Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2022
  4. Flanagan v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy) - [2022] QIRC 199

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Flanagan v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy)[2022] QIRC 199

Flanagan v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy)[2022] QIRC 199

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Flanagan v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy) [2022] QIRC 199

PARTIES:

Flanagan, Christopher

(Applicant)

v

State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy)

(Respondent)

CASE NO:

B/2022/14

PROCEEDING:

Application to reopen proceedings

DELIVERED ON:

6 June 2022

HEARING

4 May 2022

MEMBER:

Pidgeon IC

ORDERS:

The application to reopen proceedings is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – applicant took no action in relation to application six months after certificate issued – application lapsed – prospects of success in substantive application – whether it is in the interests of justice to reopen proceedings

LEGISLATION:

Industrial Relations Act 2016

CASES:

Bell v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2020] QIRC 037

Brisbane South Regional Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541

APPEARANCES:

Mr C Flanagan, self-represented applicant

Ms N A-Khavari of counsel instructed by Crown Law for the respondent

Decision

  1. [1]
    Mr Flanagan's employment was terminated by the State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy), (the Respondent) on 15 March 2021.  At the time of his dismissal, Mr Flanagan held the position of Spatial Information Officer, Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy (the Department). Mr Flanagan filed an application for reinstatement (TD/2021/31) and the matter was allocated to me for conciliation.
  1. [2]
    The conciliation conference held on 30 April 2021 was unsuccessful and I issued a certificate to that effect.  The certificate states:

The Commission is satisfied that all reasonable attempts to settle the matter are, or are likely to be, unsuccessful.

I note the Respondent has raised a jurisdictional objection on the basis that Mr Flanagan has filed his application out of time.

If the matter proceeds to arbitration, it may well be that the jurisdictional matters need to be resolved separately.

NOTE: THE APPLICANT MUST, WITHIN SIX (6) MONTHS OF THE DATE OF THIS CERTFICIATE, TAKE SOME ACTION IN RELATION TO THE APPLICATION OTHERWISE THE APPLICATION LAPSES.

  1. [3]
    Mr Flanagan took no action in relation to the application for reinstatement within six months of receiving the certificate.  Accordingly, Mr Flanagan's application lapsed on 31 October 2021.[1]
  1. [4]
    On 25 February 2022, Mr Flanagan filed an application seeking that the unfair dismissal matter be reopened.
  1. [5]
    On 16 March 2022, I listed a mention of the matter and asked the parties if there was any opposition to me hearing the application to reopen given that I had conciliated the unfair dismissal matter.  The parties did not raise any objection and agreed that it would be appropriate for me to hear this application, noting that if I decided to reopen the matter, it would be allocated to another Commissioner for hearing.
  1. [6]
    On 16 March 2022, following the mention, I issued directions requesting that Mr Flanagan file written submissions specifically addressing: why it is necessary for his application to be reopened; any explanation for not taking any action in relation to the application for reinstatement within six months of the s 318 Certificate being issued; and any prejudice to each party if the application is not granted.
  1. [7]
    I also directed that the Respondent file written submissions in response to Mr Flanagan's submissions.
  1. [8]
    I further directed that the matter be set down for a hearing.  The purpose of the hearing was for the parties to make oral submissions in support of their filed written submissions and for me to ask any questions I had arising from the filed material.
  1. [9]
    I have read all submissions and considered the material provided to me by the parties.  Much of the material and submissions made by Mr Flanagan pertained to his original unfair dismissal claim rather than to the specific matter of whether it is in the interests of justice to grant leave to reopen.

Legal Framework

  1. [10]
    Sections 484 and 485 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 ('the Act') provides:

484 Power to reopen proceedings

  1. (1)
    On application by a person mentioned in section 485, proceedings may be reopened by –
  1. (a)
    For proceedings taken before the full bench – the full bench; or
  2. (b)
    otherwise, the commission.

…

485 Who may apply to reopen proceedings

An application for reopening of proceedings may be opened by-

…

  1. (b)
    a party to the proceedings; or

…

  1. [11]
    In the matter of Bell v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2020] QIRC 037 (Bell), Commissioner Hartigan considered the power under s 484:

The Commission's power to reopen a proceeding[2] is discretionary and is not subject to any statutory conditions. The power is to be exercised to serve the interests of justice and should not be construed narrowly. The guiding principle in deciding whether to exercise the discretion to grant leave to reopen is whether or not the interests of justice are better served by allowing or rejecting the application.[3]

  1. [12]
    I agree with the Respondent's submission that the approach to be taken in deciding this application is that taken in Bell and involves a consideration of the reasons why Mr Flanagan requires his application to be re-opened, the steps taken by Mr Flanagan to advance his application (or why such steps have not been taken within the six month limitation period) and any prejudice suffered by the parties if the application is not granted.[4]

Mr Flanagan's application to reopen – grounds of application

  1. [13]
    Mr Flanagan's application filed on 25 February 2022 lists 'grounds of application'.
  1. [14]
    It appears that what prompted Mr Flanagan to seek to reopen the matter was that he became aware that the professional contacts/referees he had listed in job applications had not been providing references when contacted by potential employers. 
  1. [15]
    In particular, Mr Flanagan said that he was scheduled to commence training in a Brisbane City Council bus driver role and that he had been informed by an employee of the Council that his two state government professional referees had indicated that they were unable to verify Mr Flanagan's work history because 'it was in their system that I went through QIRC'.
  1. [16]
    Mr Flanagan said that he had contacted several other potential referees from the government and that they had informed him that they were not allowed to help him.
  1. [17]
    Mr Flanagan also made reference to a recent interview he had with Queensland Health for a lab assistant role and said that he had been told by someone from SmartJobs[5] that his referees were not getting back to them.
  1. [18]
    Mr Flanagan said that when he contacted the Respondent, he was told by Karina Vercoe that there was 'no obligation' for employees to provide assistance as professional contacts.
  1. [19]
    Mr Flanagan goes on to discuss the substantive matter of his dismissal and notes that there were a number of occasions during his employment when he now knows it was open to him to raise grievances or appeal certain matters to this Commission but that he only found out about this after his termination.

Mr Flanagan's submissions

  1. [20]
    Mr Flanagan's written submissions were filed on 4 April 2022. Mr Flanagan spoke to these submissions at the oral hearing.  I have grouped the submissions under relevant headings.

References and applications for other employment post-conciliation

  1. [21]
    Mr Flanagan submits that at the conciliation of his unfair dismissal matter, Ms Tina Hocking had told him that if he did not take his matter to hearing, he would have his referees available to him and we be able to get another professional job.
  1. [22]
    Mr Flanagan says that in the period after his termination he was on medication for a period and spent some time in hospital between May and August 2021. 
  1. [23]
    Mr Flanagan says that since October 2021 when he commenced applying for jobs, the majority of roles he has been applying for are for 'university and professional Government experience needing professional career verification'.  Mr Flanagan provides information about the roles he has been applying for at Exhibits 5 to 10 attached to his written submissions. Mr Flanagan says that he deserved kindness, understanding and professional support.
  1. [24]
    Mr Flanagan submits that he contacted the QIRC to find out:

about the "Deed of release and/or Terms of Settlement" in order to find out whether or not there was anything official written down or provided after the Conciliation so I can provide Dept of Resources aren't living up to their agreement as detailed.

Mr Flanagan's financial position

  1. [25]
    It appears to me from Mr Flanagan's submissions that he raises his financial position for two reasons.  The first is that he is clearly currently experiencing financial stress and he points to his wage loss from his termination and also potential wage losses from being unable to secure employment.  The second appears to be an argument that he had raised financial hardship during the show cause process that lead to his termination.  I presume that if his matter were reopened, Mr Flanagan would seek to argue that the termination was harsh given his financial position.

Historical matters relating to Mr Flanagan's employment

  1. [26]
    Mr Flanagan has made a number of submissions regarding historical issues relevant to his employment.  In particular, there is repeated mention of what I will describe as 'the card table matter'.  The issues Mr Flanagan raises appear to stem from an issue in 2008 where Mr Flanagan made a complaint about the behaviour of a work colleague.
  1. [27]
    Mr Flanagan submits that had he known about his ability to appeal some of the decisions made with regard to his employment, he would have lodged appeals at the time.  Mr Flanagan says that his employer did not inform him about appeal rights or the QIRC.

Accusations of defamation, libel, slander or fraud

  1. [28]
    Mr Flanagan says that he has been the victim of defamation, libel, slander or fraud and that false allegations have been made about him.

Unaware of six month lapse of application

  1. [29]
    Mr Flanagan says that he did not know that he had to initiate action on his matter within six months of the issuing of the certificate recording that there had not been a satisfactory settlement of the unfair dismissal matter at conciliation.  Mr Flanagan said that he became aware of this when he contacted the QIRC.

Orders sought

  1. [30]
    Mr Flanagan sets out a list of 'urgent QIRC orders' and 'final orders' which he seeks as a result of his application:
  • an order that 'professional referees in the State Govt to be made available regardless of my termination…';
  • an investigation into false allegations to determine  if there has been an abuse of positional power resulting in defamation, libel, slander or fraud;
  • emotional trauma support to be provided counselling and legal assistance;
  • other orders the QIRC 'suggests may be applicable or can assist with';
  • wage recuperation from the termination of his role in excess of '1, 250.000 in future earnings not CPI adjusted;
  • if wages are not provided, reinstatement to his 'PO3 tier 4 permanent Senior Spatial Information Officer role somewhere in State Government';
  • potential career costs from October 2021 resulting from CV contacts being unavailable;
  • 'emotional trauma costs from years of false allegations';
  • 'sue for damages to my character and reputation defamation, libel, slander or fraud as decided by the QIRC.

Respondent's submissions in reply

Mr Flanagan's reasons for seeking to re-open

Referee Statements

  1. [31]
    The Respondent rejects Mr Flanagan's contention that there was an agreement at conciliation regarding referee requests and further states that no agreement was reached at conciliation and that this is confirmed by the issuing of the s 318 Certificate.
  1. [32]
    In any event, the Respondent says submits that the Department and its employees are not obliged to provide Mr Flanagan with a reference or referee statements and that cannot be ordered by the Commission to do so.  
  1. [33]
    The Respondent has provided email correspondence under the hand of Ms Karina Vercoe dated 18 February 2022, 1 March 2022 and 3 March 2022 where the Respondent's position regarding referee requests has been communicated to Mr Flanagan.

Historical Workplace Matters

  1. [34]
    With regard to the historical workplace matters dating back to 2008 raised by Mr Flanagan in his submissions, the Respondent submits that these matters have been the subject of a number of Department processes (complaints and an internal review process) and have been closed.  The Respondent says that while Mr Flanagan may be dissatisfied with the outcome of these processes, as an employee he was ultimately obligated to accept the findings of the authorised delegate and behave accordingly.
  1. [35]
    The Respondent says that despite the Department's attempts to encourage Mr Flanagan to put the past behind him and start afresh, he consistently failed to do so, which ultimately resulted in a discipline process and the termination of his employment.

Orders sought by Mr Flanagan

  1. [36]
    The Respondent says that the immediate and final orders sought by Mr Flanagan are outside the jurisdiction of the Commission. 

