Cross v Rio Tinto Coal Australia Pty Ltd
[2012] QCAT 370
| CITATION: | Cross v Rio Tinto Coal Australia Pty Ltd & Anor [2012] QCAT 370 |
| APPLICANT: | William Bruce Cross (Applicant) |
| v | |
| RESPONDENT: | Rio Tinto Coal Australia Pty Ltd (First Respondent) Hail Creek Coal Pty Ltd (Second Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | ADL029-12 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Anti-discrimination matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | C Endicott, Senior Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 1 August 2012 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | The application for directions is dismissed. |
| CATCHWORDS: | ANTI-DISCRIMINATION – where further directions sought – where adequate information about the complaint had been given – whether requiring revised contentions would in those circumstances amount to a technicality – where there was an obligation to act in a way that made matters accessible Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, ss 3, 28 |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
William Cross was employed by the respondents at the Hail Creek Mine when his wife was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease in 2006. He negotiated some extended time off work with his employer to enable him to travel with his wife and family before she became incapacitated by her medical condition. On his return to his workplace, Mr Cross accepted a lesser paid role at the mine.
Mr Cross became increasingly stressed by the demands of his work and family. He developed a psychological condition and took stress leave. Mr Cross subsequently resigned from his employment with the intention of returning to his employment once his family responsibilities had reduced. Contrary to his expectations, he was not later able to obtain employment with the respondents.
Mr Cross’s complaint against the respondents alleges that they have acted in breach of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 by unlawfully discriminating against him on the basis of his family responsibilities and on the basis of his association with a person with an impairment. He also alleges that he has been unlawfully subjected to victimisation by the respondents. The complaint by Mr Cross was, as required, lodged with the Anti-Discrimination Commission and via their lawyers, the respondents gave a detailed response to his complaint at that stage denying liability for unlawful discrimination and denying victimisation.
Mr Cross is acting on his own behalf in the proceeding at QCAT. Directions were made on 22 June 2012 requiring him to file contentions setting out the factual details of his complaint, identifying why that conduct amounts to unlawful discrimination, particularising the impact that the conduct complained about has had on him and stating what outcomes he is seeking from QCAT. The contentions filed by him on 27 July 2012 did not contain information as to why it was alleged that the conduct of the respondents amounted to unlawful discrimination but otherwise complied with the directions made by QCAT.
The respondents are being assisted by their legal advisors although leave has not been granted for the legal advisors to appear for the respondents at this stage of the proceeding. The respondents submit that they are severely prejudiced in the preparation of their contentions in response because they do not know what breaches of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 are alleged against them. They applied for further directions to require Mr Cross to file revised contentions. This argument is difficult to follow given the detailed response to the complaint of Mr Cross already made by the respondents in the Anti-Discrimination Commission.
The tribunal is required to deal with matters in a way that is accessible, fair, just, economical, informal and quick.[1] As part of the requirement to be accessible, QCAT recognises that at times considerable latitude should be given to unrepresented persons who are unfamiliar with legal matters. From the documents filed at QCAT, a reasonable inference can be drawn that Mr Cross appears to be unfamiliar with legal matters, particularly with the anti-discrimination legislation and with the processes of this tribunal.
[1] Section 3 of the QCAT Act.
Mr Cross has not expressly identified what sections of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 he will rely on in making his complaint. However the documents already before QCAT clearly identify that the complaint is based on discrimination at work because of family responsibilities, association with a person with impairment and victimisation. Mr Cross will not be permitted to add in any additional areas of complaint unless expressly permitted by the tribunal.
It is unnecessary in my view to require him to revise his contentions before the respondents filed their contentions in response and before the compulsory conference. I reject the submission that the respondents are severely prejudiced in the preparation of their contentions in the absence of Mr Cross specifying what sections of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 on which he relies. The basis of his complaint has been disclosed. The respondents have the ability to determine on the information available to them whether or not they deny liability for the actions specified by Mr Cross. They denied liability in their response to the Commission. It is not credible that the respondents are now severely prejudiced in preparing their response at the tribunal because Mr Cross has failed to set out the sections of the Act that he believes have been contravened.
QCAT must act with as little formality and technicality and with as much speed as the relevant legislation allows and a proper consideration of the matters permits.[2] The respondents in bringing this application endeavoured to have the tribunal introduce a level of technicality that would only make the proceedings less accessible for Mr Cross and that will not reasonably add to their knowledge of the complaint about which they were called on to respond.
[2] Section 28(3)(d) of the QCAT Act.
The application, if it were granted, would have had the effect of deferring the compulsory conference scheduled for 21 August 2012. The parties have the opportunity at that compulsory conference to identify and clarify the issues in dispute and to identify the questions of fact and law to be decided by the tribunal.[3] At the same time the parties can make a genuine attempt to resolve their dispute to their own satisfaction and avoid any third party such as the tribunal determining the complaint. No cogent grounds were put forward to delay that process in this case. QCAT must act in a way that is informal and quick.
[3] Section 69(a) and (c) of the QCAT Act.
A proper consideration of the obligations on QCAT as set out in section 3 of the QCAT Act resulted in the application for directions being dismissed.
0
0
0