Barker v R & A Services Pty Ltd [1997] QIRC 174 (1997) 155 QGIG 132

L.D 1:-. ~u; :;.1pp!ic;.r1icin ;\·instatent1..·n1 tc }"Jis formtT of OperDrinns Pry ! 1he resp1.mdun/ernpbyc.r·· cons.idered the fn, 9 , 1997 the Jpplicam Ii witne·~s i accept the applicant's \·ers.lon vf events in ro that outlin~.d by the respondent'~ v,·itnesses Upon evidence, which 1 a.:cepL am satisfied:-- Controller'' a m1sunderstanding occurred hei\veen applicant and f\,lf R. Short:.;,L a Dlrecto1 of the c.mploy~~r, in reiation to direction:\ given to truck driver TI10J Shorten said words to rhe effccr ''ifvou can"t do the bloody gd our of the cknr and t' U do l. Th:JI ,1bove Shorten spoke Luher ahn.:;ptly anJ angrily 6. s 'fhat the applicanr ende;nourcd lo explain his \itua1ion bu1 further rubust ex.change ,:--:ccuned primarily 1..)n tht.'- pJr:-_ Jvh Shnrten, \\'ho then :-nid \vord;;;; tn the efitct "you'ie iic bloody good to here, ynu wdl go hon1::...," Tint sine£' the :-ituation wor;-,ening, the applicant \Vent urn:.;;]Je the office to 1,:ons1dcr the ~ltuatiun. That \Vhen the appiicant went to pick up '·you can hand those back a-. wdl'' office J\1r Shorten Thm shDt1ly thcrea!t.er \Vhilsr the applicant \iut,ide the office tvh Galpin, another office en1pl,)yeej carnc out to rhe applicant and :-,;aid ''Rod suggested 1 t1ke you hntnc" Th~1t ~1s Galpin drove the applicant home in the vf;hicle normally used by the aprlicarn and during the drivt" hmne l'v1s Galpin ~,md wh:1i are you going to do no¼ tf' \Vh1ch the applicant r~p!ied "v,relL I don't rcaH;/ knrnN 9. That on 18 Octobt'T l 996 at approximately 7 30 a .rrt the ;:pplicara phoned '.V1r Shorten and said words to the l:ffoct '\,..,h~it' s U1e c;ituation \vjth yesterday? Maye J ~~till got job?" to which ?\,fr Shorten replied "no. don't fuck around \vhen conies h) lhe_r..,e uf thing;;. \Vlth aH the mistakes ynu ha;,.•e made thi~ \Vt:t::k this is the it h~iJ to happen ., further rohu~t dis1.:ussion occurred during \-vhich the applicrmt a;T~uigemcnts rn c01Ject termination p:1y ;Jnd coUeci his bt.:1nng1ngs aod rcrurn ~my property of the employer held by him doubt tbai \-fr Shn1ten i,:.~tJgak.d the angry exchange. on l 7 Octobt.'r ! 99b to \l,, hich the apphu:i.nr re:-:ponded in a ;noderm.e and acceptabk rnanner that he had on! y been doing the ,.fled contrnllintt' t'i:1r :~ not knu\V ihe \vork as ;.vel1 as tvfr Shorten 1,s,,'ho had been doing ~1pphcant' s ~,ubrni.ss1on is that he dl-;rnisst::d in that h,;:'. \Va:-: h-:·rrninatc.d Hpnn the initiative of the t·inployer, whereas on tn..'half of the it submitted that 1he applicant ahandoneJ his t~rnplo:vment or irnpJicdly n:~-,igned. I have ,H:cep1ed the factual :,.ituation as gens;'rally outlined by the ~rpplicanl and it _\,, upon those facb thar I dctennine Yvhcther the appbcant \N<lS di"ilni'.