Read v Canterbury-Bankstown Olma Committee Inc
[1997] IRCA 243
•30 July 1997
DECISION NO:243/97
CATCHWORDS
INDUSTRIAL LAW - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - claim of unlawful termination - valid reason- funding withdrawn by Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs - contract for a specified period of six months - contract extended
Evidence Act 1995 Section 158, 160
Workplace Relations Act 1996 s 170EA(1), s170EA(2), s 170EA(3), s170ED(1), s170EE(2), s 170EE(3)
Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Limited 1996 62 AR 371-373 Northrop J (IRCA decision number 329/95)
Gibson v Bosmac Pty Limited 1995 60 IR 1 Wilcox CJ (IRCA decision number 180/95)
Nicolson v Heaven and Earth Gallery 1994 126 ALR 233 Wilcox CJ (IRCA decision number 68/94)
Read v Canterbury-Bankstown OLMA Committee Inc.
NI 1111 of 1997
Before: MCILWAINE JR
Place: SYDNEY
Date/s of hearing: 21 MAY 1997
Date of judgment: 21 MAY 1997
IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NI 1111 of 1997
BETWEEN:
John Read
Applicant
AND
Canterbury-Bankstown OLMA Committee Inc
Respondent
BEFORE: MCILWAINE JR
PLACE: SYDNEY
DATE: 21 MAY 1997
MINUTES OF ORDERS
THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
The respondent has contravened Division 3 Part VIA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996.
It is impracticable to reinstate the applicant to his former position or indeed to any other position with his former employer.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The respondent pay to the applicant an amount calculated as follows:
(a)$5114.52 in unpaid wages;
(b)$2122.95 in unpaid holidays;
(c)$2916.67 payment in lieu of notice;
(d)$1118.50 unpaid expenses electrical and cleaning work;
The Respondent pay to the Applicant $8000.00 in compensation pursuant to section 170EE(2).
The respondent may have the benefit of any sums paid within 21 days to the Australian Taxation Office on account of the applicant in respect of the sums ordered herein for unpaid wages, unpaid holidays and payment in lieu of notice and compensation as pro tanto satisfaction of the respondent's obligation under these orders.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules
IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NI 1111 of 1997
BETWEEN:
John Read
Applicant
AND
Canterbury-Bankstown OLMA Committee Inc
Respondent
BEFORE: MCILWAINE JR
PLACE: SYDNEY
DATE: 21 MAY 1997
REASONS FOR DECISION
Delivered ex tempore - revised from the transcript
This is an application by John Read of Grose Vale claiming unlawful termination of his employment under Division 3 Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act against his former employer. On 26 November 1996 the name of the Act was changed to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 ("the Act"). The former employer of the applicant was the Canterbury Bankstown OLMA Committee Incorporated. The applicant commenced work with that organisation as a Project Officer on 12 February 1996 and the last day that he worked was 26 November 1996. At the time of the hearing he was 47 years of age.
A copy of a notice of employer's appearance filed in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission signed by Robyn Heras and dated 6 January 1997 confirms the employer as Canterbury Bankstown OLMA Committee Incorporated and describes it as a "community-based organisation”. That document also gives as contact persons Robyn Heras and Kevin James. The section of the appearance notice in relation to details of the representative indicates that a solicitor was to appear but in addition is added the words "to be advised." The reasons for termination are set out under Section 15 of the Notice as "limited term contract completed, all requirements met."
When the matter came on for hearing there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent although I am satisfied from documentation that I have admitted into evidence that the representatives of that Committee were aware of these proceedings. I am able to do that by reason of a letter dated 3 April 1997 addressed to the Court as follows:
“Logo
Olma 2 Jacob Street
Canterbury Bankstown 2200
Bankstown Tel: 9790 7599
Fax: 9708 5382
3 April 1997
Industrial Relations
Court of Australia
Level 5, 75-85 Elizabeth St.
Sydney 2000
Dear Sir,
We have received a notice of trial for 21 May for Read v Canterbury Bankstown Olma Committee Incorporated from solicitors Eakin McCaffery Cox.
We wish to advise that the financial position of the Committee is the following:
$70.28 in A/C No. 100566-00 and a debit balance of $756.12 in A/C No. 100566-03.
