Grundy v Subjoint Pty Ltd as Trustee for Brulo Unit Trust Trading as Prodev Realty [1996] IRCA 239

DECISION NO: 239/96 CATCHWORDS INDUSTRIAL LAW - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - alleged UNLAWFUL TERMINATION - real estate salesman - whether there was a VALID REASON - whether procedural unfairness - whether HARSH, UNJUST OR UNREASONABLE - notice. Industrial Relations Act 1988 ss 170DB, 170DC, 170DE, 170DE(1), 170DE(2), 170EA, David Francis GRUNDY -v- SUBJOINT PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR BRULO UNIT TRUST TRADING AS PRODEV REALTY - WI 1074 of 1996 Before: BOON JR Place: PERTH Date: 30 MAY 1996

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT OF AUSTRALIA WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY WI 1074 of 1996 B E T W E E N: David Francis GRUNDY Applicant A N D: SUBJOINT PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR BRULO UNIT TRUST TRADING AS PRODEV REALTY Respondent MINUTE OF ORDERS 30 MAY 1996 BOON JR THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $2,914.80 minus the amount of any commission earned by Mr Grundy in relation to work carried out after 19 January 1996, within 14 days of the date of this order.

2. There be liberty to apply in relation to the calculation of the amount of compensation to be paid in lieu of notice, if the parties cannot agree this sum.

3. The application is otherwise dismissed.

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 WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY WI 1074 of 1996 B E T W E E N: David Francis GRUNDY Applicant A N D: SUBJOINT PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR BRULO UNIT TRUST TRADING AS PRODEV REALTY Respondent REASONS FOR DECISION 30 MAY 1996 BOON JR

1. This is an application under Section 170EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988. The applicant, David Grundy, is seeking compensation arising out of the alleged unlawful termination of his employment with the respondent.

2. Mr Grundy alleges that the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 were breached in a number of ways. Firstly, he says that he was not given the minimum period of notice required by Section 170DB of the Act. Secondly, he says that he was given no opportunity to respond to allegations against his conduct or performance as required by the provisions of Section 170DC. Further, Mr Grundy alleges that there was no valid reason for the termination of his employment and that the termination was in any event harsh, unjust or unreasonable contrary to the provisions of Section 170DE of the Act.