Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No 7)

[2023] QIRC 166

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Robertson v McDonald’s Australia Limited (No 7) [2023] QIRC 166

PARTIES:

[REDACTED] ROBERTSON

(complainant)

v
McDONALD’S AUSTRALIA LIMITED

(respondent)

CASE NO/S:

AD/2021/7 and B/2023/41

PROCEEDING:

Application in existing proceeding

DELIVERED ON:

Orders made on 2 June 2023. Reasons delivered 5 June 2023.

HEARING DATE:

2 June 2023

MEMBER:

Davis J, President

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - where the applicant complained to the Human Rights Commission - where he complained of discrimination on the basis of age - where the Human Rights Commission referred the complaint to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC) - where the applicant filed an interlocutory application - where the application sought no order - where the application sought information from the President of the QIRC - where the application required the President of the QIRC to reply to the Human Rights Commission - where the application sought for the President to arrange legal advice for the applicant - whether the application was competent

LEGISLATION:

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, s 7, s 10, s 11, s 15, s 164A
Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 513, s 560
Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011, r 10, r 14

COUNSEL:

Mr Robertson appeared for himself

Ms L Dearlove (solicitor) for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Mr Robertson appeared for himself

Colin Biggers and Paisley for the respondent

1. On 2 June 2023, I heard and dismissed an application brought by Mr Robertson.

2. Mr Robertson complained to the Queensland Human Rights Commission that McDonald’s Australia Limited discriminated against him on the basis of age.[1]

   [1]Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, ss 7(f), 10, 11 and 15.

3. The Human Rights Commission referred Mr Robertson’s complaint to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC).[2]  The referral was accepted by the Industrial Registrar on 16 February 2021 and became matter AD/2021/7.

   [2]Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, s 164A.

4. On or about 25 May 2023, Mr Robertson attempted to file a Form 4 - Application in Existing Proceedings.

5. In that application (which I will call “the Rejected Application”), the “Details of decision sought” appeared as:

   “That the registrar explain as to why Three recent documnets have not been filed , or known to have been filed.

   Unknown in that no copies with Official seal has been made available, nor communications as to issues (if any) as to preclude filing?
   That the registrar expalin , if N.F .A precludes filing ?
   Where the registrar states what suffuces in the absence of a postal address.
   Note the commission is flagged as to abuse in relation to matter A.D 2022/6 where the issue as to “compliance” was exploited by a lawyer Duncan Grant McCartney, of whom appeared without leave, submitted documnet/s without out leave and sought, where the commission, licensed Grant McCartney, appearing under an altered name for the lawyer is held to be one and the same as thrice convicted in N.S.W. Where the President was and is yet accussed of malice as to the appeal process related to the conduct of commissioner Hartigan. This speaks to background that the reader may benefit by way of clarity.
   There is known as to be interfernce by the President and the registrar of filing of documents.
   The President is known to have in addition, censored the registrar/and or registrary with instructions that communications to the registrar/registry only to be replied to with the approval of the president (Davis).
   This was deduced by the applicant and admitted to (of applications) the communication censorship was admitted to , this is a matter of ‘public’ record and within or should be within transcripts.
   This instruction, is not known as to have been removed.
   The Three documents sought filed are Two form 24 and One sought recusal of the deputy Merrell, these are within the last Circa Ten Days.
   That the registrar explain in written form as to the censorship, date/s (including as to if the instructions remain in place) extent and reasoning and the authority (if any) the President has as to communications being subject to his approval.
   Where the uncommunicative stance remains to the day and best practice, ethical and procedural fairness and rather worse is alledged.”[3]

   [3]The application is reproduced as it appears, complete with grammatical and typographical errors.

6. The Industrial Registrar rejected the application and in an email from an authorised registry officer it was explained:

   “Please be advised that the Form 4 - Application in existing proceedings which was received in the Registry mailbox on 25 May 2023 has not been accepted for filing as the decision sought relates to an administrative task of the Registry and is not a matter for the Court or Commission. Further, other matters outlined have previously been dealt with by Members of the Court and Commission.”

