NSW Caselaw
Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales
CITATION: Phillips v Crowne Plaza Hotel [2006] NSWIRComm 189
APPLICANT PARTIES: Karen Anne Phillips RESPONDENT Crowne Plaza Hotel, Terrigal
FILE NUMBER(S): IRC 106 of 2006
CORAM: Harrison DP
CATCHWORDS: Application for relief from unfair dismissal - jurisdiction - employer respondent to Federal Hospitality Industry Accommodation Hotels Resorts and Gaming Award 1998 made pursuant to the Workplace Relations Act 1996. Application discharged for want of jurisdiction
LEGISLATION CITED: Industrial Relations Act 1996
HEARING DATES: 1/6/06
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/02/2006
EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 06/01/2006
APPLICANT Ms K Phillips
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Solicitor Mr P Brown Baker & McKenzie
JUDGMENT:
- 3 - INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CORAM: HARRISON DP
FRIDAY 2 JUNE 2006
Matter No IRC 106 of 2006
KAREN ANNE PHILLIPS AND CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL
Application re unfair dismissal pursuant to section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996
DECISION
[2006] NSWIRComm 189
1 Ms Karen Phillips worked at the Bodhi Spa within the Crowne Plaza Hotel, Terrigal from July 2004 to December 2005. Ms Phillips contends that she was unfairly dismissed from that employment and seeks compensation of $7,752.00 calculated by her as her potential earnings in the tourist season from 12 December 2005 to 4 February 2006. 2 Attempts at resolution of the matter by conciliation conducted by Commissioner Stanton were unsuccessful and the matter was scheduled for Hearing on 1 June 2006 by the Commission as presently constituted. 3 A further attempt at conciliation was made by reference of the matter to Stanton C. on the morning of 1 June 2006 which also proved unsuccessful. 4 In arbitration Mr Brown, Solicitor of Baker & McKenzie, appeared on behalf of the respondent with Ms M Hurley-Smith and Ms J Ashton. 5 Ms Phillips appeared on her own behalf with her mother, Mrs P Phillips. 6 Mr Brown raised two issues of jurisdiction, detailed in correspondence of 17 May 2006 (exhibit 4) in the following terms: The two jurisdictional issues are as follows:
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate