Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales CITATION: Georgopoulos and ACG Security Pty Ltd [2006] NSWIRComm 1048 APPLICANT Bill Georgopoulos PARTIES: RESPONDENT ACG Security Pty Ltd FILE NUMBER(S): 506 of 2006 CORAM: Patterson C CATCHWORDS: Unfair dismissal, HEARING DATES: 15/03/06 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/15/2006 APPLICANT Appeared on his own behalf LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT No appearance for or by the respondent DECISION: INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES CORAM: PATTERSON C 15 March 2006 Matter No IRC 506 of 2006 Bill Georgopoulos and ACG Security Pty Ltd Application by Bill Georgopoulos re unfair dismissal pursuant to section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 DECISION [2006] NSWIRComm 1048 1 This application for relief was filed by Bill Georgopoulos on 6 February 2006 following his termination of services as "security officer" from ACG Security Pty Ltd after three months' plus service. 2 Although classified as a full-time employee the applicant seems to have been renumerated by fluctuating reference to his various accumulation of weekly hours which were capable of being booked to a client according to time sheets submitted - whether or not they amounted to a "full" week by reference to the Security Industry (State) Award (the "Award"). 3 His hourly rate - apparently without reference to the Award - also appears to have fluctuated according to the nature of contract between his employer and the "host" client relative to unknown elements specific to site location and duties required. 4 Mr Georgopoulos states, in his application - and on oath before this Commission - that "hourly" rates calculated on his behalf and paid to him varied between $18.75 and $30.00. 5 There were no pay slips and certain jobs led to him being paid "cash in hand" - clearly less than Award. In such respects he has no idea as to his income tax obligations. Neither has he any information as to whether the superannuation levy has been satisfied on his behalf. 6 Although being rostered on weekends no "loading/penalty rates" were ever paid. No letter of appointment was provided upon his commencement. Meal allowances were not paid. No separation certificate upon termination. 7 His application is accompanied by a lengthy statement of events which preceded his termination whilst being deployed at Sydney airport on behalf of Qantas. Since, it appears, the respondent's arrangements there were shortly due to expire, Mr Georgopoulos' partner - and apparent supervisor - consistently treated him in the most humiliating fashion and permitted the most basic security procedures to be flouted and/or breached (e.g. bag search) the applicant decided to file a complaint with his employer. 8 The employer's response, through its "Managing Director" Harry Korras was to dismiss the applicant, with no notice, or payment in lieu of notice, for stated reasons unassociated with any duties previously performed by him - or ever, according to the evidence, asked of him. 9 No response to his complaints. Simply the "sack"! "I have not received any response to these serious matters. Jim Korras has used the excuse that I have no computer skills…(yet he told me upon appointment)… don't worry you don't need any computer skills." 10 No response to the application has been filed in this Commission - simply ignored. 11 In proceedings listed for conciliation and directions first listed for 28 February at 12 noon the applicant attended on his own behalf. Well-prepared due to the assistance of his wife/partner the matter was unable to proceed in meaningful fashion owing to absence of representation from/on behalf of the respondent. 12 Indeed, on the morning of that day, and just 30 minutes before commencement, a facsimile was received under the signature of Harry Korras an extract of which appears below: "We advise that a representative of ACG Security Pty Ltd will be unable to attend the court appearance at midday of the 28th February 2006. Due to time restraints, our solicitor has been unable to provide legal advice in the time frame provided. We expect to receive legal advice within the next 7 days and will be in a position to appear before the court with appropriate representation. If possible, we ask for an extension of 7 days to appear before the court to ensure we are fully prepared in this matter." 13 I was therefore caused to adjourn the matter, despite the applicant having already incurred costs in respect to public transport ($7.20) and a loss of one whole day's wages ($211.20) in respect to his new area of employment. He had been unemployed for two weeks. 14 Having, then, re-listed the matter for 15 March at 10.30am the applicant incurred further losses whilst the respondent, again, failed to enter an appearance and no word was received until 12.45pm when an unknown person purporting to represent the respondent phoned my office to advise that its representative "was sick….and….could not make it". He was asked to send a facsimile to that effect but none has been received. 15 Since the respondent had earlier been informed, following its failure to attend the original proceedings - without reasonable notice - and that any subsequent failure to attend would likely cause the matter to be heard ex-parte, I commenced hearing the matter at 11am. 16 Having heard the applicant's evidence, uncontested as it was, I concluded that his dismissal was harsh, unreasonable and unjust and made orders for compensation and reimbursement of unnecessary expenses in his favour. ORDERS 1. I order the respondent ACG Security Pty Ltd to pay to the applicant Bill Georgopoulos compensation in the sum of $2,250.00 together with $265.20 (a total of $2,515.20) as reimbursement for lost wages and fares on 28 February 2006 and the Commission's filing fee. 2. I order that these sums be paid within 21 days of today's date 15 March 2006. 3. These orders shall take effect forthwith. 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.