Mr Flanagan's reasons for not taking steps to advance the reinstatement application

  1. [37]
    The Respondent submits that it is significant that Mr Flanagan did not take any steps whatsoever following the issuing of the conciliation certificate to progress his application within the six month period.
  1. [38]
    The Respondent submits that Mr Flanagan's reasons regarding his understanding that there had been an agreement about his access to referees and that he was on medication between May and August 2021 do not provide an adequate explanation for the delay in applying to progress his application, in circumstances where it says:
  1. a.
    the Applicant was aware of the six month limitation period, where the Conciliation Certificate clearly, in uppercase bold letters, informed the Applicant that he must take some action in relation to his Reinstatement Application within six months, or his application would lapse;
  1. b.
    there was no referee deal or agreement…
  1. c.
    there is no obligation on the Department to provide a reference or referee…
  1. d.
    the Applicant's submission that he only became aware of the referee requests issue 'over the last few weeks' should not be accepted in circumstances where the Applicant has also stated he has been applying for Queensland Government positions since at least October 2021.[6]
  1. e.
    there is no clear submission or medical evidence that the Applicant's medication in any way prevented him from advancing his Reinstatement Application.
  1. [39]
    The Respondent says that statutory time limitations must be respected and in the context of a six month time limit, a delay of 10 months is significant.

Prejudice suffered by the parties

  1. [40]
    The Respondent notes that the opportunity to litigate his claim is a matter weighted in Mr Flanagan's favour, the Respondent submits that Mr Flanagan filed his matter on 8 April 2021 and has chosen not to pursue it until 25 February 2022.
  1. [41]
    The Respondent submits that any prejudice to Mr Flanagan in not being able to pursue his matter is significantly reduced where he has poor prospects of success and is seeking orders outside of the jurisdiction of the Commission.
  1. [42]
    The Respondent submits that Mr Flanagan has poor prospects of success because: the discipline process afforded Mr Flanagan natural justice;[7] it was open to the decision maker to find the allegations against Mr Flanagan substantiated;[8] the termination was reasonable having regard to Mr Flanagan's conduct and disciplinary history.[9]
  1. [43]
    The Respondent says that there are cases[10] which support the position taken by it in circumstances where:
  1. a.
    the Applicant's conduct of continually seeking to agitate historical workplace matters and refusing to accept any outcome given demonstrates the working relationship has broken down to the point where it is irretrievable; and
  1. b.
    the Respondent has no other option but to terminate the Applicant's employment, because his continued presence in the workplace would have had a serious impact on the employment relationship, his co-workers (in particular Mr Bonaventura) and the Respondent's operational requirements.[11]
  1. [44]
    The Respondent submits that it is significant that in his application, Mr Flanagan again attempts to reagitate historical workplace matters dating back to 2008.
  1. [45]
    With regard to the prejudice suffered by the Respondent if the matter were to be reopened, the Respondent says that the length of the delay in Mr Flanagan taking action on his matter is significant.  The Respondent refers to the statement of McHugh J in Brisbane South Regional Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 that:

…The enactment of time limitations has been driven by the general perception that '[w]here there is delay the whole quality of justice deteriorates' (R v Lawrence [1982] AC 510 at 517, per Lord Halisham of St Marleybone LC).  Sometimes the deterioration in quality is palpable, as in the case where a crucial witness is dead or an important document has been destroyed.  But sometimes, perhaps more often than we realise, the deterioration in quality is not recognizable even by the parties. Prejudice may exist without the parties or anybody else realising that it exists. As the United State Supreme Court pointed out in Barker v Wingo (1972) 407 US 514 at 532, 'what has been forgotten can rarely be shown'.

So, it must often happen that important, perhaps decisive, evidence has disappeared without anybody now 'knowing' that it ever existed.  Similarly, it must often happen that time will diminish the significance of a known fact or circumstance because its relationship to the cause of action is no longer as apparent as it was when the cause of action arose.  A verdict may appear well base don the evidence given in the proceedings, but, if the tribunal of fact had all the evidence concerning the matter, an opposite result may have ensued.  The longer the delay in commencing proceedings, the more likely it is that the case will be decided on less evidence than was available to the parties at the time that the cause of action arose.

…The effect of delay on the quality of justice is no doubt one of the most important influences motivating a legislature to enact limitation periods for commencing actions. But is not the only one. Courts and commentators have perceived four broad rationales for the enactment of limitation periods. First, as time goes by, relevant evidence is likely to be lost. …Secondly, it is oppressive, even 'cruel', to a defendant to allow an action to be brought long after the circumstances which gave rise to it have passed. …Thirdly, people should be able to arrange their affairs and utilise their resources on the basis that claim can no longer be made against them. ….The final rationale for the limitation periods is that the public interest requires that disputes be settled as quickly as possible.[12]

  1. [46]
    The Respondent says that in circumstances where Mr Flanagan's employment was terminated more than a year ago, there is a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the Respondent if Mr Flanagan's application is reopened. The delay is likely to pose a difficult for the Respondent's employees who are called to give evidence.  The substantiated allegations relate to events dating back to 2017 and so relevant witnesses will be required to recall events and conversations from that time.  
  1. [47]
    The Respondent says that those witnesses are entitled to assume the issues raised by Mr Flanagan are at an end and move on with their lives. Further, the Respondent says that there is a tangible risk that the Respondent's memories of these events will have a faded and certain details would be forgotten, this may have a significant impact on the ability of the Respondent to defend the reinstatement application.

Consideration

  1. [48]
    I understand that Mr Flanagan has been frustrated by the events that have led to the people he has named as his professional referees being unavailable to respond to requests for information. 

Availability of professional referees

  1. [49]
    Mr Flanagan appears to hold a genuine belief that there was an agreement made at conciliation regarding the availability of his previous colleagues or supervisors to provide references for him.  The conciliation was unsuccessful and there was no agreement reached between the parties.  A certificate was issued on this basis.  I accept that there was no agreement or promise made to Mr Flanagan regarding availability of referees.
  1. [50]
    One of Mr Flanagan's motivations for seeking to re-open his appeal was the difficulties he was encountering having his employment with the Department verified by potential employers.  I note in the material provided to me for this application, that Mr Flanagan was provided with a Statement of Service and was provided with advice as to how to access this again in the event he did not have a copy available to him.  I also note that Mr Flanagan was provided with the name of a contact person who would be available to verify the statement of service if a potential employer required this.
  1. [51]
    Any issue Mr Flanagan has regarding the availability of his professional referees is separate to his application for reinstatement and is therefore not a reason to reopen his application.

Orders sought by Mr Flanagan

  1. [52]
    Mr Flanagan seeks an order that his referees be made available.  This is not an outcome that is available to him, either by way of this application or as a result of an application for reinstatement.  This is a factor that weighs against exercising the discretion to re-open the matter.
  1. [53]
    In fact, of all the outcomes Mr Flanagan seeks (see [30] above), the only one which is feasibly available to him if the application is reopened and he is successful in that matter, is reinstatement to his role. 

Prejudice to Mr Flanagan

Prospects of success – Jurisdictional objection (out of time)

  1. [54]
    Firstly, I note that the Respondent had raised a jurisdictional objection to Mr Flanagan's application for reinstatement.  Mr Flanagan's application had been filed two days outside of the 21 day period to lodge an appeal and the conciliation certificate issued following the conference on 30 April 2021 states that this is a matter that may been to be resolved in the event Mr Flanagan determined to press on with his application.
  1. [55]
    I have not explored the reasons the application was lodged out of time and therefore I am unable to come to a conclusion about the prospects of an application to extend time.  However, I do not think this is a matter that requires further consideration given the conclusion I have reached about the merits of the substantive application.

