Case procedures – apprehension of bias – s.394 Fair Work Act 2009 – applicant for unfair dismissal remedy made application for recusal of Commission member on ground of apprehended and actual bias – applicant submitted that presence of security at hearing a ground of bias – manner Commission member dealt with applicant’s cross-examination of witnesses constituted interference – asserted differential treatment of applicant and respondent representative and that Commission member allowed respondent representative to abuse applicant – manner Commission dealt with respondent staff on first and last day of hearing inconsistent and further indication of bias – in relation to security presence, Commission found conclusion could reasonably be drawn that Member did not have pre-conceived view about validity of reason for applicant’s dismissal and simply took reasonable precautions to protect Member and Commission staff from applicant who had displayed aggression towards Commission staff and made apparently inflammatory statement about a witness to give evidence in hearing – fair minded lay observer would not apprehend that request for security meant that Member would not bring an impartial mind – Commission did not accept that way in which Member dealt with applicant’s cross-examination of witnesses could be basis for conclusion of bias or reasonable apprehension of bias – Commission did not accept that fair minded, informed observer could reasonably consider that Member failed to intervene to protect applicant from allegedly abusive behaviour by respondent representative, or that any alleged action or inaction by Member could reasonably lead to conclusion of differential treatment – treatment of representatives based entirely on their conduct – found Member made no ruling on the first occasion of respondent staff observers with which to be inconsistent – Commission found no reasonable basis for conclusion that Member had a closed mind or prejudged applicant’s matter, or could not have been swayed by evidence applicant may have put – could not be said that fair minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that Member might not bring an impartial mind to unfair dismissal application – lay observer would have observed applicant conducting herself in entirely inappropriate manner and failing to take the opportunities given to present case – application for recusal of Member refused. Woolston v The Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q) t/a Blue Care Bli Bli Aged Care Facility
