Alber Hana v Meat Inspectors Pty Ltd
[2018] FWC 3656
•16 JULY 2018
| [2018] FWC 3656 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Alber Hana
v
Meat Inspectors Pty Ltd
(U2018/2234)
| Deputy President Hamilton | MELBOURNE, 16 JULY 2018 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – valid reason – unsatisfactory performance – application dismissed.
On 5 March 2018, Mr Alber Hana made an application for an unfair dismissal remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). Mr Hana was summarily dismissed on 13 February 2018 from his employment as an Australian Government Authorised Officer (AAO)/Meat Inspector with Meat Inspectors Pty Ltd (respondent) for unsatisfactory performance.
Mr Hana is an Egyptian national. He was issued with a Temporary Work (Skilled) visa (subclass 457 visa) after he was offered and accepted a position with the respondent.[1] He entered Australia on 26 May 2017[2] and was employed by the respondent from 30 May 2017 until 13 February 2018.[3]
The respondent filed an employer response on 7 March 2018, in which it objected to the application on the ground that Mr Hana resigned from his employment. Mr Hana’s application was heard before me on 21 June 2018. I conducted the proceeding by way of determinative conference. The respondent agreed during proceedings that Mr Hana was terminated before he resigned.[4]
Mr Hana gave evidence on his own behalf and led evidence from Dr Dina Elhalawani.
Mr Cameron Dart gave evidence on behalf of the respondent and led evidence from Mr Justin Hong, Mrs Hazel Joan Kisteria and Mrs Colleen White. Both sides were self-represented.
Initial matters to be considered – s.396
Section 396 of the Act requires that I decide four matters before considering the merits of Mr Hana’s application. There is no dispute between the parties, and I am satisfied of the following. Firstly, Mr Hana’s application was made within the 21 day period required by s.394(2) of the Act. Secondly, Mr Hana was a person protected from unfair dismissal pursuant to s.382 of the Act. Thirdly, the business is not a small business and no question of compliance with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code arises and fourthly, Mr Hana’s dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy.
For a dismissal to be unfair, the Fair Work Commission (Commission) must be satisfied that the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable (s.385(b)). In considering whether it is so satisfied, the Commission must take into account the matters specified in s.387 of the Act. I will address each of these in turn below.
Valid reason – s.387(a)
In Mr Hana’s termination letter from the respondent dated 13 February 2018, the respondent provides the following reasons for termination:
‘1. There are no less than 5 incidents that are documented as either verbal and or written warnings where you have breached a company policy.
2. We have provided the opportunity for you to be effectively retrained and coached in performing against your position description.
3. In your show cause response you are not willing to take responsibility for any of your actions.
4. You had been told your employment would be at risk for any future instances of misconduct.’[5]
Mr Dart gave evidence that Mr Hana was required to ‘perform final carcase by carcase inspection for critical pathology defect and gross contamination’[6] as outlined in the job description of an AAO.[7] Mr Dart’s evidence was that Mr Hana continually failed to identify and remove Zero Tolerance items (ZT) on carcasses. ZTs are identified as ingesta, faeces, milk and urine.[8]
Mr Hong was the direct supervisor of Mr Hana and he gave evidence that there are 18 diary noted incidents between 11 July 2017 and 9 February 2018 relating to Mr Hana’s work performance.[9] Mr Hong gave evidence that in each of these incidents, Mr Hana’s actions were ‘not deemed as acceptable by [his] work instructions and or [his] employment contract.’[10] The diary notes were not all prepared by Mr Hong; however, he stated that ‘the [respondent] relies on [him] to ensure the details are correct.’[11] I will now briefly summarise these incidents and Mr Hana’s response. Mr Hana disputed most of these claimed incidents, but not all.