Prospects of success – Merits of the application

  1. [56]
    There was a lot of material before me about Mr Flanagan's work history and the matters which lead to his dismissal.   With regard to s 320 of the IR Act, I note that Mr Flanagan: was notified of the reason for his dismissal; the dismissal related to his conduct, capacity or performance; and he was given an opportunity to respond. It is clear to me on the material available that Mr Flanagan was afforded procedural fairness throughout the show cause process.
  1. [57]
    The Department's response to Mr Flanagan's application for reinstatement provides some background to the matters subject of the discipline process which lead to his dismissal.  It states that the matters relate to Mr Flanagan's 'continued agitation of historical workplace matters'.  Some of the alleged conduct of a colleague that Mr Flanagan appeared to continue to seek to agitate dates back to 2008 ('the card table incident').
  1. [58]
    In 2017, Mr Flanagan was disciplined arising from comments he made on posts on his personal Facebook account referring to historical workplace matters (including the card table incident).
  1. [59]
    I have reviewed the submissions Mr Flanagan has made for this application and considered his oral submissions at the hearing.  Mr Flanagan continues to make reference to the 'card table incident' and the colleague involved.
  1. [60]
    There has been extensive material filed with regard to both Mr Flanagan's application for reinstatement and for this application to reopen the matter.
  1. [61]
    While I have not heard and seen all of the evidence which would be before the Commission if the matter were to be reopened and progress to hearing, I have had the advantage of perusing the material that has been filed.  Mr Flanagan appears to continue to agitate the historical matters.  With regard to Mr Flanagan's prospects of success, I can say that it is clear that the matters that resulted in the disciplinary process continue to be matters that occupy Mr Flanagan's mind.  I am concerned that Mr Flanagan has demonstrated an inability to accept findings made over the last 13 years and maintains a desire to re-prosecute these matters.
  1. [62]
    On the basis of the procedural fairness afforded to Mr Flanagan throughout the dismissal process, the orders he seeks as a result of this application to re-open and the evidence available to me regarding the matters that lead to the disciplinary process that resulted in his termination, and the outcome of relevant cases cited by the Respondent.[13] I am of the view the Mr Flanagan's application for reinstatement has limited prospects of success.

Prejudice to the Respondent

  1. [63]
    I have considered the Respondent's submissions regarding prejudice it will suffer if the matter is reopened.  It is true that the longer the time period between the dismissal and the events leading up to it and the matter being heard, the more difficult it is for witnesses to form clear recollections of what occurred and for the Respondent to ensure all relevant witnesses are available to provide evidence to the Commission.  If the matter were to be reopened, the events being examined at the hearing would have occurred some years ago.  I understand the difficulty this presents for the Respondent, though I am aware that there are significant documentary records of the disciplinary matters which led to the dismissal.
  1. [64]
    The most compelling of the Respondent's arguments regarding prejudice to the parties is the impact on the relevant employees.  Given the nature of the conduct which led to Mr Flanagan's dismissal including his determination to continue pressing matters which had been investigated and closed many years ago, I accept that it may be difficult for employees who have thought they were able to put those matters behind them and move on with their working lives to find themselves involved in reinstatement proceedings having thought that the matter had been finalised over a year ago.
  1. [65]
    There is potential prejudice to both parties if the matter were to be reopened.  However, any prejudice to Mr Flanagan is tempered by my assessment that his application has limited prospects of success for the reasons set out at [56] – [62].

Reason for delay in taking action on the application

  1. [66]
    With regard to the reason for delay, Mr Flanagan advances three main arguments: a period of illness; being unaware of the six month lapse period; and that the need did not arise until early 2022. 
  1. [67]
    There was a period during the six months from the issuing of the s 318 Certificate following the unsuccessful conciliation to the lapsing of the matter when Mr Flanagan says he was unwell, hospitalized and taking medication.
  1. [68]
    The Respondent points out that Mr Flanagan has not furnished the Commission with medical evidence of his illness during this period of time. At the hearing, Mr Flanagan said that he would be able to provide such evidence to the Commission if required.  I do not find that necessary. In these circumstances, I am willing to accept Mr Flanagan at his word that he was unwell for some time between April and October 2021.  However, I understand that Mr Flanagan commenced applying for jobs in or around October 2021.  Mr Flanagan was capable of applying for jobs and it is my view that if he intended to take further action in relation to the matter, he would have been capable of contacting the Industrial Registry to inform the Commission that he wished for his application to be progressed.
  1. [69]
    Mr Flanagan has said that he was not aware of the six month lapse period following the issuing of the s 318 Certificate.  With regard to that submission, I note that the certificate issued to the parties following the conciliation stated in block capital letters the text set out above at [2].
  1. [70]
    The application is Mr Flanagan's and responsibility for progressing it and being aware of timelines that exist under the IR Act or the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 is his responsibility.
  1. [71]
    The final reason, which is that Mr Flanagan did not see a need to pursue his application until he became aware his referees were not able to provide information to potential employers, is dealt with earlier in this decision.
  1. [72]
    There was no agreement reached at the conciliation and there was no settlement of the matter.  Therefore, Mr Flanagan's view that there had been an agreement from the Respondent's that his referees would be available, was formed in error.  Secondly, Mr Flanagan was provided with a statement of service. Thirdly, there is no obligation on the part of the employer to do any more than confirm the contents of the statement of service. 

