Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 4)
[2022] QIRC 438
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. 4)[2022] QIRC 438
- Add to List
Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 4)[2022] QIRC 438
Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 4)[2022] QIRC 438
QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION
CITATION: | Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 4) [2022] QIRC 438 |
PARTIES: | Robertson, B (Complainant) v McDonald's Australia Limited (Respondent) |
CASE NO.: | AD/2021/7 |
PROCEEDING: | Applications in existing proceedings |
DELIVERED ON: | 12 October 2022 |
HEARING DATE: | 12 October 2022 |
MEMBER: | Merrell DP |
HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
ORDERS: | The orders made in paragraph [33] of these reasons for decision. |
CATCHWORDS: | HUMAN RIGHTS – DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION – GROUNDS OF DISCRIMINATION – DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF AGE – Complainant alleges age discrimination and the asking of unnecessary questions against the Respondent – 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 – second further application in existing proceedings to vacate one of the directions orders in respect of the hearing on 12 October 2022 – determination of second further application in existing proceedings to vacate directions order – second further application in existing proceedings dismissed – remaining applications in existing proceedings dismissed because they are misconceived |
LEGISLATION: | Industrial Relations Act 2016, s 424 |
CASES: | Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 2) [2022] QIRC 373 |
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]The background to the present matters is set out in paragraphs [1] to [8] in Robertson v McDonald's Australia Limited (No. 2)[1] ('Robertson No. 2'). These reasons should be read with those paragraphs of that decision.
- [2]In Robertson No. 2, I dismissed an application in existing proceedings made by Mr Robertson to have the matters, I am considering at today's hearing, be determined on the papers.[2]
- [3]In an earlier decision I made today, I dismissed Mr Robertson's application in existing proceedings filed on 28 July 2022 that I recuse myself from the matter.
- [4]On 5 October 2022, Mr Robertson, despite the decision I made in Robertson No. 2, made another application (along with another application seeking different relief which I will not hear and determine today) for an order that the matters I am hearing today be determined on the papers ('the first 5 October application'). I will deal with the first 5 October application shortly.
- [5]These reasons for decision also concern my determination of '… the 13 July application', '… the 14 July application' and '… the 8 August application' as I have referred to them in Robertson No. 2.
- [6]For the reasons that follow, I dismiss:
- the first 5 October application;
- the 13 July application;
- the 14 July application; and
- the 8 August application.
The first 5 October application
- [7]By the first 5 October application, Mr Robertson, once again and despite the decision I made in Robertson No. 2, made another application that today's hearing be determined on the papers.
- [8]For the same reasons I gave in paragraphs [9] to [20] in Robertson No. 2, I dismiss the first 5 October application.
- [9]In addition, Mr Robertson's written submissions for the present applications in existing proceedings that he filed on 2 September 2022 and on 6 September 2022 are, in parts, difficult to understand, in some parts are incomprehensible and in other parts irrelevant. To ensure that Mr Robertson has every opportunity to make submissions in support of the applications in existing proceedings he has made that I am determining today, and to ensure that I have the ability to ask him questions about his applications and about his submissions, I will not determine these applications in existing proceedings on the papers.
- [10]For all these reasons, I dismiss the first 5 October application.
The 13 July application
- [11]By the 13 July application, Mr Robertson seeks an order that McDonald's Australia Limited ('McDonald's') comply with the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).
- [12]Mr Robertson's complaint to the Queensland Human Rights Commission, that has been referred to this Commission, concerns allegations that McDonald's contravened the Anti‑Discrimination Act 1991.
- [13]The Commission has no jurisdiction to make any order that McDonald's comply with the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).
- [14]Mr Robertson seems to submit that s 424 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 is a source of power for the Commission to make an order that McDonald's comply with the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth). Section 424 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 sets out the jurisdiction and powers of the Industrial Court of Queensland, not the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, which is a different tribunal.
- [15]The 13 July application is misconceived and is dismissed.
The 14 July application
- [16]By the 14 July 2022, Mr Robertson seeks an order that the title of the proceedings be amended to include the McDonald's Corporation, which is incorporated in the United States of America, as well as the names of senior employees of McDonald's who have allegedly contravened the Anti‑Discrimination Act 1991 and the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).
- [17]This application is misconceived and must be dismissed for three reasons.
- [18]First, for the reasons given earlier, the Commission has no jurisdiction in relation to any alleged contravention of the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth).
- [19]Secondly, Mr Robertson's complaint to the Queensland Human Rights Commission, that has been referred to this Commission, names 'McDonald's Australia Limited' as the only respondent. It is the employees of 'McDonald's Australia Limited' that, as best as I can make out, Mr Robertson alleges contravened the Anti‑Discrimination Act 1991. McDonald's, therefore, is the proper corporate respondent to these proceedings and no other company.
- [20]Thirdly, there is nothing in Mr Robertson's complaint, as referred to this Commission from the Queensland Human Rights Commission, or in the Statement of Facts and Contentions Mr Robertson filed on 30 September 2022 about that referred complaint, where he names the individuals, referred to in the 14 July application, as being persons who allegedly unlawfully discriminated against him.
- [21]The 14 July application is misconceived and is dismissed.
The 8 August application
- [22]By the 8 August application Mr Robertson seeks 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.
- [23]There is no power for me to make such an order.
- [24]In any event, from the submissions made by Mr Robertson, even if there was such a power, there would be no basis for such an order to be made.
- [25]Mr Robertson wants such an order merely because decisions have been made by members of this Commission, about applications made by him, which have been adverse to him. That would not be a basis for any such order to be made, even if power existed.
- [26]Mr Robertson also wants such an order concerning the Industrial Registrar because, according to Mr Robertson, the Industrial Registrar has decided that there will only be a response from the Industrial Registry, to his correspondence, where the correspondence is relevant to his complaint or to his applications. Again, even if there was such a power to make an order as sought by Mr Robertson, that decision would not be a basis upon which such an order would be made.
- [27]The 8 August application is misconceived and is dismissed.
Conclusion
- [28]For the reasons I have given, I dismiss the first 5 October application, the 13 July application, the 14 July application and the 8 August application.
- [29]There remain another eight applications made by Mr Robertson which need to be heard and determined. Seven of them are identified as numbers 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 as referred to in paragraph [5] in Robertson No. 2, namely:
- '… the first 15 August application';
- '… the second 15 August application';
- '… the 16 August application';
- '… the first 19 August application';
- '… the second 19 August application';
- '… the first 24 August application'; and
- '… the second 24 August application'.
- [30]As referred to above, on 5 October 2022, Mr Robertson made another application in existing proceedings for orders that McDonald's disclose who owns it as a corporation ('the second 5 October application').
- [31]I will issue directions for the hearing and determination of the seven applications referred to in paragraph [29] of these reasons and for the second 5 October application.
- [32]I will not make any other orders in relation to the Statement of Facts and Contentions Mr Robertson filed on 30 September 2022, about his referred complaint, until I have heard and determined all outstanding applications in existing proceedings. This is to ensure that the consideration of his complaint can be properly and fairly advanced, and dealt with in an expeditious manner.
Orders
- [33]I make the following orders:
- The Complainant's first Application in existing proceedings filed on 5 October 2022 is dismissed.
- The Complainant's Application in existing proceedings filed on 13 July 2022 is dismissed.
- The Complainant's Application in existing proceedings filed on 14 July 2022 is dismissed.
- The Complainant's Application in existing proceedings filed on 8 August 2022 is dismissed.