Boreland v Brambles Security Services Limited

CITATION:	Boreland -v- Brambles Security Services Limited [2000] NSWADT 147
DIVISION:	Equal Opportunity Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT John Boreland RESPONDENT Brambles Security Services Limited
FILE NUMBER:	122 of 1997
HEARING DATES:	12/04/2000, 13/04/2000, 14/04/2000
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	06/02/2000
DATE OF DECISION:	10/20/2000
BEFORE:	Britton A - Judicial Member; McDonald O - Member; Strickland J - Member
APPLICATION:	Disability Discrimination - In work
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
CASES CITED:	Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR Commonwealth v Humphries [1998] FCA 1031 HR&EO Commission v Mt Isa Mines Ltd (1993) 118 ALR Waters & Ors v Public Transport Corporation (1992) 173 CLR Waterhouse v Bell (1991) EOC 92-376, 589-78, 590 IW v City of Perth (1996-97) 191 CLR 1 Hall v Sheiban (1985) ALR 543
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT C Ronalds, barrister
ORDERS:	The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant the summ of eight thousand ($8,000.00) within 14 days of the date of this decision.

Introduction

1 The complainant, Mr John Boreland commenced employment with the respondent, Brambles Security Services Pty Ltd (Brambles) as an Armoured Vehicle Operator (AVO) in 1977. In 1992 he was injured at work. In 1995 Brambles dismissed him on the grounds that, because of his injury, he was unable to perform the full range of duties of an AVO.

2 Mr Boreland filed an application seeking relief for unfair dismissal under the Industrial Relations Act (NSW) 1991 (IR Act). He was successful in that application and on 17 August 1995 was awarded the maximum compensation payable under s250(3) of the IR Act.

3 On 31 August 1995 Mr Boreland lodged a complaint with the Anti-Discrimination Board (the Board) against his former employer alleging unlawful discrimination on the grounds of disability.

4 In a letter dated 1 April 1997 the President of the Board advised Mr Boreland that his complaint had been declined pursuant to s90(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (the Act), as it had been adequately dealt with by the Industrial Relations Commission of NSW. Following this advice Mr Boreland exercised his right to have the matter referred to this Tribunal under s 91(1) of the Act.

Summary of Complaint

5 The complainant’s case is based on the direct discrimination provisions of the Act. It is submitted that the respondent, afforded the complainant less favourable terms and conditions of employment, pursuant to s 49D(2)(a), denied him access to a benefit associated with employment pursuant to s 49D (2)(b); and/or subjected him to a detriment, pursuant to s 49D(2)(d), in the following ways :

Restriction of overtime - Mr Boreland claims that Brambles restricted his access to overtime from 14 May 1993 until his dismissal on 3 March 1995 (the claim period)
Unauthorised display of the complainant’s medical certificate;

Granting access to complainant’s personal medical file to union delegate, Brian Stewart, without his consent.

6 Brambles’ decision to dismiss Mr Boreland, though forming part of the original complaint to the Board, does not form part of Mr Boreland’s claim in…