{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"OHS Daily News","provider_url":"https:\/\/ohsdaily.com.au\/core","title":"CASE PROCEDURES \u2013 apprehension of bias \u2013 ss.394, 589 Fair Work Act 2009 \u2013 applicant's unfair dismissal application made on 23 February 2016 \u2013 hearing dates on application's merits rescheduled on multiple occasions \u2013 on 18 August 2016 respondent applied to have current hearing dates vacated and relisted on dates determined by the Commission in consultation with the parties due to witness availability \u2013 on 26 August 2016 Commission gave parties two options for hearing dates \u2013 Commission had ex-parte conversations with both parties on the setting of hearing dates \u2013 parties could not agree \u2013 applicant's representative unavailable on one set of dates \u2013 respondents' senior counsel unavailable on the other set of dates \u2013 Commission determined the hearing would be held when the respondent's senior counsel was unavailable as all 7 witnesses could attend those dates and only 6 witnesses could attend the other set of dates \u2013 subsequently respondent applied for the Commissioner to recuse himself from the matter \u2013 submitted Commissioner has made decisions and contacted and discussed the matter with parties on an ex-parte basis which demonstrated apprehended bias \u2013 applicant submitted they had no concerns about bias, apprehended or otherwise \u2013 Commissioner used the reasonable lay observer test from Johnson v Johnson \u2013 held that given the circumstances, a reasonable lay observer would not apprehend that the Commissioner was biased \u2013 decision made was procedural and administrative to break the impasse between parties and decide when matter would be heard \u2013 no basis to conclude decision made in interlocutory proceedings against the respondent's preferred hearing dates would repeat itself when determining the merits of the case \u2013 Commissioner to proceed and hear and determine the applicant's application. Applicant v Respondent<\/strong>","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"
CASE PROCEDURES \u2013 apprehension of bias \u2013 ss.394, 589 Fair Work Act 2009 \u2013 applicant’s unfair dismissal application made on 23 February 2016 \u2013 hearing dates on application’s merits rescheduled on multiple occasions \u2013 on 18 August 2016 respondent applied to have current hearing dates vacated and relisted on dates determined by the Commission in consultation with the parties due to witness availability \u2013 on 26 August 2016 Commission gave parties two options for hearing dates \u2013 Commission had ex-parte conversations with both parties on the setting of hearing dates \u2013 parties could not agree \u2013 applicant’s representative unavailable on one set of dates \u2013 respondents’ senior counsel unavailable on the other set of dates \u2013 Commission determined the hearing would be held when the respondent’s senior counsel was unavailable as all 7 witnesses could attend those dates and only 6 witnesses could attend the other set of dates \u2013 subsequently respondent applied for the Commissioner to recuse himself from the matter \u2013 submitted Commissioner has made decisions and contacted and discussed the matter with parties on an ex-parte basis which demonstrated apprehended bias \u2013 applicant submitted they had no concerns about bias, apprehended or otherwise \u2013 Commissioner used the reasonable lay observer test from Johnson v Johnson \u2013 held that given the circumstances, a reasonable lay observer would not apprehend that the Commissioner was biased \u2013 decision made was procedural and administrative to break the impasse between parties and decide when matter would be heard \u2013 no basis to conclude decision made in interlocutory proceedings against the respondent’s preferred hearing dates would repeat itself when determining the merits of the case \u2013 Commissioner to proceed and hear and determine the applicant’s application. Applicant v Respondent<\/strong><\/a><\/blockquote>\n