Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2024
  4. Naidoo v Scenic Rim Regional Council - [2024] QIRC 134

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

Naidoo v Scenic Rim Regional Council[2024] QIRC 134

Naidoo v Scenic Rim Regional Council[2024] QIRC 134

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Naidoo v Scenic Rim Regional Council [2024] QIRC 134

PARTIES:

Allen Naidoo

(Applicant)

v

Scenic Rim Regional Council

(Respondent)

CASE NOS:

GP/2024/5

PROCEEDING:

Application for further period for making application relating to dismissal pursuant to s 310 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld)

DELIVERED ON:

28 May 2024

MEMBER:

Pidgeon IC

HEARD AT:

On the papers

ORDER:

  1. The Applicant's application for a further period to make an application to the Commission, for the Commission to deal with a dispute under ch 8, pt 1 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – QUEENSLAND – DISMISSALS – GENERAL PROTECTIONS – Applicant was employed by the Scenic Rim Regional Council – where the Applicant files an application 13-days out of time – whether, having regard to s 310(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, the Applicant should be allowed a further period of time to make application to the Commission to deal with the dispute – whether Commission satisfied exceptional circumstances exist within the meaning of s 310(2) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 to enliven the Commission's discretion to allow a further period of time for Applicant to make application to the Commission to deal with the dispute – Commission not satisfied exceptional circumstances exist – application for a further period of time to make application to the Commission to deal with the dispute under ch 8, pt 1 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 dismissed

LEGISLATION AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 366(2)

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ch 8, pt 1, ss 282(1)(a), 310(1), 310(2)  

Local Government Act 2009 (Qld)

Local Government Regulation 2012 (Qld)

Scenic Rim Regional Council Enterprise Bargaining Certified Agreement and Queensland Local Government Industry (Stream A) Award – State 2017

CASES:

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

Dickson v Mornington Shire Council [2020] QIRC 106

Khiani v Australian Bureau of Statistics [2011] FCAFC 109

Nichols v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) [2023] QIRC 182

Steven Ermel v Duluxgroup (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 17

Stogiannidis v Victorian  Frozen Food Distributors Pty Ltd (t/as Richmond Oysters) (2018) 273 IR 156

Thornton v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2020] QIRC 393

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

  1. [1]
    Mr Allen Naidoo ('the Applicant') commenced employment with the Scenic Rim Regional Council ('the Respondent') as a Plumbing Inspector on 11 April 2022. The Applicant's employment with the Respondent was terminated on 14 December 2023 on the basis that he had failed to engage with a Performance Improvement Plan ('the PIP') instigated by the Respondent.
  1. [2]
    By application filed on 17 January 2024, Mr Naidoo applied to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission to deal with a dispute concerning his dismissal pursuant to ch 8, pt 1 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 ('the IR Act'). In his grounds of application, Mr Naidoo states:

When I was terminated on the 14/12/2023, I was unable to get any legal advice at the time due to the close of business towards the Christmas break. I did however submit an application through to the Fair Work Commission within the 21 days on the belief that FWC was the right place for my application to be submitted to.

I recently managed to get legal advice and I was informed that I had submitted my application to the wrong organisation as FWC did not have jurisdiction to attend to cases involving Scenic Rim Regional Council. I was informed that only the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission had jurisdiction to attend cases involving Scenic Rim Regional council.

I appeal to the Commissioner to consider my application. Had I initially known that my application had to be submitted to QIRC, my application would have been submitted within the 21 days as I had done with FWC

I attached a copy of the Tax Invoice for payment made for my application to FWC acknowledging receipt of my application within the 21 days.

  1. [3]
    Pursuant to s 310(1)(a) of the IR Act, Mr Naidoo had to make his general protections application to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission within 21-days after the dismissal took effect. Mr Naidoo failed to do this and his application was ultimately filed 13-days out of time.
  1. [4]
    In its Form 22 Response and counter claim filed on 6 February 2024, the Respondent raised a jurisdictional objection, noting that the application was filed 13-days out of time. The Respondent notes a number of issues with Mr Naidoo's application, relevantly for this application:

The Applicant’s explanation is that he did not know where to file the Application. Even if that explanation were true, ignorance of the law is not an appropriate basis for an extension of time. Further, the Application has poor merits on its face. On those grounds, the Application should be dismissed.

  1. [5]
    Despite raising the out of time issue, the Respondent was content to participate in a conciliation conference which was held on 27 February 2024. The conciliation did not result in a settlement of the matter and a certificate was issued pursuant to s 312(2) of the IR Act.
  1. [6]
    On 5 March 2024, the Respondent filed an application in existing proceedings seeking to have Mr Naidoo's application struck out for being filed out of time. To decide whether Mr Naidoo's general protections application should proceed to hearing, I must consider the operation of s 310(2) of the IR Act.
  1. [7]
    While the Respondent's Application in existing proceedings has prompted the hearing of this matter, for the purposes of this proceeding, I am considering the application for an extension of time expressed by Mr Naidoo in his general protections application and referred to above in [2].
  1. [8]
    The relevant questions to be asked in this application are whether, having regard to the matters set out in s 310(2) of the IR Act, the discretion to allow Mr Naidoo a further period of time to make his general protections application is enlivened. If the discretion is enlivened, the second question is whether to exercise that discretion.
  1. [9]
    It is only this matter which is being considered in this application. On 25 March 2024, I issued directions ordering that the Applicant file submissions in support of his application being heard out of time and that the Respondent file submissions in reply.  Any further submissions were to be filed by 14 May 2024 and request for leave to make oral submissions was required to be made by 4.00pm on 15 May 2024.
  1. [10]
    Mr Naidoo filed written submissions on 15 April 2024. The Respondent's submissions were filed on 3 May 2024. On 14 May 2024, Mr Naidoo filed further submissions in reply. No application was made for leave to make oral submissions and I will therefore decide the matter on the papers.

Legal framework

  1. [11]
    Section 310 provides the following:
  1. An application relating to dismissal must be made within –
  1. 21-days after the dismissal took effect; or
  2. if the Commission allows a further period under subsection (2) – the further period.
  1. The commission may allow a further period if the commission is satisfied there are exceptional circumstances, taking into account –
  1. the reason for the delay; and
  2. any action taken by the person to dispute the dismissal; and
  3. prejudice to the employer (including prejudice caused by the delay); and
  4. the merits of the application; and
  5. fairness as between the person and other persons in a similar position.

