Dai v Eye See Eye Australia Pty Limited [2006] NSWIRComm 1056

Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales

CITATION: Dai v Eye See Eye Australia Pty Limited [2006] NSWIRComm 1056

APPLICANT Wu Long Dai PARTIES: RESPONDENT Eye See Eye Australia Pty Limited

FILE NUMBER(S): 6726 of 2005

CORAM: Patterson C

CATCHWORDS: Unfair dismissal, ex-parte

LEGISLATION CITED: Industrial Relations Act 1996

HEARING DATES: 23/03/06

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/23/2006

APPLICANT Appeared unrepresented LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: with an interpreter

RESPONDENT No appearance for or by respondent

DECISION: INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES

CORAM: PATTERSON C

23 March 2006

Matter No IRC 6726 of 2005

Wu Long Dai and Eye See Eye Australia Pty Limited

Application by Wu Long Dai re unfair dismissal pursuant to section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996

DECISION

[2006] NSWIRComm 1056

1 This application for relief was filed by Mr Wu Long Dai following his termination of services with Eye See Eye Australia Pty Limited after less than two months' service. 2 Having worked in the respondent's Padstow warehouse the applicant states, with the aid of an interpreter, that the respondent's principal, Michael Yacoub, had convened a meeting of employees on 2 December 2005 and informed them of his decision to relocate to Ingleburn in the near future. He also told them that the company was over-staffed due to an alleged decline in business. 3 On that date he gave the applicant one week's notice - only a few weeks before Christmas. 4 Mr Dai believes his "redundancy" not to be the product of business decline at all - rather, according to him the place was still as active as at the time of engagement. 5 He believes his dismissal to have represented an act of "revenge" by his supervisor "Michael". "Since I always argued with him over his bullying and discrimination against workers" and the complaints he had made of a filthy workplace. For instance - "there is no fixed place for the workers to have lunch … the toilet is dirty and feculent. No soap or toilet paper is provided". No payslips and no pro rata annual leave upon termination. Employees are regularly forced to work beyond normal finishing time for which no overtime payment is made. 6 In his response to the application Michael Yacoub claimed the applicant to have been employed "under a (non-specified) probationary period" and that he had "proven unsuitable for the position". 7 He also requests for the application to be dismissed "as it is a total waste of time" and that he does "not have the time or the resources to waste on this matter". 8 When the matter was first listed for 17 January before Cambridge C I note those proceedings to have been considerably delayed due to late arrival of Michael Yacoub - without apology or explanation. 9 In the arbitration proceedings listed before me he entered no appearance and none was entered on his behalf. 10 Neither had any witness statements been filed and served on the respondent's behalf. 11 The matter was delayed pending enquiries from my office. However due to the curt response visited upon my assistant I formed the opinion that the matter should be delayed no further and I proceeded to hear the matter ex-parte. 12 Having considered the applicant's evidence, uncontested as it was, I concluded his dismissal to have been harsh, unjust and unreasonable and made the following orders: ORDERS 1. That the respondent, Eye See Eye Australia Pty Limited pay to the applicant, Wu Long Dai , compensation in the amount of $2,500. 2. That this sum be paid within 21 days of today's date. 3. This Order takes effect forthwith. *****