We further understand that we have immediate liabilities of $830 and a projected income of $2600 leaving total projected assets of $1031.16. The project assets are controlled by DEETYA and subject to a final acquittal by them.
We restate that this Committee was formed by DEETYA as a not for profit committee. We are not in a position to engage any further legal representation as no funds are available and we have no funds at our disposal.
We request your advice as to what action you require. The Committee is in the process of being dissolved due to the inability to continue without funding.
Yours faithfully,
(Signed)
Robyn Heras,
Canterbury Olma Committee.
In addition I have admitted into evidence other letters as part of exhibit J which it is not necessary to incorporate in these reasons. Also included in Exhibit J is a letter written on behalf of the Committee by Messrs. Turner Freeman, Solicitors, to Commissioner Cargill following a conciliation conference on Wednesday 22 January 1997. That letter requests the Commissioner to have the matter listed for hearing to determine whether the application was filed within time. Finally in Exhibit J there is a letter addressed to the Director General for Fair Trading:
“Olma
Canterbury Bankstown 2 Jacob Street
Bankstown 2200Tel: 790 7599
The Director-General for Fair Trading 4 March 1997
__________________________________________________________
Dear Sir,
The Canterbury Bankstown OLMA Committee Inc. is a community based committee comprising members from business, community groups, training providers, local government and State and Federal Government instrumentalities who participate in the Committee’s activities on a voluntary basis. The Committee was established by the Department of Employment, Education, Training and youth Affairs (DEETYA) has been funded by DEETYA since incorporation. The Committee incorporation Number is Y16125-40. The purpose of the committee has been to assist DEETYA to promote and support the Federal Government’s labour market programmes.
The Committee generally receives funding through DEETYA after the commencement of each financial year to carry out various projects which have received the prior approval of DEETYA. The Committee has not received any funding for the 1996/1997 financial year and the prospects of funding becoming available are extremely uncertain. Funding was almost fully expended in December 1996 at which point the Committee terminated all projects on which it had been working and also had to terminate the employment of its employees as it was unable to continue paying wages. The Committee is now unable to continue its operations.
At an extraordinary general meeting of the Committee held on Wednesday, 19 February 1997 a special resolution was passed by the Committee for the winding up of the Canterbury Bankstown OLMA Committee Inc.. Consequently the Committee has applied to the Commissioner for the cancellation of the Committee's incorporation. The small amount of funding yet to be received from DEETYA will allow the Committee to pay its current outstanding debts and liabilities.
In relation to the distribution of the Committee's assets the funding agreement with the Commonwealth requires that any assets remaining on wind-up of the Committee remain the property of the Commonwealth by special resolution the Committee has resolved that all assets be returned to the Commonwealth.
We trust that the above information allows the Commissioner to grant this application for the cancellation of the Committee's incorporation.
Yours faithfully,
(signed) (signed)
Robyn Heras
Ex Secretary Malcolm Brackan (sic)Canterbury Bankstown Olma Committee, Ex President
2 Jacobs Street Canterbury
BANKSTOWN NSW 2200 Bankstown Olma
Committee__________________________________________________________
Sponsored by the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.”
In the light of that letter and the evidence which I have received from the applicant it is apparent to me that the business is no longer operating and accordingly the question of practicality with respect to reinstatement is not a real issue in these proceedings. Against that view is some testimony from the applicant and a company search from which it appears that some of the original activities of the Committee are continuing under another entity.
Was There Written Notice of Termination ?
Section 170EA(3) of the Act provides as follows:
An application under sub-section 1 or 2 must be lodged:
(a) within 14 days after the employee receives written notice of the termination or
(b)within such further period as the Commission allows on an application made during or after those 14 days.
On my raising the question of the written notice aspect of the matter Mr Vernier, the solicitor for the applicant, produced a further certificate which had not previously been made available to the Court, signed by Deputy President Drake, as follows:
“Deputy President Drake Sydney, 27 February 1997.
Termination of Employment.
FINDING
There was no written notice of termination served on the applicant pursuant to section 170EA (3)(a) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996.”
The notice of termination, is in my view, contained in two documents; one dated 26 November 1996 which is as follows:
“Olma
Canterbury Bankstown 2 Jacob Street
Bankstown 2200Tel: 790 7599
26 November 1996
Statement of employment
Mr John Read
This is to confirm that Mr John Read was employed by the Canterbury Bankstown OLMA Committee Inc. as a project officer between February and August 1996.
