Hines v Mai-Wel Limited [2013] NSWADT 186

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Hines v Mai-Wel Limited [2013] NSWADT 186 Hearing dates: 2 July 2013 Decision date: 16 August 2013 Jurisdiction: Equal Opportunity Division Before: Magistrate N Hennessy, Deputy President Decision: Leave is refused for Mr Hines' complaints of disability and sex discrimination to proceed. Catchwords: ANTI-DISCRIMINATION - complaints of sex and disability discrimination by applicant declined by Anti-Discrimination Board as lacking in substance - whether to grant leave for complaints to proceed - complaints lack merit Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Cases Cited: Jones v Ekermawi [2009] NSWCA 388 Category: Principal judgment Parties: John Hines (Applicant) Mai-Wel Limited (Respondent) Representation: J Hines (Applicant in person) A Hodgson and A Rohr (Employees of Respondent) File Number(s): 131034

reasons for decision

Introduction 1Mr Hines has applied for permission for his complaints of disability and sex discrimination to be heard in the Tribunal. The President of the Anti-Discrimination Board declined the complaints as misconceived and lacking in substance: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, (AD Act) 96. The Tribunal may give Mr Hines permission for his complaints to do ahead if it is fair and just to do so in the circumstances: Jones v Ekermawi [2009] NSWCA 388. It will not be fair or just if the complaints lack merit. I have decided to refuse leave for Mr Hines' complaints to go ahead because it is highly unlikely that he will be able to prove that his employer has breached the AD Act. 2Mai Wel Limited is a provider of disability services. Mr Hines, who has a form of muscular dystrophy, was employed as a "supported employee" in one of Mai-Wel's Disability Enterprises, Mai-Wel E Cycling Services. His job involved dismantling electronic equipment, such as computers, for recycling. He complains about rates of pay, opportunities for training and promotion and harassment during a 19 month period from December 2010 until he resigned in July 2012. 3After the hearing on 2 July 2013, Mai Wel wrote to the Tribunal with further information in response to Mr Hines' complaint. Mr Hines replied refuting the authenticity of at least one of the documents Mai-Wel provided. I appreciate that Mr Hines has not had the opportunity to give oral submissions in response to this extra information but he has made known his views in writing. As I am not making any findings about disputed facts in these proceedings, I will take into account the extra material and submissions provided by both parties in coming to a view as to the merits of Mr Hines' complaints.