//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[1998] NSWIRComm 42
defendant. Application dismissed
A casual security officer who worked only three shifts for a rugby league club over two weeks could not claim unfair dismissal because he had not established a 'pattern of employment' required for casual employees to access these remedies. The Industrial Relations Commission dismissed his application for want of jurisdiction, noting also that he had filed his claim well outside the 21-day time limit and had not completed required paperwork, though these were not the decisive factors.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
IN THE MATTER of a claim for relief relating to the dismissal of Robert Dennis Harvey by Bathurst Rugby Leagues
____________________________________________________________
Pursuant to the provisions of Part 6, Unfair Dismissals, of Chapter 2, Employment [Ss.83 to 90] of the 1996 Industrial Relations Act, Mr R D Harvey lodged an application with the State Industrial Registrar, claiming he had been dismissed from his position of casual security officer with the Bathurst Rugby Leagues Club Limited and seeking his reinstatement, re-employment or monetary compensation in lieu thereof. The matter was allocated to me and it was the subject of a preliminary hearing before me in the Bathurst Court House on Wednesday, 11 February, 1997.
Mr Harvey had been accepted for that casual security officer position with the club on Friday, 9 May, 1997 and on Saturday, 10 May, 1997 he received a telephone call asking him to work that night. Mr Harvey initially declined to work that night on the basis that he had not completed his orientation but ultimately did work the shift. He was informed to look on the roster for his next shift and he did so, working on the nights of Friday, 16 May, 1997 and Saturday, 17 May, 1997. He has not worked again due to the changes to the organisational requirements of the club. Those are the simple facts of this case and there are no other reasons for Mr Harvey being no longer engaged by the club.
However, those facts do give rise to jurisdictional issues which place significant barriers in front of Mr Harvey's Part 6 application, viz:
[1994] NSWIRComm 112; (1994) 56 IR 385 accepted that a
In those circumstances, Mr Barry, representing the respondent club and the Registered Clubs Association of New South Wales in the proceedings before me, has pressed that I dismiss Mr Harvey's Part 6 application. He has referred to new regulations to the Act which came into effect on Wednesday, 1 October, 1997 which, among other things, exempted employees engaged on a casual basis for less than six months. Those regulations apply only to contracts of employment entered into on or after Wednesday, 1 October, 1997 and are not therefore relevant to Mr Harvey. But the other jurisdictional issue still remains and, in particular, his contract of employment with the club was such that, to my mind, it was beyond my jurisdiction under Part 6.
I believe that I have no alternative but to agree to Mr Barry's submission. It is serving no good purpose to Mr Harvey to keep his matter alive. I propose to conclude this matter by dismissing it.
(1994) 56 IR 385
Application dismissed