WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION. No. 334 of 1985. Between Mt Newman Mining Company Pty Limited, Applicant and the Australian Workers' Union, West Australian Branch, Industrial Union of Workers, Respondent. Before Mr Commissioner O.K. Salmon. The 29th day of July 1985. Mr O.L. Ihlein on behalf of the Applicant. Mr R. Parsons on behalf of the Respondent. Reasons for Decision. THE COMMISSIONER: In this case it becomes unnecessary for me to review the facts because of results of a case concerning the dismissed employee decided in the Magistrate's Court. However, consistent with discussions between the parties and by request of the applicant company, I will make a brief statement regarding the right of the company to proceed before the Commission to have a dismissal approved though proceedings are intended or taking place before a Magistrate. I hasten to add that in the light of what I say industrial relations considerations should always remain paramount in the minds of disputing parties. As I understand it, no conflict occurs if the Commission proceeds to hear a case concerning an industrial matter though it may involve the same questions that are to be decided by a Magistrate in criminal cases. For example, the present case where an employee is dismissed for allegedly wilfully damaging the company's property and also faces charges of a criminal kind before the Magistrate. As far as the Commission is concerned it is dealing with a matter according to the requirements of equity, good conscience and substantial merit (section 26 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979) and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. Before a Magistrate the issues are determined according to strict application of the law and the standard of proof 1455 is that of beyond a reasonable doubt. These considera- tions seem to me to constitute the vital distinctions between the two types of proceedings. Perhaps the concern amongst employees, which underlies the applicant's request for my statement, stems from fear of findings in the Commission being used against the employee when in the Magistrate's Court. This fear is based on a view which overlooks the difference between standards of proof required in the two situations. The Commission's finding would be of no use to the Magistrate because the facts in issue are subject to a higher standard of test when before him. For reasons understood by the parties, this case is dismissed. BEFORE THE