Dempsey v Colwell Wright Solicitors [1997] QIRC 5 (1997) 145 QGIG 460

460 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 31 January, 1997 ########################################################## QUEE!\SLAND INDUSTRIAL RFLATiONS COMMiSSlO\/ industrial Relation., Acl !990 s. 295 application for reinstatement Lynette Dempsey AND Colwell Wright Solicitors !No. Bl 175 of J995J CLERICAL EMPJ ,OYEES A WARD - STATF COMMISSIONER FISHEK 16Jamwry 1997 • . . 1. . .· Si· k leave l,ktrenchmcnt Reinstatement - t>rcv10w, )CCISIO~ . - ·_ ~ ~ hnancial t\ idencr 01x·rational R,.:qwremcnts Busrncs, downturn . . • . · · · '). ·al hat"'h Re•nsta,en,ent V· l"d rca~cm !\o consult<11ton .. I 1sm1ss . ' . . . . . a 1 · . r, 1 . 1 g ~·i vice leave cnlltlement im racticable Cornpcnsauon l. ase ,a\" ~on . . . . . . ~ p · be ·ct tt · T1 da"s of ·lt'c1s1on release :\pplh.. ant to Compensatmn to pat w1 un ~k : • ' • • • • • advise Registrar re cost::, argument .. ro~b retused tm ab,rnot,nment of pwceedings due to ;II health. DECISIO!\ t ,. ,ct hr reinst-1•e·n"'nt to her proiou, position Lvncrtc Dempsev ias appnc l · '' • '" · _ . 1 •• of Le, ul Secreurv ~nd Persona! Assistant with Colwell Wnght Soncttors. At theg q1l:;.1antive, hearing it became evident \.1rs Dernps<-'Y no longer sought reinstatement but the alternative of compensation. I . I "gal Sccretaf' with David Mrs Dempsey commenced emp oyment ,1, a A ' • . .J , , • • • r, Iv.ell & Co, a forn of Solicitors in Apnl 1986. In or al~out Stpt_cn,ber • J · . . l · . th Wendy v' 1 q;ht tu form 1987 David Colwell entered irnd .1 p,iftner~, up \\-1_ . . • '.' • • ;, thc firm. Colwell Wright and Co This partnership di,;wlv~~ •~ .:u1~ ; >9~ and Wendy Wrighl continued as u '>t)le _pra.:ut1oner ill the H,1, <> :~•. W~i ht Sol.icitnr, There i:, no t:videncc belm<· me h) suggest ;l.1rs ~;~n~::t} s_ g "" . trpatc{t a, other than contrnuous through the • ,1anccs ot sen'HX .. .1~ .-.. ; .• crnpioycr. I proceed on that has,,. Mr;. Dempsey', initial employment wa:, on a full llm<-' (40 lviur;, r::.· '--· ,· I 1988189 Mrs Dempsey sought to resign Ms '.\ ng wt:ck) \l.lSIS. 11 . · . b· ;, ,f. , ·d o::d working x::rsuaded her to remain m employment on the as .. ( ,1 :e. ~ . . , 1 , .' \,1r nempsev had proposed the shorter hours auangen,t:nt m heu <~ a ,vcu, .. ';'f·· 1·1w1M, Wright As a r,~\lllt Mis lkmp·,ey worked a 21112 p:w rh<: o t·1c, .. • · . . . It <.:t'.t·m, Mr, ho~tr week and continued to rec,·1vc full-time wa~c:-.. . . . , . . . ,. 1 l() ac--w· a, 11 ,he wa:-. ,1 full--time Dempsey·'.> Jc, 1 ve <.'ntllkments c,11,tmucu 1.-, ~ empleyec. A •u 1 19,;4 Mis lkrnp'>t", al!alll sought to re"lg:I' as ,1 result of lu · 0 1:-- ' ' ~ • • h 'h i •ft her without a d1<rngc:-. u offic,· acc-)1rnrnxl.it1on arrangt:mt:nh "' 1 1.. , t • . _ 1 . 1· I ' .• n wt 'O the k1t,:h:n Ai'dl l ,1, \\ n~ht 11.d not 11~tmc<l 1)1 le~ dn, p1ac.c.u ..~, , , .1c:cept her 1e'-lgn,1t1un a11d aJT,mged f.l1 .1 partll1m1 to be ht,1lt Mrs r_)cmpscv proceeded on \ick leave on 26 I\fay 1995_ to t,ndcrgo and · · · . · · . F . , , •k ·1bsenn· from Wlll"k was rcc:upcrate from rnaJor surgery. out_ v.u: ' ' . . . . "' • "eks anticipated howncr six weeks ,i;as later lound to be ~e(:c.