Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales CITATION: Almazova -v- Kelso Builders Supplies Pty Ltd and Another [2006] NSWIRComm 1038 APPLICANT Larissa Almazova PARTIES: RESPONDENT 1 Kelso Builders Supplies Pty Ltd RESPONDENT 2 Trend Manufacturers Pty Ltd FILE NUMBER(S): 4832 of 2005 CORAM: Cambridge C CATCHWORDS: Unfair dismissal - termination of employment - absence of substantive basis - procedural errors - dismissal held as harsh, unreasonable and unjust - compensation Ordered LEGISLATION CITED: Industrial Relations Act 1996 [NSW] HEARING DATES: 27/02/2006 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/27/2006 EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 02/27/2006 APPLICANT Mr J Boghossian Employment Help Lawyers LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT 1 & 2 Mr J Kekatos Solicitor DECISION: - 1 - INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE 27 February 2006 Matter No IRC 4832 of 2005 Larissa Almazova and Kelso Builders Supplies Pty Ltd and Another Application by L Almazova re unfair dismissal pursuant to section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996. EXTEMPORE EX PARTE DECISION [2006] NSWIRComm1038 1 This matter involves a claim for unfair dismissal. The claim was made pursuant to section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 [NSW], (the Act). The claim was filed on 16 September 2005, by Larissa Almazova (the applicant), and named the 1st respondent as Kelso Builders Supplies Pty Ltd and the 2nd respondent as Trend Manufacturers Pty Ltd (collectively, "the employers"). 2 Following unsuccessful conciliation of the matter before McLeay C, the case has proceeded to ex parte arbitration proceedings today, 27 February 2006. The file reveals a regrettable absence of proper or acceptable conduct on the part of the respondents to the claim. There has been no employer's reply document filed, nor has there been any evidentiary material filed on behalf of the respondents. Further, there has been no appearance today by solicitor Mr J Kekatos of Hunter Street Parramatta, who seems to have represented the employers on previous occasions. Attempts to contact Mr Kekatos today have been unsuccessful and his absence is without explanation. 3 The Commission now issues this extempore Decision in accordance with internal protocols established in conjunction with Practice Direction number 17. The Commission reserves determination in respect to any subsequent issue and publication of considered reasons for judgement which may be made at a later date. 4 The applicant was dismissed on 2 September 2005 at the instruction of the employers' Managing Director, Mr Michael Ovchinnikov. The dismissal was without clear explanation as to the reason or reasons for dismissal and implemented without providing the applicant with any proper opportunity to offer explanation or make out a defence, if such was required. The Commission finds that the dismissal of the applicant was harsh, unreasonable and unjust. The dismissal was harsh, unreasonable and unjust because it was without proper basis and implemented with grossly deficient process. The applicant was not even provided with proper documentary advice of her dismissal. 5 Consequently the Commission is prepared to find in favour of the applicant. Reinstatement or re-employment of the applicant would be impractical. Therefore the Commission is prepared to provide for Relief by way of monetary compensation. The amount of compensation has been determined having regard for sections 89(5) and 89(6) of the Act. 6 As the Commission has Determined that the dismissal of the applicant was harsh, unreasonable and unjust, the following Orders are now made: ORDERS 1. The Commission Orders, pursuant to sections 89(5) and 89(6) of the Act, that the employers, jointly and severally, pay to the applicant an amount of compensation of $16,000.00. This amount is a gross figure and appropriate taxation treatment is a matter for the Parties. 2. The amount of compensation specified in Order 1 above is to be paid by the employers to the applicant within fourteen (14) days from today, 27 February 2006. 3. The question of costs is reserved. oooOOOooo 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.