Media Stories

Yabut & Ramirez v Dartbridge Welding Pty Ltd & Ors [2007] QADT 29 (5 December 2007) Case Dismissed, No Case to Answer

The Complaints are dismissed.

The following is extracted from the full judgement issued 5 December 2007

Yabut & Ramirez v Dartbridge Welding Pty Ltd & Ors [2007] QADT 29 (5 December 2007)

CITATION:      Yabut & Ramirez v Dartbridge Welding Pty Ltd & Ors [2007] QADT 29
PARTIES:         ROY YABUT First Complainant

and
JUN RAMIREZ Third Complainant
and
DARTBRIDGE WELDING PTY LTD
First Respondent
and
DENNIS HENRY HICKMAN Third Respondent
and
WAYNE ROBERT HARRISON Fourth Respondent

FILE NOS:                  HEA06/143 and HEA06/145
PROCEEDING:            Final Hearing
DELIVERED ON:         5 December 2007
DELIVERED AT:          Brisbane
BEFORE:                     Member Boddice SC
HEARING DATES:       15, 16, 17, 18 and 31 October 2007
ORDER:                      1.                The Complaints are dismissed.

Findings:

I had the opportunity to observe both complainants. (Mr. Roy Yabut and Mr. Jun Ramirez) However, I am not satisfied they are reliable witnesses. (Mr. Roy Yabut and Mr. Jun Ramirez) I find their evidence on key issues to be inaccurate. (Mr. Roy Yabut and Mr. Jun Ramirez)

The third respondent gave evidence whilst he had strong views on some assertions being put to him, I did not consider him to be evasive or dishonest in his answers. (Mr. Dennis Hickman)

The fourth respondent was also subject to lengthy cross-examination. He impressed me as an honest and reasonable person. (Mr. Wayne Harrison)

The complainants’ submission that they were not informed of various matters prior to their employment is largely premised on an acceptance of their evidence that there was no discussion about the terms of their employment contracts at the seminars.

I do not accept that evidence. It is obvious from the photograph of the whiteboard there was a discussion about the hourly rate.

Having considered all of the evidence, I am not satisfied that either complainant’s employment with the first respondent was terminated on the ground of their Trade Union activity.

David Boddice SC
Member
Anti-Discrimination Tribunal Queensland