~s,:•'-'. I:;:\~~- ht into her convalescence, Mrs Demp,ey recrived a Jette, ,rom ,·. ,~g,, ·id vising of her rctrenchmem Oil the gmund:-- of d d,)wnturn H1 WOI k _a!l<l. ,os. ~if prob\. \.1c; Wright paid Mrs Dcmp~ey hve week< v.ag:c\ m lieu of no11ce. \,frs Dempsey disputed the reason giYen fr,r her tcrminatinn clairni-'.1g t.:·lllwnturn W3" not apparent. She contended the under!ymg ie;Nm f,).' ·1w., ' · · h ' · •rv1 ,,. leave ]qbl ii\ diqmssal related to Ms Wright's C()ncern over er ;Olli:' ;.c \..- ' ·: ·h'l, to Mrs Dcmpscv and her unwillmgncs,. to ,:cmtmue tc pay an ernptoy<.'e w ~~ no w11rk was t--.eing performed. Mr~ r>cmpscy ha:, aho argued thatt t ~ j hi, ! ,hall dnl firstly wit 1 thcc !bmis-;al was har,;h, unjus1 an< 1111n:a;.om1 t:. · · , • i%uc (>f valid reason. "fhe fmn·,, ar)!:UlllCnt ic; that the valid rea,on related to its OfX'':~~ion~ rec uir.::m<.'nts. le argued thai a progressive_ downturn m hn~rn~ss fx,,urr e t. 1 •qo, when Ms Wri£ht made a consetous dec1<;1,·,n to w11,d dov,n th r,)rn ' . . - I I . t . t , ··, In Ma) iq!Jl practice to con,;entratc ('11 her property ( evt: optfa'.n Ill C~l--'~- :1,. h ,J to 19C/~ when the !inn wa,, increasingly m ovenlrnhM\ \\n;2.ht s_aH, ',t: \1• , • • »· • ns ·tblwt improving the finn·:-. fina.ne1a! ,:tuu11on A~ rs llldr-.t: ut,;c1:-10 •, · . , ..-·ct, ,. I" . ploved n, ,. , , . ~ the firm's hidiest cost empwyee (,)ut-1 e nl th.. em • , ,cmp.,c) "' 3 ·· ~ . . 1 M l). 1 . , •. ', wnrk wa, S(>!Jcitor). she was selected for d1scm:ssa. ,r, ,.cn.p,1_;: · · di,;trihuted amongst the remaininf! cleri,al CIIIJ'loyce~ r 31 January, 1997 QUEENSLAND GUVLRNMFNT rNDUSTRIAL GAZLTTl:, 461 Tr,HJing, p10fit a;id Im,:-. q:ucnH:nt, and balance .,ik'ch for- ( ·o:wdl Wrid,t St•licitors for the period of th,: forn1h:1al :,c;u~ c·ndrnt-'. l 99 3 wer~ ier,den:d. ·1 he ~a,nc type of fm,rnci;il d(),:urnentc1tion f,,r Dt'rnafi,:ld l"t} L:d, tht· ,,en ice company which empl,·y,·d s,·,,,:r.i! ,wlf nf Colwl'il Wnd,1. \Va~ aL.;o rrov!ded in addi1t1,n gtaplucal rt:prc~cntati,,,rr--: uf Jnc~)ntl· and c\fX'athture ovr.:r rhc pcri,)d \\t:Jt'. 1cndcn:d ,\ll of this malt'rtal wa~ pn·part·d hy auouniaill\ ill Mdbou111c f>:h \\'rl1-Tl:l ½·as cro\:----t::-<arnined un rnuch of thi:.: financial data anJ at tin1c~ ;,.\ a:-- un;i'.;k to an~wcr ,rx:cific quc:,l!on" "T!m, 1,:d lu a ;·,:qilc::--t lrnm \-1r Fotdc !he Barri:-~ter represenrinl,!. Mr~ l)en1p:---cy,, for 1hc :~t1 urct: do\..-:tHn~ntatHJn fro111 1,yiuch th<.' financial :,tatement:- had been pr<.T•ared Lu h,: prnv11kd fie da,mcd without. ti1i~ information f\1-. ',V! irht', cbi1m (If a duwuturn i:1 bu~.in,"" ,,,,u1d 1101 he proper!) estahli~hed. In return ~.t,.; Wn;,:ht ofkrc:d w ~-;ill tlw A1x,·-unt,mb to give evidcnci:. V✓ bile ihc app1ica!1l 'f\H:-,. dcnie,d au...:c:),1.- source rnah:naJ ·"oughi inhnnail)- I !l()fe that a forma.l llrckr fur di,c,0 \cn ot th;--. material wa:, nm wu~ht by th,, aorl:cant it ~e<-'llb le me 1h:1t had the ma;,:1-,;il h,;en CDll:-Hkn:d tc- t,., t'~"ential 'io the applicant'~ ca·,c, f.mnai pw;;e~~t:~ ,,h,,u\d h,\.V<-' l'l·,:n pU',ued before 1he hearing c11mawncc·,i In irn) ,;vt·nt I am 11n! -.ari-,Jied ,it,_· ,ourn: 111atc1 ial wr,ul;l have provided gn·at.:r a;.,1,tamc t, 1 the Cmrnui.,_,ion than tht' financial statement:-. and income and cxp,.:nditure gniph, prP\ 1ded It i, dear that undei ,. 