…..

  1. [12]
    Section 310(2) of the IR Act is analogous to s 366(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ('the FW Act'). It has been noted in this Commission that authorities regarding the construction of s 366(2) of the FW Act are persuasive in respect of the construction of s 310(2) of the IR Act.[1]
  1. [13]
    In Stogiannidis v Victorian Frozen Food Distributors Pty Ltd (t/as Richmond Oysters)[2], when considering s 366(2) of the FW Act, the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission consisting of Ross J, Deputy President Biney and Commissioner Harper-Greenwell said the following:

[15] The meaning of 'exceptional circumstances' in s 366(1) was considered by a Full Bench of the then Fair Work Australia in Nulty v Blue Start Group Pty Ltd (Nulty) as follows:

[13] In summary, the expression 'exceptional circumstances' has its ordinary meaning and requires consideration of all the circumstances. To be exceptional, circumstances must be out of the ordinary course, or unusual, or special, or uncommon but need not be unique, or unprecedented, or very rare. Circumstances will not be exceptional if they are regularly, or routinely, or normally encountered. Exceptional circumstances can include a single exceptional matter, a combination of exceptional factors or a combination of ordinary factors which, although individually of no particular significance, when taken together are seen as exceptional. It is not correct to construe 'exceptional circumstances' as being only some unexpected occurrence, although frequently it will be. Nor is it correct to construe the plural 'circumstances' as if it were only a singular occurrence, even though it can be a one off situation. The ordinary and natural meaning of 'exceptional circumstances' includes a combination of factors which, when viewed together, may reasonably be seen as producing a situation which is out of the ordinary course, unusual, special or uncommon.

[14] Mere ignorance of the statutory time limit in s 366(1)(a) is not an exceptional circumstance.

(Emphasis added)

[16] The Full Bench in Nulty relied on the following observations of Rares J in Ho v Professional Services Review Committee No 295:

  1. Exceptional circumstances … can include a single exceptional matter, a combination of exceptional factors or a combination of ordinary factors which, although individually of no particular significance, when taken together are seen as exceptional. Thus, the sun and moon appear in the sky everyday and there is nothing exceptional about seeing them both simultaneously during day time. But an eclipse, whether lunar or solar, is exceptional, even though it can be predicted, because it is outside the usual course of events.
  2. It is not correct to construe 'exceptional circumstances' as being only some unexpected occurrence, although frequently it will be. Nor is it correct to construe the plural 'circumstances' as if it were only a singular occurrence, even though it can be a one off situation. The ordinary and natural meaning of 'exceptional circumstances' in s 106KA(2) includes a combination of factors which, when viewed together, may reasonably be seen as producing a situation which is out of the ordinary course, unusual, special or uncommon. And, the section is directed to the circumstances of the actual practitioner, not a hypothetical being, when he or she initiates or renders the services.

(Emphasis added)

[17] Generally, the assessment of whether exceptional circumstances exist will require consideration of all the relevant circumstances, because even though no one factor may be exceptional, in combination the circumstances may be such as reasonably to be regarded as exceptional.[3]

  1. [14]
    As noted by Merrell DP in Nichols v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads)[4], the test of 'exceptional circumstances' establishes a high hurdle for an Applicant to be granted an extension.[5]
  1. [15]
    I intend to address the submissions of both parties on each of the matters I am required to consider pursuant to s 310(2) in turn.

Consideration of the matters referred to in s 310(2) of the IR Act

The reason for the delay

Mr Naidoo's submissions[6]

  1. [16]
    Mr Naidoo says 'it is crucial to review my employment history to comprehend why my General Protections Application was submitted late'.[7] Mr Naidoo then goes on to provide a reasonably detailed history of his employment with the Respondent and what he says are the matters which led to his dismissal.[8] 
  1. [17]
    Mr Naidoo says that on 14 December 2023, he received an email from the Respondent including a letter dated 6 December 2023, informing him of his termination effective from 6 December 2023. However, Mr Naidoo says that the final payment was not received by the promised date of 8 December 2023. Mr Naidoo says that the letter instructed him to return all council-issued property by 11 December 2023, a date that had already passed. Mr Naidoo says that the letter was received by him 8 days later than it was dated and this led to uncertainty about the validity of the letter. Mr Naidoo says that on 18 December 2023, he received his Payroll Payment Advice indicating 'Termination Advice', which confirmed the termination of his employment.
  1. [18]
    Mr Naidoo says that he sought legal advice but 'faced challenges due to the holiday season'. Mr Naidoo says that he contacted numerous lawyers. He states that he contacted Legal Aid, Queensland Law Society and Job Watch. Mr Naidoo says that all advised him to submit an application to the Fair Work Commission within 21-days. In his submissions, Mr Naidoo asks why the Fair Work Commission accepted his application and issued him with an invoice and why, if it was common knowledge that the QIRC was the correct jurisdiction to file his application, the Fair Work Commission was not aware of this.[9]
  1. [19]
    Mr Naidoo asserts that without legal assistance he was forced to address the application on his own. Mr Naidoo says that he worked throughout the Christmas holidays and submitted his application on 4 January 2024. Mr Naidoo says that the Fair Work Commission accepted his application and forwarded him an invoice for payment of a filing fee.
  1. [20]
    Mr Naidoo says that in mid-January 2024, after lawyers returned from the Christmas break, he sought legal advice and was surprised to learn that he had mistakenly submitted his application to the wrong entity. Mr Naidoo says that he was informed that the 'correct procedure was to lodge a General Protections Application with the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (QIRC)'. Mr Naidoo says that he had to have his application 're-done'.
  1. [21]
    Mr Naidoo says that his error cannot be considered ignorance of the law as the Fair Work Commission itself 'did not appear to be aware that my application needed to submitted [sic] to the QIRC'.
  1. [22]
    Further, Mr Naidoo submits that he was being bullied and harassed in the workplace.[10] Mr Naidoo says that he was unaware that there was 'a 21-day time limits [sic] to formally address the bullying, harassment and other matters to commissioner'. Mr Naidoo says that he did not know he 'only had 12 months to address these complaints at State level'.
  1. [23]
    Instead, Mr Naidoo says 'the Respondent is directly responsible for my application being submitted late. My employment history … highlights the illegal deceptive tactics consistently employed by the Respondent throughout my employment'.[11] Mr Naidoo says that the Respondent's 'intentions were calculated'[12] and that it 'made sure that I would not [sic] able to get any lawyer to assist. It was well known that all the lawyers were closing that Friday, 22 December, for the Christmas holidays'. Mr Naidoo says that the Respondent '… wanted to make it almost impossible for me to submit an application against them' and '...They failed'.[13]
  1. [24]
    Mr Naidoo says that if he had received his termination letter and payment advice earlier or on 6 December 2023 when it was printed, he 'would have had most probably had adequate time to do proper enquiries and my application would have certainly been correctly submitted only to the QIRC and within the prescribed 21 days period'.[14]
  1. [25]
    Mr Naidoo says that he has provided valid reasons and proof supporting why the later submission of his application should be allowed.

