Barlow v Wormald Security Australia Pty Ltd, Australian Soccer Referees Federation (Queensland Division) and Yellow Cabs (Qld) Pty Ltd [1997] QIRC 80 (1997) 154 QGIG 953

21 March, 1997 166525--76 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 953 ########################################################## QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1990 s. 295 application for reinstatement s 295 - applications for extension of time Colin Joseph Barlow AND W ormald Security Australia Pty Ltd (No. B1208 u/1996; AND Australian Soccer Referees Federation (Queensland Division) (No. B1209 of1996; AND Yellow Cabs (Qld) Pty Ltd (No. B1221 of]996) COMMISSIONER EDWARDS 6 March 1997 Termination of Employment - Dismissal Application B 1209 of 1996 for Reinstatement Applications B 1208 of I 996 and R 122 I of 1996 for Extension of Time Applicant Did Not Understand Commission Adjourned to enable Applicant to Consider his Position Applicant Required to Present Submissions of Relevance - Frivolous and Vexatious Application B 1209 of 1996 Respondent to File Affidavit of Costs All Three Applications Refused. DECISION This decision relates to three applications by Mr Colin Barlow of \tt Gravatt East, Queensland. Applications B 1208 of I 996 and B 1221 of 1996 relate to applications for extension of time. Application B 1209 of 1996 relates to a matter filed on 2 July 1996 fo1 separation which occurred on 24 June 1996. Al the hearing on I November 1996 the Commission took the opportunity to outline to the applicant the importance of presenting submissions in a meaningful way rather than expressing personal views. In responding to the arguments concerning the claim I stressed that it was necessary to address the points of relevance. As such the Commission suggested to Mr Barlow that he should gain an understanding of the Industriul Relations Act 1990 which may be of assistance in hi~ presentations. These points were reaffirmed by the Commission on a number of occasions as the Commission had already heard application B 1085 of 1995 by Mr Barlow, at which time, by decision 153 QGIG 550-551 of the Commission, costs were awarded against the applicant. The Commission was concerned that Mr Barlow on this occasion did not fully understand the nature of industrial relations and continued to rely on his personal appraisal. Such appraisal may be accurate but must be supported by legal argument. As a result of the opportunities given to the applicant the Commission is satisfied that adequate assistance had been extended to Mr Barlow but he reaffirmed his decision to proceed with each of the cases now before the Commission At the request of the Commission Mr Pawlowski outlined the amount of research and preparation that had been deemed necessary by his clients for the preparation of the respondents' submissions. The Commission then adjourned the matters to enable Mr Barlow to consider his position. The hearing resumed on 16 December 1996. 22664_!.DOC -- 1 of 2 -- 954 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 21 March, 1997 The hrief imprecise submissions of the applicant have been thoroughly considered and reviewed by the Commission. As I have already outlined every assistance was extended to Mr Barlow. Indeed he was requested to present submissions of relevance. He failed to do so. In decision BI 085 of 1995 the Commission as constituted quoted the submissions of Mr Barlow in full. It 1s not appropriate to quote his submissions on this occasion. In considering the applications in detail I indicate as follows: Matter B 1208 of 1996 relates to Mr Barlow's employment as a casual -.ecurity officer with Wormald Security Australia Pty Ltd of 41 Pentex Street. Salisbury, Queensland. Mr Barlow was employed from 7 December 1992 until 3 October 1994 and made application for relief to the Commission on 2 July 1996. Application B 1221 of 1996 relates to an engagement as a hire driver with Yellow Cabs, W oolloongabba, Queensland in relation to a period up to I October 1992 with the application being filed on 2 July 1996. On consideration of all aspects but especially considering the lapse of time and the dearth of reasons the applications for extension of time covering matrers B 1208 of 1996 and B 1221 of 1996 are refused Application H 1209 of 1996 relates to an engagement with the Australian Soccer Referees Federation, Queensland Division (ASRF) for the period January 1993 to 24 June 1996. In relation to matter H 1209 of l 996, Mr Pawlowski on behalf of the ASRF responded in an appropriate and professional manner to the submissions of Mr Barlow which again had little relevance to industrial matters. Mr Pawlowski's submissions were supported by Ms J. Minchinton from the ASRF. So be it the Commission has given every consideration to the points raised by the applicant. I refer to my decision of 16 October 1996 when I made reference to the question of content and responses by the applicant and the parties:- ·'Jn researchmg material to form part of his submission Mr Barlow should have recognised that the material to support the application is minimal. This i;, further apparent by the length and content of his; submissions. Mr Pawlowski offered to provide the Commission with details of decisions on the subject. In view of the nature of the application the Commission has sufficient material without the material proposed by Mr Pawlowski. In considering whether an application is frivolous or vexatious, I refer to the definition of these terms (Exhibit 8):- 'frivolous Paltry, trumpery, trifling, futile; given to trifling, not serious, silly; vexatious - Causing or tending to cause vexation; (Law) not having sufficient grounds for action and seeking only to annoy defendant;'. Section 300 of the Industrial Relations Act J 9(X) provides a, follows:- 'Costs for frivolous or vexations applications 300. If it considers an application under section 295 (Orders only on application) is frivolous or vexatious, the costs the Commission may order against the applicant include costs of representation by counsel, solicitor or agent, whether or not the Commission has certified under section l 06 (Costs).'. refer to the decision of the President in Goldman v. Data General Australia Pty. Ltd. (144 QGIG 379-181 at 380) as follows:- ·These cases illustrate the long standmg philosophy of the Industrial Commission that in the absence of a frivolous or vexatious application or other circumstances that are abnormal costs will not be awarded in the traditional kinds of matters within the jurisdiction of the Industrial Commi!"sion . Application B 1209 of 1996 is refused. In relation to matter B 1209 of 1996 the respondent is requested to provide the Commission with an outline of cost~ incurred as a result of the application. The material should be filed with the Registrar in affidavit form within 7 days from the date of this decision. On receipt of this material the Commission will give consideration to an order for costs. I order accordingly. Additional The Commission as constituted has heard four applications filed by Mr Barlow. On each occasion Mr Barlow has represented himself and the Commission has extended considerable assistance. Mr Barlow continues to allow his personal desire to be of prime importance rather than relying on matters of industrial significance. Whilst the Commission has an obligation to hear applications and make determinations according to law, I bring to the attention of the Chief Commissioner that Mr Barlow is now subject to two orders for costs. Should Mr Barlow continue to file applications they would be decided, of course, according to law and not his personal views. K.L. EDWARDS, Commissioner. Appearances:- Mr CJ. Barlow on his own behalf. Mr S. Pawlowski of Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited, Industrial Organisation of Employers on behalf of Wormald Security Australia Pty Ltd and Yellow Cabs (Qld) Pty Ltd and with him Ms J. Minchinton on behalf of Australian Soccer Referee, Federation (Queensland Division). Operative Date: NIA Decision - Reinstatement Released: 6 March 1997 ########################################################## -- 2 of 2 --