2911A of the !ndustna! Rclm:on~ ACI ii)<.;() th, employer i, rcquin:d to pn,vc the e;11p\oye<-' v.a, :li~rnis-..ed for H rc;i,1m mentioned ins. 291 I )1h1. in this ::a,e. the opeiational rcquin:rnt.'nh ,,/ !lw bu-,im:,,. Financial documentation. toge1hcr with ;llfonnatinn concerning the ,taff lc,d, of the firm over the period m quc',,t10n. b..., been tend,,r,·d ,,, prool of the (:owntum such that the dismi'-,sal was 1-".:rrant,:d. In niy \ iew the finant.'.!:tl and staffing materiai tend,:rcd 1,; ,uffo:icni. for tr1c Cornrr:1-,~1on to form,, view as to whether a downwrn \va, being ex;x:1 icm.ed and ultiwatdj wht:1ht·1 the v,tlid rca:-,mi ad·,anccd hy the empluycr for the di,mi:-,sal i,, pn,,ed \i', lie11 die pannei,h;p betv.ecJ1 Da\id Colwd! anJ \\'\·t,d) v:1,;2:h1 con,n1t:r.. ;cd. the firrn haJ tVvo office~ one locat1:d at r\,plc, a11-t the· 1•thcr a: Butp<onpirv. l\1r Colwell ran the A•,plcv office while t,1~ \\ rn.:ht cond11c:tnl bu,me·,:· from tht~ Hurpcngary offio: At one ~ta_ge the firm c,.panckd ll:, op,:r:1ll()Jl, lo four offo:,:, iw'l111 1inr Br,lwn, P!:iin:, and C;,b(,oilmc· n11 810\'11' Plain, ofti.:e v.<1, cio~,.:d 111 J() 1J2 ,md the Cat0 o<>lturi: uffiu· ,;,a, rnoYcd f\1 \.1oravticld in or ahot:l I •.HH). ,'vh Wright cc,ntinucd to rcn tlK Burp<·i,gary and Morayfield office', until the c!o,urc of th<-' former m ! 1 c1lJ-l Mr ( :ilwel! :it all time~ operated I!w .A.~plcy o:lice and und..:r,tan,i IK rc1,uncd thi, offi,x for :1i,; practiu· 1,n rhc' pai!mTs;hir di,,olrninn (ml) the Mor,1yiicid oftizc wa, tradin~ a, Co:,,el! \\'right ,'wli\..ilo;, \.~,:her: \'1r...:_ J)1.:rnps.cy \.\'~-1~ .Jlsrn~\.,'-)r..:d \.Vbilc lh\.' fjn;_trh:·ka! ~,ittterncnt--~ fur th.: pallut:1,,h1p have: di,tingui-..hcd the" A,pk) cfficc. thL ,wtL·ni,.:U•· ~hov. con:hin,:d data for Moray field mid Burpen,mry. Thu,, a di rec: compai i·,Pn bet,»'en the Moraylidd dhce tor the financial ::,,.:ar, 199 "IN 1 ar:d I1>'·/ iF.h cann1,, be drnwn What i, appan:111 h(iv,.e-.t:r i:•, rhc rc0 d<Jl"ti!>ll p; appnni1rn11cly ;n fr1•,; and o,Hla~, wn1\crcd and the more 1h,,n hah i111· of th,: wage, hli \\'hdt' p,u1 pf the •·t,d11etiun\ wr,\!k: he aurihutahk u, the clo:--urc ,)! the Hurpeni!ar:, office. the reduction m v.aJc~ i" :,11pp,,rkd staffinF iit=ure,; whi,:h -..11cv. a prot1n:,c,iH' pruning: of ,tatf nurnl-....,r, I he-.c and ti-ic· aih,tation/rcallocation ()! dutie, demon.<;tralc', lha! th,: ,r,;aila! 1lc ,,,,,~ W,t, l><.-11,t, f'(:rfiinned hy fcw,·r peopk Thi,• ,nontbiy in-::unk' dnd expenditure graph 1t:xhibif 28 Y pnn'i1.l:~"-: th"'· be,t "'w:,: ,if rnfonnatin;i ,,f the firm', financi,11 ,1a.1Js Ir p;irticuiarl:, usdi,l 1.i a·,,ec,,ing f>h \\'ugltt'~ cb1m thd ctc:ti,,n bad to hs: taken j,, \-b 1 19'J'i reduce the firm', p,u;ou, financial p,h1linn. Tiw tlr:tph ,hO\\', ihai for the tir:,t •;iK month, of the l 99,1/9'.', finanual rncome lon,,1,ii:nrl1, exceeded cxpcnoi'.ure; ;.lthou~h for tw:, Pfthn:,,• mon:h',. !he c,c,:s,. v.a, <,nl) n1iniu1;,L Prr;hk·nh l..:L::an 10 en1crt~(~ in the ,,ccond \ix 1non1h-... f«'or oJ tho:-c rn«nui-.. expendit~J!e e,;:e,·dc;i inu•mc au! in the :rn1n1h, \I:t;, Junt-. lhl' ,Jwnfa!l \Hh ,ip1ificant Cciwinl:, th,: inc·cn11.: 1ccct,l'( 1 v.,,, g~ta!,·i !h:,n !he <:xpcnditure for 1i1,· tem,11nrn1,: t:u,:c n1onth,,, :iPv,,:,,.:r 11 'A,::, by llltl1'H ;,mo1.m:,. On Prlc' occ,l,;,on l! w~i~ clo-.e tn hrc.d,l'H''I ( >thcr evidence also .-..h 1,)\V' tlLtt th,,: Pt the ~h..\,:ocunndation reduced significantly w;th ~1:-, V. rifht d.,;~1dinr-:. :~ut·,Jcr r~-til ·,)t H1t:' prcrni\e,. 10 other hu,inc~,e,. ()n the n1~;t~rlal I arn ~--ati-,.:ficd tha! th\.