PARTIES JEAN LOTH v CHILDREN’S THERAPY & EDUCATION CLINIC
it
Not yet cited by other cases
APPLICANT: PARTIES JEAN LOTH
RESPONDENT: CHILDREN’S THERAPY & EDUCATION CLINIC
This case hasn't been analysed yet.
Sign in to analyse
Generate ratio, outcome, key facts, concept tags and cited-case edges. Takes ~15–30 seconds.
Authority signal
Not yet cited by other cases
Signal-weighted score: 0.0
Derived from how later decisions have treated this case. Dark green = leading authority,
green = positively treated, grey = neutral or sparse data,
amber = caution, red = treated negatively.
Concept tags · 1
Cases cited in this decision · 1
Cited
[2001] WAIRC 2979
(not in corpus)
"…e appropriate order to issue is that the Children’s Therapy & Education Clinic forthwith pay to Ms Jean Loth the sum of $3,964.00, less the appropriate taxation, by way of a benefit due to her under her contract of...…"
Archived text (402 words)
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION. PARTIES JEAN LOTH, APPLICANT v. CHILDREN’S THERAPY & EDUCATION CLINIC, RESPONDENT CORAM COMMISSIONER A R BEECH DELIVERED FRIDAY, 8 JUNE 2001 FILE NO APPLICATION 348 OF 2001 CITATION NO. 2001 WAIRC 02982 _______________________________________________________________________________ Result Application alleging denied contractual entitlements granted. Representation Applicant Ms J. Loth Respondent No appearance on behalf of the respondent. _______________________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Decision (Extemporaneous). 1 The Commission has before it an application by Ms Jean Loth saying that she has not been paid the benefit due to her under her contract of employment with her former employer. The material before the Commission consists of Ms Loth’s own evidence, which she has given under oath, and with due respect to her, I assess her evidence as being given in an honest and straightforward manner and I do accept her evidence. 2 I therefore find that Ms Loth was employed by the Children’s Therapy & Education Clinic as she alleges. I do so in the knowledge that none of the payslips that she showed to the Commission carried the respondent’s name and there is no document from the respondent which shows that she was an employee. Nevertheless, it would seem to me from the paperwork that has been received by the Commission and from Ms Loth’s own evidence that she was employed by that body. 3 I am also satisfied from the documents, particularly exhibit 1, that she has worked the hours that she has worked and I also accept her evidence that she has not been paid for those hours worked. 4 Accordingly, and in summary form, it states the obvious to say that Ms Loth was entitled to be paid $27.00 per hour for each of the hours that she worked. That is clearly an entitlement under her contract. I am satisfied that she has worked the hours that she has indicated and that she has not been paid for those hours. It simply follows, therefore, that an order should now issue which requires the Children’s Therapy & Education Clinic to forthwith pay Ms Loth the sum that she has claimed. 5 It would seem that the appropriate order to issue is that the Children’s Therapy & Education Clinic forthwith pay to Ms Jean Loth the sum of $3,964.00, less the appropriate taxation, by way of a benefit due to her under her contract of employment. 6 I order accordingly. 2001 WAIRC 02979