On 11 July 2017, there is a diary note which states that Mr Hana stopped the chain twice and was questioned on why he missed a pathology condition.[12] Mr Hong gave evidence that he did not prepare this diary note but the incident was reported to him.[13] Mr Hana did not accept this diary note to be true and accurate.[14]
Mr Hong prepared a diary note[15] that on 9 August 2017, Mr Hana ‘was warned about not filling in the condemn sheets again’ and he was also given a second verbal warning for leaving a dirty knife in a tub full of clean knives and for leaving steel lying in blood.[16] Mr Hana agreed that this occurred.[17]
Mr Hong prepared a diary note[18] that on 10 August 2017, Mr Hana was given a second verbal warning about not checking carcasses off the retain rail properly.[19] Mr Hana did not accept this diary note to be true and accurate.[20]
On 17 August 2017, there is a diary note which states that Mr Hana ‘missed a [neural fibrosis] carcass’ and when asked about it, Mr Hana said he had not seen it.[21] This diary note was not prepared by Mr Hong.[22] Mr Hana did not accept this diary note to be true and accurate.[23]
Mr Hong prepared a diary note[24] that on 29 August 2017, Mr Hana was arguing again with female work colleagues on the retain rail and being aggressive. The diary note also states that Mr Hana pushed contaminated carcasses off the retain rail onto the main chain so the main chain had to be stopped.[25] Mr Hana did not accept this diary note to be true and accurate.[26] During examination-in-chief, Mr Hong said of the incident, ‘[Mr Hana] said it was not his job, and the chain then had to be stopped and production stopped because he refused to trim that carcass.’[27]
Mr Hong prepared a diary note that on 12 September 2017, Mr Hana argued with female work colleagues and pushed contaminated carcasses back onto the main chain.[28] Mr Hana did not accept this diary note to be true and accurate.[29]
Mr Hong prepared a diary note[30] that on 28 September 2017, Mr Hana had ‘another altercation with Leading Hand (Midfield)’ and he ‘condemned 25 paunch and runners on small stock MMI between 8.00am and 8.30am? He said puss and abscess.’[31] Mr Hana agreed that this occurred.[32]
Mr Hong prepared a diary note[33] that on 20 November 2017, Mr Hana ‘messed up the rotation again’ and he ‘knew it was a mistake but did it anyway.’[34] The diary note further states that Mr Hana is not taking proper action in relation to ZTs on carcasses and leaving it to the next person.[35] Mr Hana denied that he missed anything.[36]
Mr Hong prepared a diary note[37] that on 23 November 2017, Mr Hana was sent home without pay for non-compliance.[38] Mr Hana accepted this diary note to be correct, but denied he was non-compliant.[39]
On 24 November 2017, there is a diary note which states that Mr Hana ‘refused to sign form and then ripped form up’ and he ‘knocked out four good trays of offal for reason unknown.’[40] This diary note was not prepared by Mr Hong.[41] Mr Hana agreed that he ripped the form up but on the basis that the respondent ‘just wanted [him] to sign [the] preliminary record without any evidence.’[42]
Mr Hong prepared a diary note[43] that on 27 November 2017, Mr Hana was spoken to ‘about ZTs found from MMI retain on 23 November 2017’ and Mr Hana ‘stated that he was stressed and under pressure.’[44] The diary note further states that Mr Hana was informed that the ‘ZTs would be kept on record and brought up if there is a reoccurrence.’[45] Mr Hana seemed to concede that there was some form of problem because ‘[he is] a human being. Sure, [he] did a lot of things wrong, a lot of things, but not words for termination.’[46]
On 12 December 2017, there is a diary note which states that Mr Hana had another conflict with a female work colleague and he let a carcass on the retain pass without removing the arthritic joint.[47] This diary note was not prepared by Mr Hong.[48] Mr Hana agreed there was conflict and that it was a mistake on his part, but denied some aspects.[49]
Mr Hong prepared a diary note[50] that on 10 January 2018, ‘FSMA had found that a few obvious defects in the red offal had been missed/passed when [Mr] Hana was inspecting.’[51] Mr Hana did not accept this diary note to be true and accurate.[52]