-.scfi. The evidence nf f.th Shorten fhil! rather a1.lld re,queq Uki.: ovt=:r was n;ade to lhc appiicanr \vho, f\.1r Shonen says, bc::arnc wmece~_,:.u-ily up;,,.et. In r11y vie\v tht: evidence of \Ir Sh01ten on ihi~ 1ssue w particular i', unrea~nnaf!lc and irnprobable ::md Ju.,,;t do not accept it In e,. cm ~ a!sc, was gc.ner.1Uy more impressed the appiicant as V/Hn_e;.,,;- note that ~·1r Shorten corn::e.des rh;n the appiicmt did ,:m l 8 Octcber 1996 and that the applic::wt asked he re,plied:- ''\\ .. rll oi_p.:1nusly )Ou're home thinkrnf about 1t and \vhak•.ver you'n". thinkrng ah\)Ut, you're :-.till thinking about il and 6 rnonths rinK. while ;.;ti!l thinking :1bout it, you'd better glve us an!)thcr ring_·, in vie\v \fr Shorten';,; own evidence, if I had ;10..:epted it. confirmed lh;..it he did not de::..ire the- Jpp!icaot to return to fn;,-; pt)sitH)D Effectively the IN DUSTR1AL GAZETTE terminated on the initiative cf the Shorten's own evidence 'The applicarn in evitk:nce t.h:.H r,,,-1r Shoncn don't fuck around v,,hen it those words dearly indicate •,;.:i:hout consideration for the reh:vmH provi~,ions of the Act. wh;.JJ rruy arnoum to a disn1is~al in ternis. the I refer tn t'. Rti:O C {lrnlustrlal Relations CunliBi~sion of ;""\ev,; South \\/ah.:s i St:p!en1b;,,::1 \hltc:n:in the Full J., :V1arks J and Connor CC_; ,;aid:-- conduct the real and effective iiittiator ihe terrn!nation cf ihc m- ernploy1nent and \.vas ~,o despite on tlk focc nf it the en·1picyee appc~tr's to have gin:>n his or her fC'"\if-TJ.atim~.·,_ A dc-tenninaticn depends un the facts of c.ach ca:-;;: :n this case rhe applicant invited by ~vir Sho11en go honie. he asked le• leave hehfrid the office he nonnaHy hdd all the tiine and another :;L:tft member asked to offer to drlvc hirn hoi:nc in the cornpany he nrnrnally drove \Vhdst it be arguable that a disn1i,t:;sa! had beer; -:ffectcd 17 Oct.oher l 996 1 in vle\v tht: isi,ue put tx':yond diY.ibt on 18 ()ctobcr l 996. approxin1atdy 7 .30 a.m. !he app1icu:t rang to enquire ~-11 Shortt·n ;:1~ to whether hts job \Vas stiH avhilable. Lndcr the circuntstaaces 1 consider such action the applicant rea~onabk ri.nd ;1ppropriJ.te i:1 vlt>w of the iinprnp:;r behaviour by ~1r Shortt-:-n on l October F>96 the applic::mt uu1g tbc pl!\!tion could have been retrit-:ved and :be actlqn lJ.ken rn anger on 17 October 1996 rectfied, rtg4iin f'v1r Shorten adop!t..'d an a!ritude Far from inviting ihe applicant to re1:.1tn or indicating avullahlc, i\1r n clear indication r.he Vv\lS nn longer ;:v:,1lahlc and that U1c retm n of the applicant not \\.1 ekorrn.: Up·m lhc c-.,idencc, \Vf11ch l accept I ~tr:; \at}'.-,fied that :vlr Shoncn did in such 2 w~1y to n:nder his condui:."t the real and e-ft[ctive ol 1h,_· termim11ion i..{Uih..·- OclolW: appiicant' s In rny \'icw any rea~enahle per,~u!l in tile applic-~im'~: po~ition rnter h~d bct.•,n J.her the c)n l .As I indic:ited earl]er, ! hat thc>'ct: had bc-t.":ri of the <lppi1c~1n1, requires dt:tL'nnin:-rtHm. \vas 1\Ar Shorten'.-: irnent1~)0 10 tern:liute thv and is;,;ue~ never put to 1.he app!ican! in proper in order to per1-rtit him to H!E'l.ver rhe aUeg~ition-;, ihesc mauers 1.verc not given as for dis1ni\s~1l at the nme 1md in any everH, upun the evidence, I ani not s;:.i.11.sfied thJt valid reason for di.'.'>rnis:.;;:il based on pt:rfn::T\;HKT, c::1pacity or conduct The appllcam ha:; me that his dismiss;d harsh unjust and unreasonable. V-/hi!st have already dc:1e:.•-1ai1H.~-d that the apphcant \vas <-Ji~;m.i~,::ed, 1t rckv:1.nt tk1.: the Sep:1rntiun Certificate (Exh!bit 2) i3sued on 8 ()onbcr l 996 stares rb::.tt the tcnnJnation v...