~ finn \.va:, ~XJ)encncn1J: 1,u,J1 dov.niurn :n bLi:-inc,s that wugh dcci,ion, had hi he mad,: /\t tht ti1ne nf her di.1;rr1i;,.2'a! ~fr·,, l)ctnp:--:t'~ in n~cf•jr)t o! renumnatwn •:alu,:,J at S6k0 pc, 1.,,,xk Thi'- ;imnunt 111, ludcd a <;,),~ p,.:r V>/t".{;k nucndance bonu,,, and a 1x:trol allo\\ani_:,c of ~30 J"k:f \veek. t lv1:-, \\/righ~ S2tl p1::r \\eek) 11-1r, iklll(''-'·-~y', v,agt·, ul ~~6:25 Vien: in ful1-!)1nc crnplo>t:c and \.'.t~nainl) the av,idr,J rate 1or a per...;, }n enyaged part tirne. rhc w:~!.~e~ b1)ok .1rH1 :,)th,;;r t.,"\'Hicnce al~o n:~\t:al,.; iv1r~ [tenip~t:y·" rcrnuneratit>n tc be ~ub,,1:;1;1ri:dly t!rcater than 01h1-:•f t"1nployec1,,, !1nv:t~VL"r cng:;1gcd. { )n thi;., ha;,,,.is i ,Jill ,athfa·c that as ~,h~ lk,up-..ev v. ai 1he high<.',1 cn,t empluyec in a firm t~•,T>(TJrn.:·ing financial pres,,ur('.:: her diq11ls~nl on the'.-)c gn>unds C()!l:~titutt..::'.~ a valid rv,,:-.on. l •,hul!ld add l an: -..:ni•,ftcd the employer h;1, di,chari-'i·d it-: , H"H::-: ,)!" proor Bt·i,}n: ;.u.idn:>,:·,in~:.:. the i:-,;:.;ue ot \-Vhl~th,.~r t.hc di:..:nii:-,:-;a! ·..va!'J harsh. unju:--;t or unr\:a,,im:1bk. I -.h,,ul,I rt'turn to 'v!r, lkmpsey·~ ,:,·-n!ertinn ,if the underly inf! re ... 1,,>n !or he1 Lfr.,mi,-,\al hein!: rel:H<.'d tn t1er fonbcominr !nnt~ ,.. ,•rvin· Jc;;\ c TP ~upprnt !hi,, contu1ti,m \.0 Vi(k11u: wa~ called fiom A11gda K1<1ltman who ha(! hl'L'll l:mployd at the legal practice hetwixn Jul) l 092 and :'~ovcmocr ! ' ( , [\'!, Krdlllltan reli~k'd a ,:,m\eN1t1on l1i.:twcen r,er,,clf ;md M'.) Wright wh;,·h 1r,z1k place in or ,,bout ,\.UfU•,t t '-N5 Al that time M\ Kratunw, wa<, :h•,;>lir<::' the firm Pn an unp:,id ha,i:,. Ms Ki;,111nan said l\h Wright told her ~lr,. D,'iilfl-":) had u be di-mii-,:,ed h<·,·aw,c :..lie Ci>u!d m•i affrnd tu pay Mr» [)cmp:,C) her lonf' -..uv,n: le-ave ,md holidar, with,1ut ,\Pr!-. t~:ing prrformc'd 1n n.:t:Jrn Cros,-cxarnmd nn 1i1i, matter M~ Wright did not deny rh,: thru"t of the ,:,m>.<.'r:..mion T(• tt:mix·r thb c\'ldenu• M, Wn?ht uillcd Seth Peach, a clu:,e hu 0in<.'s-; as;.Pciarc. v.-tio g:,ve <:vid,·nu.' of conH~r\ation~ hdd wi1h l\·1rs t kmp-..ey wh,·n: ,he indic,lled her di~,arisfaction with h,·r cmploym,:ni and in1,·111t,J11 Id lni·,,: ix:fr,rc t1cr ten year~, sen i,:c liad been completed. Any c:.m\er\atiorh of th;~ nature v,,:rc dcm,:d hy Mrs lkmp,,ty. -\ftt-r 1'Pn,;i,L·rinr lhe t:vidu1c:,· ,rnd dc111ca11rn,r ;)/ dw ,:,u11•11» w111w,,e, rt'lcvam to thi:, i;,,ue, I found Mr Pcady not k• lx:: ,: particubriy ut·dihk 1-':itm'-., Hi:, eVJdt·ncc v.a:, vague wid un,:omirn;ing M" Kwuman hovvcver prT:-,cntcd f:1\ oura~l) 1-kmg no longer an cmployt:\'. of lhe firm. :-,he tu:, no p,irtiudar rn•.llivatic,;i ir μi, mi cvidcncr unfavourahll' tu M,-. Wnght. it mu,t hi )'.l\l'll Wt'iFhl t·,p,•ci.ilh a·-. ii v.;r, ge11e1all:, ,ur1;1,Jri<'d hy l'vh W1ir:ht A,ldin12 to ,he appli,;ant', bci,c-fth,H h1:r long ~-l:'nici: k<1ve infiucn,;,;d :h,: dc('J\HH1 w,r, ibe tad her employt'r tcrminaicd he, cmpkyrnent. If M, \,\."1iF'11·, cLti,11 •>vi:1di11~ du½11 the !q:al p1auicc \\a-, true, thl·n it had ,2,..:ncral!~ lx:,~n t!h.' ;.thii11;1 tl1 11:duce staff titrou,eh natural attrition. M~ Wn;,ht h,11J th,· ix:rti:c:' opponun:1; to cont:nue with her prnctice DI ,,art n:'d 1ct1ons ,.m tbi, ha<, wh,:n l\.fr, Dcmp 1-cy rcc,igncd in /\ugu,, 1994 N,,t ,mh did \1' \\ ri!-'hl refu-;c t.: accept l\.1r,, Dernp,ey·s n:si)!nation, ~he a~.:.