Mr Hong prepared a diary note[53] that on 18 January 2018, Mr Hana was witnessed working very slowly. Mr Hana was spoken to by Mr Hong, who told him that ‘he must always keep busy.’[54] The diary note further states that Mr Hana took a longer lunch break without approval and was given a warning about this.[55] Mr Hana only accepted that he took a longer lunch break.[56]
Mr Hong prepared a diary note[57] that on 29 January 2018, Mr Hana let a carcass pass that had not been checked and he had ‘already missed a ZT on a carcass, which he then ripped off the printed ticket and threw it in the bin.’[58] During examination-in-chief, Mr Hong further explained the incident, stating that:
‘… Mr Hana had pushed [the carcass] off the retain, and it had gone through to the scale operator who printed out the ticket, and then she's seen the ZT, and put it back on to the retain. Mr Hana then roughly trimmed it and ripped off the ticket and threw it in the bin, which makes it difficult, because they, the scales operator, needs that ticket to re-class the carcass and keep it numbered.’[59]
Mr Hana denied that he missed anything.[60]
Mr Hong prepared a diary note[61] that on 30 January 2018, Mr Hana ‘missed ZTs on carcass when he was checking it off the retain.’[62] The carcass was brought back to Mr Hana for reworking several times because he continued to miss the ZTs.[63] The diary note further states that ‘FSMA noticed and trimmed some inoculations on the neck of carcasses coming off retain and Mr Hana was on retain.’[64] Mr Hong said in examination-in-chief that:
‘The carcass had come off the retain with ZTs and the floor manager at the time saw it heading towards the chillers, he's brought it back, and then had to bring it back two more times for more ZTs that Mr Hana had missed. He re-trimmed it, pushed it off onto the main chain. There were more ZTs found so they brought it back three times.’[65]
Mr Hana denied that this occurred.[66]
Mr Hong prepared a diary note[67] that on 1 February 2018, Mr Hana went home without informing Mr Hong, his supervisor, but had told work colleagues that he had colic and was going home.[68] Mr Hana said that he was actually sick.[69] Mr Dart said that this was not a valid reason for termination.[70]
On 9 February 2018, there is a diary note which states that Mr Hana refused to help a work colleague, stopped the chain without good reason and had a heated exchange with a work colleague.[71] The diary note further states that Mr Hana was then sent home.[72] This diary note was not prepared by Mr Hong.[73] Mr Hana agreed that he stopped the chain but stated that he had reason to do so and he denied that he used angry or heated words.[74]
Mr Hong’s evidence included four training record forms for Mr Hana in relation to ZT identification. The training record forms are dated 23 August 2017, 31 August 2017, 20 November 2017 and 1 December 2017 and were all signed by Mr Hana.[75]
Mr Hong’s evidence also included five disciplinary records for Mr Hana relating to work performance issues. The disciplinary records are dated 22 November 2017, 24 November 2017, 1 December 2017, 5 December 2017 and 9 February 2018. All of the disciplinary records were signed by Mr Hana except for two, the record dated 5 December 2017 and the record dated 9 February 2018. Mr Hana said he signed the records ‘under stress’.[76] The disciplinary record dated 9 December 2018 states that Mr Hana refused to sign the document.[77]
Mr Hong gave evidence in support of his claims set out above. Most of the diary notes were about incidents known to him although a number were prepared by others or were reported to him by others or both.[78] When Mr Hong was asked whether he had personal knowledge of each of the incidents, he stated, ‘[a] large number, not all. Some were put in by the other Leading Hand onsite, because there were two separate floors in operation.’[79]
He was cross-examined on that evidence[80] and was convincing in his replies. I accept his evidence in preference to that of Mr Hana.
