Weaver v Ipswich City Council - [2021] QIRC 234

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Weaver v Ipswich City Council [2021] QIRC 234
PARTIES:	Weaver, Ross Erwin McLean (Applicant) v Ipswich City Council (Respondent)
CASE NO:	TD/2020/87
PROCEEDING:	Application for reinstatement
DELIVERED ON:	02 July 2021
MEMBER: HEARD AT:	O'Connor VP On the papers
ORDER:	1. The application for reinstatement in matter TD/2020/87 is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	INDUSTRIAL LAW - APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT - EXTENSION OF TIME - where application filed beyond statutory time limit - length of delay - reasons for delay - prejudice to the applicant or respondent - prospects of success - whether the commission should exercise discretion to grant extension
LEGISLATION: CASES:	Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 317 Industrial Relations Act 1999, s 74 Aurukun Shire Council v Schiardijn [2014] QIRC 91 Breust v QANTAS Airways Ltd (1995) 149 QGIG 777 Brisbane South Regional Authority v Taylor 186 CLR 541; (1996) 139 ALR 1 Erhardt v Goodman Fielder Food Services Limited (1999) 163 QGIG 20 Herwin v Flexihire Pty Ltd (1995) 149 QGIF 709 Lockhart v Queensland Health [2014] QIRC 12 Mohazab v Dick Smith Electronics Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 200 O'Hara v Victoria [2006] FCA 420 O'Meara v Stanley Works Pty Ltd (2006) 58 AILR 100 Paterson v Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Limited (1998) 159 QGIG 232 Petruch v Davy Kinhill Fluor Daniel Joint Venture (1996) 153 QGIG 543 Rich v Chubb Protective Services (2001) 167 QGIG 159 Thomson v Toowoomba Regional Council [2021] QIRC 128 Wantling v Department of Community Safety (Queensland Corrective Services) [2013] QIRC 43

Reasons for Decision

Background

The Applicant (Mr Ross Weaver) was employed by the Respondent (Ipswich City Council) between 31 July 2012 and 22 May 2017, initially as the Senior Animal Manager and eventually as Animal Management Coordinator.

On 14 September 2020, the Applicant filed an application for reinstatement pursuant to s 317 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 ('the Act') in the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission ('the Commission') seeking re-instatement or in the alternative, compensation.
The Applicant worked as the Animal Management Coordinator for Health, Security and Regulatory Services since a promotion on 22 July 2013. The Applicant alleges to have been coerced into resigning his position effective of 22 May 2017.
On 20 and 29 October 2020 the matter was conferenced before the Commission however no resolution was reached.
On 11 March 2021, the Applicant communicated to the Commission a request that the matter proceed to arbitration, including determination of the jurisdictional question; 'whether the Commission ought to exercise its discretion to allow the application pursuant to s 317(b) of the Act'.
This decision is a determination of the abovementioned preliminary question.
A further area of contention arises out of a debate concerning the validity of a deed of release purportedly entered into between the parties on 22 May 2017. However, the parties are in agreement that this issue should be addressed (if necessary) following the determination of this preliminary point.
Application
The Applicant's request for extension of time relies on the discretion…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Weaver v Ipswich City Council and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] QIRC 234
Decision Date: 02 July 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the applicant, Weaver, sought reinstatement following his dismissal from employment with the Ipswich City Council. The crux of the dispute was whether the Commission should grant an extension of time for the filing of the reinstatement application, which was submitted beyond the statutory limit of 21 days. The reasons for the delay, the potential prejudice to either party, and the likelihood of success were all central to the Commission's determination.

The central legal issue before the Commission was whether it should exercise its discretion to extend the time limit for filing the reinstatement application, despite it being lodged past the statutory 21-day period. In considering this, the Commission examined the length of the delay, the reasons provided for the delay, any prejudice that might arise to either the applicant or the respondent if the extension were granted, and the prospects of the applicant succeeding on the merits of the application.

The Commission held that the application for reinstatement was filed significantly beyond the statutory time limit, and while the applicant provided some reasons for the delay, these were not deemed sufficient to warrant an extension. The delay caused prejudice to the respondent, and the prospects of success on the merits were poor. Consequently, the Commission dismissed the application for reinstatement. The decision underscores the importance of timely filings in employment disputes and the discretion of the Commission in extending time limits.

The final order of the Commission was that the application for reinstatement in matter TD/2020/87 was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for reinstatement in matter TD/2020/87 is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.