Plumb v Rockhampton Regional Council (No. 2) - [2025] QIRC 150

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Plumb v Rockhampton Regional Council (No. 2) [2025] QIRC 150
PARTIES:	Plumb, Jason (Applicant) v Rockhampton Regional Council (Respondent)
CASE NO.:	TD/2021/97
PROCEEDING:	Application in existing proceedings
DATE OF HEARING:	23 May 2025
DELIVERED ON:	23 May 2025
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	Merrell DP Brisbane (via telephone)
ORDERS:	The orders contained in paragraph [31] of these reasons for decision.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF EVIDENCE – SUBPOENAS AND NOTICE TO PRODUCE AT HEARING – SETTING ASIDE AND OTHER RELIEF – Applicant was employed by the Respondent and was dismissed on 5 October 2021 – on 11 November 2021, the Applicant applied to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission for reinstatement under the Industrial Relations Act 2016 – Applicant's application the subject of a conciliation conference – conciliation certificate issued on 23 December 2021 – no other step taken by the Applicant until 23 February 2024 when the Applicant, in effect, applied under r 230 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 for an order to take further action – matter set down for hearing as to whether the Commission, pursuant to r 230 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, would order the Applicant to take further action – Applicant requested attendance notices to be issued for five persons for the production of documents and to give evidence – five attendance notices issued – Respondent applied to set aside the attendance notices – Respondent also applied to stay the attendance notices pending determination by the Commission about its application to set aside the attendance notices – whether the Commission has power to stay the attendance notices pending the determination of the application to set aside the attendance notices – the Commission has power to stay the attendance notices pending the determination of the application to set aside the attendance notices because such power is incidental to the power to set aside the attendance notices – arguable case to set aside the attendance notices – balance of convenience favours granting stays of the attendance notices – substantive hearing date adjourned
LEGISLATION:	Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 447, s 451, and s 536 Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 41, r 61 and r 230
CASES:	Plumb v Rockhampton Regional Council [2024] QIRC 094 Re: Applications to vary the Building. Engineering and Maintenance Services Employees (Queensland Government) Award - State 2016 [2024] QIRC 064
APPEARANCES:	The Applicant appeared on his own behalf Mr B. Dwyer of McCullough Robertson for the Respondent and Mr D. Morrison of the Respondent Mr E. Pardon appeared on his own behalf Mr R. Cheesman appeared on his own behalf Mr P. Kofod appeared on his own behalf Mr T. Pegrem appeared on his own behalf

Reasons for Decision

Delivered ex tempore, revised from transcript

Introduction

These reasons assume familiarity with my earlier decision in this matter in Plumb v Rockhampton Regional Council ('Plumb No.1').[1] Unless otherwise stated, the definitions I…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Plumb v Rockhampton Regional Council (No. 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QIRC 150
Decision Date: 23 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Plumb v Rockhampton Regional Council (No. 2) involved an employment dispute between the applicant, who was formerly employed by the respondent council, and the council itself. The applicant had been dismissed from their position and subsequently applied to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission for reinstatement under the Industrial Relations Act 2016. Following a conciliation conference and the issuance of a conciliation certificate, no further steps were taken by the applicant until 23 February 2024 when they applied for an order under rule 230 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 to take further action. The matter was set down for a hearing to determine whether the Commission would order the applicant to proceed with further action. The applicant sought attendance notices for five individuals to produce documents and give evidence. The respondent council applied to set aside these attendance notices and to stay them pending the determination of the application to set aside.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Commission had the power to stay the attendance notices pending the determination of the application to set aside the attendance notices. The court considered that such power was incidental to the power to set aside the attendance notices. Additionally, the court had to determine if there was an arguable case to set aside the attendance notices and whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the stays. The court found that there was indeed an arguable case to set aside the notices, and the balance of convenience favoured the granting of the stays. Consequently, the substantive hearing date was adjourned.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the relevant provisions of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 and the Industrial Relations Act 2016. It concluded that the power to stay the attendance notices was necessary to manage the proceedings effectively and ensure fairness in the resolution of the application to set aside. The court's reasoning was based on the need to prevent potential prejudice to the parties and to maintain the efficiency and integrity of the proceedings. The court's decision was guided by the principles of procedural fairness and the need to balance the rights and interests of the parties involved.

The final orders were set out in paragraph [31] of the reasons for decision. The court granted the respondent's application to stay the attendance notices pending the determination of the application to set aside the attendance notices. The substantive hearing date was adjourned to a later date to allow for the resolution of the application to set aside. This decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness and the balanced approach courts must take in managing the complexities of employment and industrial relations disputes.

Orders

Orders of the court

The orders contained in paragraph [31] of these reasons for decision.

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.