Dowling v CSR Wood Panels [1992] ICQ 12 (1992) 140 QGIG 690

690 Q U EENSLAN D GOVERNMENT IN DUS TRI AL GAZET TE (7 August, I 992 QGEENSLAND l!'! Dl '. STRI.-\L cou1n /11dm1rial Relauo11.1 .· IC! J(J<J{l-/'-191 s. 9.2 - appea l 10 indusirial court Phill ip Cl aude Dowling AND CSR \\' ood Panels ( .\'n C7 of /99:!J Jl:STICE MOYN l H.-\N . PRESIDENT Appea l - Jurisdiction - R.:- in s1a_tcmc: nt - F'l'1 cr~1.:_--\,~a r d_ -:- Termin at io n of Emplnymcn1 - M1sc_onduc I - No11e~ ol Tr1111 1-, nation of Emp lo 1mcnt - Fcdcral/S tat_e l ntcrar 11 on - Lug ot Clai ms - No .lurisdiction - -\ ppea l D1 ~111 1\scd. .IUD(i ME'.'\T This is an appea l from a d ec ision of t h.:- _lndusu·ial Commission detcr min in~ that the Comm i s~ 1on had no Jun sd 1c 11 on,pursu ant tl~ s. J 1. t t ot t he / 11d11s1nal f<durums ·le/ . /()90 tO dc<1 I '' 1th _th e Appe ll a nt\ applic ation for rern st ati:-rncn t in _I m _crnploym~m, '" th 1hr Re spondcn l. The Comm t ss1on s dctcrn11na11on "as l?:1s~~ _on the conclusi on that an order of t_h_c natur_c ~ough! "<rnld d11cctl, i nter f ' re wi1h the adjustmen t ol rnd ustn al rel .111nn _mad _e h) the Award" . The Award in quest ion is the C.S.R. Othn:r, .-\ward. which is a Federal ..\ wa rd. Clause I 8 of the .-\ ward prn,·i dcs: "Termina t ion of Scn·icc An emp loyee's comracl of cmp loyml' nl may be ,ummar ih dCtl·rmined from his condu, I 111 wh i ch ra~l' no no tice ncl'd b..: gi,·,·n. Eit her t he cm plo , ec or lhC' <.: ompam· nia,· tcrm i na tr ll_w co nl rnrt of cmplo , mcnt by g1v I ng_ th,· _ap propnatl' notl(l'. or the: appropriaic sa lar, in li eu ol nollCl' may be paid or forfei1cd as 1h,: case ma) he . Th e appro pr i atC' notice shall be t " o ",,·b _in :he rast of (;rnplO\Cl'S paid fo rt nigh ~l_y or one 111\) lHh Ill the ca~c of cmplO)Tc'S paid month!,·. . Cl au se 19 i s a clause in .i c ommon enough ion~1 pr o, i ding gric, an,·l' pn.i rcd u rcs of escala ti ng elabor a11on un 11 l il nall)· t h<: ..\u~tra1 1an Industrial Relatio ns Commission may be 11n·o l\l'd. T he qucslion for the Commission was "h cth n t_he Com 1ni,sion·s. powers under s. I l. I I arc c.xcl ~dcd )'Y \'H t ll l' 01 thl' opr1a11on _ol t h<' ...\\\ard. pa rt ieularl,· clau se 18 s. l :>~ ol th ,:_ l u.,1 ml,an _l11du 1 1110/ Rci<.ui,111s .fr1 r C011 1111 m 1n ·eol1h J and s. I 09 ol 1hc ( on~utuuon. Cl au se J 8 of t hl' .-\ward de arl y cnoug.h confe r, a righ t on th r <.'mp l owr t<i 1e nnin a1c cmplo) 111 cn1 w11ho u t nom-c 111 the ,as~ of miscoridul't. and con tcrs on bo th crn r lo , er ant] l.'mpk l)l' c' _:1 ng ht 10 '1crn1i na1c upon the giving of rcqu1s11<', n011 cc or ma_k 1ng th e· speci fi ed pa,·mcnt. L;pon the p ron~ 1ll i1 S 01 t ht· c la usl' til'll1g_com- pli..:d wi th. ·the termi na t io n oi' emplo)m Crll " la \\tul - m t he sense of being au thorised. The rl'lc, ·an l test is 1hat containl.'d i ~ _1h c joint ju ~gmcnl ? l',(iib\)~ C J. Wi lson and Dawson J.ls. 111 .1// /. 1 . ,.