Mr Read was employed on a contract basis for a specified period and in accordance with available funding to investigate market opportunities for raw and processed food commodities for a specific cultural group within Australia. His employment was terminated because no further Federal Government funding was available at that stage to continue to the next phase of the project.
Mr Read conducted the project in a diligent and professional manner to the satisfaction of the Olma Committee.
(signed)
M R Bracken
President
Canterbury Bankstown Olma Committee.__________________________________________________________
Sponsored by the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs.”
The applicant testified that he received that document in the mail on 28 November 1996. There is a second document which also constitutes a written notice of termination. That is an “employment separation certificate” similarly signed by Mr Malcolm Bracken but dated 4 December 1996 and which also apparently bears the seal of the Canterbury-Bankstown OLMA Committee Inc. The certificate records that the applicant last worked for the Committee on 24 October 1996 and his employment was terminated due to “Shortage of work/funding” - and that the employee did not cease work voluntarily. I am satisfied that there was written notice of the termination given in this matter.
There is no evidence before the Court of a letter written by the Executive Director of the Economic Development Centre to the Applicant as is mentioned in the letter of Turner Freeman, Solicitors. I accept the oral testimony of the Applicant that as a matter of fact the document dated the 26th November 1996 was not received by him until at least 28 November 1996. The application was received by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission on 12 December 1996. Even though I find there was written notice of the termination the application was lodged within the 14 days required after receipt of such notice.
Although I have made a different finding to that of the Honourable Deputy President on the issue as to whether there was a written notice of termination this does not conclude the matter in favour of the respondent. I am satisfied that the letter dated 26 November 1996 was not received by the Applicant until 28 November 1996. Moreover Section 160 Evidence Act 1995 establishes a presumption, in the absence of contrary evidence, that a postal article was received on the fourth working day after having been posted. This presumption would also be in favour of the applicant had he not disclosed the actual date of receipt.
I have a certificate from the Deputy President of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission as follows - the certificate is dated 27 February 1997:
In accordance with sub-section 170ED(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 the Commission hereby certifies:
(i) that it has been unable to settle this matter by conciliation within a reasonable period and
(ii) that the parties in this matter having been invited to have the matter dealt with by consent arbitration have not so elected.
I am satisfied that the matter is properly before the court there being, no objection from the Respondent to the certificate as there was no appearance on behalf of the Committee at the hearing.
Background
Mr Reid was employed by the OLMA Committee whose object was to enhance the economic development potential of the Canterbury/Bankstown region. He actually reported to a sub-committee which was appointed to run the business interests of the committee and which was known as the Economic Development Centre. The concept was to adopt and support projects which would develop employment in the Canterbury/Bankstown area.
The applicant was originally employed for a period of six months and this is clearly set out in a letter in a document headed: “Canterbury/Bankstown OLMA Committee Inc.” Job Contract. Also in evidence is a document titled “Project Officer - Food Processing Development Job Description.”
“Objective:
To promote cross-cultural communication between the Processed Food Industry and the Islamic community with the aim of opening up new markets both locally and internationally. To stimulate new investment in the processed food industry and create employment, particularly in the area of “Value Added Production”. To capitalise on existing industries and familial/historic links, to develop export based industries, especially to the predominantly Moslem countries of Asia and the Middle East.”
The applicant was required to report directly to the Executive Director, Economic Development Centre (“EDC”), who was described as a person by the name of Alma Olovcic. The job can therefore be briefly summarised as investigating market opportunities for raw and processed food, consulting with Muslim community leaders, to identify key markets and to develop a short term action plan in those areas.
The terms of his engagement were that he was to undertake those duties and other duties as determined by the director of the EDC. His salary was to be “$17,500 for the six month period of the contract as well as statutory Superannuation Guarantee Contributions paid in fortnightly instalments to the employee and conditions of payment were to be in accordance with the Social and Community Services Employees (State) Award. The salary incorporates a reasonable amount of overtime.”
The applicant was required to work 40 hours a week, and he was to have an entitlement to public holidays and sick leave. He was to be paid a kilometre allowance for using a private vehicle on official business. Moreover he was to be reimbursed for expenses of travel as well as other expenses such as meals and accommodation which he might apply to the Committee for reimbursement. It is provided in the document that:
“Each party will give the other one (1) month's notice in the event of the contract being terminated prior to its contact (sic) completion.”
Evidence of the Applicant
The applicant gave evidence that he basically worked on the Halal Food Project which as I have already broadly outlined is in line with what were the objectives set out in the document headed Project Officer Job Description. In June 1996 his hours of work were varied to three days per week on the Halal Food Project. This was done so as to make the funding for that project carry over until the next budget determination of the Australian Government.
The applicant further testified that his contract was also extended to work the remaining days on a task called the Lightship Group Project which was to advertise and sell Whitman Chocolates. Those chocolates were to be advertised on an air ship which no doubt would travel around the skies of Sydney. Although it is not relevant to the determination of this case it will be recalled that the previous “Bond Airship” by the noise it emitted made life miserable for residents of large areas of Sydney. However there seemed to be no doubt in the Canterbury/Bankstown OLMA Committee Inc. that this was a worthwhile project. I am satisfied on the evidence of the applicant that the contract was extended and that it exceeded a six months period.
The applicant gave evidence that he worked full time, that at the time of his termination there was holiday pay, wages, a months payment in lieu of notice and some other expenses unpaid.
In respect of the Lightship Group Project he was to answer to the Director of the EDC which at that stage was a sub-committee of the Canterbury-Bankstown OLMA Committee Inc.. However, it now appears from a company extract issued by Australian Securities Commission and tendered on behalf of the applicant. That a similar organisation has been established, the name of which is Sydney EDC Pty Limited (ACN 077222612). According to the company extract the sole director and secretary of that company is Alma Olovcic. The applicant has testified that it is his view that this is the same person to whom he previously reported during his employment by the Canterbury-Bankstown OLMA Committee Inc. He supports this conclusion by his testimony that the company is operating at the same place and location with the same telephone numbers as it had previously when it was under the control of the Committee.
However it is clear to me that it is a separate organisation albeit raising some legitimate questions as to why such a course of action would be adopted. However no action has been taken by the applicant to join Sydney EDC Pty Limited (ACN 077222612) as party to these proceedings. Although it is another factor which establishes that it is impractical to reinstate the applicant to any former position that he might have held with the Committee.
Outstanding Payments
The applicant gave evidence that he has received payment totalling some $22,750 from the Canterbury/Bankstown OLMA Committee Inc., that on his calculations he was due to receive an amount of $27,865.52. On his behalf it was calculated, and I agree with the calculation, that an amount of $5114.52 has been underpaid to him.
He has also given evidence that other expenditure has not been reimbursed to him. This is in relation to the use of his home telephone. Whilst the amounts seem to be quite high for private use of a phone he testified that a lot of this work was to do with the Lighthouse Group Project and that the contacts were in Melbourne. Moreover this is supported by the fact that where he lives is out of the Sydney area and so that calls are to be made at STD rates. Accordingly given those circumstances I accept his claim that expenses for telephones have been incurred for:
*September: $277.59;
*October: $296.91;
*November: $300; and
Other expenses not reimbursed for:
*cleaning a hangar $84;
*putting in a power point when the cheques
were not available; $160.Therefore a total amount is owed to him of $1118.50.
Certificate of Incorporation
I have also had tendered to me a certificate from the Department of Fair Trading which is dated 21 May 1997 is as follows:
Department of Fair Trading
NSW Consumer Protection Agency
Associations Incorporation Act 1984.
Section 10(1)Registered No:
Y16125-40.
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF
ASSOCIATION
This is to certify that
CANTERBURY BANKSTOWN OLMA COMMITTEE INCORPORATED
is on and from the TWELFTH day of NOVEMBER 1992
incorporated under the ASSOCIATIONS INCORPORATION ACT 1984.
Issued by the Department of Fair Trading and given under my hand this Twenty-first day of May 1997.
signed by
Shirley (Jenkins or Jenks)
for David O'Connor
Acting Director General,
Department of Fair Trading
Under the provisions outlined in Sections 158 of the Evidence Act I am entitled, unless the contrary is proved, to accept that document into evidence. By accepting the document I am able to discount the statement in the letter written to the Court that the committee have wound up the organisation. On the basis of that certificate I am satisfied that the Committee remains a legal entity as at this time, although for practical purposes it may not be operating.
