Department of Justice

Tasmanian Industrial Commission

www.tas.gov.au
Contact  |  Accessibility  |  Disclaimer

T6907

 

TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984
s.29 application for hearing of industrial dispute

Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union -
Tasmanian Branch

(T6907 of 1997)

and

ESTI Holdings Pty Ltd
trading as Direct Security

 

DEPUTY PRESIDENT B R JOHNSON

HOBART, 28 May 1997

Industrial dispute - alleged breach of the Security Industry Award

REASONS FOR INTERIM DECISION

On 15 April 1997 the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union - Tasmanian Branch (ALHMWU) applied to the President, pursuant to Section 29 of the Industrial Relations Act 1984, for a hearing concerning the following alleged industrial dispute:

"There is a dispute between the Union and ESTI Holdings Pty Ltd trading as Direct Security care of Chris Boland, First Floor Westella, 181 Elizabeth Street, Hobart, Tas. 7000 (Registered Office) and 51 Sunderland Street Derwent Park, Tasmania 7009 (Principal Place of Business).

The circumstances of the dispute are as follows:

There are breaches of the Security Industry Award for the following employees-

Mr Brian Leggett, breach of Clauses 8, 17, 21, 30 and 31 of the Security Industry Award.

Mr Carl Fitzgerald, breach of Clauses 8, 15, 17, 21, 29, 30, 31, and 36 of the Security Industry Award.

The applicant seeks the payment of monies owed to Mr Leggett and Mr Fitzgerald."

The President, having referred the matter to me pursuant to Section 15(1)(d) of the Act, subsequently convened a hearing to deal with the application today, Wednesday 28 May 1997, at "Lyndhurst", 448 Elizabeth Street, North Hobart. The Registrar notified the parties of these arrangements, in writing, on 16 April 1997.

On 23 April 1997, by letter dated 21 April, Chris Boland Barristers and Solicitors informed the applicant ALHMWU, with a copy to this Commission, that " ... we have withdrawn from acting for the above company and are unable to contact them, with all our letters being returned marked `Return to Sender, Left Address' or we have received no reply." Acting on this advice the Registrar then notified the respondent employer of the time and place of the hearing by facsimile forwarded to Fax No 6273 9922 at the company's principal place of business, 51 Sunderland Street, Derwent Park, Tasmania.

When the matter came on for hearing this morning, Mr D O'Byrne appeared for ALHMWU and indicated his readiness to proceed. However, no person sought to make an appearance for the employer. I advised Mr O'Byrne that, earlier today, just prior to the hearing, an employee of Direct Security told my Associate by telephone that the company would not be represented at the hearing because the relevant officer, whom the employee nominated as being Mr Neil Ruut, was attending a conference in Melbourne.

Mr O'Byrne informed me in detail of the unsuccessful efforts that he had made over some weeks immediately prior to this hearing to discuss the Union's claims with Mr Ruut. Mr Ruut, Mr O'Byrne said, is the employee of the company who would have the best knowledge of facts and circumstances relevant to resolving the present dispute.

Mr O'Byrne also told me that an employee of Direct Security, who he thought might be the administration manager, called him by telephone this morning asking for advice as to what to do, in the absence of her employer, regarding today's hearing, which she had noticed in the newspaper. Mr O'Byrne said he told the employee to inform the Commission of the circumstances. The employee apparently also informed Mr O'Byrne that she had no knowledge of, and could not confirm, whether Mr Ruut had actually received notice of this hearing.

Mr O'Byrne, in conclusion, requested the Commission to issue such orders or summonses as it may deem necessary to enable settlement of the alleged industrial dispute as notified.

Having heard Mr O'Byrne I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that, notwithstanding the lengthy period of notice that preceded this hearing, there is no evidence before me on which I might reliably form the view that the employer actually received notice of the hearing. In those circumstances, in exercise of the specific powers conferred on the Commission by Section 31 of the Act, I now by the following Order direct that:

1. This hearing be adjourned for continuation at 9:30am on Tuesday, 1 July 1997 at "Lyndhurst", 448 Elizabeth Street, North Hobart, Tasmania;

2. Mr Neil Ruut, c/- ESTI Holdings Pty Ltd trading as Direct Security, 51 Sunderland Street, Derwent Park, Tasmania be summoned to attend the hearing of this matter at the time and place mentioned in Item 1 of this Order; and that

3. Mr Neil Ruut be informed that should he fail to attend the hearing of this matter at the time and place mentioned in Item 1 of this Order, the Commission, pursuant to Section 21(2)(e) of the Act, may proceed to hear and determine the matter in his absence.

 

B R Johnson
DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:
Mr D. O'Byrne for the Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union - Tasmanian Branch.

Date and Place of Hearing:
1997
May 28
Hobart