Tapfield v Ipswich City Council

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

PARTIES:

Tapfield v Ipswich City Council [2021] QIRC 069

Tapfield, Kenneth Vincent
(Appellant)

v

Ipswich City Council
(Respondent)

CASE NO:

GP/2019/27

PROCEEDING:

General Protections – Application to dismiss proceedings

DELIVERED ON:

3 March 2021

MEMBER

Hartigan IC

HEARD AT:

28 April 2020 

ORDERS:

1.     The Respondent's application is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – GENERAL PROTECTIONS APPLICATION RELATING TO DISMISSAL – applicant alleges that he was subject to adverse action – whether complaint or inquiry "in relation to" applicant's employment – application seeking summary dismissal of proceedings – whether further proceeding is necessary or desirable in the public interest

LEGISLATION:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s 341

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld), s 282, s 284, s 285, s 541

Local Government Act 2009 (Qld)

Local Government Regulation 2012 (Qld)

CASES:

Bartlett v Signostics Ltd (In liq) (No. 2) [2019] FCCA 3506

Campbell v State of Queensland (Department of Justice and Attorney-General) [2019] ICQ 18

Hospitals Contributions Fund of Australia v Hunt (1982) 44 ALR 365

In National Tertiary Education Industry Union v University of Sydney [2020] FCA 1709

Re Queensland Electricity Commission & Ors; ex parte Electrical Trades Union of Australia (1987) 72 ALR 1

Re MEAA; ex parte Hoyts Corporation Pty Ltd (1993) 112 ALR 193

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

1. The Ipswich City Council ("the Council") applies to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ("the Commission") for orders seeking that Mr Tapfield's application to deal with a general protection dispute be summarily dismissed pursuant to s 541(b)(ii) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 ("the IR Act") for want of jurisdiction.

2. Mr Tapfield commenced proceedings[1] in the Commission alleging that the termination of his employment was an act of adverse action and thereby a contravention of s 285(1)(a)(ii) of the IR Act by the Council, his former employer ("the adverse action proceedings").

   [1] By filing an Application to deal with a general protections dispute.

3. The basis for the Council's application for summary dismissal is that it contends that none of the complaints or inquiries relied upon by Mr Tapfield in relation to the adverse action proceedings, constitute the exercise of a "workplace right" by him on the basis that none of those complaints or inquiries are "in relation to" Mr Tapfield's employment. The Council argues, accordingly, that those complaints or inquires do not fall within the definition of workplace right pursuant to s 284(1)(c)(ii) of the IR Act.

4. In its submission, the Council identifies that the issue for the Commission's determination is whether a complaint or inquiry, made by an employee, concerning one or more workplace investigations being undertaken by an independent service provider to the relevant employer, is capable of constituting a complaint or inquiry in relation to the employee's employment, in circumstances where the said investigations pertained entirely to the conduct of other employees or the employer, and did not concern, or have as their subject matter, the said employee, or any alleged conduct by the said employee.

5. Mr Tapfield's position is…