Blunt v Port Stephens Council [2011] NSWIRComm 1035

Industrial Relations Commission New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Blunt v Port Stephens Council [2011] NSWIRComm 1035 Hearing dates: 27/06/11, 28/06/11 Decision date: 15 July 2011 Jurisdiction: Industrial Relations Commission Before: Ritchie C Decision: Catchwords: Unfair dismissal application-applicant terminated for head butting a fellow worker-applicant's defence was that the clash of heads was accidental-fellow worker and another fellow worker claimed that the applicant had intentionally head butted a fellow worker-Commission found that the action was not as a consequence of an accident or provocation or extenuating circumstances existed- after consideration of all the evidence found that the applicant had intentionally head butted the fellow worker. Application was dismissed. Legislation Cited: Industrial Relations Act, 1996 Cases Cited: GJ Coles &Co Ltd v SDA NSW(1983) 6IR42: AWU-FIME v Queensland Alumina Limited (1995) 62IR385. Category: Principal judgment Parties: Applicant : Mr R J Blunt, Respondent Port Stephens Council Representation: Applicant: Mr M Preece; Respondent Mr R Warren Applicant Mr C Ryan of Chris Ryan Legal; Respondent Mr A Cardillo of Harris Wheeler Lawyers. File Number(s): IRC 263 of 2011

DECISION

Background. 1The applicant Mr Richard Blunt had filed on his behalf on 18 March 2011, an application for unfair dismissal under section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1996 against his employer Port Stephens Council(the respondent). 2The matter came on for conciliation and if necessary Directions on 7 April 2011. On that day conciliation was unsuccessful and a timetable for the filing and serving of evidentiary material was provided to the parties. 3The Hearing was set down for two days in Newcastle. The Hearing took place on 27 and 28 June 2011 with the Commission reserving its Decision at the end of submissions. 4As the applicant Mr Blunt was terminated on 16 February 2011 he noted in his application that the application was originally filed in Fair Work Australia on 22 February 2011. When it was brought to his attention that his application was in the wrong jurisdiction there was a delay in refiling in the State jurisdiction as his legal representative was on leave. His claim therefore was 9 days late. Mr Warren for the respondent stated in Court that the respondent would not object to the application being filed late. The application was therefore allowed to proceed. 5Mr Preece for the applicant advised that his client would not be seeking reinstatement or re employment but purely monetary compensation.