Thompson v Townsville City Council
[2024] QIRC 283
•22 November 2024
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | Thompson v Townsville City Council & Ors [2024] QIRC 283 |
PARTIES: | Thompson, Troy v Townsville City Council & Sewell, David & McCabe, Joe |
CASE NO: | AD/2024/70 |
PROCEEDING: | Referral of a complaint |
DELIVERED ON: | 22 November 2024 |
MEMBER: HEARD AT: | Dwyer IC Brisbane |
ORDER: | Pursuant to r 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), matter number AD/2024/70 is dismissed |
| CATCHWORDS: | HUMAN RIGHTS –– DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION – QUEENSLAND – possible jurisdictional challenge – matter listed for mention – failure of complainant to attend mention – email correspondence requiring complainant to explain absence – no response – further mention listed – complainant fails to attend – proceedings dismissed |
LEGISLATION: APPEARANCES: | Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) r 45 No appearance for the Complainant H. Searing, Solicitor, Clayton Utz, for the Respondents |
Reasons for Decision
ex tempore
Mr Troy Thompson filed proceedings in the Queensland Human Rights Commission (‘QHRC’) on 1 July 2024, alleging discrimination on a variety of grounds against a number of respondents including the Townsville City Council. Following an unsuccessful conciliation conference at the QHRC, the matter was referred to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (‘the Commission’) and the file was allocated to me for case management.
In the ordinary course of events I would schedule a conciliation conference as a first step in a proceeding referred to Commission from the QHRC. However, in this instance the material indicated the respondent had previously raised a significant jurisdictional objection namely: whether Mr Thompson was entitled to the protections of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) that he relied on to support his complaint.
Consequently, I listed the matter for mention to ascertain whether the respondents wish to raise this objection before proceeding to conciliation (‘the first mention’). The matter was listed for mention on 13 November 2024. The respondents attended by telephone. Without explanation, Mr Thompson did not attend.
A review of the file confirmed the listing notice had been sent to Mr Thompson via email on 7 November 2024 and that the email address was the same email address nominated by him on his application.
Consequently, after his non-attendance, a further email was sent to Mr Thompson asking him to explain his failure to attend. He was asked to reply by 4.00 pm on 15 November 2024 (‘the email’). No reply was received from Mr Thompson.
Consequently, the matter was listed for further mention on 22 November 2024 (‘the second mention’).
Without explanation, Mr Thompson failed to attend the second mention. Before proceeding to address Mr Thompson’s failure to attend, as a precaution, the file was again checked. It was confirmed that the listing notice for the second mention was sent to the email address nominated by Mr Thompson on his application form. Further, my Associate rang the number nominated by Mr Thompson on the file as his contact telephone number. Mr Thompson did not answer and could not be contacted.
Rule 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld) (‘the Rules’) provides that the Commission may dismiss a proceeding where a party has failed to comply with a direction.
In this matter, without any explanation, Mr Thompson failed to:
a) attend the first mention;
b) respond to the email; and
c) attend the second mention.
Given the multiple verifications and confirmations of the contact details provided by Mr Thompson I am satisfied that all necessary steps have been taken to inform him of these proceedings. As a consequence of his total failure to comply with directions of the Commission, I intend to dismiss these proceedings.
Order
Pursuant to r 45 of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 (Qld), matter number AD/2024/70 is dismissed.
0
0
0