•. I.I/SIi (_ ( ! )::l;>I !:> •• CL R at 642. The trsl was st_a_tcd 10 bC' 1ha1 a law ol thl' Sta te is i nronsist .:-nt wi th an .-\ward 1!. "i l s effect. if enforced. would be to d_1.·,tro) <11' 'a ry the adju stment of indu~1rial r da tions ,·st abl1sh cd by th l' ::'"ard w it h respec t 10 th e mailers fornwrl , 11 1 d1spulc • •• T ha t test was appli ed by 1h is Court in l:l 11 i11 I 1982) ()(il(i :18 . J should mrn tion that the appellan t t c_ndL'd the log ofd ai1~b gi, ir!~ rise \0 till' .-\ward lor 1hc pu rt) ◊~l' ot suh111 11t111g _lh,H the l og _d i e: not gi s-c rise to an issue of reinsiatcmcnt as cl1s~1 n_c_t from tc: 11111- nation uf crn pl o ym<:n l. It 1s _c kar_cn ou~h. ho\\c ,,1. t h~ 1 _1hc IO!\_ did gi,·c ri ,c 10 a consid l'rauon ol the regulat1~n or dc: lrn111 011 ol t he terms on " ·h ich the ,mploymc:111 m ight la~dully_h e: 1cnrnn_~t.:-d._ T hai bcin si. so . it seems 10 me tha t the < omnn s,1on c01_1cct l) conduded-1ha1 disputed procecd! t)gs und_n s. I l._l I " ·ould d1m:1I: inter fe re wi th the adjustme nt ol !n d us tna l r ela tions mad1.· h: the .-\ward. T hat scn ion allows t he ( omn11ss Ion ,,) undo all tl 1a1 "as done in rd i ancc on d ausc· 16 or 10 eompns,· conseq uence s " ·hich 7 August 1992] Q UEENS LA N D GOVERNM EN T IN DU ST RIAL GAZE TTE bc_ar on term ina tion in terms of the ...\ward. The decision of the H igh, ( uun 111 l1 a rdler/ l ns<'II Transpnn l11dus1n es -r- J,1 ·ar dll'l') ( 1978-79). 142 C LR d7 does not seem 10 me to assis t the appellant. The ca_se was ex plained i n .\!TIA (ante) a1 646 as being co nce rn ed not wnh the direct conflict between State and Fe deral lndu st n al Sta tutes an d Awards but dea li ng w ith the possible in eon- sI s1c_nc> · between a spec tfk Industrial Award and a State s1at u1e deali ng w uh a ge neral ~oc , al quest i on of equal opportuni t y. Scc 1ion 11 .11 docs 1101 prescribe parncular conduct: ra th er i t provides a bas is fo r the 11Hcr ven1 ion of the Comm i ss ion i n c ircumstances when ernplo: men! has been term i na t ed. Those circumst ances seem to me _10 be what arc regulated b~ the terms of 1hc Award. T he op~ra11on of S: 11. 11 wou ld "qual ify i n a fundamen tal way" th e ad.1u ~t mclll clkcted by the Award: See R ,,,, l ndus1rial Coun o( S11 111h .- l u.wralia e.r pane General :Hmors I/olden Ptr Lid ( 197 -·) I0 S..\SR582at59I. • J T he _cons id~rations be i ng t hose to which I have referred . it has not. m_m,· ,·Icw. been demonstrated that the I ndustrial Commission l'rrcd in ~ondud1n~ tha t II had no jur isdic t io n 10 dea l w ith 1he ap pellants apphcauon for r<'insl atcmcn t and I wo uld dismiss the appea l. Da ted th i s twen t y- th ird day of Ju ly . 1992. M.P. MOYN I HAN . Pres iden t. .·l/l/!/'(11'(11/Cf'S: - \tlr G .C. Mart i n ( in st ru ct ed b: Fcez Ruthning) for P. C. Dowl ing. :\ll r ,..\ .K . Herbert for CSR Wood Pan els . O pC' rali\·c Date: N/ A ...\ pp~al - P.C. D owli ng and CSR Wood Panels Rdcasl'd: 21 JUi ) I 992 691 -- 1 of 1 --