Curran v Yourtown & Anor

[2019] QIRC 59

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Curran v yourtown & Anor [2019] QIRC 059

PARTIES:  

Caitlin Curran
(Complainant)

v

yourtown
(First Respondent)

&

Michael O'Brien
(Second Respondent)

CASE NO:

AD/2017/45

PROCEEDING:

Complaint

DELIVERED ON:

23 April 2019

HEARING DATES: 

7, 8, 9 August 2018
13 September 2018

MEMBER:

HEARD AT:

O'Connor VP

Brisbane

ORDER:

1.     The complaints are dismissed.

2.     I will hear the parties as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION –DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE – where Complainant alleges discrimination on the basis of an 'impairment' – whether 'impairment' was established for the purposes of the Act – whether unfavourable treatment existed – whether a 'term' was imposed

LEGISLATION:

CASES:

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) s 6, s 10, 11, s 14, s 108
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld)

Bero v Wilmar Sugar Pty Ltd & Ors [2016] QCAT 371

Carlton v Blackwood [2017] ICQ 001

Clarke v Ryan (1916) 103 CLR 486

Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge

Cutbush v Team Maree Property Service (No 3) [2010] QCATA 89

Dasreef Pty Limited v Hawchar (2011) 243 CLR 588

Edoo v Minister for Health [2010] WASAT 74

Mahommed v State of Queensland (2006) QADT 21, 37

The State of New South Wales v Amery and Others (2006) 230 CLR 174

Woodforth v State of Queensland [2017] QCA 100

Yousif v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] ICQ 004

APPEARANCES:

Mr M Heffernan for the Complainant

Ms T Jessie, Solicitor of Jessie Lawyers for the First and Second Respondents.

Reasons for Decision

1. Ms Caitlin Curran filed a complaint with the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland on 23 June 2017. The Complainant commenced her employment with yourtown, the First Respondent as a Production Administrator in the fundraising department in or around June 2014.[1]

   [1] Exhibit 10.

2. The First Respondent is a not-for-profit charitable organisation whose mission is to enable young people, especially those who are marginalised and without a voice, to improve their quality of life.[2]

   [2] Exhibit 29.

3. Mr Michael O'Brien was employed by the First Respondent as its senior industrial relations advisor and was named as the Second Respondent to the complaint. The Second Respondent was assigned to work with the fundraising department from September 2016.[3]

   [3] T1-108 Ll35.

4. The First Respondent is predominantly funded by its charitable art unions with the Christmas prize home draw being the biggest fundraising event for the charity. Accordingly, December is the busiest time of the year for the organisation, particularly for those employees that work in the fundraising department, such as the Complainant.

5. Due to an illness the Complainant often struggled to meet the demands of her role and her employment with the First Respondent was marked by high levels of absenteeism. In the period from June 2014 to June 2016 the Complainant accessed more than 900 hours of unpaid leave, personal leave and annual leave. The Complainant also failed to successfully complete two return to work programs in September and November 2016.

6. As an industrial relations advisor the Second Respondent was tasked with managing the Complainant's absenteeism…