Respondent's submissions

  1. [26]
    The Respondent says that Mr Naidoo has failed to adequately establish the reasons for the delay in submitting his application, such that the Commission can be satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances for the application to proceed.
  1. [27]
    The Respondent notes that the application is 13-days late and says that the application needed to be filed by 4 January 2024 yet it was not lodged until 17 January 2024.
  1. [28]
    With regard to Mr Naidoo's submissions outlining the difficulty he experienced in seeking legal advice and the conversations he had where he was advised to file an application in the Fair Work Commission, the Respondent says that Mr Naidoo has not provided adequate evidence to support this.
  1. [29]
    While Mr Naidoo provides screenshots of his mobile phone stating that these are calls to various law firms or related organisations, the Respondent says that these screenshots include evidence of incoming calls which show that he was able to speak with law firms in  December 2023.  The Respondent also says that the screenshots provide no evidence that the law firms he sought advice from were unable to assist him or why they were unable to assist him and provide no detail about advice Mr Naidoo received which instructed him to submit an application to the Fair Work Commission within 21-days. The Respondent says that there is no evidence of Mr Naidoo seeking legal advice in January 2024 or any advice he did receive in January 2024.
  1. [30]
    Regarding Mr Naidoo's submission that the delay is the fault of the Respondent, the Respondent says that s 310(1) requires that the application be made within 21-days after the dismissal took effect. Therefore, the Respondent says that its conduct prior to the dismissal has no bearing on Mr Naidoo's ability to file an application within time. Further, the Respondent says it took no action against the application which could be said to have hindered the Applicant's ability to file an application within time.

Consideration - reason for the delay

  1. [31]
    Despite Mr Naidoo's submission, it is not crucial to review his employment history to understand why his General Protections application was submitted late. The relevant inquiry to be undertaken in this matter is to learn why it was that Mr Naidoo did not file his application within 21-days after his employment was terminated.
  1. [32]
    Mr Naidoo's submissions suggest that the letter (dated 6 December) terminating his employment was provided to him on 14 December 2023. This made him question the validity of the letter and he acted from the assumption that his termination of employment was only confirmed on 18 December 2023 when he received his termination advice. I do not accept these submissions. On 6 December 2023, Mr Naidoo received an email attaching a formal invitation (dated 5 December 2023) to him to attend an 'Employment matters meeting'. That letter makes it clear that the meeting was to discuss the disciplinary process. At 4.36pm that same day, Mr Naidoo replied by email drawing the Respondent's attention to doctor's advice that he refrain from attending any in-person meetings. Mr Naidoo requested that matters requiring his attention be addressed via email.
  1. [33]
    On Friday 8 December 2023, the Respondent emailed Mr Naidoo further correspondence concerning the Employment matters meeting. That letter stated, in part:

I also refer to Council correspondence to you dated 5 December 2023 (Employment matter meeting), your response dated 6 December 2023 (Response email to Employment matter meeting), and the letter provided by Dr Kalie Yonghong Zhou from Realcare Medical Centre (Letter from Doctor).

As you are aware, Council has information it needs to provide to you regarding your employment with Council. It is Council's preference to provide this information to you in an in-person meeting, while at the same time being conscious of the Letter from Doctor.

Noting your Response email to Employment matter meeting, the Letter from Doctor and Council's preference to meet with you, you are now invited to elect how you receive the information regarding your employment from Council, via one of the options below:

  1. in an in-person meeting (with the opportunity for a support person or union representative in attendance):
  2. in an MS Teams or telephone meeting (with the opportunity for a support person or union representative in attendance), with the information emailed to you; or
  3. through some other means nominated by you, which Council will consider.

Please confirm which option you prefer as soon as possible, and who your support person will be (and if necessary,  their contact  details for  virtual attendance) by close of business (4.45pm)    Monday 11 December 2023, via email to Jon Rutledge, Manager Human Resources [email redacted]. If you do not respond by this date, Council will proceed with option (b), telephone meeting (with the opportunity for a support person or union representative in attendance), with the information emailed to you.

….

(emphasis present in original letter)

  1. [34]
    On Monday 11 December 2023 at 4.15pm, Mr Naidoo sent an email to the Respondent reiterating his preference for all communication to be conducted via email. Mr Naidoo said, 'I trust that this arrangement aligns with the Council's protocols, and I look forward to receiving the details via email'.
  1. [35]
    On Thursday 14 December at 4.35pm, Mr Jon Rutledge, Manager, Human Resources of the Respondent sent an email to Mr Naidoo saying:

Hi Allen

I tried to contact you twice today, once at around 2.30pm and again at 4.10pm. Unfortunately, I could not speak with you. In the last message at 4.10pm, I advised that I would be sending this email.

This email is sent in accordance with your confirmed request to not attend a face-to-face meeting and to receive information concerning your employment with Council via email. Please find correspondence from Council on this matter. A copy of this letter is also being mailed out to you in the post.