--..:utll!fti.)dat:.:d h,.:r co1v..:e11h uve1 uif1t'C space. Sontt~ eight tnunl!r..; 1.alcr aihl tlun t wc'lvr- CH ,i:th,-, hi:L>re ,be hdicwd h,·r Jong ,en icL' leave became dtte, ,:he \VJ,1\ di>~tnt-.'.,t'd l\.1r~ D1.·:npscv · ), v,e,, o/ th,.: re,hnn f; ,r iie1 di,mi"'al ,1c1rnned part Iv :i<1rn h,:r belief ;ha1 !:ti h,n,: ,1'n- ice leave kit due ,.m her tenth anniversary F·.'.>.idcncc fr<'ffl M;-:. \\/nght ~u~.. gi::-:~cd ~v1r<, l)cinpsey·s lo11g "t~f'.:i.:.:,,.; Jcavt" \A,\1:-.. :nr dw: 11anl 1997. ,.\i1hnui:h it i, unnccc:,1,,1ry tn dett:r:ninc thi;, i,,;ue ifUllt"di;1te 1;· H 1, :·\1d,'l't 1ha• l!Jl' 11npo·,! ni t:'1,· !oil~'. ,-,~:ni,:e lt-;11e liahilit~ \\:t, a ;;1ctw v.hid1 a,:ded w .\1, Wright', concern that .\1r;, lk111p,L'y \\a, th..: hit!:hl"'...f ,:0:,1 \.~111ployt\' I b(;,;f1t·ve then: ;...; 1ns1Jtfici~nt rnaterial hct(Jrc n1c tiJ cllncL1.•,i \ e!_1 determine th:it du: di,mis,:il n.:-..ulted ,oh,I ~ from an urP~vdhnfU1f''S.~ tr: rnl."ct Jong ,crvicc ieavL) 1iahilltie~. ;\1rc, Dc·rnp,-cy wa~ the loni::~·,t ,;,.:n·inf e,npioyce ol th,: tirrn through ,b v:mou~ rnunnation< She had a do.•,<-' '-v(d,lll)! rclatwn,hip wi:h ~b \\'right Pwr tht: cour\~· o! her cmrluymcnl M:- Wrip:hl had '- i'Sited ~fr, Dernp,e:, durin_c- her connle,,·etKT hut g:1\t' nn indiL'atio:1 that the firm wa, c.-qlCriern:rng f111;111ci;il d;fficultics 01 that :staff number\ (ur hu\;h) llccJed !P be rcduc,:d While other ckricd staff in rhc ,)!:'ice "ere n>n,uitcd about the m,:an,, h\ v.hich \fr-, D~·mfht') •,hnt:1(1 be termmmcJ, -.\hrlc on ·,icl-. bnt' or her r1.:turn f;) v,.-ork 1 '.\,1rs f),_-rnp:<c-y \1;,';,t~, not cPnsulted on any rn~HlCI ,,·latin;: !wr ,.:n:plPymcm .Spccifi-iaily ~ht' wa, 1101 c,m,ulted 1.ner whether ,Jw v,o;,l,j I'<' p;q1a1cd i" w;m,H,).!t' lwr v.orl,i,1['. hPur, 10 a\,i,t rn the n di,1nhu1i,H: ·.vc,,k tu 111cct 1!x ,irx:mti .. m..11 n:qtliremc,w, ul the hu\ine,,--; \h \\ 1:r:ir did d;1im ,,h,, di,n:,><.'cl pnkntiai j, "" ui ernrloyment Vvllh M:·, i k,lljN') '.\far:'h l t;(,..J. i J, · :1(:t (Dlbida tin~ tu he miequ:1k whet: 1h1: d,-,mi,,a 1 wok p!w::;; m( 1 rc th:m twclH month, la1cr V/hiic thi,. {.(i11,1m.,s1,,n·, l"enmnab>n. C'hanf!c amt R,:dundancy pohc, doe~ not apply in !hi, c,ht' g:iv,:n th<-' number , 1f employee, nf the pranic<.', the general p~1do:--,ophy of [intc1:: con•.:uila!ion e1nho,lled in 1h,11 poJicy i" ,rill rele'-.-ant f ;,i n1n the e\ ir!cncc i, ch:i;,r !\1rs I)en:p'.'-.ey \'\'a,, npt con-.;ulit>'d either during -- 1 of 2 -- 462 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 31 January, 1997 the time Ms Wright was considering restructuring her practice or after a definite decision had been made. While all of these factors have been influential in my reaching the decision the dismissal was harsh, un.1ust or unreasonable. two other matter/'. have weighed particularly heavily. Mrs Dempsey was dismissed while absent on sick leave. She had sufficient accumulated sick leave to cover her intended absence. No prohibition against the dismissal of an employee on sick leave exists uniess it occurs because of the illness or injury or is captured by Part 12, Di vision 6 of the Act. Howe,er, to dismiss a long serving, proficient employee during approved sick leave without warning is especially harsh. The second factor of concern is that Mrs Dempsey lost her penna11ent position while a short term