Mrs Kisteria, the Southern Regional Manager of the respondent, gave evidence that Mr Hana had some form of altercation with Mrs White, a Leading Hand, which showed ‘no respect to the Leading Hand or to [his] co-worker.’[81] Mr Hana said he was respectful.[82]
Mrs Kisteria gave evidence that in one incident there was a problem with two carcasses that had not been trimmed properly and Mr Hana pointed his finger at her and was angry at her for missing grass seed on the carcasses. Mrs Kisteria found Mr Hana’s behaviour to be ‘disrespectful, humiliating and insulting.’[83] Mrs Kisteria said Mr Hana then yelled at other girls, and said trimming is not a Meat Inspectors’ job.[84] Mr Hana said that this is false.[85]
Mrs Kisteria said that Mr Hana was angry and warned her ‘to trust no one and that they are all traitors.’[86] Mr Hana agreed, stating ‘this my mistake, yes.’[87]
Mrs Kisteria said she witnessed Mr Shane Wittmann, the previous Regional Manager, trying to remind Mr Hana that he needed to respect everyone and did so pleasantly, and that Mr Hana always got angry and blamed Mr Wittmann.[88] Mr Hana disagreed.[89]
She said that Mr Hana never helped himself because he kept arguing with people and causing trouble.[90] Mr Hana disagreed.[91]
Mrs Kisteria gave evidence that whenever Mr Hana missed ZTs on a carcass, he was retrained and given plenty of opportunities but he just got angry with Mr Wittmann.[92] Mr Hana disagreed.[93]
Mrs Kisteria gave evidence of an incident where Mr Hana refused to help her with a piece of brisket that she could not cut because it was too hard and then Mr Hana yelled at Puto, a supervisor, and was angry that the brisket had not been cut.[94] Mrs Kisteria said, ‘I was there when you yelled at Puto and when you had an argument with Mr Puto… So Mr Shane Wittmann came on the floor and still heard you yelling at Puto and heard and witnessed the argument.’[95] Mr Hana denied this.[96]
Mrs Kisteria said that Mr Wittmann then came on the floor and calmly asked Mr Hana to go to the office and relax, and had to say it a few times before Mr Hana listened. Mr Hana agreed with this.[97] Mrs Kisteria gave evidence that she found Mr Hana’s response to the brisket incident to be ‘unprofessional and disrespectful’ to everyone that was there.[98]
Mrs Kisteria said that she tried telling Mr Hana a few times to ‘talk to people nicely and just treat others with respect so he won’t have any problem.’[99] Mr Hana agreed this occurred. Mr Hana disagreed that he kept causing trouble at the job with how he treated others.[100]
Mrs Kisteria gave evidence that she had witnessed occasions where Mr Hana did not respect the Leading Hands, Mr Hong, Mrs White, and Mr Wittmann.[101] Mr Hana disagreed.[102]
Mrs Kisteria was cross-examined on this evidence.[103] I found her evidence to be convincing and prefer it to that of Mr Hana.
Mrs White gave evidence that on 11 July 2017, Mr Hana stopped the chain twice in one day to question the On Plant Vet about a pathology condition, and on several occasions, it was brought to her attention that Mr Hana was not following correct inspection procedures and was coming into conflict with other staff.[104] During examination-in-chief, Mrs White said:
‘… on several occasions I wanted to try and help Alber to get his inspections procedures correct so that we didn't come into conflict with Midfield staff at the time, so, you know, he didn't seem to want to conform to instruction from being a Leading Hand, and also from the other Leading Hand, and also our Regional Manager at the time, and on several occasions he would just deny the fact that it was him that actually was on that position at that time.’[105]
Mrs White said that she tried to talk to Mr Hana many times to help him and give him instructions as to what was expected of him as a Meat Inspector.[106]
She was cross-examined on this evidence.[107] I accept her evidence regarding advice to Mr Hana about his duties although the evidence about the chain is apparently hearsay and therefore of limited or no value.
