I came across this chap when I was browsing Antony Green's Victorian election blog - interesting fellow it seems. He brought an action against the Victorian Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission back in 2000, which was dismissed by Ryan J in the Federal Court. A couple of interesting things in the decision though:
The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (under review, which was the decision in respect of which Mr Gluyas appealed to the Federal Court) noted:Philip Gluyas said:I didn't know just what I was capable of when pushed. On January 28, 1999, I committed an offence under the criminal code when I was pushed too far by the third party ...and I lashed out physically for the first time in my life. I hold all three parties responsible for putting me into the frame of mind I was in, and the fall out continues because all three have got away with what they've done to me. Until now, I hope. It is essential that I get some form of justice in this, otherwise three things remain unresolved in my life.
a. I will never be able to hold down a full time job.
b. I will never have a guarantee that I won't lash out again when provoked.
c. I will never have a guarantee of protection from the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission or the law in general.
Should he succeed in winning, a seat, things could get very interesting indeed. He also appears to be... some form of wrestler?Administrative Appeals Tribunal said:There is no doubt that [Mr Gluyas'] behaviour on 4 September 1990 amounted to misconduct and that the stress reaction was the result of that misconduct. When he gave his evidence, it was clear that he had a quite unrealistic idea of what his obligations to his employer were. He appeared not to realize that his employer is entitled to have him do his work in accordance with its requirement and that a proper way of his employer informing him of its requirements is through more senior officers giving him instructions and advice. He appeared also not to realize that his employer is entitled to require its employees to work in harmony with one another and that, in spite of his personality problem, he has an obligation to his employer to make every effort to work harmoniously with other staff. In giving evidence he said that he placed his interests above those of the respondent. Generally, he appears over the years of his employment by the respondent not to have taken seriously his obligations to his employer. He has not conducted himself in a manner appropriate to an employee at his level in the organization; often he has refused to respond appropriately to the advice, assistance and indeed the instructions of those supervising him.
Hey Victorian voters... on 29 November, YOUR TIME IS UP!