EY v The Store[2021] QIRC 135

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

Reasons for the Decision

Introduction 

1. [1]
   On 15 January 2021, I issued orders dismissing the complainant's complaint alleging that he had been discriminated against on the basis of an impairment by the respondents.

2. [2]
   On 27 January 2021 the respondent filed an application in this Commission seeking orders suppressing its identity.

3. [3]
   On 3 February 2021 I issued directions orders requiring that:

1. (a)
   the respondent file in the Industrial Registry and serve on the complainant written submissions in support of the application by 4.00 pm on 24 February 2021; and

2. (b)
   the complainant file in the Industrial Registry and serve on the respondent, written submissions in response to the respondent's submissions by 4.00pm on 17 March 2021.

4. [4]
   The respondent failed to comply with that order in so far as it failed to serve the complainant with its submissions. This was brought to the Commission's attention by the complainant and the matter was listed for a further mention on 30 March 2021.

5. [5]
   At the further mention on 30 March 2021, directions were issued vacating the earlier directions and directing that the respondent serve on the complainant the written submissions in support of the application by 30 March 2021 and that the complainant file in the Industrial Registry and serve on the respondent written submissions in reply by 12 noon on 14 April 2021.

6. [6]
   The Commission is now in receipt of the submissions filed by the parties. It is clear, on the reading of the submissions filed and served by the claimant, that he also seeks to have his name supressed.

7. [7]
   Section 191 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) (the "AD Act") provides that if the tribunal is of the reasonable opinion that the preservation of anonymity of a person who has been involved in a proceeding under the Act is necessary to protect the work security, privacy or any human right of the person, the tribunal may make an order prohibiting the disclosure of the person's identity. Section 191(2) of the AD Act provides that a person must comply with an order and the provision is a civil penalty provision.

8. [8]
   The timing of the making of this application is peculiar, in so far as it has been made, not only after the hearing of the matter, but after the decision was released and published. However, having regard to subject matter of the evidence referred to in the decision and, in particular, having regard to the complainant's position that he considers the subject matter of some of the evidence to be "humiliating or degrading," I consider that anonymising both of the parties in the proceeding will act to protect the privacy of both the complainant and the respondent with respect to the subject matter of the proceeding.

9. [9]
   Further, I have also had regard to the fact that the decision was the subject of an appeal before the Industrial Court heard by the President on 13 April 2021.^[1] On that occasion, an order was issued by the Industrial Court that the parties names be anonymised. I consider, in the circumstances, I should follow suit. Accordingly, I will make an order prohibiting the disclosure of the complainant's and respondent's identity by anonymising their names in the released decision in proceeding AD/2019/29.

Order

10. [10]
    I make the following order:

1. I prohibit the disclosure of the complainant's and respondent's identity by anonymising their names in the released decision in proceeding AD/2019/29.