casual staff remained engaged and had her hours increased to accommodate Mrs Dempsey's workload. The employer argued Mrs Dempsey was selected for dismissal because she was the highe).I cosl employee Her wages and emoluments exceeded tho,.e of other -;taff esptcially when viewe..l in the context of the number nf hours worked. The :-.ituation was however that (putting aside the argument over the quantum of the petrol allowance) these benefit). were agreed to by the employer during the time the legal practice was being wound down and the firm's income shrinking. Given the firm':-. deteriorating financial position, especially ,ts it appeared in the second half of the 1994/95 financial year, no attempt to renegotiate these overaward payment-; was made. Neither does it seem that an alternative to the dismissal of Mrs Dempsey wa... considered. On the basis of established industrial principles. short term casual employees should have been the first to be considered for dismissal rather than a long standing, competent employee who was capable of performing the work perfonned by the cas;uaL Although it is true other staff absorbed Mrs Dempsey's workload in less than the 27½ hours worked by her, it may have been the case that Mrs Dempsey was able to do the work of the casual. The employer disputes Mrs Dempsey's flexibility to take on additional work, however. the reality is Mrs Dempsey now works fulJ.time hours For all of the above reasons, I find the dismissal to be harsh. unjust or unrea1,onable. I now tum to the question of remedy. Mrs Dempsey no longer s~b remstatement and given all of the circumstances of this matter I find reinstatement to be impracticable. On the matter of compensation Mr Forde and Mr Herbert presented ,;tarkly contrasting submissions on the method of calculation. Two approaches on the assessment of compensation appear to be in evidence in this jurisdiction. One method is to calculate financial loss to a maximum of six months' wages (less money earned in mitigation) (sec Lucas v I.lither tradin:,; as Radcliff, Lather & Buckiand and Golden Port Pty Lid 153 QGIG 1542) the alternative is the global sum approach (see Tripp v J.P. Trading Co. 153 QGIG 627 ). Regardle~s of the approach adopted, the proponents in this matter would seem lo agree that the maximum amount of compensation available is not LO exceed six months' remuneration calculated on the basis of the rate of remuneration paid to the employee immediately before the dismissal. As I undcmand it the period of sick leave was to run from 26 May to 7 July 1995. Mrs Dempsey was paid for three weeks' sick leave and with the payment in lieu, she was paid until 20 July 1995. On the following day Mrs Dempsey commenced temporary full-time employment with David Colwell and Company, Solicitors and was permanently appointed on 7 August 1995. On thi,; basis, her loss is limited to the difference in wages and other benefits from Colwell Wright to her new employment. Then: is also the matter of long service leave which I shall return to shortly. In Mrs Dempsey's new position she earns $125 h.:ss per week in wages. There is also the matter of the attendance bonus and the petrol allowance which has been foregone. These appear to be benefits which Mrs Dempsey would have ordmarily received had her employment not been terminated. They should be factored into the calculation of compensation. It