" hecau~c 1hc IIC'ulth s,,,.,,,ces Ac! /99/ and n,e S1a1u1ory Bnd,es I 11111ncwl 4rru11>!<me111s lei /9'?:! pro, 1ded \\ays b) "hich e,tra fund, could he generated In 1hc lormer. Mr Amerena fo r t he FCIJJ\Q relied partiwlarl) on s. 3.33(d) "h1ch obliges a Regional Health Authom~ 10 '"ohscne the bud~el binding upon it" and requires that 11 '"mu,1 001 c,cccd thai budgel \\1lhout lhc approval of the Chief I ,ccutiH". I le suh11111ted that the Acl contemplated tha1 on ccnam 0<:C,Mons an au1hor1t) could e,cc.:d 11:, budget with the Jppro, al of the ( luef I ,ccutivc. I le suh111 111ed 1ha t no evidence had been gl\ ..:n of ,111, a11emp1 by 1he Region to ob1Jin lhc appro, al of 1he Chief I ,ecum e 10 du ,o. He also relied on s 1.32 ,1h1ch declare, 1h,11 e"er) Regional l lealth ·\u1honl) 1s a ,1JIUlllr) bod~ lor th~ purpo.,.,, of flu: S1a1111on Bodt('S F111a11cu1/ Arr1111Kl!111e111s Act 198]. The primar) pro"is1on go,ern111g the h11rro\\111~• ofnu1ne) b) s1a1u1or) bodie-. i,, 22. Sect10n 22 1mposei. J struclured procedure for borro,\ mgs and other financial arrangcmcms Section 32( I) provides 1hat no twilh,tanding the pro, 1s1ons of s. 22 a st:lllll0r) bod) 1113) obtain temporal') financial acco111111oda11011 b) \\J) of an advance from an) ban k, building snc1ety or credi1 union by \,ay ofmcrdrall It may be doubted \\hc1hcr a bomming tor \\h,11 mJ) \\ell h.: recurrent spending \\0uld he ..temporary financial accom111oda1ion" \\ithin 1he llleaning of ., 32 1101,, 11hs1a11ding f\lr Amcrena ', nplimi..tic submission tha1 if the lndusmal l 0111m1,,1011er haJ made ,In order of lhc k ind sought ,1ppro\a( \\0uld ine\'itahly be f!I\Cn for pcnnancnl funding for add1111mal p<hllions 156662-98 In an) e,ent I am sati,lied that 1he argument anributes a \\Tong irucrpretauon to 1hc passage of t he Commissioner s reasons. Wh en read in cont.:\I II is concerned "1th the prac1ica l consequence, as 10 which there ,,ai. e, idence. ol tlu: s)Slcm of alloca1ing funding and of budge 1i 11g \,h ich operated in practice. The conclus ion was th a1 1h e prospect of oh1a111111g funhcr funding for addi1ional Ward Clerks "ould ha, c to he found "ith111 the Region or the Cairns ll osp1tal itse lf and t hai th1: restrai nt s ,,ere such Ihm some other area wo uld suITer 1f rc,ourc~-:. "ere taken frn111 it 10 mcrease the number of Ward Clerks. Thcrc \\a,, e, 1dence of some proposed rearrangements which \,ould allow some allcvia11on ol 1hc si tuation b ut not to Lhc cx 1e n1 sought b) the FCUNQ The lnduslrial Commissioner \\ hile d1sm1ss111g 1hc apphcauon e,pre"cd the , 1cw that such dec1s1on was ba~cd 0 11 the c:-.peetation thai 1hc proposals advanced before it wo ul d be honoured not"llhstandmg the Commission's decision to formally reJeCt the cla1111 Apart from 1he ground alle!!mg error of la" relating to the capacit) to generate further hmds it was subm1llcd 1hat th e Commissioner had erred in law by applying a different l>lan dard as bel\\cen pri, at~ and public sector cmpl0) ers and in taking into accoun1 \\hat \\tb rc:fem:d 10 in 1hc decis ion as ..,he considerati on of flow-on•· Mr Amcrcna suhmilled that the Commissioner misundcNood the con1cn1 and purpose of taking 11110 accoun1 flow - on cons1dcrmion~ in the proper c"crcisc of hi s discre ti on. It was ,uh111i11ed 1ha1 e,,1111ina1iun of 1hc conccp1 of flo\\•On demonstrated that II haJ nm been u,cd to rcfu,c a rcmed) for an mdustrrnl injustice because to gr.1111 it mi g ht lead LO similar in dustri al injustices c:lse,\ here bcing correc1cd l he poin1 about the last pan of the submission \\a, 1ha1 1hi: Commissioner rccogm~ed that to increase Ward Clerk numbers al Cairns I3 a~c Hospi tal wo uld hav e rcpercu)~1ons 1hroughou1 1hc "hole of the ho)p11al S)MCm. The under!) 