GENERAL PROTECTIONS – jurisdiction – ss.365, 725, 727, 732 Fair Work Act 2009 – applicant lodged general protections claim in in relation to termination of employment – applicant declared on application form she had not made another claim in relation to dismissal – respondent submitted application be dismissed on grounds applicant had filed application on ‘identical terms’ to the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland (‘ADCQ’) – Commission issued directions to file an outline of submissions and any evidentiary material – applicant requested a seven day extension to file submission on date submissions due – Commission granted seven day extension – applicant failed to file submission during extension – respondent requested application be dismissed on papers as applicant failed to comply with directions and provide response – Commission forwarded respondent request that application be dismissed and requested application provide response within two days – applicant provided no response – Commission vacated hearing date and informed parties matter to be relisted – Commission contacted applicant by voicemail and informed her that she was non-compliant with directions and at risk of matter being determined on material currently before Commission – Commission sent correspondence to applicant putting her on notice that if did not hear response by specified date then would determine respondent’s application on material currently before Commission – applicant failed to respond by specified date – Commission left applicant voicemail day following submissions due and notified was to determine respondent’s application on specified date – Commission sent applicant notice of listing for hearing via express post – respondent requested application be struck out on papers and hearing vacated – Commission sent correspondence to applicant notifying of respondent’s request and advising minded to grant application – statutory purpose of s.725 limits applicant to single remedy – Commission empowered to determine whether general protections application statute barred – Commission found relationship between applicant’s general protections application and ADCQ complaint direct and real – ADCQ application was an ‘application in relation to her dismissal’ – jurisdictional objection upheld – application dismissed. Suhr v Allity P/L t/a Sylvan Woods
