Koschuetzke -v- Jack Katz [2009] NSWIRComm 1016

Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales

CITATION: Koschuetzke -v- Jack Katz [2009] NSWIRComm 1016

APPLICANT PARTIES: Rosetta Koschuetzke (nee Lo Presti) RESPONDENT Jack Katz

FILE NUMBER(S): 2163 of 2008

CORAM: Cambridge C

CATCHWORDS: Unfair dismissal - termination of employment - redundancy established as proper substantive basis - procedural errors -no consultation with employee prior to oral advice of dismissal - dismissal held as harsh and unreasonable - compensation Ordered.

LEGISLATION CITED: Industrial Relations Act [NSW] 1996

HEARING DATES: 30 and 31 March 2009

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31 March 2009

EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 31 March 2009

APPLICANT Self represented LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Ms R Mathur, barrister

DECISION: INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE

31 March 2008

Matter No IRC 2163 of 2008

Koschuetzke (nee Lo Presti) -v- Jack Katz

Application by R Koschuetzke re unfair dismissal pursuant to section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996.

EXTEMPORE DECISION

[2008] NSWIRComm 1016

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 17 November 2008, by Rosetta Koschuetzke (the applicant), and named the respondent employer as Jack Katz (the respondent).

2 Following unsuccessful conciliation conducted by Murphy C, the matter has proceeded to arbitration commencing on Monday 30 March and continuing today, 31 March 2009. 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. 3 The applicant had been employed as a Solicitor for just over 3 years. The respondent operates a Solicitor's practice in Chatswood. 4 On 10 October 2008, the applicant engaged the respondent in conversation regrading an apparent failure to pay superannuation entitlements. During the course of this conversation the respondent provided verbal advice to the applicant of her dismissal. 5 The reason for the applicant's dismissal was in consequence of the parlous financial position of the respondent's business. The significant financial difficulties faced by the respondent have been properly established by the evidence presented during Hearing.