Thanks

  1. [36]
    I do not accept that it was open to Mr Naidoo to have a view that the letter attached to the email of 14 December 2024 was not valid. Further, I do not accept that the letter or its content were a surprise to Mr Naidoo. Mr Naidoo was well aware that the Respondent was considering termination of his employment as he was participating in a show cause process.
  1. [37]
    I also do not accept that the Respondent deliberately waited until 14  December 2023 to provide Mr Naidoo with the letter informing him of the outcome of the disciplinary process. The material provided to me clearly demonstrates that an attempt was made to hold a meeting on 7 December 2023 to provide Mr Naidoo with the outcome of the disciplinary process. It was open to Mr Naidoo to inform Council that he did not wish to participate in the meeting, but it was this decision made by Mr Naidoo that led to the delay in the provision of the letter.
  1. [38]
    The letter from the Respondent received by Mr Naidoo on 14 December 2023 is unambiguous. It informs Mr Naidoo that his employment was being terminated. Mr Naidoo did not need to wait for the termination pay advice dated 18 December 2023 to comprehend that his employment had been terminated.
  1. [39]
    Further to this, Mr Naidoo was aware of his termination on 14 December 2023. I cannot accept Mr Naidoo's submission that the delivery of the termination letter on this date was a deliberate act on the part of the Respondent to stymie any attempt he may make to seek legal advice.
  1. [40]
    Mr Naidoo made a choice to seek legal advice. It is not necessary for a person to be legally represented in unfair dismissal or general protections applications at the Commission. It also seems that Mr Naidoo's show cause disciplinary process had been ongoing, commencing from early September 2023. From 14 November 2023, Mr Naidoo was aware that the Respondent was contemplating termination of his employment. It was open to Mr Naidoo to explore his options and rights in the event of termination of his employment prior to receiving the letter on 14 December 2023. In these circumstances, I do not accept that the inability to seek legal advice is a valid reason for a delay in filing an application in the correct jurisdiction.
  1. [41]
    While I accept that Mr Naidoo made some phone contact with various law firms or legal services, I am unable to confirm his submission that all those he communicated with advised him to submit an application to the Fair Work Commission.  I am also unable to confirm his submission that he was told to lodge a general protections application rather than an unfair dismissal application in the QIRC. This is especially in circumstances where it appears Mr Naidoo's wrongly filed application in the Fair Work Commission was based on unfair dismissal rather than a general protections application.  I also note that the screenshots provided demonstrate that Mr Naidoo made the phone calls seeking legal advice on 18 December, 19 December and 20 December 2023.  Mr Naidoo makes no submission as to why he did not seek advice on Friday 15 December 2023, the day after receiving the termination letter.
  1. [42]
    The show cause letter and the termination letter, both make reference to the Local Government Act 2009 (Qld) and the Local Government Regulation 2012 (Qld) ('the Regulation'). The source of the types of disciplinary action which may be taken by a chief executive officer against a local government employee are provided in s 280 of the Regulation. That section makes specific reference to a dismissal needing to comply with the IR Act. Further to this, Mr Naidoo's appointment letter dated 4 April 2022 informs him that his employment is in accordance with the Scenic Rim Regional Council Enterprise Bargaining Certified Agreement and Queensland Local Government Industry (Stream A) Award – State 2017.
  1. [43]
    I am of the view that this information, which was available to Mr Naidoo, was sufficient to enable him to undertake his own research as to the appropriate jurisdiction to lodge his application. I also note that Mr Naidoo was invited to raise any queries or to discuss any aspect of the matter with Mr Rutledge via email. Given the large amount of correspondence which had been moving between Mr Naidoo and Mr Rutledge in a courteous and professional manner, I also find that it was open to Mr Naidoo to ask Mr Rutledge about the correct jurisdiction to file an application for reinstatement.
  1. [44]
    I am unable to identify any actions on the part of the Respondent which have caused Mr Naidoo's application to be filed out of time. In fact, even after the date for submitting an application had passed, Mr Rutledge was responding to email communication from Mr Naidoo where Mr Naidoo was seeking documentation to support his application.
  2. [45]
    Mr Naidoo makes submissions about his lack of awareness of the procedure to complain about bullying and harassment in the workplace. It is unclear how this is relevant to the matter of why Mr Naidoo's application relating to his termination was filed out of time.
  1. [46]
    For the reasons given, I am not satisfied that Mr Naidoo has established a satisfactory reason for failing to file his application within the 21-day statutory timeframe.

Any action taken by the person to dispute the dismissal

  1. [47]
    It is not controversial that Mr Naidoo did make an unfair dismissal application in the Fair Work Commission within 21-days of the date of his dismissal.
  1. [48]
    It is also the case that Mr Naidoo disputed the dismissal on Monday 8 January 2024 when he wrote to Mr Rutledge informing him 'I will be taking this matter up legally, challenging my termination' and 'I am in the process of preparing my case and will require documents pertaining to my employment to be forwarded to me'. Further, on 18 January 2024, Mr Naidoo informed Mr Rutledge, '…As I stated before. I am taking this matter up legally and this matter is going to be heard in court'.  However, these actions occurred following the end of the 21-day timeframe and it seems to me that by the time Mr Naidoo sent this correspondence, the Respondent was aware that Mr Naidoo was disputing his dismissal.

Prejudice to the employer (including prejudice caused by the delay)

Applicant's submissions

  1. [49]
    Mr Naidoo says the Respondent 'would not be prejudiced if the information presented here is false'. However, he says '…if my statements are true then the Respondent would be severely prejudiced and would strongly oppose my application'.[15]
  1. [50]
    Mr Naidoo points to the fact that since his matter commenced in the QIRC, he has not objected on occasions where the Respondent requested an extension of time to provide submissions.

Respondent's submissions

  1. [51]
    The Respondent notes the rationale for the 21-day statutory limitation period is that it is in the public interest that disputes be settled as quickly as possible.[16] The Respondent submits that the 21-day limitation was set to ensure efficiency and fairness and it is for this reason that an extension for filing can only be granted in 'exceptional circumstances'.
  1. [52]
    The Respondent says a presumptive prejudice exists where there has been extended delay in commencing proceedings.[17] The Respondent submits that a 13-day delay is not insignificant in the context of a 21-day time limitation period and in circumstances where acceptance of the Application would have the consequence of extending the statutory time limitation by over 60%.

Consideration – prejudice to the employer

  1. [53]
    The Respondent is correct to point out that there is a presumption of prejudice to it where there has been a delay in commencing proceedings.
  1. [54]
    I understand that the Respondent would likely have been aware of Mr Naidoo's unfair dismissal application in the Fair Work Commission. However, this is not a matter where what was eventually filed in the QIRC was an application for reinstatement.
  1. [55]
    I appreciate that the Respondent expressed a willingness to participate in a conciliation conference to see if a settlement could be reached. There is cost and effort involved in the Respondent providing a response pursuant to Practice Direction 4 of 2021 and preparing for and attending a conciliation conference. However, it seems to me that there is no significant prejudice to the Respondent beyond the fact that it would have to defend a general protections application made outside of the 21-day statutory timeframe.
  1. [56]
    Mr Naidoo will experience prejudice if he is unable to have his application proceed to hearing. However, I note that Mr Naidoo's application does not specify what remedy he seeks in the event that his application is made out.

