T6907
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union - and ESTI Holdings Pty Ltd
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:
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 we have withdrawn from acting for the above company and are unable to contact them, with all our letters being returned marked `Return to Sender, Left Address' or we have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:
B R Johnson Appearances: Date and Place of Hearing: |