In Mr Hana’s evidence, he conceded that some or all of the incidents recorded on 9 August 2017, 28 September 2017, 23 November 2017, 24 November 2017, 12 December 2017 and 18 January 2018 occurred but also said that many did not. He claimed that his supervisor, Mr Wittmann, was biased against him. I accept the evidence of Dr Elhalawani that Mr Wittmann was rude when he spoke to her about a sick leave certificate she had issued with respect to Mr Hana.[108] However, that rudeness does not mean that Mr Wittmann or anyone else was biased against Mr Hana. Mr Wittman could have been biased, or he could have simply been frustrated about the numerous incidents of alleged poor performance by Mr Hana in his work. Mrs Kisteria gave evidence that Mr Wittmann was patient and helpful to Mr Hana in trying to improve his performance. In my view, Mr Dart, Mr Wittmann and other witnesses may have been frustrated with Mr Hana, but I am unable to conclude that they were biased.
I also had the opportunity of observing all the witnesses giving evidence, and I prefer the evidence given for the respondent to that of Mr Hana. Mr Hana was unconvincing in his denials.
Mr Hana conceded that he was given two warnings on 9 August 2018, that he had another altercation with a Leading Hand on 28 September 2017, that he ripped up a disciplinary record form he had refused to sign on 24 November 2018, and that he had an argument with a work colleague on 12 December 2017. Even on the evidence of Mr Hana, there is a valid reason for termination of employment. I accept the direct evidence of Mrs Kisteria and Mrs White, and I find that there is a valid reason for dismissal.
I also note that it is unclear from Mr Hong’s evidence which incidents he had direct knowledge of and which incidents he was informed of. I have given weight to Mr Hong’s evidence only to the extent that I accept his evidence that he had direct knowledge of ‘[a] large number, not all’ of the incidents he gave evidence about. This reinforces my findings of significant poor performance by Mr Hana based on the evidence of Mrs Kisteria and Mrs White. In any event, Mr Hong’s evidence is not necessary to my findings given the other evidence.
I am satisfied on the evidence before me that Mr Hana failed to perform his role properly on more than one occasion and had inappropriate altercations in the workplace with supervisors and colleagues, and in my view, this constitutes a valid reason or valid reasons for dismissal.
Notification of reason for dismissal – s.387(b)
In Crozier v Palazzo Corporation Pty Ltd,[109] a Full Bench said:
‘[73] As a matter of logic procedural fairness would require that an employee be notified of a valid reason for their termination before any decision is taken to terminate their employment in order to provide them with an opportunity to respond to the reason identified. Section 170(3)(b) and (c) would have very little (if any) practical effect if it was sufficient to notify employees and give them an opportunity to respond after a decision had been taken to terminate their employment. Much like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.’
Mr Hana was sent a show cause letter by the respondent on 9 February 2018, which outlined the respondent’s concerns.[110] The letter stated:
‘Details of our concerns are as below:
· On Friday 9th February 2018 you have again not followed instructions and have been reported by an employee and also by our host client for swearing, not following instructions and being wilfully and deliberately disruptive onsite.
· You have previously received multiple verbal and written warnings for misconduct.
· You have been afforded numerous training sessions and assistance from the team members to assist with compliance of the role.
· You had been told your employment would be at risk for any future instances of misconduct.’
On the evidence of Mr Dart, Mr Hong, Mrs Kisteria and Mrs White, Mr Hana was repeatedly notified of the reasons for dismissal.