The merits of the application

Mr Naidoo's submissions

  1. [57]
    Mr Naidoo says that in considering the merits of his application, his entire period of employment should be taken into account 'to ensure justice can be meted out to those that flout the law'. Mr Naidoo makes several submissions that any consideration of his application should not take into account only the 21-day period before his termination.
  1. [58]
    It is unclear to me why Mr Naidoo thinks the application would only take into account the 21-day period before his termination. However, for completeness, I have read Mr Naidoo's entire application which canvases the matter from the commencement of his employment.[18]
  1. [59]
    Mr Naidoo says that allegations of poor performance which led to him being presented with a PIP were unfounded.[19] Mr Naidoo alleges that the Respondent intended to terminate him based on an earlier allegation of misconduct but 'appeared to have fallen short in securing the fabricate evidence they needed [sic]'. Mr Naidoo says that after this, the Respondent 'came up with the idea of using a performance improvement plan for their nefarious agenda'.[20]
  1. [60]
    Mr Naidoo says that the Respondent have provided no evidence or reasoning to explain the delay or to disprove any of his accusations.

Respondent's submissions

  1. [61]
    The Respondent says that the poor merits of the application is a compelling reason to refuse to hear the matter out of time.
  1. [62]
    The Respondent says that in his application, Mr Naidoo alleges that he should not have been placed on a PIP and it was unfair for the Respondent to dismiss him for failing to engage with the plan. The Respondent notes that Mr Naidoo also makes allegations about bullying in the workplace.
  1. [63]
    The Respondent says that the application does not disclose a breach of the general protections provision under the IR Act and that Mr Naidoo suggests the dismissal was unfair or unreasonable which are not findings that can be made under this jurisdiction.
  1. [64]
    The Respondent says that in his submissions, Mr Naidoo 'appears to now be alleging that he made a 'complaint' of bullying and harassment in October 2022 (October Complaint) and because of the October Complaint he was suspended from work on 17 November 2022'. The Respondent says that this allegation is wholly unfounded in circumstances where Mr Naidoo's performance issues have been present since the commencement of his employment and prior to the October complaint being made.
  1. [65]
    Further, the Respondent says it had legitimate and strong reasons to suspend Mr Naidoo after he had failed to acknowledge his poor performance and participate in a PIP. The Respondent says Mr Naidoo was terminated from his employment due to substantiated allegations of inappropriate conduct, arising from the Applicant's refusal to follow reasonable management directions. The Respondent says that these reasons can be accepted by the Commission on the face of the documents exhibited to the affidavit.

