Mihnyak v Woolworths Limited

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Mihnyak v Woolworths Limited [2012] NSWADT 219

Hearing dates:

Submissions made 7, 20 and 25 September 2012

Decision date:

29 October 2012

Jurisdiction:

Equal Opportunity Division

Before:

G B Furness SC, Judicial Member

Decision:

Application to amend complaint dismissed

Period of time of complaint referred to Tribunal determined.

Catchwords:

Amend - out of time complaints

Legislation Cited:

Anti-Discrimination Act 1977

Cases Cited:

Kennedy v Director- General, NSW Department of Industrial Relations [2002] NSWADT 186;
Reyes-Gonzalez v Sydney Institute of Technology [1998] NSWEOT 4 of 1997; Salama v Qantas Airways Limited [2002] NSWADT 119;
Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force v Butcher [2011] NSWADTAP 9
Thompson v Rail Corporation NSW [2008] NSWADT 329
Bernard v Manly Lawn Tennis Club [2006] NSWADT 174

Category:

Interlocutory applications

Parties:

George Mihnyak (Applicant)
Woolworths Limited (Respondent)

Representation:

G Mihnyak (Applicant in person)
Henry Davis York Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s):

121079

Reasons for decision

1. The applicant complained to the Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB) on 21 February 2012 alleging that Woolworths Limited had discriminated against him on the ground of age in employment.

1. The applicant's written complaint stated that the discrimination began on 22 October 2010 and was ongoing. He explained that he had initially complained to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) and AHRC 'closed his case' in October 2011.

1. He provided the ADB with a copy of his complaint to AHRC. In that complaint he stated that he was told in late May 2010 by his employer, Woolworths that he should look for another position. From early June 2010 to 22 October 2010, he applied for over 30 positions advertised on Woolworths' intranet, and 16 of those were relevant to his experience and skills. He was offered two interviews and was not successful in obtaining a position.

1. He was offered a position in a supermarket which he refused because of his physical state, that is, he could not do heavy physical work. He was made redundant and finished on 22 October 2010.

1. He provided the ADB with a list of 30 jobs he had applied for between June 2010 and December 2011, 19 of which were applied for before 22 October 2010 and the remainder between August and December 2011.

1. On 2 March 2012, the ADB wrote to the applicant stating, among other matters that the complaint covered events that occurred in the 12 months up to the time the complaint was lodged on 21 February 2012.

1. On 5 March 2012 the respondent was provided with a copy of the complaint by the ADB and a response was sought. That response was received on 23 May 2012 and in it the respondent referred to the letters it had written to AHRC and requested that the ADB decline the complaint under s.89B(2)(b) on the basis that all the conduct complained of occurred more than 12 months before the complaint was lodged.

1. The ADB referred the complaint to the Tribunal on 12 June 2012. The President's summary…