Perrin v Des Taylor Pty Ltd

[1995] IRCA 78

CATCHWORDS

INDUSTRIAL LAW - Termination of employment - alleged contravention of s170DC - measure of compensation

Industrial Relations Act 1988, s 170DC

No. NI 576 of 1994

DAVID JOHN PERRIN v DES TAYLOR PTY LTD

MOORE J

SYDNEY

10 MARCH 1995

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS      )
  )
COURT OF AUSTRALIA               )       No. NI 576 of 1994
  )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )

BETWEEN:               DAVID JOHN PERRIN

Applicant

AND:                  DES TAYLOR PTY LTD

Respondent

JUDGE:    Moore J

PLACE:    Sydney

DATE:     10 March 1995

ORDER OF THE COURT

THE COURT:

1. Declares that the termination of the applicant's employment contravened s170DC of the Act.

1. Orders the respondent to pay the applicant $9,500 compensation.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules.

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS      )
  )
COURT OF AUSTRALIA               )       No. NI 576 of 1994
  )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )

BETWEEN:               DAVID JOHN PERRIN

Applicant

AND:                  DES TAYLOR PTY LTD

Respondent

JUDGE:    Moore J

PLACE:    Sydney

DATE:     10 March 1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is a review under s377 of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 ("the Act") of the exercise of a power of a Judicial Registrar in relation to an application made under s170EA of the Act by Mr Perrin ("the applicant") whose employment by Des Taylor Pty Ltd ("the respondent") was terminated on 8 July 1994. The applicant appears in person and the respondent is represented by counsel.

I have treated this as a hearing de novo though I do so without the benefit of any argument on the issue.  Both the applicant and the respondent relied on the transcript of evidence before the Judicial Registrar though each sought to supplement before me the evidence given before the Judicial Registrar by sworn statements and affidavits.

While the application does not identify the alleged contravention of Part 3 of Division VIA of the Act, from submissions the applicant made it is likely that it is claimed that the termination was in contravention of s170DC and s170DE. The respondent accepted that this was the case it had to meet. The remedy initially claimed and pressed during the review was for compensation.

The facts are generally uncontentious though there were some facts in issue.

The respondent carries on business as a motor dealer and trades as Bellbowrie Motors.  The dealership sold, at the relevant times, Saab, Volvo, Nissan and Suzuki vehicles.  The applicant was employed in the spare parts section of the business and his duties generally were to take orders for spare parts and procure them from suppliers.  It was a job that appears to have required an understanding of the components in the vehicles sold by the respondent and the duties could involve advising mechanics on the parts that might be necessary to repair a vehicle.

The applicant commenced this employment on 23 March 1992.  He had, at that time, 15 years experience in the sale…