Matthew James Dwyer and Bill McLean's Hi-Fi [1995] IRCA 707

In the Industrial Relations Court of Australia New South Wales District Registry Matter No: NI 95/2380 Between: Matthew James DWYER Applicant And: Bill McLean's Hi-Fi Respondent Coram: Tomlinson JR Place: Gosford Date: 14 November 1995 Reasons for decision delivered Ex-Tempore revised from Transcript By application dated 30 May 1995 the applicant, Matthew Dwyer, sought compensation and to use his words on the back of his application form "a fair and just settlement of this situation."

Mr Moore, on behalf of the applicant, stated that the applicant was dismissed summarily and that the applicant under Section 170 DC was afforded no opportunity to deal with the allegations levied against him by the respondent.

Mr Moore further stated that it was agreed to that there was a meeting on 16 May 1995 between the his client, the applicant, and the respondent, and that the respondent gave direction that the applicant was not to sell his speakers through the store of the respondent.

Admitted into evidence as exhibit 1 was the statement of the applicant that stated inter alia that he was 35 years of age, that he had been employed in and around the electronics industry for at least 10 years. An impressive list of employers was provided that indicated, among other things, that the applicant had been in employed positions for commercial organisations engaged in retail activity.

The applicant stated to the court that he commenced work with the respondent in approximately May of 1994, however his application stated he commenced work on 3 August 1994 as an electronics technician. It seems the applicant in fact started work on 11 July 1994. The applicant stated that from the beginning of the employment with the respondent he made it clear he was running his own business and in the written testimony the applicant stated that involved electronic repairs, speaker modifications and building of speakers. The evidence of the applicant was that the respondent, Mr McLean, had indicated at that time that he would allow the applicant to carry on his home activities on condition that it did not prevent him from carrying out is jobs with the respondent.