WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION. Nos. 849 and 850 of 1985. Between Rosalie Strother and Jeanette Grida, Applicants and Selwyn Holdings Pty Ltd, Respondent. Before Mr Commissioner J.A. Negus. The 14th day of April 1986. Mr G. BucknaU appeared for the Applicants. There was no appearance for the Respondent. Reasons for Decision. THE COMMISSIONER: These are two applications for contractual benefits brought under section 29 (b) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 against Selwyn Holdings Pty Ltd by Rosalie Strother and Jeanette Grida. These disputed matters first came before the Commis- sion as presently constituted in July 1985 by way of a conference pursuant to section 44 of the Act. At that conference, Mr Duckworth, the principal of the respondent company acknowledged that certain moneys were owing to a group of workers employed at the company's Waste Paper Recycling Division and he agreed to pay those moneys forthwith. A memorandum of that agreement (C327 of 1985) was tendered as an exhibit in this matter. The applicants in these matters were members of the group of workers referred to above and they filed section 29 applications when payment was not made to them under the terms of the agreement just outlined. Mr G. Bucknall of the Printing and Kindred Industries Union appeared as their agent. The respondent company was not represented at this hearing but the Commission is satisfied that Mr Duckworth had ample opportunity to be represented, the matter having been listed earlier and adjourned when there was no appearance by the respondent. Both of these applicants commenced working for the respondent company on 20 March 1985 as paper sorters. They worked on the basis of 30 hours per week for which Mrs Grida was paid $156 and Mrs Strother $165. On 7 May 1985 the respondent company was suffering some liquidity problems and wages due to employees were not paid on time. There was some industrial action and agreement was eventually reached between the PKIU, representing the workers involved, and the company. The terms of this agreement were submitted to the Commission in the form of a letter (Transcript, Exhibit 8) written to the Union by Mr Anthony Black of counsel, who was acting for the company. That letter was dated 9 May 1985 and set out details of a scheme by which employees were given the option of standing down for a three week period or working with wages deferred. Those who elected to work were promised a bonus of one week's pay. The company undertook to bring all arrears up to date when the first export shipment took place. The company's liquidity problem seems to have continued because the Commission is informed that a further hearing was held on 4 July 1985 with Mr Black, Mr Duckworth and Mr R.O. Knox, a Union organiser, in attendance. The Union's notes of this meeting (Transcript, Exhibit 6) indicate inter alia an agreement for — A back payment of $325.30 to be paid to J. Grida next week. It was these agreed payments which became the subject of a conference before the Commission on 30 July, resulting in the Memorandum of Agreement, supra. Mr Bucknall submitted at the hearing that a component of the agreed amount of $325.30 owing to Mrs Grida was an entitlement to pro rata annual leave. In Mr Bucknall's submission, the acceptance of this liability by Mr Duckworth is evidence on which the Commission can rely to imply a term of the employment contract existing between Mrs Strother and the respondent company. Mrs Grida terminated her employment with the respondent company of her own volition on 4 June 1985. By letter dated 25 July 1985 the company forwarded her a gross amount of $143. Her claim in this application is for the balance of the amount which had clearly, on the evidence, been agreed between the parties. I find in favour of the applicant and an order for payment of $182.30 will issue. The application lodged by Mrs Strother raises more complex issues. She says that on 17 July 1985 she was stood down for a period of two weeks. At that time she was owed $66.00 being two days' pay. At the end of the two week period she made repeated phone calls in attempts to contact Mr Duckworth but he was never available. Mr Bucknall submits on behalf of Mrs Strother that she has never been terminated by Mr Duckworth or any other officer of the company. It is therefore claimed that she is entitled to compensation amounting to $5 155 for wages for the intervening period and for holiday pay amounting to $664. 934 WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE. 66 W.A.I.G. By letter dated 29 July 1985 the company forwarded an amount of $30.18 to Mrs Strother this being a backpay and overtime payment (Transcript, Exhibit 5). Mrs Strother, by her own admission, did not report for work after the two week stand down period was ended. She says that they were told they would be notified when to return to work. It is clear from the evidence that Mr Duckworth was avoiding any contact with her. In view of the background of events surrounding the financial problems of the company, failure to pay the employees and stand downs I cannot accept Mr Bucknall's submission that Mrs Strother is still legally employed by the respondent company. I find that Mr Duckworth, by his actions and agreements made before the Commission, has accepted as a term of the contract of employment a liability to pay pro rata annual leave entitlements to his terminating employees. The entitlement I calculate for Mrs Strother is an amount of $233.75 based on 17 weeks worked. I find that termina- ton of the contract of employment occurred when Mrs Strother did not report for work or alternatively was not invited to recommence her duties. At that time she was entitled in equity to a week's pay in lieu of notice. The two days' pay which was outstanding is also owing to her. An order will issue for a total payment to Mrs Strother of $464.75. Decision accordingly. BEFORE THE