Jackobin Holdings Pty Ltd T/A Total Jarrah v The Forrest Products, Furnishing and Allied Industries Industrial Union of Workers

(1993) 73 WAIG Single Commissioner (WAIRC) 1993-08-23 File: No. 935 of 1993

Source

His Honour

Not yet cited by other cases

APPLICANT: Jackobin Holdings Pty Ltd T/A Total Jarrah

RESPONDENT: The Forrest Products, Furnishing and Allied Industries Industrial Union of Workers

This case hasn't been analysed yet.

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 · 6

[S]Wages — payment obligations [S]Underpayment recovery (FW Act s545) [S]Underpayment recovery (WA IMC) [S]Costs order [S]Stay of proceedings [S]Internal appeals (FB, FWCFB)

Archived text (379 words)

WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION. Industrial Relations Act 1979. Jackobin Holdings Pty Ltd T/A Total Jarrah (Applicant) and The Forrest Products, Furnishing and Allied Industries Industrial Union of Workers. (Respondent) No. 935 of 1993. BEFORE HIS HONOUR THE PRESIDENT P.J. SHARKEY. 23 August 1993. Reasons for Decision. THE PRESIDENT: This was an application brought by the abovenamed applicant under s.49(ll) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (as amended) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). By this application, the applicant, in an appeal against the decision of the Industrial Magistrates' Court on 26 May 1993, seeks a stay of the operation of the whole of WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 73 W.A.I.G. the order made in complaint No. 221 of 1992. Upon that complaint, on 26 May 1993, His Worship made the following orders:— (1) That the "defendant", namely the applicant herein, pay the complainant, namely the respon- dent herein, the sum of $2947.88 (being an underpayment under an award). (2) That the "defendant" pay the complainant's costs fixed in the sum of $317.20. The case for the applicant before me was that there was a serious issue to be tried because the Industrial Magistrate made a decision before the defendant had completed its case, there having been an error as to the date of the hearing in the minds of the representatives or a representative of the defendant which resulted in a failure by any agent or representative or director of the defendant attending for the final days hearing of the proceedings before the Industrial Magistrate. Mr Lourey, who appeared as agent for the respondent before me, did not oppose the making of an order herein, although he had some doubts about whether there was a serious issue to be tried. Nonetheless, it was not asserted that there was not. On the part of the applicant, of course, it was so asserted. In any event, Mr Lourey conceded that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant, and that moneys should be paid into a trust account and a stay granted. My discretion under s.26 of the Act was therefore properly exercised in the orders which I made. I therefore ordered accordingly. Appearances: Mr R. G. Hart on behalf of the applicant. Mr M. J. Lourey on behalf of the respondent.