111g prcm"c "n' 1ha1 a successful ou1come on the part of Ward Clc, i.. s would encourage 01hcr employees wi th in the syste m to mount similar c,h.:, 10 s.ipplcmcnl s1atfo1g numbers. The risl.. that those "ho,c applications ,,ere dcall with earl; 111 th e process m ig ht obtain relief but lho,e coming later might not only fail to obtain such rd1ef but h.: \\0r-.c oil h.:cau,e ol decisions 1aken to implement th e c.irlicr decis ions \\US rcti:rrcd Lo 'I he Co mmi ssioner al so observed that from 01her d ,pules "hich h,1J come hcfore the Commission he "a~ a".ire of mhcr arguments Jhout manning le, cls which would be given impc1us h) .111y successful 11utco 111 c of' the curre nt appl ic ation. Mr Amcn:11,1 sub1111ucd th,11. in ta'-.ing these l,.mds of considcra1ions i1110 account, the Commissioner h ud not opp lied the correct pr111c1ple I he proper '"'' require, a concession of lhe nght ol an cmplo)Cr to manag.: his bu~111css. subJCC I IO the safeguard tha1 1111cn c111io11 ma) occur ii the demands made of employees are unjust or unrca,nnabk \lr ,\1111:n:na u,nced,:d that there was no exprc,s lindmg 1ha1 cond11111ns were un.111, t and unreason ab le, b11 1 sub miu ed th,11 the degree ol concern c,pre"cd in the deci,ion \,as cqui"alent to ~uch a finding The Com1111,~ioner, rem..iri.., certain!) demonstrate on understandable concern ahout 1hc personal and ,) s1em1c problems c,tused h) staff shortage, IJm, ever. by the t ime Lhe matter was heard slep, \1crc l>cing 1akcn. \\lthin "ha1 1hc evidence clear!) c~1ablished \\ere se\ere budg,1,1r) con~trainL~. to provide some improvement by providing additional resources, ulthough not to the lc,el sough1. 11.1, mg regard 10 thc wa~ in which the decision was expressed, I am saris!icd that the Commissioner und crs1ood the proper principle and tha1 lllm he ,tpproached the problem "35 within proper hmtts I ,1111 ~a11,l1cd tha1 he did not ac1 on the pnnc1ple 1h.it ii ,,as i11app rop1imc w intervene simply becau~c th e employees in\'oln:d \\Cre 111 1he puhh~ se~tnr A g,>Od deal of c, 1de nce has t,.:cn gi, en about co11~1r,11111s 111 pract1cJI 1ern1, upon obtain mg additional fund~ 111 the i111media1c ,,o rk environmen t, in th e Region and frtlm the D.:p, rtmc111 •ener,tll} and the ahern.sll\es if a soluuon 17 178_ 1.D OC -- 1 of 2 -- 1402 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZE TTE f24 No vember, 1995 had to be found \\llhin e,1st1ng fundmg. This ctiulJ be 1aken 11110 account without ignoring the proper principles and without necessarily sub,cribing to the , ie" that public emplo)ee, \\CIC ~uhJCCl to more re,1ncll\C rules than pn,ate cmplo}ccs In m} \IC\\. 1hc Commissmner, approad1 Joes 11111111 all of 1hc cm;um,1Jnle, of the case dcmon,1rate an cn1)1 of la" Nor, as ""s ,11bmit1ed b) Mr Amcrcna. was 1herc an adoption of an) general principle which "as conlr.ll) 10 the approach of the '\ .I.R ( m cases ,uch as AFl I r ,. State Rail Authoruy of \SIi 295 ('\R 188 ,111J \lmmtr for Emp/o1 ment Ed11ca1ion & I raming , Cl'SC (u111cpo1icd. S) dnc). Prnll M2151) fhe junsd11:11on under \\lllCh 1hc ("111111m~s1m11,r \\3S 3Lllll~ 1s provided for 111 ,. 319 of the /11d11s1riul Rt•lmions , lu l</90. l he l,1ct that 1hcre is a public in1cre,1 n>mponcnl 111 cxcrc1~i11g ,uch a power and the brcad1h of the pcmer mal..c 11 difficult 10 succc-sli1ll} mamtam that .i Comm1s,111nLr has \\rnm•l> e,en:1-cJ the dasc1ct1on unless it is possible to 1s(lla1e clcarl) ,111 error of l,1\\ or somc1h1ng 1h.1t has been done that is clcarl) outside ,1urisdiction. The lallcr "as not suggested in submi,sion, and in an) e, cnt I am ,atisfied that the dcc1s1on not to make the orJcr, sought \\J" clearl) \\ithin the , .. opc of a properl) exercised d"cn:tion 'lo far as error of l,m 1s concerned I am satislied th,1t 110 sud1 error is dcmunstrated. I he appeal is therefore dismissed D.ited this ninth d,1} of\.oH:mher. 1995 K.G.W. MAC' l-.. f•,N /ll:, l're,1uc111 lppearances Mr M. Amcrcna (instructed by Nall l'~yne ( 1,t\\\ell) lor the Fcdcra1ed Cieri..,· Union of Australia. North Queen,land Hranch. Union of Emphl} ccs Mr J. Murdoch (111,tructcJ h) the Cro\,n Solic,101) lor Uie l'cn111,ula and forres S1r.111 Rcg.io1rnl I leahh /\u1honty Opaall\e Oak \. A Judgment I'( t NQ and ( .unh Base I lo,p1tal Rclca,cd: 9 \Ju, ember 199, 17178 I DOC r 24 November, 1995 ) QUE EN SLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GA ZE TTE 1403 -- 2 of 2 --