TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984
s.70 appeal against decision

Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited
(T.5258 of 1994)

Appeal against a decision handed down by President Westwood on 7 October 1994 in matter T.5104 of 1994 - Mr A. Purves (t/a Purves Fisheries) and Mr Crawford - Long Service Leave

REASONS FOR DECISION

This was an appeal against the decision of the President in matter T.5104 of 1994 which followed a hearing of a long service leave dispute referred to the President by the Secretary pursuant to Section 13 of the Long Service Leave Act 1976 by Mr Peter Crawford against Mr Alex Purves [trading as Purves Fisheries](the Company). Mr Crawford had been employed at a fish farm in Springfield in the north eastern area of the State.

The original grounds of the Company's appeal were as follows:

1. The President erred in that he formed the opinion on the primary reason for resignation by Mr Crawford was his fear that his marriage would be in danger if he remained which was against the weight of evidence.

2. The President erred in not giving any or sufficient weight to the submissions of the appellant in regard to Mr Crawford's reasons for resignation.

3. The President erred in not giving any or sufficient weight to the sworn evidence of Mr Crawford adduced under cross examination regarding his reasons for resignation.

4. The President erred in not giving any or sufficient weight to the independent and unbiased report of the Industrial Relations Branch, Department of Industrial Relations, Vocational Education and Training.

5. The President erred in finding the real and motivating reason for Mr Crawford's resignation was his fear that his marriage would be in danger.

6. The President erred in finding that the fact Mr Crawford did not notify his employer of his reason for leaving at the time did not invalidate his claim.

7. The President erred in finding that pursuit of alternative employment by Mr Crawford since 1991 is not fatal to this claim.

At the commencement of the hearing of the appeal the Company sought and was granted permission to delete grounds 6 and 7.

The Company argued that the real reason for Mr Crawford's resignation from his employment was his decision in 1991 and subsequently to look for other work. The Company did not dispute Mr Crawford's domestic situation, but, submitted that it was not the original or main reason for his resignation. The Company said that the President had made a mistake in not attributing persuasive weight to Mr Crawford's previous attempts to find alternative work.

On the completion of the Company's submissions the hearing was adjourned and on the resumption of the hearing, we announced that we had decided to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the appellant had not demonstrated to us that it was not open for the President to decide the way he did on the evidence before him.

The Company acknowledged that Mr Crawford's domestic situation was a reality. It was in our view within the President's discretion as to the weight he gave to the opposing submissions of the parties: it is not for us to substitute our view for that of the President in such circumstances.

The appeal dismissal is confirmed.

Appearances:
Mr P. Targett for the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Limited.
Mr G. Cooper for the The AWU-FIME Amalgamated Union, Tasmania Branch.

Date and Place of Hearing:
1994.
Hobart:
November 11