Salama v Qantas Airways Ltd

CITATION:	Salama -v- Qantas Airways Ltd [2002] NSWADT 119
DIVISION:	Equal Opportunity Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Faisal Salama RESPONDENT Qantas Airways Ltd
FILE NUMBER:	011005
HEARING DATES:	05/12/2001
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	12/05/2001
DATE OF DECISION:	07/11/2002
BEFORE:	Britton A - Judicial Member; Weule B - Member; Silva A - Member
APPLICATION:	Dismissal of complaint - frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)
CASES CITED:	Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service v Orr [2001] NSWADTAP 16 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125 Tannock v State of New South Wales [1999] NSWADT 73 Shaikh v Police and Community Youth Clubs NSW Ltd & ors [2001] NSWADT 221 Razaghi v Director-General, NSW Department of Health & Anor [2002] NSWADT 4 [on appeal] Assal v Department of Health and Housing (1992) EOC 92-409 Prakash v Bobb Borg Enterprises Pty Limited [1999] NSWADT 73 Reyes-Gonzalez v Sydney Institute Of Technology [1998] NSWEOT 6/3/98 Ehl v Dept of Education and Training & NSW Teachers Federation [1999] NSWADT 102 Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge [2000] NSWADTAP 5
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT J Stephenson, barrister RESPONDENT K Eastman, barrister
ORDERS:	That the complaint be dismissed.

1 This decision concerns an application made under s 111(1) of the Anti- Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) (“the Act”) by Qantas Airways Ltd, the respondent in these proceedings, to have Mr Faisal Salama’s complaint of unlawful race discrimination dismissed. Section 111(1) of the Act provides:
where, at any stage of an inquiry, the Tribunal is satisfied the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance or that for any other reason the complaint should not be entertained, it may dismiss the complaint.
2 It is asserted for Qantas that Mr Salama has failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action. The respondent seeks an order that the proceedings be dismissed on the grounds that the complaint lacks substance or, alternatively, is misconceived. Qantas also seeks an order for costs.

Referral of Complaint by President
3 By letter dated 6 April 1998, Mr Salama lodged a complaint with the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board (“the President”). He alleged that Qantas had discriminated against him, on the ground of race, throughout the period 1993 to October 1997, culminating in his compulsory retrenchment on 10 October 1997. This retrenchment was confirmed on 7 November 1997 following internal appeal. The Acting President decided not to exercise her discretion under s 88(4) of the Act to accept the “out of time” allegation i.e. that part of the allegation relating to the period 1993 to 6 October 1997. Accordingly, the complaint investigated by the President was confined to Qantas’ decision to retrench Mr Salama.

4 The President began to investigate this complaint and on 22 December 2000 decided to investigate the complaint no further on the ground that it lacked substance. At Mr Salama’s request the President referred the complaint to the Tribunal on 30 January 2001.