-as due to "un~ulrnbiii1y fc1i type of v/fJrk ,, This confinns occurrt:d Th~ rcspundent could have ta\lly t)z:kt::d the :1ppropri;:-1re box indicatin;; th:1i the appi1cam ceas.ed -..vork Yoluntarily, hut did n(:it do S.J. r,_·sporid,:nr' s explanation in relation :o the S;;:p:1ration Certificate 1t w:b nm nnti! 2 l nr 22 Octohe,r 1t)96 that the respondt}Ht JotHcatcJ th;: th~it he applicant> h!JJ resign~d By then the rc~pondent had recei\'cd st1me on the i:;suc, 1n my view ~w aneinpt has been madi.: by thi" respondent tc bB:-.ed on rcs1gnatinn after ill~ t~vent wfk:n L.hff:cuitie~ b•:g:.n1 to ;,_';ri\i: but in •:ie-;,v the fo.cts just du not suppPrl Uw substantially affect,:d hy a letter received hy ernpJcyer Taxaiion Oh.ice, Child Supprni Agency, 1devarH tn the applicant. this 23135 l DOC -- 1 of 2 -- ]34 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE The appl1c:ant has satisfied n1e ttmt an employer/em.ployee re!ationship cxi:~rcd, that he dismissed m tenns cf 1he Act and rhat there \vas :no v;1iid reason for the dismis;.;aL I nn1st nov/ consider the relief 10 be znvarded. Reinstnterncm noi no\v sc,ught since rht.~ applicant after being ur.abk~ ro find emp!oyn1ent, ha~ set t.;p his {)\-VD snwH busine~s Rcirbtute1nent not practical hence I Vs:ili consider compensation. At terrninJtion l 8 October l 996 the applicant was receivmg $42,000 per annum plus us~ of utility. Approximately 2 weeks dism];,,s3) he began receiving uncmployn1ent benefits of $290.00 per ·,:veck. In eafly Jar:uary 1997 the: applic;,m made himself available to do cenain work for clients and up to the dak of the hearing had earned approxinwtcly $2,500. The applicant and hi, v.:ifr now cornmenced a 1,A,:hich earning S l 50 UO to ~~200_00 per week. The :ippiicam says that in 4 n1onths the bus~nt:ss shzKild be earning a rcasornhle income comparable WKth hiz: earning:-: \vith t!IL- re\pondent The applicant ~md hi~ wife registered a hu\ine:-,,;; n;nne on j 6 January 1997, then-;af-ter cornpietcd an we.ck course in srnJll busin.::~s mandgernent and at the lime of the ht:.arlng the applicant was stii! in re;-.~eipt uf unt.:mployn1ent. benefits in addition -.:;mne earnmgs. The arplicant is receiving some incentive a:-;:,i::.L..rnce through ~1 Governnk?nt Sd1emc '-Vhich he calh the "NIES Scherne". I find 1t .sornewhat dlfficu!1 to as:-:es.s with certainty the npplicilnf s earnings O\'Ef !he rdevnnt period atler 16 January 1997 I :irE sati"fied that the tipphcant has adequJ.teJy mliigated his loss and has nmde adcquGtc aucn-1pts to find ne'>v ernploy1nent Since the applicant seems to have adopted hj~ new business ;m acceptable equiva)cnl to his former employrner:t, l wii! assess compensNion for the period of l 3 wed,s from l X Ocrober l ')96 After deduct mg unemployment benefits for a pei j;.)d of i 1 v,.'eeb~, I detcnr!ine appmpnate compenSJtion of $7.060 00. ! :·irder that R & A Services Pty' Ltd do poy to I\1r E.hv~mJ Dougbs Barker the ;;um of $1:)60 00 within period 2 momhs from the duh' of this decislon The apphrmn is granted liberty to the date of this decision. The Commi½.s1on orders :Kcordingly. l\fr R Hra:s;sington, The Qucensl~md Road Transr,v;rt As\ociation lndu~trial Org;_mi~,atiun of Emphwcrs, _t\x the Respondent Company. Operative D:ite- Dedsion - R1;instatemem R~.1ea~ed: 24 ;-\prii 1997 9 , 1997 -- 2 of 2 --