Termination of Employment at Initiative of Employer
In order to establish his case the applicant has to prove initially that there was a termination of employment at the initiative of the employer. There is some evidence before the Court by way of an affidavit which was prepared for the Australian Industrial Relations Commission that there were some negotiations before 26 November 1996 with the applicant to terminate his employment on a voluntary basis.
I am satisfied by his evidence that these discussions did not end his employment relationship and that he continued working until 26 November 1996. In fact his employment probably continued until 28 November 1996 when he received the letter in the mail which in my view, constitutes a written termination of his employment. Therefore I am satisfied that there was a termination of the employee’s in employment at the initiative of the employer.
Was there a Valid Reason for the Termination ?
Section 170DE of the Act provides that:
An employer must not terminate an employee's employment unless there is a valid reason, or valid reasons, connected with the employee's capacity or conduct or based on the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service.
Under section 170EDA(1):
(a)The termination is taken to have contravened subsection 170DE(1) unless the employer proves that, apart from subsection 170DE(2) there was a valid reason or valid reasons of a kind referred to in 170DE(1).
It is therefore quite clear that there was an onus on the employer in this case there having been an allegation that the employment was not terminated for a valid reason, to prove that there was a valid reason or valid reasons connected with the employer's capacity or conduct; or it is based on the operational requirements of the undertaking establishment or service. There is no evidence tendered on behalf of the respondent on these issues.
It is more likely in this case that the employer may have been able to establish that it had an operational requirement for the termination if they had chosen to be represented at the hearing. For example, evidence of the reduction in funding by the Department may have been given. There is no evidence other than that of the applicant which is to the effect that in the period between about the end of October and November when he received the letter he was in discussion with his immediate supervisor, Alma Olovcic and also with the president or vice-president of the committee, Mr Bracken, whichever position he held at the time, to the effect that he would try and obtain funding for a similar project. He testified that he had discussions with a leader in the Muslim community who indicated that there could be some assistance from that community for funding purposes.
In those circumstances I accept that Mr Read was willing and prepared to continue to render his services to the committee if that could be arranged. Indeed I am satisfied that he was prepared to look for sources of funding to replace that which was apparently rapidly disappearing from the Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs. I am satisfied by his evidence that it is more probable then not that he continued to work on the Lightship Project up until 28 November 1996.
Also, I refer to the remarks of Northrop J in Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Limited 1996 62 AR 371-373 on the meaning of the expression, "valid reason":
Subsection 170DE(1) refers to "a valid reason, or valid reasons", but the Act does not give a meaning to those phrases or the adjective "valid". A reference to dictionaries shows that the word "valid" has a number of different meanings depending on the context in which it is used. In the Shorter Oxford Dictionary, the relevant meaning given is "2 Of an argument, assertion, objection, etc; well founded and applicable, sound, defensible: Effective, having some force, pertinency, or value." In the Macquarie Dictionary the relevant meaning is "sound, just, or well founded; a valid reason."
In its context in subsection 170DE(1), the adjective "valid" should be given the meaning of sound, defensible or well founded. A reason which is capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced could never be a valid reason for the purposes of subsection 170DE(1). At the same time the reason must be valid in the context of the employee's capacity or conduct or based upon the operational requirements of the employer's business. Further, in considering whether a reason is valid, it must be remembered that the requirement applies in the practical sphere of the relationship between an employer and an employee where each has rights and privileges and duties and obligations conferred and imposed on them. The provisions must "be applied in a practical, commonsense way to ensure that" the employer and employee are each treated fairly, see what was said by Wilcox CJ in Gibson v Bosmac Pty Ltd, 5 May 1995, unreported, when considering the construction and application of section 170DC.
In this matter I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the employer had a valid reason as at 26 November 1996 to terminate the employment of the applicant. I am also not satisfied that the termination was justified at that time. This view is supported by his evidence that he would have sought out a way to provide some extra funding to the Committee to enable the work that he was doing to be continued. I therefore cannot be satisfied that there was an operational requirement which required him to be terminated.
