Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) to the respondent. The respondent twice failed to attend conferences. The matter was listed for hearing on 27 April 2007 and the respondent was advised formally with a notice of hearing sent to his address. At no stage was any return mail received by the Commission. 3 The Commission is satisfied the notice of hearing was sent out to the respondent. The Commission is further satisfied the respondent knows this matter is on but has chosen not to attend. It is appropriate that I proceed the powers granted to me under s.27(1)(d) of the Act and proceed to deal with this matter in the absence of the respondent. I so determine. The Claim 4 The applicant seeks outstanding contractual entitlements owed for the period of employment with the respondent. The applicant claims a total of $215.00 (gross) is owed in outstanding wages. Applicant’s Evidence 5 The applicant testified that she commenced employment with the respondent following a meeting between herself, Mr Glen Choyce and Ms Nicole Musolino. The applicant testified she was employed as a casual on an hourly rate of pay which varied depending on where and for whom she was sent to undertake her work. The applicant testified that of the $215.00 (gross) outstanding, 3 hours at $15.00 per hour had been worked on 22 April 2006 at Merriwa News, and again on the 22 April 2006 4 hours had been worked at the Perth Motor Show at the Perth Exhibition and Convention Centre at $20.00 per hour. The applicant testified that on the 9 April 2006 she had worked for 3 hours at $15.00 per hour at Quinns Rock News and finally on the 6 May 2006 the applicant testified she had worked for a further 3 hours at $15.00 per hour at Merriwa News. The applicant testified that on each occasion she was informed of the rate of pay by Ms Musolino by phone at the point of engagement. 87 W.A.I.G. WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 795 6 The applicant testified she had kept a note of all hours worked including the hourly rate of pay in records at home and it was from this note that she had on the 7 August 2006 forwarded correspondence to Mr Choyce outlining the outstanding monies owed. The applicant testified that at no stage did the respondent reply. The applicant testified that she attempted to contact the respondent by mobile phone and on the second occasion he terminated the conversation. Conclusion 7 The Commission is satisfied that there was an employer/employee relationship between the applicant and the respondent and that the applicant was employed as a casual under an hourly rate that varied dependent on the type of employment. 8 The Commission is satisfied that the terms of the contract are known and that an award does not apply. 9 The Commission is also satisfied there is an entitlement owed to the applicant on the basis of the evidence led, a total of $215.00 (gross). 10 The onus is on the applicant to prove that her claim, in this case $215.00 (gross) is a benefit to which she is entitled to under her contract of employment. Furthermore, it is for the Commission to determine the terms of the contract of employment and to ascertain whether the claim constitutes a benefit denied under such a contract, having regard to the obligations of the Commission to act according to the equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case (see Belo Fisheries v Froggett (1983) 63 WAIG 2394; Perth Finishing College v Watts (1989) 69 WAIG 2307). It is my view that the applicant has made out her claim that she has been denied benefits due to her under her contract of employment with the respondent specifically for wages. 11 The Commission will specify in the Minute of Order for the respondent to pay the applicant that amount within 7 days from the Order issuing. 2007 WAIRC 00423