WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION. Industrial Relations Act 1979. Trina Marguerite Kerridge B.P. Victoria Park No. 555 of 1992. COMMISSIONER A.R. BEECH. 8 September 1992. HAVING heard Ms T. Kerridge on her own behalf as the Applicant and Mr P. Tolcon on behalf of the Respondent, the Commission, pursuant to the powers conferred on it under the Industrial Relations Act 1979 hereby orders— That within seven days of the date hereof the respondent shall pay to the applicant by cheque posted to her home address the wages earned by her but not paid to her for the period up to and including the day of her dismissal. (Sgd.) A.R. BEECH, [L.S.] Commissioner. I was invited to imply a term of one month as reasonable notice to terminate the applicant's contract of service. While a term of that kind may be implied, whether it should or should not be is a question to be considered according to the evidence. The applicant's testimony in this respect arose in her cross examination. She said that in her experience as a salesperson she had knowledge of six salespersons being given notice of their employment termination. None of these persons, she said, received notice of more than one day. The respondent testified that the "industry protocol" on this particular subject was notice of one day. Furthermore, he was most emphatic that payment in lieu of notice for periods of more than one day was never made. In fact, overall, I think his testimony was that one day's notice was the most a salesperson would ordinarily expect, that it usually was less—^instantaneous. He contended that one day's notice related to the practice whereby agents who were about to be dismissed took current sales prospects with them to the agent who next employed them. On the basis of the testimony there is, in my opinion, nothing to support one month as a reasonable period of notice for real estate salespersons in this industry. Indeed the testimony strongly supports a finding that one day's notice is customary. I was not taken to any part of the Real Estate and Business Agents' Act 1978 or the regulations made pursuant to that Act that might lead me to a different conclusion, nor have I been able to find anything in that material that would cause me to find in the applicant's favour. Bearing in mind that on the subject of reasonable notice the onus of proof is upon the applicant, I have decided to dismiss that part of the claim concerning payment in lieu of notice.