has generally be.en accepted in thi~ juri:,,diction that an employee has an obiigation to mitigate their los, Thi~ Mrs Dempsey has done by finding alternative employment commencing when her paymenb from Colwell Wright Solicitors ceased The new empluyment is however full-time and attracts a lesser rate of remuneration. Irrespective of the approach to the calculation of compensation it seems to me I should award $3 890 as compensation on the basis of financial loss resulting from the dismissal on 15 June 1995. The loss has been calculated on the basis that had Mrs Dempsey not been dismissed she would have remained on sick leave for a further three weeks at a rate of $625 per week incurring no financial loss. On her anticipated resumption of v.-ork her remuneration would have returned to $680 per week however the pay in lieu of notice was in fact $55 per week less. This loss continued for two weeks. She then sufkrcd a continuing loss of $180 per week. Given the time constraints on compensation imposed by the Act the maximum number of weeks able to be taken into account is twenty-one. In determining the amount of compensation consideration has been given to whether the loss of long service leave entitlements should be included. This is one of the factors outlined in the global sum approach espoused in Chmery v K/emzig Nursing Home i55 SASR 544). Mr Frnde reminded the Commi..,sion bec:ause of Mrs Dempsey's age (48), she i, unlikely to accrue another long service leave entitlement Balanced against this is the strong argument that no entitlement to long service leave was due at the time Mrs Dempsey wa.-.; dismissed nor did it fall due within the six month period allowed for the calculation of compensation. In addition, given the prohibition on age based retirement, Mrs Dempsey could still accrue long service leave in her new employment. I am not unsympathetic to the argument that an employee dismissed after nine plus years' service, especially where conduct, capacity or perfonnance are not in issue, should forego a long service leave accrual. While Mrs Dempsey's propensity to resign and the timing of the second resignation have also been considered, I am of the view, based on the evidence, that having reached nine plus years' service, Mrs Dempsey would have served the remaining months to reach her tenth anniversary. Given also that long service leave has been found to be a probable factor in the decision to dismiss in that it contributed to the view that Mrs Dempsey was the highest cost employee, I am of the view that compensation for the loss of long service leave credits should also be awarded. The loss of such credits is a direct consequence of the dismissal. This approach is consistent with the Chene!)' v Klemzig decision. Compensation for the loss of long service leave credits have been calculated prn-mta on the basis of the Act provisions. Reference has previously been made to the rate of accrual being as if Mrs Dempsey was a full time employee for the whole of her employment. It is also my view her long service leave entitlement wouid have occurred on 2i April 1996 and 1101 after M-. Wright had been the employer for ten years. As I said at the outset no argument was made Lhat employment was not continuous through the change:,, of employer. Mrs Dempsey's wage of$625 per week has l:xxn used a~ the basis of the calculation. In