7. The Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (the Rules) prescribe the form of applications to the QIRC.[4]

   [4]Rule 10.

8. Section 513 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (the IR Act) bestows functions and powers upon the Industrial Registrar. That section provides:

   “513   Functions and powers of registrar

   (1)The registrar—

   (a)     administers the registry; and

   (b)     has the functions conferred on the registrar under this Act or another Act.

   (2)The registrar has the power to do all things necessary or convenient to be done to perform the registrar’s functions.

   (3)In performing a function or exercising a power, the registrar must comply with a direction given by the president in relation to the court or the commission.”

9. By s 513, the Industrial Registrar must comply with directions given by the President. The Industrial Registrar’s decisions are also subject to appeal to the Full Bench of the QIRC by force of s 560 of the IR Act, which provides:

   “560   Appeal from registrar

   (1)A person aggrieved by a decision of the registrar may appeal against the decision to the full bench on the ground of—

   (a)     error of law; or

   (b)     excess, or want, of jurisdiction.

   (2)Also, a person aggrieved by a decision of the registrar may appeal against the decision to the full bench, with the full bench’s leave, on a ground other than—

   (a)     error of law; or

   (b)     excess, or want, of jurisdiction.

   (3)For an appeal against a decision of the registrar relating to a general ruling under section 460(2), the full bench must be constituted in the same way as it was when the general ruling under section 458 was made.”[5]

   [5]Section 460(2) is not relevant here.

10. By r 14, the registrar has a discretion to refuse a document for filing.  Rule 14 provides:

    “14     Filing of documents

    (1)A document is filed when the appropriate fee (if any) is paid and the document is stamped in the registry.

    (2)The registrar may refuse to accept a document for filing, or refuse to accept another document otherwise given to the registrar, if the document does not comply with—

    (a)     the Act; or

    (b)     an enabling Act; or

    (c)     these rules; or

    (d)     a practice direction issued under these rules.

    Note—

    See, for example, sections 261, 644 and 676 of the Act for when the registrar may be given a document other than for filing.”

11. Mr Robertson, being aggrieved by the decision of the Industrial Registrar to reject the Rejected Application, did not seek to enliven the jurisdiction of the Full Bench by appeal, but filed the current application, B/2023/41, which is in these terms:

    “That the President provides by way of clarity to parties , of in which form and when he imposed requirement/S limit/s as to filing of applicantion/s on the registrar and or registry.

    Where the applications could or did incurred delay/s
    Said same where he imposed on the registrar and or registry the requirement that he permit communication (in reply) to the applicant.
    State under which authority , and basis he did so.
    State the date of the commencement date.
    State if the instruction, remains in place yet ,where if not the date of the removal of the instruction.
    Which if any memeber of the judiciary was informed as to the condition specifically but not limited to (D)Merrell,(C) Hartigan/Dwyer.
    The the number of insistences as to the use of these instructions related to the applicant is sought stated.
    State if One and only occurance within the last Two and a half years was with and related to A.D 2021/7 or not for, during which time the applicant had more than one matter before the Q.I.R.C.
    That the president reply in written form to the human rights complaints made of the Q.IR.C / registary /Orrs.
    Arrange access to legal advice in line with the importance of the matter before the commission that presently the applicant can not nor is it likely that the applicant will have access before the next date as to the matter 2/6/23.
    Note a associate /law student / paralegal may suffice as opposed to the present and generally no access.”[6]

    [6]The application is reproduced as it appears, complete with grammatical and typographical errors.

12. The current application does not challenge the decision of the Registrar to reject the Rejected Application.  It does not seek orders that the Registrar be directed to accept it.  It does not seek any order.  Instead, the current application:

    1.asks me a number of questions;

    2.asks me to address the human rights complaints;

    3.asks me to arrange for legal advice to be provided to Mr Robertson.

13. The application is clearly incompetent and for that reason I dismissed it.