Lenz v Rinami Pty Ltd - [2024] QIRC 71

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Lenz v Rinami Pty Ltd [2024] QIRC 071
PARTIES:	Lenz, Roderick Arthur Complainant v Rinami Pty Ltd Respondent
CASE NO:	AD/2024/14
PROCEEDING:	Anti-Discrimination – Application for orders protecting complainant's interests
DELIVERED ON:	2 April 2024
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	Pratt IC On the papers
ORDER:	The Application is dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	ANTI-DISCRIMINATION - Application for orders protecting complainant's interests – consideration of s 136 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) – consideration of s 144 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) – where complainant's disability worsened by working arrangement – where complainant sought to change working arrangements to accommodate disability – where respondent directed the complainant to attend an independent medical examination and to facilitate an ergonomic assessment of the home work area – where the complainant says that directions constitute discrimination and victimisation – where complainant applied to prohibit the respondent from taking disciplinary action for not attending the independent medical examination and not facilitating the ergonomic assessment of the home work area – whether complainant has a sufficiently detailed complaint pursuant to s 136 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) – where complainant did not sufficiently detail the complaint – whether the respondent should be prohibited from disciplining the complainant pursuant to s 144 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) – whether test for injunctions should be applied to applications under s 144 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) – where application of test for injunctions to s 144 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) rejected – where only the test outlined in s 144 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) itself applied – where the complainant failed to show that not prohibiting the respondent from disciplining the complainant might prejudice the investigation or conciliation or the complaint or an order that the tribunal might make after a hearing – alternatively, if test for injunctions were applicable to applications under s 144 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), whether complainant has made out prima facie case and whether balance of convenience favours making the order sought – where complainant fails to make out prima facie case and balance of convenience does not favour making the order sought – where application dismissed.
LEGISLATION: CASES:	Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 130, s 136, s 144. Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), s 46PP. Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), s 314(1)(f), s 473 Coop v State of Queensland [2014] QCATA 205. Jones v Queensland Health [2010] QCAT 700. McGee v Saunders (No 2) [1991] FCA 554. McIntyre v Hastings Deering (Australia) Ltd and Anor [2012] QCAT 438. Mr A v Viva Energy Australia Pty Ltd [2021] QIRC 309. R v A2 (2019) 269 CLR 507. Smith v The Lutheran Church of Australia Queensland District Trading as St Peter's Lutheran College (No.2) [2011] QCAT 304. Transport Workers Union of Australia, Boss & Would v Boral Resources (QLD) Pty Ltd [2006] QADT 10.

Reasons for Decision

On 8 February 2024, Mr Lenz…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lenz v Rinami Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Lenz v Rinami Pty Ltd [2024] QIRC 71
Case: [2024] QIRC 71
Decision Date: 2 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Lenz, applied to the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal for orders under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) against Rinami Pty Ltd. Lenz alleged that her disability had worsened due to her working arrangements. She sought to change her working arrangements to accommodate her disability but was directed by Rinami Pty Ltd to attend an independent medical examination and to facilitate an ergonomic assessment of her home work area. Lenz claimed that these directions constituted discrimination and victimisation. She sought to prohibit Rinami Pty Ltd from taking disciplinary action for not attending the independent medical examination and not facilitating the ergonomic assessment of her home work area.

The tribunal considered whether Lenz's complaint was sufficiently detailed under section 136 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). The tribunal found that Lenz did not sufficiently detail her complaint. Additionally, the tribunal considered whether Rinami Pty Ltd should be prohibited from disciplining Lenz under section 144 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). The tribunal rejected the application of the test for injunctions to section 144 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) and held that only the test outlined in section 144 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) itself applied. The tribunal found that Lenz failed to show that not prohibiting Rinami Pty Ltd from disciplining her might prejudice the investigation or conciliation or the complaint or an order that the tribunal might make after a hearing. Alternatively, if the test for injunctions were applicable to applications under section 144 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), the tribunal found that Lenz failed to make out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience did not favour making the order sought.

The tribunal dismissed Lenz's application and found that there was no evidence to support her claims of discrimination and victimisation. The tribunal found that Lenz had not sufficiently detailed her complaint and that the application did not meet the requirements of section 144 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). The tribunal concluded that the application should be dismissed and that there was no merit in Lenz's claims.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Application is dismissed

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.