my view the petrol allowance and attendance bonus should not be included: long service leave is calculated on ordinary time earnings and such allowances would not normally be included. I have calculated the long service leave entitlements on the hasis Mrs Dempsey had nine years and two months' service at the time of her dismissal on 15 June l 995. Accordingly, an amount of $4 962 is ordered as compensation for the loss of long service leave credits. In !he circumstance:,; a total amount of $8 852 is ordered as compensation. The total amount ordered remains less than the remuneration I.he employer would have been liable to pay Mrs Dempsey for the six months immediately following the dismissal. The amount of compensation is to be paid by the employer to the applicant within 22 days of the date of release of this decision On the first day of hearing of this matter, after Mrs Dempsey had been cross-examined, I adjourned the matter into conference before another Commissioner to sec whether a settlement could re reached It could not. On advising me of this. each party advised the Commission of their n:spectivc offers and indicated their intention to seek costs in the event the amount of their offer was ultimately awarded by the Commission. In view of the amount I have now awarded, the applicant is required to advise the Industrial Registrar in writing also within twenty-two days a, to whether she wishes to proceed with a costs argument. One matte; relating to costs has already been debated. It involved the abandonment of proceedings due to the apparent ill health of Wendy Wright In relation tn rhis malter the Commission has heard argument from Ms Wright, her treating doctor, a private investigator employed by Mrs Dempsey 31 January, 1997 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE who observed Ms Wright attendino n"r office wh"l h II ., d . . o .., I e s e was supposed to b,;, 1 , ,.n a Sohcllor from Crowley and Grcenhal h h • · 'o- f M w · , · g w o gave evidence re"'an mg s nght s attendance at a Queensland Bt ·1d· T ·1 (QBT) hearing. ' · ll mg nounal The evidence of\1s Wright's treating doctor is that he was ~atisfi d h complamt was genuine. He provided her with d" I . . ,, , e er a me ica cert1ficate to cov . non-attendance at work and at Court I 1 · . ei r , . ' . , . n re at10n to the other evidence ,emtmg to Ms \\ nght s attendance at the QBl- d , • h h ·1 I _. an at work, i am satisfied t at w t e s 1e ~,gned legal documentat'on i- h. h h . " " "bl • or w IC s c may be ulttmatelv re:,pons1 e. she was not the author of those d . · • ·• M· W . h ocuments. Addtt10nallv it see~1.:. s ng t was exc~sed from appearing in the QBT due t</ he cond1.ion. Overall J am satisfied Ms Wri ht t~ - r h.. , ,. . · g was un ,t, through no fault of tr o\.l.n, to_ pr_o,1de adequate tm,truction to Mr Herbert <)r crnss-,ixammauon. · · to present for I I h f 11 . n i1g to a , of these Clfcumstances I am not disposed to order costs. Order accordingly. G.K. FISHER, Commissioner. Appca r1.mces :- Mr G. Forde. Barrister (instructed by Ms T. Greenhalgh f Greenhalgh solicitors) for the applicant. o Crowley & Mr_ A. Herbert, Banister (instructed by Ms w. W • sohcuors) for the respondent. nght of Colwell Wright Operative Date: NIA Decision Reinstatement Released: 16 January 1997 ########################################################## 463 -- 2 of 2 --