Andrew William Harrison v AE & CR Watts t-as Kirmelky Landscapes [2007] NSWIRComm 1081

Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales

CITATION: Andrew William Harrison v AE & CR Watts t-as Kirmelky Landscapes [2007] NSWIRComm 1081

APPLICANT Andrew William Harrison PARTIES: RESPONDENT AE & CR Watts t/as Kirmelky Landscapes

FILE NUMBER(S): 1067 of 2007

CORAM: Tabbaa C

CATCHWORDS: Unfair dismissal - resignation - excessive absences - non-production of medical certificates - representation - notice of requirement for cross-examination

LEGISLATION CITED: Industrial Relations Act 1996

HEARING DATES: 02/10/07

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21 December 2007

APPLICANT Applicant appeared unrepresented LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Respondent appeared unrepresented

DECISION: INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES TABBAA C

Friday 21 December 2007

Matter No. IRC 1067 of 2007

ANDREW WILLIAM HARRISON v AE AND CR WATTS trading as KIRMELKY LANDSCAPES

Application by Andrew William Harrison re unfair dismissal pursuant to section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996

.......................................................................................................................................... D E C I S I O N 1 Mr Andrew William Harrison (the Applicant) filed an application on 27 June 2007 pursuant to the provisions of Section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 seeking relief for his alleged unfair dismissal by A E & C R Watts trading as Kirmelky Landscapes (the Respondents). 2 The matter was listed for conciliation and directions hearing before Connor C. on 25 July 2007. However, those conciliation attempts failed to resolve the claim. Standard directions were issued and the matter was re-allocated for hearing. LATE SUBMISSION OF STATEMENT IN REPLY 3 The Applicant was required to file his Statement in Reply by 18 September 2007. He did not do so. That Statement was tendered at the commencement of the proceedings on 02 October 2007. No explanation was provided for the late submission. Nevertheless, the Statement was accepted after allowing the Respondent an opportunity to read it. REPRESENTATION 4 Neither of the parties was represented. The Applicant was accompanied by his parents. His father, a Barrister by profession, assisted the Applicant at the commencement by tendering the Statement in Reply together with a case outline. He made it quite clear that following that tender he intended to "take a seat and remain silent". Mr O Harrison had to be reminded at various times during the proceedings of the fact that he was not representing his son. 5 Mr Watts, quite rightly in my opinion, raised an objection to assistance being provided to the Applicant citing the distinct disadvantage the Respondents would experience if such assistance continued. Mr Watts stated that he and his wife had discussed the claim when it was served on them. He told her that the conciliation proceedings would provide a good opportunity to talk to the Applicant regarding his reason for resigning. Mrs Watts had suggested investing in a solicitor as Andrew's father was a barrister but he believed that it would not be necessary as the Applicant had signed a Statutory Declaration that he was not going to be represented. That turned out to be untrue as his father had represented him during the conciliation proceedings and he did not have any opportunity to communicate directly with the Applicant. Mr Watts pointed out that when Connor C sent them to a conference room to confer, the Applicant hid behind a newspaper and his father continued to speak on his behalf, "Andrew does not want to work for you and you do not want him", declaring that the only suitable outcome for them was monetary compensation. He was left feeling disappointed and let down by the whole events of that day.