Flori v Carroll

Case [2022] QIRC 34


QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Flori v Carroll and Anor [2022] QIRC 034

PARTIES:

Flori, Ricky
(Complainant)

v

Katarina Carroll
(First Respondent)

and

State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service)
(Second Respondent)

CASE NO.:

AD/2020/115

PROCEEDING:

Application in existing proceedings

DELIVERED ON:

11 February 2022

HEARING DATE:

8 December 2021 and on the papers

MEMBER:

HEARD AT:

Merrell DP

Brisbane

DATES OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

Respondents' written submissions filed on 15 December 2021 and Applicant's written submissions filed on 12 January 2022.

ORDERS:

1.    The Respondents' application in existing proceedings is dismissed.

2.    The Respondents file in the Industrial Registry, and serve on the Complainant, a list of objections to the Complainant's affidavits filed on 6 December 2021 and 18 January 2022 ('the Complainant's affidavits'), reasons for the objections and any submissions in support of those objections by 4.00 pm on Friday, 25 February 2022.

3.    The Complainant file in the Industrial Registry, and serve on the Respondents, his responses to the Respondents' objections to the Complainant's affidavits, and any submissions in support of those responses, by 4.00 pm on Friday, 11 March 2022.

4.    Unless otherwise ordered, any objections to the Complainant's affidavits be determined on the papers.

5.    The Complainant's claim for orders under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 be heard on a date to be fixed.

CATCHWORDS:

COMMUNICATIONS LAW - WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION AND PUBLIC INTEREST DISCLOSURE LEGISLATION - Complainant a former police officer who resigned from the Queensland Police Service - Complainant commenced civil proceedings alleging reprisal for a public interest disclosure purportedly made by him within the meaning of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 prior to Complainant's resignation - following Complainant's resignation, Complainant emailed the First Respondent to obtain certain service honours and awards - First Respondent deferred making a decision to issue the honours and awards sought by Complainant because of findings of fact that may be made in the civil proceedings that may affect assessment of Complainant's eligibility - Complainant made complaint to the Queensland Human Rights Commission alleging contravention by the Respondents of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010, contending that the decision to defer the issuing of honours and awards was a reprisal within the meaning of s 40(1)(b) of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 - complaint accepted by the Queensland Human Rights Commission - Queensland Human Rights Commission referred the complaint to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission pursuant to s 166(1)(a) of the Anti‑Discrimination Act 1991 - Complainant seeks various orders and other relief under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 to remedy alleged reprisal - interlocutory application by Respondents that the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, pursuant to s 193A of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, transfer matter to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal because the complaint is not a work-related matter - Complainant's complaint is a work‑related matter - Respondents' application in existing proceedings dismissed - orders made for hearing of Complainant's claim for various orders and other relief under the Anti‑Discrimination Act 1991

STATUTES - ACTS OF PARLIAMENT -construction…

Continue reading Flori v Carroll

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Flori v Carroll [2022] QIRC 34
Case
[2022] QIRC 34
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Flori v Carroll involved a former police officer who had resigned from the Queensland Police Service, who commenced civil proceedings against the State of Queensland and the Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service. The plaintiff, Mr Flori, alleged that he had made a public interest disclosure within the meaning of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 prior to his resignation. He claimed that his subsequent complaint to the Queensland Human Rights Commission, alleging that the respondents had engaged in reprisal for his disclosure, was accepted and referred to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. The respondents applied for the matter to be transferred to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, arguing that the complaint was not a work-related matter as defined in the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991.

The court was required to determine whether Mr Flori's complaint was a 'work-related matter' within the meaning of s 166(1)(a) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991. This involved a construction of the phrase 'work-related matter' and an application of principles of the construction of a provision of a statute. The court examined the facts and circumstances of the case to determine whether the event that gave rise to the complaint occurred while Mr Flori was at work for the matter, the subject of the complaint, to be a 'work-related matter'.

The court concluded that Mr Flori's complaint was indeed a 'work-related matter'. The court dismissed the respondents' application to transfer the matter to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, finding that the complaint was a work-related matter. The court made orders for the respondents to file and serve a list of objections to the complainant's affidavits, and for the complainant to file and serve his responses to the respondents' objections. The court also ordered that the complainant's claim for orders under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 be heard on a date to be fixed.

In summary, the court found that Mr Flori's complaint was a 'work-related matter' within the meaning of s 166(1)(a) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991. The respondents' application to transfer the matter to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal was dismissed, and the complainant's claim for orders under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 will proceed in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Respondents' application in existing proceedings is dismissed.

2. The Respondents file in the Industrial Registry, and serve on the Complainant, a list of objections to the Complainant's affidavits filed on 6 December 2021 and 18 January 2022 ('the Complainant's affidavits'), reasons for the objections and any submissions in support of those objections by 4.00 pm on Friday, 25 February 2022.

3. The Complainant file in the Industrial Registry, and serve on the Respondents, his responses to the Respondents' objections to the Complainant's affidavits, and any submissions in support of those responses, by 4.00 pm on Friday, 11 March 2022.

4. Unless otherwise ordered, any objections to the Complainant's affidavits be determined on the papers.

5. The Complainant's claim for orders under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 be heard on a date to be fixed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Unless otherwise ordered, I will make a decision about any objections on the papers.Conclusion The question in the present proceeding was whether Mr Flori's complaint is a 'work‑related matter' within the meaning of s 166(1)(a) of the ADA. For the reasons I have given, Mr Flori's complaint was a 'work-related matter'.Orders I make the following orders:1. The Respondents' application in existing proceedings is dismissed.2. The Respondents file in the Industrial Registry, and serve on the Complainant, a list of objections to the Complainant's affidavits filed on 6 December 2021 and 18 January 2022 ('the Complainant's affidavits'), reasons for the objections and any submissions in support of those objections by 4.00 pm on Friday, 25 February 2022.3. The Complainant file in the Industrial Registry, and serve on the Respondents, his responses to the Respondents' objections to the Complainant's affidavits, and any submissions in support of those responses, by 4.00 pm on Friday, 11 March 2022.4. Unless otherwise ordered, any objections to the Complainant's affidavits be determined on the papers.5. The Complainant's claim for orders under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 be heard on a date to be fixed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.