Griffith City Council v Romeo [2023] NSWIRComm 1041

Industrial Relations Commission New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Griffith City Council v Romeo [2023] NSWIRComm 1041 Hearing dates: 3 May 2023 Date of orders: 3 May 2023 Decision date: 03 May 2023 Jurisdiction: Industrial Relations Commission Before: Chief Commissioner Constant Decision: The application for a stay is dismissed Catchwords: EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL LAW — Industrial Relations Commission — Appeals – Stay of decision at first instance sought pending appeal Legislation Cited: Industrial Relations Act 1996, ss 190 Cases Cited: Blackadder v Ramsay Butchering Services Pty Ltd (2005) 221 CLR 539 Carlton and United Beverages Limited v Phillip Brunt [2005] NSWIRComm 338 Romeo v Griffith City Council [2023] NSWIRComm 1015 Transport Industry - Waste Collection and Recycling (State) Award [2000] NSWIRComm 236 Texts Cited: Macquarie Dictionary online Category: Principal judgment Parties: Griffith City Council (Appellant) Rocco Romeo (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: A Britt (Appellant) A Howell (Respondent)

Solicitors: Williamson Barwick (Respondent) File Number(s): 2023/83883 Publication restriction: Nil

EX TemporE decision 1. On 13 March 2023, Griffith City Council ("Council"), filed an appeal against a decision of Commissioner Sloan in Romeo v Griffith City Council [2023] NSWIRComm 1015 delivered on 22 February 2023 ("Decision"). The Decision ordered the reinstatement of Rocco Romeo to the position that he held immediately before his dismissal, Team Leader – Traffic Facilities, on and from 6 March 2023. 2. The Council seeks a stay of the orders in the Decision pending the determination of the appeal. The parties agreed that Mr Romeo would be placed on special leave pending the determination of the stay application. 3. The ordinary starting point for consideration of any stay is for the applicant for the stay to demonstrate why a stay should be granted in the particular circumstances which arise for consideration. I am not satisfied that the Council has met that onus in this case. After consideration of the competing rights of the parties, I have formed a view that the balance of convenience weighs against a stay for the reasons which follow.