Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales CITATION: DongDong Yang and Chinese Migrant Welfare Association [2008] NSWIRComm 208 APPELLANT PARTIES: DongDong Yang RESPONDENT Chinese Migrant Welfare Association FILE NUMBER(S): IRC 660 of 2008 CORAM: Marks J; Harrison DP; Staff J CATCHWORDS: Appeal - unfair dismissal proceedings - appellant employed on a fixed term part time contract - Commissioners decision deals with evidence in a comprehensive matter - maximum claim is for four days pay - no public interest - leave to appeal declined LEGISLATION CITED: Industrial Relations Act 1996 CASES CITED: DongDong Yang and Chinese Migrant Welfare Association Inc [2008] NSWIRComm 1025 HEARING DATES: 30 October 2008 EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 30 October 2008 APPELLANT Mr D Yang in person LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr C W Fan (Chinese Migrant Welfare Association) Mr B Huang (Chinese Migrant Welfare Association) JUDGMENT: INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES CORAM: Marks J Harrison DP Staff J 30 October 2008 Matter No IRC 660 of 2008 DongDong Yang and Chinese Migrant Welfare Association Application by DongDong Yang for leave to appeal and appeal against a decision of Commissioner Tabbaa given on 28.4.2008 in matter no IRC 2007/1951 JUDGMENT ON LEAVE TO APPEAL (EX TEMPORE) [2008] NSWIRComm 208 1 The appellant, DongDong Yang, seeks leave to appeal from the decision of Commissioner Tabbaa declining to find that his dismissal by the respondent, Chinese Migrant Welfare Association, was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Both parties are unrepresented and both require the assistance of an interpreter. 2 The appeal books filed by the appellant are deficient in a substantial matter, namely, a failure to include the transcript of the proceedings before the Commissioner. There would appear on a prima facie basis to have been a failure to include within the appeal books the exhibits tendered before the Commissioner. However, we have obtained a copy of the transcript which each of us has read. 3 The decision of the Commissioner published on 28 April 2008 in DongDong Yang and Chinese Migrant Welfare Association Inc [2008] NSWIRComm 1025 makes it clear that the appellant was employed by the respondent on a fixed term part time contract of employment from 19 March until 26 September 2007. He was to work a period of initially 10 hours per week, later changed to 12 hours per week during this period. 4 On 24 September 2007 the appellant's employment was summarily terminated principally because the appellant was alleged to have failed to account for petty cash expenditure over a substantial period of time and had refused to do so. If the appellant had been entitled to reinstatement he would have received remuneration for a further four days only. The appellant was paid $16.40 per hour to work a 12-hour week. 5 The decision of the Commissioner makes it clear that she received a great deal of evidence both on behalf of the appellant and the respondent and carefully considered it. On its face the Commissioner's decision deals with the evidence in a comprehensive manner, contains detailed reasons for the decision and applied well-established principles in dealing with the matter. 6 The grounds for appeal set out in the appeal documentation, as best we understand them, attack the decision as having been made, "On insufficient evidence and lack of consideration of my evidence. Some of my evidences were overlooked. Some evidence from respondent are misleading evidences. Decision was based on selected evidence." 7 There is also an alleged failure by the respondent to pay an appropriate amount of superannuation and allegations of a failure to make available pay slips, delay in the payment of salary and in decreasing the appellant's salary. 8 A perusal of the transcript reveals that there was a great deal of controversy concerning the allegations made by the appellant for the purpose of the appeal. Some of the arguments made by the appellant were clearly irrelevant to the proceedings below and are equally irrelevant for the purpose of this appeal. The proceedings are confined to the circumstances of the dismissal. 9 The decision appealed from was given on 28 April 2008. The application for leave to appeal was filed on 19 May 2008. Many months have passed in the interim. The document purporting to be the appeal book was filed on 12 August 2008. 10 The underlying circumstances which pertain to these proceedings is that the appellant was dismissed four days before his contracted employment would have come to an end in any event. 11 It is necessary that the appellant establish that leave should be granted to appeal in the public interest as required by section 188 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996. The application for leave to appeal filed by the appellant sets out a number of reasons why leave should be granted. They are, "1. To protect right and interest of workers working for government funded organisation such as CMWA (a reference to the respondent) 2. To prevent misuse of government funding for migrants. 3. To prevent misuse of position, power or personal desire to dismiss workers." 12 In our opinion these are not relevant matters in the context of the nature of the proceedings before Commissioner Tabbaa which, as we have said, were confined to whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. As we have indicated, the maximum claim is for four days pay or, arguably, reinstatement for that period. 13 We can see no public interest that would support permission being granted to the appellant to proceed with the appeal, in other words, any reason why a grant of leave to appeal should be made. 14 We decline, therefore, to grant leave to appeal and we so order. The proceedings are therefore concluded on this basis. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.