Opportunity to respond – s.387(c)
Mr Dart gave evidence that Mr Hana denied that identification and removal of ZTs is part of his role, and about procedural issues regarding the dismissal. Mr Dart said that he counselled Mr Hana on or around 6 December 2017 who ‘conveyed an unwillingness to listen to the team and his direct supervisors as to what was required of the role and what he was not undertaking correctly.’[111] Mr Dart sent his findings to Mr Hana by email. Mr Hana was given a show cause letter[112] and agreed he was given an opportunity to respond.[113] He responded on 9 February 2018 by email asking for a transfer to another place of work, which was refused.[114]
Unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow a support person – s.387(d)
Mr Hana claimed that he was not allowed a support person as he had asked for help from Mr John Milton on 10 February 2018, after the show cause letter was sent on 9 February 2018.[115] Mr Milton apparently did not respond. This was not a refusal to allow a support person by the employer but a refusal to attend by Mr Milton. In the alternative, it was a refusal.
Warning about unsatisfactory performance before dismissal – s.387(e)
Mr Hana was given repeated advice about unsatisfactory performance prior to his dismissal. Some of that advice was in the form of an email from Mr Dart to Mr Hana on 7 December 2017,[116] and training and disciplinary records issued by the respondent for Mr Hana. In Mr Dart’s email to Mr Hana dated 7 December 2017, he wrote:
‘From the outset you need to understand that it is our desire that you continue to work with the business, however I caution you that you are on [your] second formal warning and if there is a third warning issued then we reserve our rights to terminate your employment.’[117]
I have also considered the training and disciplinary records above in the context of s.387(a). The disciplinary record of 22 November 2017 states, ‘… Alber has had a verbal warning for his work procedures not been done correctly on the retain…’,[118] the disciplinary record of 1 December 2017 states, ‘this is the last warning’,[119] and the disciplinary record of 5 December 2017 states, ‘Alber has been warned before [that] his conduct and performance is unacceptable and this issue must be addressed.’[120] “Verbal warning” was ticked out of the options of “written warning”, “verbal warning” or “final warning” for the disciplinary records of 22 November 2017, 24 November 2017, and 1 December 2017. “Written warning” was ticked for the disciplinary record of 5 December 2017, and “final warning” was ticked for the disciplinary record of 9 February 2018. Most of the warnings were signed by Mr Hana or were not in dispute.
Size of enterprise and absence of dedicated human resource management specialists/expertise likely to impact on procedures followed – ss.387(f)(g)
Mr Dart stated that there is no specialist HR professional and did not claim that it is a small business.[121] The lack of HR professionals may have impacted on procedures followed.
Other relevant matters – s.387(h)
Mr Hana said that the termination would affect both him and his family, may affect his 457 visa status and would have a harsh financial and social impact on him.[122] Mr Dart submitted that Mr Hana was given an opportunity to settle and work, but he could not control Mr Hana’s actions. Mr Dart said that Mr Hana was afforded every opportunity.[123] I also note Mr Dart’s submission that the respondent does not undertake the 457 visa process lightly.[124]
Conclusion
I have taken account of all the evidence and submissions, and the fact that it was a summary dismissal, which is a serious step to take. I find that Mr Hana’s dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable. I order that his application be dismissed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
A Hana on his own behalf.
C Dart for the respondent.
Hearing details:
2018.
Warrnambool:
June 21.
<PR608312>
[1] Exhibit H1.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Transcript PN6.
[5] Exhibit M6, Attachment ITEM6CD.
[6] Ibid, Attachment ITEM2CD.
[7] Transcript PN672-677.
[8] Exhibit M6, p1.
[9] Exhibit M4, Attachment ITEM1JH.
[10] Ibid, p1.
[11] Ibid, p2.
[12] Ibid, Attachment ITEM1JH.
[13] Transcript PN1001-1002.
[14] Transcript PN70.
[15] Transcript PN1004.
[16] Exhibit M4, Attachment ITEM1JH.
[17] Transcript PN82.
[18] Transcript PN1005.
[19] Exhibit M4, Attachment ITEM1JH.
[20] Transcript PN86.
[21] Exhibit M4, Attachment ITEM1JH.
[22] Transcript PN1005.
[23] Transcript PN90.
[24] Transcript PN1005.
[25] Exhibit M4, Attachment ITEM1JH.
[26] Transcript PN100-104.
[27] Transcript PN1023.
[28] Exhibit M4, Attachment ITEM1JH.
[29] Transcript PN109-111.
[30] Transcript PN1029.
[31] Exhibit M4, Attachment ITEM1JH.
[32] Transcript PN115-117.
[33] Transcript PN1029.
[34] Exhibit M4, Attachment ITEM1JH.
[35] Ibid.
[36] Transcript PN131.
[37] Transcript PN1030.
[38] Exhibit M4, Attachment ITEM1JH.
[39] Transcript PN133-139.
[40] Exhibit M4, Attachment ITEM1JH.
[41] Transcript PN1031.
[42] Transcript PN141-152.
[43]Transcript PN1031.
[44] Exhibit M4, Attachment ITEM1JH.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Transcript PN158-160.
[47] Exhibit M4, Attachment ITEM1JH.
[48] Transcript PN1031.
[49] Transcript PN161-172.
[50] Transcript PN1031.
[51] Exhibit M4, Attachment ITEM1JH.
[52] Transcript PN173-178.
[53] Transcript PN1055.
[54] Exhibit M4, Attachment ITEM1JH.
[55] Ibid.
[56] Transcript PN189-198.
[57] Transcript PN1044.
[58] Exhibit M4, Attachment ITEM1JH.
[59] Transcript PN1046.
[60] Transcript PN180-182.
[61] Transcript PN1049.
[62] Exhibit M4, Attachment ITEM1JH.
[63] Ibid.
[64] Ibid.
[65] Transcript PN1050.
[66] Transcript PN186-188.
[67] Transcript PN1060.
[68] Exhibit M4, Attachment ITEM1JH.
[69] Transcript PN201-202.
[70] Transcript PN206.
[71] Exhibit M4, Attachment ITEM1JH.
[72] Ibid.
[73] Transcript PN1060.
[74] Transcript PN223 and PN230-231.
[75] Transcript PN234, PN238, PN244 and PN246.
[76] Transcript PN246, PN289 and PN299.
[77] Exhibit M4, Attachment ITEM9JH.
[78] Transcript PN1001-1088.
[79] Transcript PN999.
[80] Transcript PN1090-1113.
[81] Exhibit M1, p1.
[82] Transcript PN441.
[83] Exhibit M1, p1.
[84] Ibid.
[85] Transcript PN443-469.
[86] Exhibit M1, p1.
[87] Transcript PN496.
[88] Exhibit M1, p2.
[89] Transcript PN504.
[90] Exhibit M1, p2.
[91] Transcript PN529.
[92] Exhibit M1, p2.
[93] Transcript PN532-542.
[94] Exhibit M1, p2.
[95] Transcript PN935-937.
[96] Transcript PN543-556.
[97] Transcript PN558.
[98] Exhibit M1, p2.
[99] Ibid, p3.
[100] Transcript PN560-564 and PN569-573.
[101] Exhibit M1, p3.
[102] Transcript PN575-579.
[103] Transcript PN888-945.
[104] Exhibit M5.
[105] Transcript PN1153.
[106] Exhibit M5.
[107] Transcript PN1156-1169.
[108] Transcript PN609.
[109] Print S5897 at [73].
[110] Exhibit M6, Attachment ITEM5CD.
[111] Ibid, p2.
[112] Ibid, Attachment ITEM5CD.
[113] Transcript PN1314.
[114] Exhibit H4 and Transcript PN1275-1276.
[115] Exhibit H4.
[116] Exhibit M6, Attachment ITEM3CD.
[117] Ibid.
[118] Exhibit M4, Attachment ITEM5JH.
[119] Ibid, Attachment ITEMJH7.
[120] Ibid, Attachment ITEM8JH.
[121] Transcript PN1381.
[122] Transcript PN1339-1343.
[123] Transcript PN1382.
[124] Transcript PN1363.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
0
0
0