Read v Canterbury-Bankstown OLMA Committee Inc [1997] IRCA 243

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INDUSTRIAL LAW - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - claim of unlawful termination - valid reason- funding withdrawn by Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs - contract for a specified period of six months - contract extended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: 1. The respondent has contravened Division 3 Part VIA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. 2. 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: 3. 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; (4) The Respondent pay to the Applicant $8000.00 in compensation pursuant to section 170EE(2). (5) 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.