The Application and the Employer Response

Mr Naidoo's application

  1. [66]
    I have reviewed Mr Naidoo's application. The application is accompanied by a 28-page attachment setting out the grounds of the application and 158 pages of attachments. The attachments, Mr Naidoo says, 'lists all email communication with attachments from appointment to termination, between myself and Scenic Rim'.
  1. [67]
    The document sets out Mr Naidoo's version of the complete history of his employment with the Respondent. Mr Naidoo makes a number of allegations and complains that during his employment he was bullied, harassed and suffered discrimination.
  1. [68]
    Across the 28-page document, while many complaints are made about the period of employment and some serious allegations are made against various employees of the Respondent, it appears that the complaint raised by Mr Naidoo is that the termination of his employment was illegal. On the second page of his reasons for application, Mr Naidoo states  'I was terminated for refusing to sign a fraudulent and illegal Performance Improvement Plan which had nothing to do with me being on suspension'.[21]
  1. [69]
    Mr Naidoo goes on to allege that his supervisor 'made sure I received no training or assistance' and 'did everything to make it as difficult for me as possible'. Mr Naidoo also complains that he had a heavy workload and did not take breaks and had to work extra hours. Mr Naidoo says that he was instructed not to fill in his timesheet with the actual times he had worked. Mr Naidoo says that another employee spoke to him about taking up matters pertaining to his supervisor with 'HR' but says 'I was still on probation so it was too risky to do anything'.[22]
  1. [70]
    Mr Naidoo complains that the behaviour of his supervisor continued and that documents and information required to do his job were being withheld from him and that his supervisor would publicly belittle and humiliate him. Mr Naidoo says that people suggested he bring this to the attention of HR, but 'I was still on probation and I was afraid if I complained it might have negatively affected my employment'.[23] Mr Naidoo says further, '…There was nothing I could do but stick it out. I was on a three month probationary period and needed to finish my probationary period'.[24]
  1. [71]
    Mr Naidoo continues to discuss his experience working for the Respondent and says that on 6 July 2022, he was informed that he had passed his probation successfully. Mr Naidoo says that there were no discussions about any reviews or follow-up reviews at that time. Mr Naidoo alleges that the 10-week probationary document 'is fraudulently made up' and says that he asked for the original documents but was refused.[25]
  1. [72]
    Mr Naidoo says that his supervisor's behaviour toward him escalated after his probationary period ended. Mr Naidoo says that he complained to his supervisor's manager 'but nothing came of it'. Mr Naidoo says that there was a refusal to send him on relevant courses but that another employee got to go to the course. It is Mr Naidoo's opinion that the other employee was being sent on the courses so that employee could take over Mr Naidoo's position.
  1. [73]
    Mr Naidoo also alleges that a particular member of the administration staff singled him out and discriminated against him. Mr Naidoo also says that his supervisor discriminated against him and claimed that Mr Naidoo had made others sick. Mr Naidoo also describes two incidents of road rage that occurred to him while he was driving a Council vehicle. Mr Naidoo says that his supervisor's handling of the road rage incident was inappropriate and that the matter was not treated with confidentiality.[26]
  1. [74]
    Mr Naidoo further describes an occasion where he was on a work phone call. Following the phone call, one of Mr Naidoo's colleagues informed him that his phone manners were very aggressive and he was coming across as arrogant. Mr Naidoo says that he contacted the person he had been speaking to in order to apologise for being rude to her. Mr Naidoo says that the customer told him he was not being rude and that they were furious and wanted to complain about his co-worker. Mr Naidoo says that the customer told him that she and her co-workers would be happy to provide a 'letter of recommendation for your fine work'.[27]
  1. [75]
    Mr Naidoo says that on 10 October 2022 he contacted Ms Nicky Hannigan from HR and advised her of a range of issues he was having with his supervisor and others. Mr Naidoo says that he also complained to Ms Hannigan that he had not been provided any opportunities to undertake training and that he was being forced to start work very early and to work very late. Mr Naidoo said that he advised Ms Hannigan that 'all these incidents are starting to affect my mental health' and that he was informed that a meeting would be set up soon.
  2. [76]
    Following the meeting, Mr Naidoo was sent to the TAFE course immediately. However, Mr Naidoo says that after the meeting that was held, the range of issues that he was experiencing with his supervisor and others did not change or improve.
  1. [77]
    Mr Naidoo alleges that his colleagues conspired with a customer and encouraged that customer to make a complaint about Mr Naidoo.
  1. [78]
    Mr Naidoo recalls that on 15 November 2022 he attended a meeting where he was told that two of the plumbing inspectors would be assessing him and providing an update on his skill levels and suitability for the role. On 16 November 2022, Mr Naidoo says that he received a letter of recommendation from a customer and says '…If I did not know my job they would not be will to do that [sic].'[28]
  1. [79]
    Mr Naidoo says that the plumbing inspectors who were to assess him ignored his questions and were rude and aggressive to him. Mr Naidoo says that a manager intervened but sided with one of the plumbing inspectors. Mr Naidoo says, further, that he was being 'set up'. Mr Naidoo says that he went to discuss the matter with HR but Ms Hannigan told him that she was too busy to speak with him and needed to be elsewhere. Mr Naidoo says that he spoke with Town Planning staff who expressed concern for him.
  1. [80]
    Mr Naidoo says that he was handed a suspension letter on 17 November 2022. Mr Naidoo says he was told that there were serious allegations against him but they could not be discussed at this time. Mr Naidoo says that he was on full pay during the suspension and that there was a refusal to tell him what the serious allegations were.
  1. [81]
    Mr Naidoo says that he remained on a paid suspension until 28 June 2023, when he was told that the allegation was of inappropriate physical contact between himself and another male employee of the Respondent. Mr Naidoo says that the incident never occurred and that the allegations were fabricated.[29] Mr Naidoo complains of deficiencies in the way the allegations came to light, the initial investigations undertaken and that he was never provided an opportunity to show cause on these matters. Mr Naidoo says that he was found guilty by default and that while the Respondent opted to take no further action against him, he was told that a repeat of the behaviour would lead to immediate dismissal and that the incident was recorded on his file.[30] Mr Naidoo says that Scenic Rim Regional Council policy was not followed and he was denied natural justice.
  1. [82]
    Mr Naidoo says that the document informing him of the outcome of the allegations which formed the basis for the paid suspension also 'brought forward for the first time, work performance issues'. Mr Naidoo says that there was never an occasion where work performance issues were raised with him. Mr Naidoo says that the Respondent fraudulently created documents to support the performance issues they were raising.[31]
  1. [83]
    Mr Naidoo says that on 15 August 2023, nine months into his paid suspension, he received an email with a directive to return to work and to develop a PIP. Mr Naidoo says that he attended the meeting and had a 'bogus performance improvement plan read out to me'.[32] Mr Naidoo says that the PIP was going to be used as a 'tool to 'legally' terminate me'. Mr Naidoo said that he 'could not agree to sign a fraudulent and illegal document which is designed to do me harm'.[33]
  1. [84]
    Mr Naidoo says that he was told that his hours of work were changing and that he would not have a council-supplied vehicle to use to commute between home and work as he did not require a vehicle as he would be office-based. Mr Naidoo asserts that this is illegal.
  1. [85]
    Mr Naidoo says he raised his concerns about the PIP and the changes to his working conditions with Mr Rutledge. Mr Naidoo says that on 18 August 2023 he received an email from Mr Rutledge with the subject line 'Addressing concerns'. Mr Naidoo says that he was no longer on a suspension but on HR Designated leave. Mr Naidoo says that he was directed to return to work on 31 August 2023. 
  1. [86]
    Mr Naidoo says that on his return to work he was directed to sign the PIP and he refused to do so. Mr Naidoo says that he informed Mr Rutledge that he would not sign the plan no matter how many times he was asked. Mr Naidoo says he was called into the HR office and handed a letter from the CEO directing him to sign the PIP by Friday 8 September 2023 or he would be issued with a show cause notice. Mr Naidoo says that he left the office at that point.[34]
  1. [87]
    Mr Naidoo says that on 8 September 2023, he emailed a copy of the customer reference he'd been provided to Mr Rutledge and told him that he would not sign the PIP as he knew how to do his job.
  1. [88]
    Mr Naidoo says that on 19 September 2023, he attended a meeting where he was provided with the disciplinary show cause notice which commenced the process which led to his termination.[35]

The Employer Response

  1. [89]
    The Respondent filed a response to Mr Naidoo's application on 6 February 2024. In that response, the Respondent does not admit the 'numerous factual allegations' Mr Naidoo makes about the Respondent and its employees.
  1. [90]
    The Respondent states that Mr Naidoo's application does not allege elements of a breach of the general protections provided by Ch 8 Pt 1 of the IR Act. The Respondent characterises Mr Naidoo's application as 'no more than a broad disagreement regarding elements of his employment and with his dismissal'.
  1. [91]
    The Respondent states that Mr Naidoo had not formally raised allegations about his colleagues until the show cause process relating his refusal to sign or participate in the performance improvement process.
  1. [92]
    The Respondent says that the issue for determination in the substantive matter is whether it dismissed Mr Naidoo in breach of the general protections under Ch 8 Pt 1 of the IR Act.
  1. [93]
    The Respondent says that Mr Naidoo essentially argues that he did not have performance issues and should not have been placed on the PIP, so it was not fair for the Respondent to dismiss him for failing to engage with the PIP. The Respondent says that Mr Naidoo seeks to excuse any performance issues he may have had by making various allegations about the Respondent's employees.
  1. [94]
    The Respondent says that, while the reasonableness of decisions it made about Mr Naidoo's employment is not in issue in this proceeding, it had reasonable concerns about Mr Naidoo's employment and acted appropriately in preparing the PIP and then dismissing Mr Naidoo for failing to engage with the PIP. The Respondent says that the evidence will 'conclusively show that the Applicant was dismissed by the Respondent solely because of his failure to engage with the PIP'.
  1. [95]
    The Respondent says it does not admit the various allegations about the Respondent's employees but says in circumstances where those matters have no bearing on the relevant legal test they will not provide a detailed response.