I also make this finding on the basis of the information which is gleaned from the material presented by the committee in its letter to the Director General of Fair Trading dated 4 March 1997 where it refers to the funding being almost fully expended in December 1996. This was the point at which the committee terminated all projects on which it had been working and also had to terminate the employment of its employees as it was unable to continue paying wages. I am not satisfied that decision would have applied to the applicant had he been able to obtain funding for his project. In the circumstances I am satisfied that there has been a contravention of the provisions of the Act and as a result of that I now need to turn to the question of remedy.
Remedy
I have already dealt in passing with the question, as to whether or not it is impractical to reinstate the applicant, I am satisfied that I cannot reinstate the applicant in the circumstances and therefore I am obliged to consider the remedies that the court may grant under section 170EE(2) which is as follows:
If the court thinks in respect of a contravention of a provision of this division (other than section 170DB or section 170DD) constituted by the termination of employment of an employee that the reinstatement of the employee is impracticable the court may if the court considers it appropriate in all the circumstances of the case make an order requiring the employer to pay to the employee compensation of such amount as the court thinks appropriate.
It is provided in Section 170EE(3) that in calculating the amount of compensation under section 170EE(2) I am to have regard to the remuneration that the employee would have received or would have been likely to have received if the employer had not terminated the employment. There is, also to be considered the statutory cap on the amount of compensation.
In this matter I propose to order compensation. The applicant says that he is not yet in full employment although he has testified that he has received some commissions for the sale of insurance. He suggests he is on a commission to introduce a further airship into this country particularly associated with the Olympic Games. Whilst there is some hope that there may be some commissions forthcoming in the future there is no direct evidence given to me of any income at the moment.
However, in this matter I am required to look at the circumstances of the case and whilst I would have no doubt been helped by some submissions on behalf of the respondent they are not here to put anything further. The certificate from the Department of Fair Trading states that the committee is not defunct. In those circumstances I consider it appropriate that I adopt, for the purpose of calculation of the amount of compensation, the date of the Extraordinary General Meeting of the committee which was said to be held on Wednesday 19 February 1997. According to the letter to the Department of Fair Trading it was this meeting which determined to wind up the committee.
Now, it seems to me that it may be possible that had the applicant been allowed to continue to obtain funds it would not be necessary for the committee to wind up completely or he may have been able to obtain funding to continue his project and perhaps employ other people in due course. Applying the principles which have been set out by Wilcox CJ in Nicholson v Heaven and Earth Gallery 1994 126 ALR 233 I am of the view that had the applicant been allowed to continue in his employment it is at least probable that he would have remained in his employment to the date of the extraordinary General Meeting being Wednesday 19 February 1997.
Accepting 28 November 1996 as the last day in which he worked there is approximately 12 weeks between then and 19 February 1997. I adopt 12 weeks as the likely period during which he could expect to be employed. I also use $35,000 as a yearly salary which will give a weekly amount of $673.07. For calculation purposes twelve weeks provides an amount of $8,076.92. In the circumstances I think it is appropriate that I round that down to $8000. I therefore award compensation pursuant to section 170EE(2) in the amount of $8000.
I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the applicant is entitled to the amounts claimed by him with respect to the other outstanding claims. The orders I make are as follows:
The Court Declares that:
The respondent has contravened Division 3 Part VIA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996.
It is impracticable to reinstate the applicant to his former position or indeed to any other position with his former employer.
The Court Orders that:
The respondent pay to the applicant:
(a)$5114.52 in unpaid wages;
(b)$2122.95 in unpaid holidays;
(c)$2916.67 payment in lieu of notice;
(d)$1118.50 unpaid expenses electrical and cleaning work;
The Respondent pay to the Applicant $8000.00 in compensation pursuant to section 170EE(2).
The respondent may have the benefit of any sums paid within 21 days to the Australian Taxation Office on account of the applicant in respect to the sums ordered herein for unpaid wages, unpaid holidays, payment in lieu of notice and compensation as pro tanto satisfaction of the obligation of the respondent under these orders.
I certify that this and the preceding 22 pages
are a true copy of the reasons for decision of
Judicial Registrar McIlwaine as recorded in the transcript
and revised by the Judicial Registrar.
Associate: Ann Cooney
Dated: 30 July 1997
APPEARANCES
Solicitors for the applicant: Mr A. Vernier No appearance by the respondent Dates of hearing: 21 May 1997
0
0
0