NSW Commissioner of Police v Cottle

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the NSW Commissioner of Police (Police Commissioner) against the NSW Industrial Relations Commission's (IR Commission) jurisdiction to hear an unfair dismissal claim brought by a former non-executive police officer, Mr Cottle. Mr Cottle had been retired by the Police Commissioner under section 72A of the *Police Act 1990* (NSW) on medical grounds, and he subsequently sought to have this dismissal reviewed by the IR Commission as harsh, unreasonable, or unjust under section 84 of the *Industrial Relations Act 1996* (NSW). The central dispute revolved around whether the *Police Act* excluded the application of the *Industrial Relations Act* to decisions made under section 72A.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the *Police Act* excluded the application of the *Industrial Relations Act* to decisions made under section 72A of the *Police Act*, and consequently, whether the IR Commission possessed the jurisdiction to hear and determine Mr Cottle's application for an unfair dismissal remedy. The Court was required to interpret the interplay between the *Police Act*, which governs the employment and retirement of police officers, and the *Industrial Relations Act*, which confers jurisdiction on the IR Commission to review dismissals of public sector employees.

The High Court reasoned that Part 6 of Chapter 2 of the *Industrial Relations Act* expressly confers jurisdiction on the IR Commission to review the dismissal of any public sector employee, which includes members of the NSW Police Force. While the *Police Act* contains provisions dealing with industrial matters, including section 85 which designates the Police Commissioner as the employer of non-executive police officers for the purposes of industrial proceedings, these provisions do not expressly exclude or modify the reach of the *Industrial Relations Act*. The Court found no clear indication of parliamentary intent within the *Police Act* to oust the jurisdiction of the IR Commission in such circumstances. Therefore, the Court concluded that the IR Commission did have jurisdiction to hear Mr Cottle's application.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.