Gonzales and Housing NSW [2013] NSWIRComm 15

Industrial Relations Commission New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Gonzales and Housing NSW [2013] NSWIRComm 15 Hearing dates: 13 December 2012 Decision date: 01 March 2013 Before: Walton J Vice-President; Staff J; Backman J Decision: We order that leave to appeal is refused Catchwords: APPEAL - application for leave to appeal and appeal - unfair dismissal claim - question of leave to appeal heard separately - s 188 Industrial Relations Act 1996 - leave to appeal refused Legislation Cited: Industrial Relations Act 1996 Cases Cited: Gonzales v Housing NSW [2012] NSWIRComm 1019 InterCoast Refrigerated Transport Pty Ltd v Inspector Batty (WorkCover Authority of New South Wales) [2013] NSWIRComm 12 Reverend Knowles & Anglican Property Trust [1999] NSWIRComm 576; (1999) 95 IR 380 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Victorino Gonzales (Applicant) Housing NSW (Respondent) Representation: Ms P Lowson of counsel (Applicant) Ms E Brus of counsel (Respondent) Ian Collins (Applicant) Housing NSW (Respondent) File Number(s): IRC 961 of 2012 Decision under appeal Citation: Gonzales v Housing NSW [2012] NSWIRComm 1019 Date of Decision: 2012-08-20 00:00:00 Before: Bishop C File Number(s): IRC 345 of 2012

DECISION 1On 15 December 2010, Mr Victorino Gonzales ("the applicant") was dismissed from his employment with Housing NSW ("the respondent"). The reason for the termination of employment was the failure of the applicant to comply with lawful and reasonable directions, which the respondent determined amounted to misconduct. The applicant applied to the Commission for a remedy, seeking re-instatement or re-employment, under s 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996. That application was dismissed by Bishop C: Gonzales v Housing NSW [2012] NSWIRComm 1019. 2On 10 September 2012, the applicant filed an application for leave to appeal and appeal against the decision of Bishop C. On 21 September 2012 at a directions hearing before Walton J, Vice-President, the parties, by consent, sought that the question of leave to appeal be heard separately. 3The application for leave to appeal was, therefore, heard separately and without conducting a hearing into the merits of the appeal. 4Ms P Lowson of counsel appeared for the applicant, and Ms E Brus of counsel appeared for the respondent, at the hearing of the application on 13 December 2012.