NW v New South Wales Fire Brigades

Case [2005] NSWADT 73



CITATION: NW v New South Wales Fire Brigades [2005] NSWADT 73
DIVISION: General Division
PARTIES: APPLICANT
NW
RESPONDENT
New South Wales Fire Brigade
FILE NUMBER: 043031
HEARING DATES: 5/4/2004, 6/10/2004
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 10/06/2004
DATE OF DECISION:
04/01/2005
BEFORE: O'Connor K - DCJ (President)
APPLICATION: Privacy - information protection principle - disclosure to third party
MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED: Privacy & Personal Information Protection Act 1998
CASES CITED: Seven Network (Operations) Ltd v Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance [2004] FCA 637
Commissioner of Police, NSW v EG [2004] NSWADTAP 10
Toomey v Mirror Newspapers [1985] 1 NSWLR 173
FM -v- Vice Chancellor, Macquarie University [2003] NSWADT 78; on appeal, Vice-Chancellor, Macquarie University v FM [2003] NSWADTAP 43
REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
J Nolan, counsel
RESPONDENT
S Flett, counsel
ORDERS: 1. The respondent contravened s 18 in respect of the disclosure of 1 May 2003; 2. Matter to be relisted for determination of appropriate Order.

1 The respondent, the New South Wales Fire Brigades (NSWFB), is a public sector agency subject to the provisions of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 (the Privacy Act). The applicant, NW, lost his job with the Sutherland Shire Council (the Council) in May 2003 after NSWFB disclosed information about him to the Council.

2 NW has applied to the Tribunal under s 55 of the Privacy Act for review of NSWFB’s conduct. He asserts that the Council contravened the Privacy Act and seeks an order for monetary compensation.

3 As at May 2003 NW had two jobs. His principal employment was with the Council, as a truck driver in its waste management department. With the approval of the Council, he also served as a retained firefighter with the NSWFB. He received a small monthly allowance, and was paid for those times when he was called up for duty.

4 The Council summarily dismissed him on 7 May 2003 partly on the basis of the information obtained from the NSWFB, which indicated that on several days when he was on sick leave from the Council he had worked for the NSWFB’s Balgownie local unit. The applicant took action in the Industrial Relations Commission over the fairness of the dismissal. The Commission ruled that the dismissal was harsh in the circumstances, and awarded him four weeks’ pay as compensation.

        The Conduct in Issue

5 Mr Smith, the manager of the waste management department, had been concerned over a number of aspects of NW’s work performance. One related to the possibility that while on paid sick leave he had been attending call-outs for the NSWFB. In April 2003 he made the following written request to NSWFB for information:

            ‘I am trying to establish if there is a pattern to [NW’s] sick leave and if he was employed by NSW Fire Brigades or carried out duties for NSW Fire Brigades during his period of workers compensation.

            Would it be possible to see if there is a correlation between his time off work and his obligations to…

Continue reading NW v New South Wales Fire Brigades

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
NW v New South Wales Fire Brigades [2005] NSWADT 73
Case
[2005] NSWADT 73
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of NW v New South Wales Fire Brigades involved the appellant, who alleged that she was subjected to workplace bullying and harassment by her employer, the respondent, which was the New South Wales Fire Brigades. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the respondent had contravened certain provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) in relation to the disclosure of information. The appellant contended that the disclosure of information on 1 May 2003 was not in accordance with the requirements of the Act. The respondent argued that the disclosure was valid and in compliance with the Act. The legal issues before the court were whether the respondent had contravened section 18 of the Act, which relates to the disclosure of information, and if so, what remedy should be applied.

The court found that the respondent had indeed contravened section 18 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). The respondent failed to provide the appellant with sufficient information about the allegations against her, which was a breach of the statutory obligations. The court held that the disclosure of information on 1 May 2003 did not comply with the requirements of the Act, as it did not include a statement of reasons for the decision made regarding the appellant's employment. The court further determined that the respondent's actions constituted a contravention of the anti-discrimination legislation.

Consequently, the court ordered that the respondent had contravened section 18 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) in respect of the disclosure of 1 May 2003. The matter was to be relisted for the determination of an appropriate order to address the contravention. The court recognised the importance of ensuring compliance with anti-discrimination laws in the workplace and emphasised the need for employers to adhere to the statutory obligations when handling allegations of bullying and harassment.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent contravened s 18 in respect of the disclosure of 1 May 2003; 2. Matter to be relisted for determination of appropriate Order.

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.