Shostak v Specialty Coatings Australia [1995] IRCA 90

CATCHWORDS INDUSTRIAL LAW - Termination of employment - Complaint of unlawful termination - summary termination - misconduct - allegations, unsubstantiated, not grounds for summary termination on basis of misconduct - termination on return to work after leave - Failure to give opportunity to respond - Procedural fairness, lack of - Limited future employment prospects, effect on compensation. Industrial Relations Act 1988, S170DC, S170EA, S170EE Nicholson v Heaven and Earth Gallery Pty Ltd [1994] 126 ALR 233 Chan v Maher Elias and Associates Parkinson JR 1 December 1994 SHOSTAK -v-SPECIALTY COATINGS AUSTRALIA No. VI-2043/94 Before:Ryan JR Place: Melbourne Date 10 March 1995

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY Matter No VI 2043/94 B E T W E E N: ISAY SHOSTAK Applicant AND: SPECIALTY COATINGS AUSTRALIA Respondent RYAN JR MINUTES OF ORDER

10 MARCH 1995 THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. That in terminating the employment of the applicant the respondent contravened S170DC of the Act. 2. That the respondent pay to the applicant compensation of the sum of $2,000. 3. That the time for payment be 21 days from the date of this order. 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 VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY Matter No VI 2043/94 B E T W E E N: ISAY SHOSTAK Applicant AND: SPECIALTY COATINGS AUSTRALIA Respondent COURT: RYAN JR PLACE:MELBOURNE DATE: 10 MARCH 1995 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT APPEARANCES The applicant seeks compensation for unlawful termination of employment. He represented himself and was initially provided with an interpreter. Mr M McDonald appeared for the respondent. At the conclusion of the first day of the hearing the interpreter sought and was granted leave not to attend for the remainder of the trial. The applicant has a good grasp of English and at no stage appeared to need the services of the interpreter.