Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 2)
[2022] QIRC 373
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 2)[2022] QIRC 373
- Add to List
Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 2)[2022] QIRC 373
Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 2)[2022] QIRC 373
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATION COMMISSION
CITATION: | Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 2) [2022] QIRC 373 |
PARTIES: | Robertson, B (Complainant) v McDonald's Australia Limited (Respondent) |
CASE NO.: | AD/2021/7 |
PROCEEDING: | Application in existing proceedings |
DELIVERED ON: | 1 September 2022 |
HEARING DATE: | 1 September 2022 |
MEMBER: | Merrell DP |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
ORDER: | The Complainant's Application in existing proceedings filed on 25 August 2022 is dismissed. |
CATCHWORDS: | HUMAN RIGHTS – DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION – GROUNDS OF DISCRIMINATION – DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF AGE – Complainant alleged age discrimination and the asking of unnecessary questions against the Respondent – stay of complaint – appeal against stay – appeal successful in part – twelve subsequent applications in existing proceedings filed in the Commission for various orders – directions orders issued for the hearing and determination of four of the Complainant's applications in existing proceedings on 12 October 2022 – further application in existing proceedings to vacate one of the directions orders in respect of hearing on 12 October 2022 – determination of application in existing proceedings to vacate directions order – application in existing proceedings dismissed |
CASES: | Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited [2022] ICQ 25 |
LEGISLATION: | Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 989 |
APPEARANCES: | The Complainant on his own behalf. Ms L. Dearlove of Colins, Biggers & Paisley for the Respondent. |
Reasons for Decision (ex tempore)
Introduction and background
- [1]On 5 September 2020, Mr B. Robertson made a complaint to the Queensland Human Rights Commission against McDonald’s Australia Limited ('McDonald's). The complaint concerned allegations, in the work area, of age discrimination and unnecessary questions contrary to the provisions of the Anti‑Discrimination Act 1991. On 16 February 2021, the complaint was referred to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission.
- [2]By order of Davis J, President of the Industrial Court of Queensland dated 29 April 2022, - being an order arising out of an appeal Mr Robertson made to that Court against an earlier decision of the Commission about his complaint - Mr Robertson’s complaint is stayed until he files a Notice of Facts and Contentions which puts McDonald’s on notice of the case that it has to meet.
- [3]As at today's date, no such Notice of Facts and Contentions has been filed by Mr Robertson.
- [4]However, since the date of that order made by the President of the Court, Mr Robertson has filed twelve applications in existing proceedings in the Commission.
- [5]Those twelve applications, by the date they are filed and by reference to, as best as I can make out, the relief sought are:
- 1.13 July 2022, being an application for an order that McDonalds comply with the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) ('the 13 July application');
- 2.14 July 2022, being an application for an order that the title of the proceedings be amended so that the legal owner of McDonalds is included, as well as the names of the individuals who have allegedly contravened the Anti‑Discrimination Act 1991 and the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) ('the 14 July application');
- 3.28 July 2022, being an application for an order that I recuse myself from the complaint ('the 28 July application');
- 4.8 August 2022, being an application for an order that '… a neutral party within' the Commission investigate and report on allegations made by Mr Robertson of '… improper acts' by myself, by other members of the Commission and by the Industrial Registrar ('the 8 August application');
- 5.15 August 2022, being an application for an order that '… the matter A.D 2021/7 be deemed a mistrial' ('the first 15 August application');
- 6.15 August 2022, being a further application for an order that '… the matter A.D 2021/7 be deemed a mistrial' ('the second 15 August application');
- 7.16 August 2022, being a second further application for an order that '… the matter A.D 2021/7 be deemed a mistrial' ('the 16 August application');
- 8.19 August 2022, being a third further application for an order that '… the matter A.D 2021/7 be deemed a mistrial' which states additional grounds for such an order to be made ('the first 19 August application');
- 9.19 August 2022, being an application for orders:
- (i)that the President and myself recuse ourselves from this proceeding;
- (ii)that McDonald's '… model litigant stats [sic] is withdrawn from the respondent [sic]';
- (iii)that '… leave to appear is withdrawn from all council [sic] acting , or of whom acted in further the interests of the respondent'; and
- (iv)that the '… company conduct its own defecne [sic] henceforth' ('the second 19 August 2022 application');
- 10.24 August 2022, being an application for orders:
- (i)that the requirement that Mr Robertson use the approved forms made under s 989(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 ('the IR Act') be waived in respect of him;
- (ii)that '… the court expidite [sic] matters'; and
- (iii)that I am '… removed from interactions related to' Mr Robertson ('the first 24 August application');
- 11.24 August 2022, being an application, with additional or other grounds, for orders:
- (i)that the requirement that Mr Robertson use the approved forms made under s 989(1) of the IR Act be waived in respect of him;
- (ii)that '… the court expidite [sic] matters'; and
- (iii)that I am '… removed from interactions related to' Mr Robertson ('the second 24 August application'); and
- 12.25 August 2022, being an application for an order that a directions order made by me dated 12 August 2022 be vacated ('the 25 August application').
- [6]By directions order dated 28 July 2022, I made orders for the filing and serving of written submissions by the parties concerning the 13 July application and the 14 July application, and I ordered that those two applications be heard before me on 12 October 2022.
- [7]By directions order dated 12 August 2022, I also made orders for the filing and serving of written submissions by the parties concerning the 28 July application and the 8 August application, and I ordered that those two applications also be heard before me on 12 October 2022.
- [8]By notice of listing dated 29 August 2022, it was ordered that the parties appear today for the hearing of the 25 August application, namely, Mr Robertson's application that the directions order made by me dated 12 August 2022 be vacated.
The 25 August application
- [9]I heard the 25 August application today.
- [10]Mr Robertson's grounds for the 25 August application are annexed as Schedule 1 to these reasons for decision.
- [11]In the 25 August application, the principal basis given by Mr Robertson for vacating directions orders I made on 12 August 2022 is that he has no confidence in me to decide his applications because of an order I made on 27 July 2022 sitting as the Industrial Court of Queensland. By that order, I dismissed an application in existing proceedings Mr Robertson made to that Court by which Mr Robertson sought an order that the Court direct McDonald's to comply with the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).[1]
- [12]Today, Mr Robertson submitted that:
- (a)amongst other things, there was an inequity of resources between himself and McDonald’s;
- (b)McDonald’s has the ability to have it be represented by a number of lawyers;
- (c)there is a lack of equity in that respect between him and McDonald’s; and
- (d)there has been an abuse of power by myself and other members of this Commission in that we have allegedly acted improperly.
- [13]It is for those reasons that Mr Robertson wants the applications the subject of the directions order I made on the 12 August 2022, namely, the 28 July application and the 8 August application, not be the subject of a hearing before me but to be determined on the papers.
- [14]Today, McDonald’s submitted that there was no basis for the directions order I made on the 12 August 2022 to be vacated, but Ms Dearlove, who appeared on behalf of McDonald’s, indicated that her client would ultimately not have any difficulty if the 28 July application and the 8 August application were heard and determined on the papers.
- [15]In my opinion, Mr Robertson has not advanced any cogent reason why the directions order I issued on 12 August 2022 should be vacated.
- [16]The order I made on 27 July 2022, sitting as the Industrial Court of Queensland, was because Mr Robertson's application in existing proceedings to that Court was misconceived for the principal reason that, as a matter of law, the Court has no power to direct McDonald's to comply with the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).
- [17]The 28 July application and the 8 August application, the subject of the directions order made on 12 August 2022, and which, by that directions order, are to be heard and determined by me on 12 October 2022, are applications made by Mr Robertson which remain on foot.
- [18]Indeed, the 28 July application is an application that I recuse myself from the complaint, and the 8 August 2022 application is one seeking an order that, as I have indicated, a neutral party investigate and report on certain allegations Mr Robertson has made of improper acts by myself and by other persons. Because of the nature of those applications, it is my view that those matters not be heard and determined on the papers, but that there be a hearing before me to hear any further submissions made by the parties and to make a determination about those applications. Of course, as I have indicated earlier, there was an earlier directions order made by me on 28 July 2022, regarding the 13 July 2022 and 14 July 2022 applications, and those two applications also will be heard before me on 12 October 2022.
- [19]The 28 July application is an application that I recuse myself from hearing any matter concerning Mr Robertson's complaint. Mr Robertson can make submissions in support of that application at the hearing on 12 October 2022. Indeed, it is only fair and proper that, on 12 October 2022, I hear and determine Mr Robertson's recusal application concerning me first.
- [20]For these reasons, I dismiss Mr Robertson’s application in existing proceedings filed on 25 August 2022.
Order
- [21]I make the following order:
The Complainant's Application in existing proceedings filed on 25 August 2022 is dismissed.
SCHEDULE 1
Mr Robertson's grounds for the 25 August application are as follows:
4. Details of decision sought
That the directions of the 12/8/22 , be vacated.
Find One attatchment [sic].
…
Robertson V Mc Donald's. A-D 2021/7.
Applicant's submission, as to directions made 12/8/22.
1/That the directions be vacated.
That the deputy is held to act in bad faith with glacial and exclusionary tactic used, namely that of delay/s,
That the distance sought from (D) Merrill was of public good, not unreasonable, and the basis of concerns such that there was a [sic] element of prompt was required.
That corruption is alledged [sic] of the deputy.
It is alleged that the deputy by way of attrition sought to disadvantage myself.
The deputy does not have my confidence.
That the deputy variously misrepresents sought relief,
The court has considerable powers.
2/Should the relief sought relate to a federal act, it was on the basis that the respondents, DO NOT comply with the act.
The point seemingly lost, was that the Deputy read and form his own opinions.
There exists no understanding with the applicant the policy was indeed read or by way of comparison as to best practice considered.
The court could ask the respondents to alter such practices that are evident.
The court the response if not the lack of it would (contestably) of either be illuminative.
The deputy seeks it is alledged [sic] to rely on the want of understanding.
The presumption, that it is or on balance is mine, is rather uncertain.
The silent Six month (if not greater) personalized data retention, is not within the privacy policy .
That the privacy policy is undated, and can not therefore be appraised against such lack of understanding.
3/ That the Six months (plus?) so offend the 30 day currency of an employment application, that the respondent is held to act in an unconscionable manner.
That the deputy misrepresents the powers as at least consider the claims, for they relate directly to the ethics of the respondent.
The reader may profit from the knowledge that the federally sought privacy compliant [sic] was incorrectly refused. P1
4/That the failed federal oversight has when sought reviewed, under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal act NO Absolutely NO option as to review wrongly dismissed privacy complaints related to Privacy policy wants.
The federal agency O.A.I.C , spent some Thousand some Thousands of dollars retaining a corporate lawyer .Holding Redlich within a [sic] interlocutory hearing with the Administrative Appeal tribunals.
This is by way of understanding the disparity and farce within the administrative abuse of myself , of which the Deputy Merrill, is a an [sic] active party to.
The Queensland government / Queensland legal aid refuse to provide legal advice as to the matter s [sic] at hand .
P2
Footnotes
[1]Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited [2022] ICQ 25, [14].