Wanninayake v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines)

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Wanninayake v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) [2015] QIRC 084
PARTIES:	Wanninayake, Dushanthi v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines)
CASE NO:	C/2015/3
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave to Appeal to a Full Bench of the Commission
DELIVERED ON:	14 May 2015
HEARING DATE:	20 February 2015
MEMBER:	Vice President Linnane Industrial Commissioner Fisher Industrial Commissioner Thompson
ORDERS:	1. Application for leave to appeal to a Full Bench of the Commission is dismissed. 2. Application to Appeal in C/2015/2 is also dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	INDUSTRIAL LAW - Application for leave to appeal to a Full Bench of the Commission pursuant to s 342(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 - Deputy President dismissed application for reinstatement - Whether the matter is important enough, in the public interest, to give leave - No public interest identified which would warrant leave to appeal being granted - Application for leave to appeal dismissed - Application to Appeal also dismissed.
CASES:	Industrial Relations Act 1999, s 342(2). Dibb v AVCO Financial Services Limited (1997) 156 QGIG 103. Keir v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 123. Queensland Nurses' Union of Employees v BlueCare and Others [2004] 175 QGIG 827. United Firefighters' Union of Australia, Union of Employees, Queensland v Department of Emergency Services (on behalf of the Queensland Fire and Rescue Service) [2008] 189 QGIG 617. Wanninayake v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) [2014] QIRC 079. Wanninayake v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) [2013] QIRC 215.
APPEARANCES:	Mr T. Christie of Christie Lawyers for the Applicant. Mr J. Merrell, Counsel instructed by Crown Law, for the Respondent.

Decision

Dushanthi Wanninayake (Applicant) seeks to appeal to a Full Bench of the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) against a decision of a Deputy President of the Commission given in matter TD/2013/109: see Wanninayake v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines).[1] The grounds identified in her Application to Appeal in C/2015/2 allege both errors of fact and errors of law. Thus the Applicant must seek the leave of the Full Bench to appeal and it is this Application that is the subject of this decision: see s 342(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 (Act).
[1] Wanninayake v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines) [2013] QIRC 215.

The decision of the Deputy President in TD/2013/109 was in respect of an unfair dismissal application lodged by the Applicant wherein she alleged that her dismissal from employment as a Senior Chemist (Classification Level PO4) in the Occupational Health, Environment and Chemical Centre of the Safety in Mines Testing and Research Station in the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (Respondent) was harsh, unjust or unreasonable and sought relief by way of reinstatement. That unfair dismissal application was made pursuant to s 74 of the Act.

Legislation

Section 342 of the Act relevantly provides as follows:
"342 Appeal from commission, magistrate or…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Wanninayake v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources and Mines), the applicant sought leave to appeal a decision of the Deputy President, who had dismissed his application for reinstatement. The applicant, Wanninayake, had been previously dismissed from his employment with the State of Queensland, Department of Natural Resources and Mines. The primary matter of dispute was the denial of his application for reinstatement, which led to his subsequent application for leave to appeal to a Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission under section 342(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1999.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the matter was important enough, or in the public interest, to warrant granting leave to appeal to a Full Bench. The applicant argued that the denial of reinstatement had significant personal and public implications, potentially affecting broader employment practices and policies. However, the court needed to determine if these factors constituted a public interest that would justify an appeal to a Full Bench. The court's role was to balance the applicant's personal circumstances against the broader public interest in judicial resources and the potential precedential impact of the case.

The court, in dismissing the application for leave to appeal, found that no public interest was identified that would warrant the granting of leave. The court held that the applicant's personal circumstances, while unfortunate, did not reach the threshold of public importance required to merit an appeal to a Full Bench. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. Additionally, the application to appeal in the underlying matter, C/2015/2, was also dismissed. This decision underscored the stringent criteria that must be met for appeals to a Full Bench in employment matters, particularly concerning the identification of a significant public interest.

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal to a Full Bench of the Commission is dismissed.

2. Application to Appeal in C/2015/2 is also dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established