Consideration – merits of the application

  1. [96]
    It appears that when Mr Naidoo wrongly made his application to the Fair Work Commission, he filed it as an application for reinstatement following unfair dismissal. Both the FW Act and the IR Act provide for an application for reinstatement to be made if a person believes they have been unfairly dismissed. Both Acts provide that a dismissal is unfair if it is 'harsh, unjust or unreasonable'. It is clear that Mr Naidoo believes his dismissal was unfair.
  1. [97]
    I have read Mr Naidoo's general protections application in its entirety, and it is unclear to me why he made the decision to file a general protections application rather than an application for reinstatement when he decided to make an application in the correct jurisdiction. However, Mr Naidoo says that his decision to make a general protections application in the QIRC arose from legal advice and that the '…application had to be redone to a General Protections Application…'.[36] Mr Naidoo chose to file a general protections application instead of an application for reinstatement. This raises a number of implications in terms of the matters Mr Naidoo must address in order to be successful.
  1. [98]
    While he does not specifically state it in the application or within his submissions, it is obvious that Mr Naidoo has identified an 'adverse action' taken against him within the meaning of s 282 of the IR Act in that he has been dismissed.[37] Mr Naidoo does not identify a workplace right (or rights) within the meaning of s 284 of the IR Act or state that his employment was terminated because of such a right which is a necessary prerequisite to enliven the protection provided for in s 285 of the IR Act.
  1. [99]
    I agree with the Respondent's assessment that Mr Naidoo's application does no more than set out his history of employment and a range of grievances pertaining to his treatment during the time he was employed by the Respondent. Mr Naidoo is clearly of the view that there were no issues with his performance and that the PIP process was unwarranted, as was the decision to terminate his employment because of his refusal to participate in the PIP.
  1. [100]
    Mr Naidoo says that on 10 October 2022, he complained to HR about bullying and harassment, however, he does not evince a nexus between making this complaint in October 2022 and his termination in December 2023. It is evident from his submissions, that Mr Naidoo believes the basis for his termination was a 'fraudulent' PIP which he refused to participate in. The Respondent disputes Mr Naidoo's version of events which are, at this time, untested. Mr Naidoo is clearly dissatisfied with his treatment during his time working for the Respondent. However, his application does not allege that he was dismissed by virtue of a workplace right, or through the exercise, actual or purported, of a workplace right. Mr Naidoo does not identify what workplace right he had, whether he had exercised it or proposed to exercise it, or the source of that right. Further, Mr Naidoo does not identify what remedy he is seeking.
  1. [101]
    By the time Mr Naidoo was making his submissions in this matter (and certainly his reply submissions), he was aware that the Respondent sought to have the proceeding struck out on the basis that the Applicant had failed to identify the basis for his general protections application. Mr Naidoo's submissions do not address this deficiency. A general protections proceeding is not a 'broad inquiry into as to whether the Applicant has been subject to a procedurally unfair outcome'[38] nor is it 'intended to provide an opportunity for the appellant to raise whatever issues (she) wishes to about the validity of the steps taken before (her) dismissal'.[39]
  1. [102]
    While I have read the material available to me in detail, it is not the role of the Commission to construct Mr Naidoo's case for him or to go through his material to identify the elements of his cause of action. Mr Naidoo has had an opportunity to read the Employer Response and the Respondent's filed submissions. Mr Naidoo has also attended a conciliation at the Commission where I am sure there would have been an opportunity for the Respondent to discuss with Mr Naidoo its view that he had not properly explained the basis for his adverse action dismissal application.
  1. [103]
    With regard to Mr Naidoo's submission that the Respondent has provided 'no evidence or reasoning to explain the delay', I assume that he is referring to his allegations regarding the delay in providing him with the termination advice. I have addressed this matter above and I am satisfied based on the material provided to me that there was no deliberate delay in providing the termination advice to Mr Naidoo. I cannot accept Mr Naidoo's submission that the Respondent has not attempted to disprove his allegations. Firstly, that would be a matter for the substantive hearing in the Commission. Further, it is clear from the Respondent's submissions that should it face the 'reverse onus' of demonstrating that it terminated Mr Naidoo for reasons other than his workplace rights or exercise of those workplace rights, it will argue that the termination occurred on the basis of the matters put to Mr Naidoo throughout the show cause process.
  1. [104]
    It is possible that Mr Naidoo would better articulate his case in a Statement of Facts and Contentions. However, the application in its current form does not articulate which of the many things he complains of actually forms the basis of his general protections application.  Mr Naidoo's submissions do not provide further assistance. On the basis of the material available to me,[40] The merits of the application do not favour an extension of time. 

Fairness between the parties

Applicant's submissions

  1. [105]
    Mr Naidoo says that the Respondent is not short of resources and are 'well versed on the laws and have legal teams on standby advising them'.
  1. [106]
    Mr Naidoo agrees with the Respondent's submission (below) that a holistic approach needs to be considered in determining fairness between the parties and reiterates his submission that 'exceptional circumstances exist'.[41]

Respondent's submissions

  1. [107]
    The Respondent says that this consideration requires a comparison between the Applicant and another employee in the position of the Applicant, including consideration of whether the Applicant has obtained a forensic advantage from the delay in commencing proceedings.[42] The Respondent also says this consideration requires a holistic approach.
  1. [108]
    The Respondent submits that unfairness ought to be considered in the context of the other matters which heavily weigh against the Applicant, including a lack of evidence to support the delay and issues of merit. In the circumstances, the Respondent says that there is no specific unfairness to the Applicant should his application be refused.

Consideration – fairness between the parties

  1. [109]
    In Nichols,[43] Merrell DP considered this aspect of s 310(2) of the IR Act when he noted that no party had been able to point to a case where a person in a similar position had or had not been given a further period to make a general protections application. [44]
  1. [110]
    Nichols is a recent decision of the Commission where the Applicant had been dismissed and sought an extension of time to file a general protections application but that application was dismissed. While the factual matrix of that matter is dissimilar in a range of ways to the matter before me, I do not find there is any specific unfairness to Mr Naidoo when compared to others if an extension of time is not granted.