Conclusion and order

  1. [73]
    It is a serious matter to dismiss an application and deny Mr Flanagan the opportunity to have the Commission consider whether his dismissal was unfair.  However, for the foregoing reasons, I am unable to find that Mr Flanagan has advanced a compelling argument for the Commission to reopen the proceedings in TD/2021/31. 
  1. [74]
    The application to reopen proceedings is dismissed.

Footnotes

[1]Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 318(4)(a).

[2]Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 484.

[3]Finborough Investments Pty Ltd v Airlie Beach Pty Ltd [1995] 1 Qd R 12, 16-17 cited with approval in Emaas Pty Ltd v Mobil Oil Australia Limited [2003] QCA 232, [19]. 

[4]Algahamdi v State of Queensland (Cairns and Hinterland Hospital and Health Service) [2021] QIRC 233; Bell v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2020] QIRC 037

[5] SmartJobs is an online platform for advertising available positions within the Queensland Government.

[6] This is a reference to paragraph 5 of Mr Flanagan's submissions

[7]  Employer Response filed with the Industrial Registry in TD/2021/31 on 15 April 2021, paragraph 39.

[8]  Employer Response filed with the Industrial Registry in TD/2021/31 on 15 April 2021, paragraphs 40-41.

[9]  Employer Response filed with the Industrial Registry in TD/2021/31 on 15 April 2021, paragraphs 42-46.

[10] Minogue v State of Queensland [2014] QIRC 044; Gobus v State of Queensland [2016] QIRC 018 (confirmed on appeal to the Industrial Court of Queensland [2016] ICQ 015).

[11] Respondent's written submissions filed 26 April 2022, paragraph 42.

[12] Brisbane South Regional Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541, 551-553.

[13] Minogue v State of Queensland [2014] QIRC 044; Gobus v State of Queensland [2016] QIRC 018 (confirmed on appeal to the Industrial Court of Queensland [2016] ICQ 015).

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Flanagan v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Flanagan v State of Queensland (Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy)

  • MNC:

    [2022] QIRC 199

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Member Pidgeon IC

  • Date:

    06 Jun 2022

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Barker v Wingo (1972) 407 US 514
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1972) 407 US 514
Bell v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2020] QIRC 37
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QIRC 37
Cite 2 - [2020] QIRC 37
Cite 3 - [2020] QIRC 37
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1996) 186 CLR 541
Cite 2 - (1996) 186 CLR 541
Cite 3 - (1996) 186 CLR 541
Emaaas Pty Ltd v Mobil Oil Australia Ltd [2003] QCA 232
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2003] QCA 232
Finborough Investments Pty Ltd v Airlie Beach Pty Ltd[1995] 1 Qd R 12; [1993] QSC 268
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [1995] 1 Qd R 12
Gobus v State of Queensland (Cairns and Hinterland Hospital and Health Service) [2016] ICQ 15
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] ICQ 15
Cite 2 - [2016] ICQ 15
Gobus v State of Queensland (Cairns and Hinterland Hospital and Health Service) [2016] QIRC 18
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QIRC 18
Cite 2 - [2016] QIRC 18
In the making of the Sunshine Coast Council Field-Based Employees Certified Agreement 2020 (No. 4) [2021] QIRC 233
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 233
Minogue v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2014] QIRC 44
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QIRC 44
Cite 2 - [2014] QIRC 44
R v Lawrence (1982) AC 510
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1982) AC 510

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.