Blain Norman Fraser v Beeflands Australia Pty Limited [1995] IRCA 485

Federal Court of Australia

Document text

CATCHWORDS INDUSTRIAL LAW - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - CLAIM OF UNLAWFUL TERMINATION - EXTENSION OF TIME - ADEQUATE ALTERNATIVE REMEDY INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1988 , ss170EA, 170EB AMACSU & anor v Gold Coast Community Options 124 ALR 505 Liddell v Lembke (1994) 56 IR 447 BLAIN NORMAN FRASER v BEEFLANDS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED No. QI95/1035 BEFORE: BOULTON JR PLACE: BRISBANE DATE:8 AUGUST 1995

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ) COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) No. QI 95/1035 QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY BETWEEN: BLAIN NORMAN FRASER Applicant AND: BEEFLANDS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED Respondent MINUTE OF ORDERS BEFORE: BOULTON JR PLACE: BRISBANE DATE: 8 AUGUST 1995 THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. NOTE:Settlement and entry of orders are dealt with in Order 36 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules.

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ) COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) No. QI 95/1035 QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY BETWEEN: BLAIN NORMAN FRASER Applicant AND: BEEFLANDS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED Respondent BEFORE: BOULTON JR PLACE: BRISBANE DATE: 8 AUGUST 1995 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Applications filed by applicants Blain Norman Fraser and Kearin Peter Dombroski were heard together. These reasons should be regarded as applicable to both applications. In these applications, I have earlier ruled today that a letter dated 10 January 1995, received by the applicant, Fraser, amounts to a written notice of termination of employment within the meaning of paragraph 170EA(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 1998 (the Act); likewise, in respect of the applicant, Dombroski. I have also ruled that each application has been filed out of time. The applicants seek an extension of time within which to make their applications. The respondent submits that I must decline to consider or determine the applications to extend time. It is common ground between the parties that the work performed by each applicant for the respondent was not the subject of an award of either the Australian Industrial Relations Commission or the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. In consequence, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission has jurisdiction in respect of the applicants' terminations. The respondent relies on section 170EB of the Act. In conformity with the decision of Spender J in the Gold Coast Community Options case 124 ALR 505, I must hold that the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Qld) provide a remedy at least as adequate as that provided by the Act. The respondent submits that the words "an application under section 170EA" in section 170EB embrace an application under paragraph 170EA(3)(b) to extend time for the making of the substantive application. The difference in the present cases from the circumstances encountered by the Full Court in Liddell v Lembke (1994) 56 IR 447 is that the applications in the latter case were each filed in time. In the present cases, neither applicant has, in this court, an entitlement to a determination on the merits of his claim for relief; each may only presently seek the exercise in his favour of the court's discretion to extend time. The respondent points to the fact that the applicants presently have available to them the same remedy in the Queensland Commission, that is to apply for an extension of time within which to bring proceedings, as they have in this court. As I am satisfied in terms of section 170EB of the Act, I decline to consider the applications to extend time. If I be correct in these conclusions, I record that it is quite unsatisfactory that those assisting the applicants in the prosecution of these applications have, apparently, not given timely consideration to the implications of their employment being award free. In the circumstances, it seems to me that the only appropriate order to make is that each of applications QI95/1035 and QI95/1036 be dismissed. I so order. I certify that this and the preceding THREE (3) pages are a true copy of my Reasons for Judgment. Judicial Registrar: Date: 8 August 1995 Appearing for the Applicant: Ms F. Robinson Counsel for the Respondent: Mr A. Herbert and Mr Horneman-Wren Solicitor for the Respondent: Thompson King Connolly Date of hearing: 8 August 1995 Date of judgment: 8 August 1995

Read full text →

Official source

We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.

Not checked yet

Last checked with source on —

Open official source

Checking whether the official page can be embedded…

Study brief

Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.

Unknown

No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.

You've got 21 of 22 free Acts left this visit. Sign up anytime for Facts, Related, and study briefs too.

Document text

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ) COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) No. QI 95/1035 QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY BETWEEN: BLAIN NORMAN FRASER Applicant AND: BEEFLANDS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED Respondent MINUTE OF ORDERS BEFORE: BOULTON JR PLACE: BRISBANE DATE: 8 AUGUST 1995 THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. NOTE:Settlement and entry of orders are dealt with in Order 36 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules.

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ) COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) No. QI 95/1035 QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY BETWEEN: BLAIN NORMAN FRASER Applicant AND: BEEFLANDS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED Respondent BEFORE: BOULTON JR PLACE: BRISBANE DATE: 8 AUGUST 1995 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Applications filed by applicants Blain Norman Fraser and Kearin Peter Dombroski were heard together. These reasons should be regarded as applicable to both applications. In these applications, I have earlier ruled today that a letter dated 10 January 1995, received by the applicant, Fraser, amounts to a written notice of termination of employment within the meaning of paragraph 170EA(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 1998 (the Act); likewise, in respect of the applicant, Dombroski. I have also ruled that each application has been filed out of time. The applicants seek an extension of time within which to make their applications. The respondent submits that I must decline to consider or determine the applications to extend time. It is common ground between the parties that the work performed by each applicant for the respondent was not the subject of an award of either the Australian Industrial Relations Commission or the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission. In consequence, the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission has jurisdiction in respect of the applicants' terminations. The respondent relies on section 170EB of the Act. In conformity with the decision of Spender J in the Gold Coast Community Options case 124 ALR 505, I must hold that the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Qld) provide a remedy at least as adequate as that provided by the Act. The respondent submits that the words "an application under section 170EA" in section 170EB embrace an application under paragraph 170EA(3)(b) to extend time for the making of the substantive application. The difference in the present cases from the circumstances encountered by the Full Court in Liddell v Lembke (1994) 56 IR 447 is that the applications in the latter case were each filed in time. In the present cases, neither applicant has, in this court, an entitlement to a determination on the merits of his claim for relief; each may only presently seek the exercise in his favour of the court's discretion to extend time. The respondent points to the fact that the applicants presently have available to them the same remedy in the Queensland Commission, that is to apply for an extension of time within which to bring proceedings, as they have in this court. As I am satisfied in terms of section 170EB of the Act, I decline to consider the applications to extend time. If I be correct in these conclusions, I record that it is quite unsatisfactory that those assisting the applicants in the prosecution of these applications have, apparently, not given timely consideration to the implications of their employment being award free. In the circumstances, it seems to me that the only appropriate order to make is that each of applications QI95/1035 and QI95/1036 be dismissed. I so order. I certify that this and the preceding THREE (3) pages are a true copy of my Reasons for Judgment. Judicial Registrar: Date: 8 August 1995 Appearing for the Applicant: Ms F. Robinson Counsel for the Respondent: Mr A. Herbert and Mr Horneman-Wren Solicitor for the Respondent: Thompson King Connolly Date of hearing: 8 August 1995 Date of judgment: 8 August 1995

Read full text →