Conclusion

  1. [111]
    In order to enliven the discretion to extend time for the filing of his general protections dismissal application, Mr Naidoo needed to satisfy the Commission that there are exceptional circumstances warranting the extension. Having taken into account the matters listed in s 310(2)(a)-(e) of the IR Act, I am not satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist.
  1. [112]
    In consideration of s 310(2)(a) of the IR Act, for the reasons set out above from [31]- [46], I do not think Mr Naidoo has provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing his general protections application.
  2. [113]
    In consideration of s 310(2)(b) of the IR Act, as I note at [47], Mr Naidoo did take action to dispute his dismissal. However, I am not satisfied that the actions taken by Mr Naidoo provide any exceptional circumstance warranting an extension of time when taken into account alongside the other considerations in s 310(2) of the IR Act.
  1. [114]
    In consideration of s 310(2)(c) of the IR Act, any prejudice to be experienced by the employer (including that caused by the delay) is not a factor which has weighed heavily in my decision.
  1. [115]
    In consideration of s 310(2)(d) of the IR Act, for the reasons set out from [96] – [104], I find that there are significant difficulties with Mr Naidoo's application. Mr Naidoo has not identified the workplace right or rights he says he had or exercised with any particularity that would enable the Respondent or the Commission to understand his case. In the absence of those matters being established, it is not necessary for the Respondent to prove that it did not take the action for the reason of Mr Naidoo's workplace right/s. However, I note that the Respondent clearly foreshadows that in the event the reverse onus is applied pursuant to s 306 of the IR Act, that the action of dismissal was taken on the basis of Mr Naidoo's refusal to participate in the PIP. I am not satisfied that the merit of Mr Naidoo's application is such that it gives rise to an exceptional circumstance warranting an extension of time.
  1. [116]
    In consideration of s 310(2)(e) of the IR Act, I have not identified any matters which would give rise to unfairness as between Mr Naidoo and other persons in a similar position.
  1. [117]
    Mr Naidoo has not identified any one factor which is exceptional. Further, the combination of all circumstances could not be reasonably regarded as exceptional.[45]
  1. [118]
    I recognise that Mr Naidoo is very aggrieved by a range of matters which occurred throughout his employment with the Respondent. I further understand that Mr Naidoo is of the view that his dismissal was unfair. It is a matter for Mr Naidoo to reflect on the reasons he chose to pursue a general protections application rather than an application for reinstatement where he may have been able to argue that his dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
  1. [119]
    For the foregoing reasons, I am not satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances that enliven the discretion provided for in s 310 of the IR Act.

Order

  1. The Applicant's application for a further period to make an application to the Commission, for the Commission to deal with a dispute under ch 8, pt 1 of the Industrial Relations Act 2016, is dismissed.

Footnotes

[1] Nichols v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) [2023] QIRC 182 [19] ('Nichols'); Thornton v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2020] QIRC 393 [39]-[40].

[2] (2018) 273 IR 156 ('Stogiannidis')

[3] Citations omitted.

[4] [2023] QIRC 182 ('Nichols').

[5] Nichols (n 4) [21] citing Stogiannidis (n 2) [14].

[6] Mr Naidoo’s reply to the Respondent’s submissions filed on 14 May 2024 largely addressed similar matters to those included in his initial submissions. I have decided to address his submissions simultaneously.

[7] Applicant's Submissions filed 15 April 2024 [1].

[8] (n 7) [2]-[15].

[9] Applicant's Submissions filed 14 May 2024 [33].

[10] I address Mr Naidoo’s application in detail below. This discussion includes Mr Naidoo’s allegations regarding bullying.

[11] (n 7) [23].

[12] (n 9) [5].

[13] (n 7) [29].

[14] (n 9) [28].

[15] (n 7) [31].

[16] Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541, 553.

[17] Ibid

[18] Mr Naidoo’s application is discussed at length from [66] to [88].

[19] (n 9).

[20] (n 9), 3 – 4.

[21] Attachments to Applicant's Application filed 17 January 2024, 2.

[22] (n 21), 3.

[23] (n 21), 5

[24] Ibid.

[25] (n 21), 9.

[26] (n 21), 13.

[27] Ibid.

[28] (n 21), 19.

[29] (n 21), 22.

[30] Ibid.

[31] (n 21), 24.

[32] (n 21), 26.

[33] Ibid.

[34] (n 21), 27.

[35] (n 21), 28.

[36] (n 7) [21].

[37] s 282(1)(a) Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld).

[38] Steven Ermel v Duluxgroup (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 17 [48] which addresses s 340 of the FW Act, an analogue of s 285 of the IR Act.

[39] Khiani v Australian Bureau of Statistics [2011] FCAFC 109 [31] which addresses a general protections application under the FW Act.

[40] The material I have available to me is Mr Naidoo’s application (including attachments), the Employer response, the written submissions and attachments submitted by both parties and an affidavit of Mr Rutledge exhibiting various relevant documents.

[41] (n 9) [26]

[42] Dickson v Mornington Shire Council [2020] QIRC 106.

[43] Nichols (n 4)

[44] Nichols (n 4) [108]

[45] Stogiannidis (n 2) [17].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Naidoo v Scenic Rim Regional Council

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Naidoo v Scenic Rim Regional Council

  • MNC:

    [2024] QIRC 134

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Pidgeon IC

  • Date:

    28 May 2024

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
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1996) 186 CLR 541
Cite 2 - (1996) 186 CLR 541
Dickson v Mornington Shire Council [2020] QIRC 106
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QIRC 106
Cite 2 - [2020] QIRC 106
Ermel v Duluxgroup (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 17
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] FCA 17
Cite 2 - [2015] FCA 17
Khiani v Australian Bureau of Statistics [2011] FCA FC 109
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2011] FCA FC 109
Cite 2 - [2011] FCA FC 109
Nichols v State of Queensland (Department of Transport and Main Roads) [2023] QIRC 182
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QIRC 182
Cite 2 - [2023] QIRC 182
Cite 3 - [2023] QIRC 182
Stogiannidis v Victorian Frozen Foods Distributors Pty Ltd (t/as Richmond Oysters) (2018) 273 IR 156
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2018) 273 IR 156
Cite 2 - (2018) 273 IR 156
Thornton v State of Queensland (Queensland Health) [2020] QIRC 393
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QIRC 393
Cite 2 - [2020] QIRC 393

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Eicens v State of Queensland (Queensland Corrective Services) [2024] QIRC 2567 citations
Mutonhori v Mount Isa City Council (No. 3) [2025] ICQ 182 citations
Mutonhori v Mount Isa City Council (No.2) [2024] QIRC 2402 citations
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.