James Tolevsky v Ziadon Pty Ltd (t/as Giorgio Hair Studio) [1995] IRCA 76

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VI 1252 of 1994

BETWEEN:

JAMES TOLEVSKY Applicant

AND

ZIADON PTY LTD (T/AS GIORGIO HAIR STUDIO) Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

8 March 1995 Judicial Registrar Staindl

James Tolevsky ("the applicant") wishes to pursue a career as a hairdresser. In order to become qualified as such he needs to complete an apprenticeship of 4 years or to complete an approved course in hairdressing followed by employment in a hairdressing salon of 1,000 hours. He adopted the second option and undertook a course over a period of a year for which he paid $8,500.00. He completed this course on 13 July 1994.

Prior to the completion of this course the applicant commenced working on a part time basis with Ziadon Pty Ltd which traded as Giorgio Hair Studio ("the respondent"). The applicant worked at the respondent's Northland salon for most Saturdays between 19 February 1994 to 14 July 1994. The evidence discloses that he worked on 20 Saturdays during this period.

As the applicant neared the end of his course he enquired about the possibility of full time work at Giorgio Hair Studio. In early July 1994 he approached Maria Konstan, who along with her husband ran Giorgio Hair Studio. Although there is some dispute about what was said in the discussion it is common ground that the applicant commenced full time employment with the respondent on 14 July 1994.

Period Of Probation Or Qualifying Period Of Employment

It was forcefully argued by Mr Lacy, counsel for the respondent, that the applicant was excluded from the operation of Part VIA, Division 3 of the Act. He referred to s.170CC which provides that:

"The regulations may exclude specified employees from the operation of specified provisions of this Division. An exclusion has effect only if: