Amanda Jane Eales v Equifax Australasia Group Services Pty Ltd, Steven Pammenter, Ana Keckeisen, Samantha Clitheroe and Geoff Hawkins
[2025] FWC 621
•3 MARCH 2025
| [2025] FWC 621 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.789FC - Application for an order to stop bullying
Amanda Jane Eales
v
Equifax Australasia Group Services Pty Ltd, Steven Pammenter, Ana Keckeisen, Samantha Clitheroe and Geoff Hawkins
(AB2024/632)
| COMMISSIONER SLOAN | SYDNEY, 3 MARCH 2025 |
Application for an FWC order to stop bullying
Equifax Australasia Group Services Pty Ltd is a data analytics and technology company. It provides services which enable its clients to validate individuals’ identities and provide a credit report against those identities. Equifax employs Amanda Eales as a Client Executive – Telco/Utilities.
Ms Eales claims that she was bullied at work from as early as 2019. She identifies the following individuals as having bullied her:
a.Steven Pammenter, currently the General Manager, Enterprise & Alliances at Equifax;
b.Anastasia Keckeisen, currently the Head of Government, Telco & Utilities at Equifax;
c.Samantha Clitheroe, currently a Senior Human Resources Business Partner at Equifax; and
d.Geoff Hawkins, currently the Head of Risk and Business Resilience at Equifax.
(together with Equifax, “the Respondents”).
Ms Eales has applied to the Commission under s 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 for orders to stop bullying under s 789FF.
The Respondents deny that Ms Eales was bullied at work. They contend that there is no basis on which the Commission could make orders under s 789FF. They ask the Commission to dismiss the proceedings.
Determination
I have determined that Ms Eales was not bullied at work and that her application should be dismissed. These are my reasons.
Procedural history
Ms Eales commenced these proceedings on 21 August 2024. I convened conferences in the matter on 10 October 2024 and 8 November 2024.
At the second conference it became clear that a negotiated settlement was unlikely. In consultation with the parties during the conference, I made directions in anticipation of the matter proceeding to hearing. The first direction was that Ms Eales file and serve “an outline of submissions, witness statements and any other documentary material [she intended] to rely on in support of the application by 4.00pm on 22 November 2024”.
I arranged for the directions to be reduced to writing. They were sent to the parties by email on 8 November 2024. The directions provided links to the Commission’s online resources, to assist the parties to prepare their respective cases.
On 23 November 2024, after her submissions and evidence were due, Ms Eales sent an email to my Chambers requesting an extension of time until 27 November 2024 to file and serve her material. I granted that extension over Equifax’s objection. I made consequential variations to the directions to allow additional time for Equifax to file its material and for Ms Eales to file any material in reply.
On 27 November 2024 Ms Eales sent another email to my Chambers requesting a further extension of time until 4.00pm on 28 November 2024, or “preferably” until 4.00pm on 29 November 2024. In the alternative, Ms Eales sought an extension of time to 11.00am on 28 November 2024. I granted that shorter extension.
On 27 and 28 November 2024, my Chambers received a significant number of emails from Ms Eales attaching a variety of documents.
Equifax filed and served its evidence and submissions on 11 December 2024.
Under the directions that I had made, Ms Eales was required to file and serve any evidence in reply to Equifax’s material by 18 December 2024. On 17 December 2024, my Chambers received an email from Ms Eales seeking an extension of time until 4.00pm on 20 December 2024. I granted that extension.
As it transpired, Ms Eales did not file and serve any evidence in reply to Equifax’s material.
Observations on the evidence
Even allowing for the fact that she was self-represented, Ms Eales did not present her case well. Her evidence and submissions were contained in or attached to the emails she sent to my Chambers on 27 and 28 November 2025. We received a total of 448 pages. At the hearing, she stated that she had many more documents in her possession which would support her case. However, they were not before the Commission.
Overall, there was no clear logic to the manner in which Ms Eales provided her documents to the Commission. They were not presented in any particular order. Ms Eales did not provide a statement explaining their significance. She did not provide a written outline of submissions. In short, there was no coherent narrative to Ms Eales’s evidence. It follows that while Ms Eales filed a large volume of material and said she had many more documents in her possession, the manner in which she presented her case did not assist her.
In making that observation, I am mindful that Ms Eales was self-represented. It was for that reason that I was more willing to accommodate her repeated requests for extensions of time to file her material, and to accept the reasons she gave as to why the extensions were necessary, than might otherwise have been the case.
I also adopted a more active role in the hearing than I might normally do. I assisted Ms Eales to adduce her evidence and to frame the questions she sought to put to Equifax’s witnesses in cross-examination. I spent some time during closing submissions exploring Ms Eales’s arguments to be sure that I understood them.
I approached this matter in the way that I have outlined as I wanted to ensure that Ms Eales had a fair and reasonable opportunity to put on her case. I am satisfied that she did.
Equifax relied on statements from each of Mr Pammenter, Ms Keckeisen, Ms Clitheroe and Mr Hawkins. It is significant in light of my earlier comments that Ms Eales stated at the hearing that she had not read Mr Pammenter’s statement and had not read all of that of Ms Keckeisen. This is difficult to fathom, especially as Ms Eales presented Mr Pammenter and Ms Keckeisen as the main protagonists in the matter.
In any event, Ms Eales cross-examined all of Equifax’s witnesses. I do not consider that their evidence was materially challenged through that cross-examination. I have no reason to question the credibility or reliability of Equifax’s witnesses.
I have had the opportunity of observing Ms Eales, Mr Pammenter, Ms Keckeisen, Ms Clitheroe and Mr Hawkins give evidence. I have reflected on my observations in light of the written material that was filed by the parties. I have determined that where there is a conflict, the evidence of Mr Pammenter, Ms Keckeisen, Ms Clitheroe and Mr Hawkins is to be preferred over that of Ms Eales.
Outline of relevant history
I do not propose to recount exhaustively the circumstances of Ms Eales’s employment with Equifax, or all of the factual matters referred to in the evidence. However, it will be useful for the discussion which follows to provide an overview of the relevant chronology. I find that the evidence establishes the following relevant facts.
Ms Eales commenced employment with Equifax on 21 January 2019. Under the written terms of her employment, Ms Eales’s place of work was the Equifax office in Melbourne. She was employed to manage the relationship between Equifax and its Melbourne-based telecommunications and utilities customers.
At the time she commenced employment, Ms Eales reported to Thomas Macauley, who was then Equifax’s Head of Telcos/Utilities Segment. Mr Macauley reported to Mr Pammenter.
Ms Keckeisen was at that time, like Ms Eales, employed by Equifax as a Client Executive – Telco/Utilities. She was based in Sydney and also reported to Mr Macauley.
In May 2019, Ms Eales was the victim of a serious sexual assault on the way home from work. Mr Macauley supported Ms Eales in the aftermath of that incident. Equifax introduced additional security measures at its office for a period of time.
In approximately December 2019, Equifax restructured its Telecommunications & Utilities team. Mr Macauley’s position was made redundant, and he left the company. Ms Eales and Ms Keckeisen began reporting to Mr Pammenter, who at that time held the position of Segment Lead/Head of Government.
In January 2021 Ms Eales was the victim of domestic violence.
At or about this time, Ms Eales began working remotely from Queensland. This was during the time of COVID lockdowns in Melbourne.
Throughout 2021, Mr Pammenter held discussions with Ms Eales regarding the need to plan to return to working from the office in Melbourne. At that time, lockdowns were easing and the restrictions on office-based work were coming to an end.
In October 2021, Ms Keckeisen was promoted to the position of Head of Telecommunications & Utilities. From about that time, Ms Eales reported to Ms Keckeisen.
Ms Eales continued to work remotely from Queensland. At some point, she told Ms Keckeisen that her parents were ill and that she needed to be in Queensland. Ms Keckeisen explored with Ms Eales ways in which they might balance Ms Eales’s work and family responsibilities.
In March 2022, Equifax introduced a global Flexible Working Framework, which required employees to work from the office for a majority of the time. Despite that, Ms Keckeisen did not require Ms Eales to return to the office due to her family situation. Ms Eales continued to work remotely from Queensland. She flew to Melbourne at least once a quarter to visit customers.
In late 2022, Ms Keckeisen began to discuss with Ms Eales the need to come up with a plan to be working from Melbourne whilst balancing her family responsibilities. Ms Eales did not propose any such plan.
On 9 January 2023, Ms Keckeisen received an email from Derek Cavalot, the Inactive Debt Manager at AGL. AGL was a significant client of Equifax and the largest client in Ms Eales’s portfolio. Mr Cavalot requested that Equifax appoint a new account manager for AGL’s business, to replace Ms Eales. Mr Cavalot described Ms Eales as having “no real expertise” and demonstrating “latency in responding and or solutioning”[1] (“AGL Complaint”).
In response to the AGL Complaint, Mr Pammenter, in consultation with Ms Keckeisen and Ms Clitheroe, decided to commence a performance management process. On 3 February 2023 Mr Pammenter sent an email to Ms Eales attaching a letter to her of the same date. The letter:
set out the details of the AGL Complaint;
advised Ms Eales that a meeting would be arranged between herself, Ms Keckeisen and Ms Clitheroe on 8 February 2023, at which she would have the opportunity to respond to the AGL Complaint; and
informed Ms Eales that, subject to her response, Equifax was considering taking disciplinary action against her, which may include a formal warning.
The meeting between Ms Eales, Ms Keckeisen and Ms Clitheroe took place, as foreshadowed, on 8 February 2023. Ms Eales provided a verbal response to the AGL Complaint. She stated that she had additional information that she would like to be considered. A follow-up meeting was arranged for 21 February 2023. Ms Eales was asked to provide any additional information by 10 February 2023.
Ms Eales subsequently asked for, and was granted, four extensions of time to provide Equifax with the additional material. She did so by email on 21 February 2023.
Ms Keckeisen and Ms Clitheroe met with Ms Eales later that day.
Ms Eales’s email of 21 February 2023 made reference to dates when she had been on leave. In reviewing the email, Ms Keckeisen noted that there was a discrepancy between the dates referred to in the email and those reflected in Equifax’s payroll system, Workday. Ms Keckeisen sent an email to Ms Eales on the same day asking why the leave had not been updated in Workday.
Ms Eales responded to Ms Keckeisen’s email in the early hours of 22 February 2023.
In the meantime, Ms Keckeisen and Ms Clitheroe determined that, based on Ms Eales’s response to the AGL Complaint, it was appropriate to place her on a performance improvement plan (“PIP”). Between them they put together a draft PIP.
Further, in consultation with Mr Pammenter and Ms Clitheroe, Ms Keckeisen determined that it was appropriate that Ms Eales receive a warning in respect of the AGL Complaint.
On 24 February 2023, Ms Keckeisen sent an email to Ms Eales attaching:
a “First Written Warning” dated 23 February 2023;[2] and
a draft PIP. The PIP had a “start date” of 27 February 2023, and stated that on that date there would be an “[a]cknowedgement of PIP and full walk through of the stages of the plan”.[3]
On 27 February 2023, Ms Eales sent an email to Ms Keckeisen and Ms Clitheroe. She stated that a family member, for whom she was the primary carer, had been involved in a car accident and had been seriously injured. Also, her mother had collapsed due to a brain aneurysm. Finally, Ms Eales stated that she was herself unwell “experiencing head cold conjestion, migraine headaches, dizziness, vomitting, coughing, constant anxiety attacks and suffering depression of the fear of loosing my job on top of caring duties [sic]”.[4] She requested that she be permitted to take a period of sick/carer’s leave and that the commencement of the PIP be deferred until 6 March 2023.
In an email to Ms Eales the same day, Ms Keckeisen confirmed that the commencement of the PIP would be postponed as requested.
Ms Eales has not returned to work since then.
In mid-2023, Mr Pammenter began to communicate with Ms Eales regarding her ongoing absence.
On 25 July 2023, Mr Pammenter sent a letter to Ms Eales by email. The letter directed Ms Eales to attend a meeting on 31 July 2023, subject to her being fit to do so. The letter stated that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss Ms Eales’s return to work, to make her aware of changes to the workplace and to ensure that Equifax was clear on what it could to support Ms Eales’s “transition back to this workplace”.[5]
On 27 July 2023, Ms Eales sent Mr Pammenter an email attaching a medical certificate, which certified her to be unfit to work until 16 August 2023. In her email, Ms Eales stated that she hoped to be able to return to work in two to three weeks, but that her physiotherapist had suggested that she may not be able to do so for “another couple of months”.[6]
On 3 August 2023, Mr Pammenter sent an email to Ms Eales attaching a letter dated 2 August 2023. That letter stated in part:[7]
“In circumstances where you have been absent from the workplace since 24 February 2023, and have disclosed that your physiotherapist has stated that it may take another couple of months before you can return to work, it is apparent that your absence is not temporary in nature, and you are currently incapable of performing the genuine and reasonable requirements of your position of Key Account Manager in Melbourne. Equifax is accordingly considering the termination of your employment due to your extended absence and your incapacity to perform the inherent requirements of your position. Before any final decision is made, Equifax would like to provide you with an opportunity to put forward any information that you would like Equifax to consider before making a decision about your ongoing employment.
…
Upon receipt of your response, we will consider any information you provide before making a decision about your ongoing employment with Equifax. …”
On 18 August 2023 Mr Pammenter received a letter from Twomey Dispute Lawyers dated the same day. The letter claimed that were Equifax to terminate Ms Eales’s employment, she would be entitled to bring proceedings against the company. The letter offered no information concerning Ms Eales’s medical condition – other than to say that it was “evolving” – or her prognosis.[8]
On or about 28 August 2023, Ms Eales sent to Ms Clitheroe a work capacity certificate stating that Ms Eales had a repetitive strain injury, aggravated by a stumble. As the certificate stated that the injury occurred when Ms Eales was working remotely in Queensland, the claim was referred to Equifax’s workers compensation insurer in Queensland. Equifax’s insurer declined the claim.
On 11 December 2023, Mr Pammenter sent a further letter to Ms Eales. It stated in part:[9]
“As you know, you have been absent from work since 24 February 2023 and the most recent medical information provided by your medical practitioner on 16 November 2023 advised that you are unfit to continue your usual occupation between 16 November 2023 and 20 December 2023. That certificate does not indicate that you will have any capacity to return to the inherent requirements of your role in the foreseeable future.
Based on the medical information that you have provided to date and the extended nature of your absence from the workplace, it is apparent that your absence is not temporary in nature, and you are currently incapable of performing the inherent requirements of your position of Client Executive. Equifax is accordingly considering the termination of your employment due to your incapacity to perform the inherent requirements of your position both now and in the foreseeable future.
We wish to afford you an opportunity to put forward any information that you would like Equifax to consider before making a decision regarding your ongoing employment.
Your response may include any information you would like us to consider, such as medical information evidencing your current and future capacity for work, the likely duration of your absence, and your prognosis for return to full capacity performing the inherent requirements of your position of Client Executive, and any other matters you want us to consider.”
Mr Pammenter received a letter from Dwyer Law Group dated 24 January 2024, purporting to respond to his letter of 11 December 2023. The letter stated that Ms Eales was pursuing her workers compensation claim through the Workers’ Compensation Regulator in Queensland. The letter suggested that any consideration to terminate Ms Eales’s employment would be premature while she was pursuing her workers compensation rights.
On 25 January 2024, Ms Eales lodged a workers compensation claim “with the Victorian workers’ compensation authority”.[10] It related to the same claim and circumstances as those which formed the basis of the claim lodged in Queensland. The authority rejected the claim on 22 February 2024 on the basis that it did not arise out of the course of employment in Victoria.
On or about 27 May 2024, Ms Eales lodged a further workers compensation claim under the New South Wales jurisdiction, directly with Equifax’s insurer, EML. This related to the same physical injury which was the subject of the Queensland and Victorian claims. EML conducted an investigation, in which Mr Hawkins provided information. EML declined the claim.
On 19 July 2024 Mr Pammenter sent a further letter to Ms Eales. The letter stated in part:[11]
“Further to my email to you on 12 July 2024, I am writing to detail some matters regarding your employment that I would like to discuss with you, if you feel well enough to do so, or to otherwise gain your perspective about.
As I indicated in my email to you on 10 July 2024, I was intending to have a chat with you about these, but I understand from your emails sent later that day that you are not currently feeling well enough for that discussion, and so I have set the matters out in this letter so you can provide me with your perspective in writing if you’d like to do so.
Amanda, as you will of course know, you have been away from the Equifax workplace since 24 February 2023. Since that time, and as we’ve discussed previously, we have been looking forward to your return to the office in Melbourne and have proceeded to date in the hope that you would become well enough to return to work.
During that time, we’ve also been seeking to understand whether you will become well enough to return to work, and what may be needed to make your return a safe one, or whether the prognosis is that you will not be able to do so, such that Equifax unfortunately may have needed to end the employment due to your incapacity to safely perform the requirements of your position of Client Executive.
In that context, we wrote to you on 9 August 2023 and 11 December 2023, seeking further information regarding your recovery and prognosis and confirming that, if there was not the capacity for you to perform the requirements of your position, Equifax may contemplate ending your employment. Following responses from your solicitors in this regard, Equifax determined not to take any action regarding your ongoing employment at that time.
However, in circumstances where you have now provided a further medical certificate indicating that you remain unfit to perform your duties until 9 August 2024, and where your solicitor has written to Equifax requesting information and advising that the information was required for the purposes of a ‘claim for total and permanent disablement pursuant to the provisions of [your] superannuation policy’, it appears to Equifax that your absence is not temporary in nature, and so our questions regarding your prognosis for a return to work and the viability of the ongoing employment relationship do remain.
…
If you confirm that you will return to work on 12 August 2024, Equifax will expect your attendance at the Melbourne office on that date.
If you indicate that you are still seeking to return to work, we will consider any information you provide before making a decision about your ongoing employment with Equifax. …
If the information that you provide indicates that your absence is not temporary in nature, Equifax may terminate your employment due to your incapacity.
In this regard, this is a final opportunity for you to put forward any information that you would like Equifax to consider before making a decision about your ongoing employment.”
Not having received a response, Mr Pammenter sent an email to Ms Eales on 30 July 2024 requesting that she respond to his letter by 6 August 2024.
On 4 August 2024, Ms Eales sent an email to Mr Pammenter and others making a number of allegations. It did not directly respond to Mr Pammenter’s letter of 19 July 2024. Ms Eales requested an extension of time until 9 August 2024 to provide that response. Mr Pammenter granted that extension of time. He subsequently granted four further extensions that Ms Eales requested. Ms Eales did not, however, provide a response to Mr Pammenter’s letter.
On 21 August 2024, Ms Eales commenced these proceedings.
On or about 17 September 2024, Equifax was advised by its workers compensation insurer in Victoria that its decision to decline Ms Eales’s claim was to be revoked and that liability would be accepted. On or about 2 October 2024, Equifax was further advised by its insurer that it had accepted liability for a claim by Ms Eales for psychological injury arising from the physical injury the subject of the original claim.
Relevant law and principles
The Commission’s powers to make anti-bullying orders have been the subject of detailed consideration.[12]
Section 789FF establishes three prerequisites to the Commission exercising its power to make anti-bullying orders:[13]
A worker must have made an application in accordance with s 789FC.[14]
The Commission must be satisfied that the worker has been bullied at work by an individual or group of individuals.
The Commission must be satisfied that there is a risk that the worker will continue to be bullied at work by the individual or group of individuals.
On the first prerequisite, s 789FC(1) allows for an application to be made by a worker who reasonably believes that they have been bullied at work. I will not explore the elements of this prerequisite, as it is met in this case. It was common ground that Ms Eales is a worker.[15] Further, the Respondents accepted that Ms Eales’s belief that she was bullied at work is “actually and genuinely” held by her,[16] albeit it was difficult to ascertain the basis of that belief. However, the Respondents accepted that Ms Eales had identified “some conduct which could be said to have a sufficient evidentiary foundation for Ms Eales’ belief in relation to those aspects of her application”.[17]
The second prerequisite calls up the definition of “bullied at work” in s 789FD. That definition relevantly provides that a worker is bullied at work when:
while the worker is at work in a constitutionally-covered business;
an individual or group of individuals repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards the worker; and
that behaviour creates a risk to health and safety.
It is not in dispute that Equifax is a “constitutionally-covered business”.[18] It is not necessary to traverse that issue.
The bullying behaviour must occur while the worker is “at work”. That concept encompasses both the performance of work (at any time or location) and when the worker is engaged in some other activity which is authorised or permitted by their employer (such as being on a meal break or accessing social media while performing work).[19]
The requirement for repeated unreasonable behaviour is a core element of the legislation.[20] The concept of individuals “repeatedly behaving” unreasonably implies the existence of persistent unreasonable behaviour but might refer to a range of behaviours over time. There is no specific number of incidents required, nor does the same specific behaviour have to be repeated.[21]
The final element of the definition – that the behaviour creates a risk to health and safety – requires a causal link between the behaviour and the risk to health and safety. The behaviour need not be the only risk to health and safety, provided that it was a substantial cause of the risk viewed in a common sense and practical way. A risk to health and safety means the possibility of danger to health and safety; it is not confined to actual danger to health and safety. The risk must be real and not simply conceptual.[22] It is not necessary that an applicant demonstrate that they have suffered an actual detriment to health or safety.[23]
Alleged bullying conduct
Due to the way in which Ms Eales presented her case, it was difficult to identify precisely the behaviour which she said amounted to bullying conduct. It was necessary to glean her case from the emails she sent to the Commission, from documents attached to them (mostly without explanation or context) and in handwritten annotations that she had made to a number of the documents on which she relied.
In its written submissions, Equifax attempted to identify “the conduct the subject of the application”.[24] It listed seven categories of conduct. Ms Eales did not dispute Equifax’s submissions in that regard. I have been greatly assisted by them.
In closing submissions at the hearing, I invited (and sought to assist) Ms Eales to clarify precisely what conduct she claimed had been engaged in by the Respondents that amounted to bullying. I have considered Equifax’s submissions in light of what Ms Eales said in this regard. I have determined that the conduct about which Ms Eales complains can be reduced to a number of broad categories. I will deal with them in turn and, for ease of comprehension, will do so in a largely chronological way.
A lack of support when Ms Eales was subject to traumatic events
As stated above, Ms Eales was the victim of a sexual assault in 2019, and the victim of domestic violence in 2021. Ms Eales contended that Equifax had not done enough to support her through and in the aftermath of those events. It is not clear to me how this conduct was said to be unreasonable behaviour taken towards her which created a risk to health and safety. However, it is not necessary to reach a conclusion in that regard. This is because the contention is not made out.
In so far as the 2019 incident is concerned, Ms Eales’s contention is inconsistent with her own evidence.
Ms Eales’s evidence included an email she sent on 17 September 2024 to a person at the domain “@workcoverassist.vic.gov.au” (“WorkCover Assist Email).[25] In that email, Ms Eales outlined the significant support that she had received from Mr Macauley following the sexual assault in 2019. This included him visiting her when she was in hospital, taking her to doctors’ appointments and to the police station, and driving her to and from work for approximately one month after the incident. She also referred to Equifax having arranged for two full-time security guards to be on-site at Equifax’s Melbourne office for a month, to secure her safety and that of other Equifax employees. The actions of Mr Macauley and Equifax do not suggest a lack of support.
Further, Mr Pammenter gave evidence that Mr Macauley had informed him in 2019 that an incident had occurred, but that he did not provide details. Mr Pammenter stated that he “checked in on Ms Eales’ wellbeing at the time” and continued to do so.[26] Ms Keckeisen stated under cross-examination that at some time in 2019 Ms Eales had raised the incident with her, and that she had “shared warmth” and concern with her.[27] Again, the evidence of Mr Pammenter and Ms Keckeisen is inconsistent with a lack of support.
As to the 2021 domestic violence incident, Mr Pammenter stated that he was unaware of it until Ms Eales made her workers compensation claim in 2023. He maintained this under cross-examination. Ms Keckeisen similarly claimed to be unaware of the incident. I accept the evidence of Mr Pammenter and Ms Keckeisen.
It follows that even were the alleged lack of support sufficient to constitute workplace bullying, Ms Eales has not demonstrated that the Respondents were aware of the domestic violence incident. It follows that to the extent that they had an obligation to extend support to Ms Eales, they had no way to know that the obligation had arisen.
For these reasons, I find that Ms Eales has not established that there was the lack of support she alleges or, to the extent that there was, that it was unreasonable behaviour towards her.
Being mocked and humiliated at work by others
Ms Eales claimed that after returning to work following the 2019 incident, she was the subject of gossip and rumour in the workplace that she and Mr Macauley were in a sexual relationship. In the WorkCover Assist Email, she asserts that Mr Pammenter and Ms Keckeisen “had heard of the rumours and laughed and thought it was funny but knew it wasn’t true”.[28]
Under cross-examination, each of Mr Pammenter and Ms Clitheroe stated that they had not heard the alleged rumours. I accept that evidence. Ms Eales did not raise the matter with Ms Keckeisen.
I find that Ms Eales has not demonstrated that the conduct of which she complained occurred.
Being undermined and demeaned by Ms Keckeisen
In her application, Ms Eales contended that Ms Keckeisen constantly undermined, intimidated or demeaned her. She submitted that she was “set up to fail” after Ms Keckeisen became her manager in October 2021.[29] She claimed that Ms Keckeisen’s undermining behaviour included excluding her from dealings with her clients. This was allegedly demonstrated by Ms Keckeisen responding to emails that clients had sent to Ms Eales, and by having conversations or meetings with Ms Eales’s clients without her being present. Ms Eales also placed significant weight on the email that Ms Keckeisen sent to her on 21 February 2023 asking her, in effect, to reconcile her annual leave balances in Workday (referred to at [41] above).
In large part, Ms Eales’s case in this regard was assertion. She adduced little evidence to substantiate her contentions.
Ms Keckeisen strongly denied that she had sought to undermine Ms Eales, much less “set her up to fail”. She was subject to significant cross-examination on these issues. She accepted that it was possible that she might have responded to an email from a client if it had been sent to both her and Ms Eales, or into which she had been copied. She also accepted that she might have met clients in Ms Eales’s portfolio without her being present, as she has her own relationship with Equifax’s clients independent of Ms Eales. Ms Keckeisen denied that any of her conduct was intended to exclude Ms Eales or to undermine her position.
It is clear on the evidence that when Ms Eales and Ms Keckeisen were both employed at the same level as Client Executives, they enjoyed a good relationship. They occasionally socialised and on one occasion Ms Eales stayed at Ms Keckeisen’s home. The relationship appears to have soured after Ms Keckeisen became Ms Eales’s manager.
There is more than a suggestion that Ms Eales took umbrage at Ms Keckeisen being appointed as her manager. I formed this view in part from Ms Eales’s insistence on describing Ms Keckeisen as having been her “peer” until that time. She did so on 15 occasions in her oral evidence and in her cross-examination of Mr Pammenter and Ms Keckeisen. In a question she put to Mr Pammenter, Ms Eales referred to Ms Keckeisen as “my peer now supposedly my manager”.[30]
This is seen also in the WorkCover Assist Email. In that document, Ms Eales referred to her “surprise” at Ms Keckeisen being appointed as her manager, particularly as Mr Macauley had only recently been dismissed on the basis of redundancy. Ms Eales further stated that there was “no need for [her] to have a manager as [she] was self-sufficient and only escalated actions to Steve Pammenter internally if required which was minimal”.[31]
To my mind, it is possible that Ms Eales’s perception as to Ms Keckeisen’s conduct was coloured by her feelings about Ms Keckeisen, a former “peer”, being appointed as her manager.
Ms Eales sought to make too much of Ms Keckeisen’s request of 21 February 2023 that she reconcile her annual leave balances. Ms Eales sought to portray the email as being accusatory, in that it allegedly suggested that she had deliberately failed to record leave which she had taken.
In context, that is not proper characterisation of Ms Keckeisen’s request. The request came in response to the email that Ms Eales sent to Ms Keckeisen and Ms Clitheroe earlier that day, responding to the AGL Complaint. In that email, Ms Eales had set out dates on which she claimed to have been on leave. As Ms Keckeisen’s email makes clear, it was in “walking through” Ms Eales’s email that she noticed a difference between the dates stated by Ms Eales and those reflected in Workday.[32] There was nothing untoward or unreasonable in Ms Keckeisen seeking to understand and resolve that difference.
Overall, I am not persuaded Ms Keckeisen behaved unreasonably towards Ms Eales, much less that she constantly undermined, intimidated or demeaned her. On the evidence, particularly that given by Ms Keckeisen under cross-examination, I find that she engaged in reasonable management action conducted in a reasonable manner.[33]
The handling of the AGL Complaint, the issuing of the warning and the implementation of the PIP
Ms Eales contended that she had not been given a proper opportunity to respond to the AGL Complaint, because she had told that she could not speak to Derek Cavalot at AGL, the person who had made the complaint. She stated that she had wanted to speak to Mr Cavalot to understand AGL’s concerns. She suggested that as a matter of fairness she ought to have been given an opportunity to meet with Mr Cavalot before responding to the AGL Complaint.
In cross-examination, Mr Pammenter deposed that Mr Cavalot had requested that he not meet with Ms Eales regarding the AGL Complaint. Mr Pammenter described the situation as “awkward”, but that Equifax was “respecting his request”.[34] I accept that evidence. I do not consider that there was anything unreasonable in Equifax taking the position that it did.
Further, this aspect of Ms Eales’s case has to be considered in light of the way in which Equifax handled the AGL Complaint. It provided details of the complaint to Ms Eales in writing. Ms Keckeisen and Ms Clitheroe met with Ms Eales to discuss it. She was given an opportunity to provide a written response to the complaint, and granted four extensions of time in which to do so. If Ms Eales required more information to respond to the AGL Complaint, she had every opportunity to request it of Ms Keckeisen. She did not need to speak to Mr Cavalot.
As to the warning issued on 23 February 2023, Ms Eales submitted that Ms Clitheroe had told her that no warning would be issued if she provided a “valid explanation”[35] or “valid reason”[36] in response to the AGL Complaint. While not put in precisely these terms, I can infer that she regarded her email to Ms Keckeisen and Ms Clitheroe of 21 February 2023 as constituting such an explanation or reason.
Under cross-examination, Ms Clitheroe did not accept that she had provided Ms Eales with such an assurance.
In any event, the premise of Ms Eales’s submissions is that Equifax should have accepted her explanation and taken no further action in respect of the AGL Complaint. But she did not demonstrate why it was unreasonable for Ms Keckeisen and Ms Clitheroe not to have done so. There is nothing to demonstrate that Ms Keckeisen and Ms Clitheroe did not give proper consideration to Ms Eales’s response. Rather, the evidence suggests the opposite.
As to the PIP, Ms Eales raised several concerns. First, she argued (in effect) that the contents of the PIP were onerous. That is, it was long and complex and that she understood that she might receive a further warning, or indeed be dismissed, if she failed to meet just one of the criteria. What Ms Eales did not explain, however, was why the criteria in the PIP were unduly burdensome or otherwise unreasonable.
To the contrary, Ms Keckeisen gave evidence that the PIP was “based on the basics of the competencies in the job description and the areas in which [she] considered that Ms Eales needed to focus on” and that it was “built in a manner that was in scope with peer Client Executives behaviours as well as providing developmental tools to ensure Ms Eales’ success in the future”.[37] I accept that evidence.
Second, Ms Eales contended that it was unreasonable for Equifax to provide her with the draft PIP on Friday, 24 February 2023 and require it to commence on Monday, 27 February 2023. Leaving aside the fact that this provided her with little time to properly consider and respond to the draft, Ms Eales claimed that Equifax was aware that she could not return to Melbourne, and so commence working under the PIP, for several reasons:
her partner had recently been involved in a car accident, causing him significant injuries. Ms Eales claimed to be his primary caregiver and that, as a result, she was required to remain in Queensland to provide full-time care for him;
her parents were in very poor health and required her ongoing care in Queensland;
there was a risk to her personal safety if she returned to Melbourne “with life-threatening personal circumstances”;[38] and
she had nowhere to reside in Melbourne.
Ms Keckeisen gave evidence that although the PIP was scheduled to commence on 27 February 2023, it did not require Ms Eales’s attendance in Melbourne that day. She stated that the PIP required Ms Eales to spend more time in Melbourne and be in Melbourne regularly, but it “did not require her immediate attendance at the Melbourne office or for her to be in the office full-time”.[39] Ms Keckeisen stated that she intended that there would be a discussion “about how Ms Eales could attend the office ‘regularly’ and what that looked like”.[40]
Ms Keckeisen also stated that although she was aware that someone close to Ms Eales had been involved in a car accident, she was aware that it involved Ms Eales’s partner or that Ms Eales was responsible for caring for her partner. She was, though, “very aware” of Ms Eales’s claims that her parents were in poor health and terminally ill and stated that she was “very sensitive of that”.[41] Significantly, Ms Keckeisen stated that she did not know that Ms Eales had full-time caring responsibilities for any person. To her recollection, the first time that this had been suggested to her was in Ms Eales’s email to her of 27 February 2023.
I accept Ms Keckeisen’s evidence on these matters.
As I will come to explain, Ms Eales has not demonstrated that there were or are risks to her personal safety were she to return to Melbourne. It follows that this cannot be a matter which Equifax, Ms Keckeisen or Ms Clitheroe failed to take into account.
As to having a place to stay, Ms Keckeisen recalled that Ms Eales had stayed with friends when she had travelled to Melbourne to meet Equifax’s clients. Ms Eales said as much during her cross-examination of Mr Pammenter.[42]
For these reasons, I am not persuaded that in investigating the AGL Complaint, issuing the warning and implementing the PIP, Equifax, Mr Pammenter, Ms Keckeisen or Ms Clitheroe behaved unreasonably towards Ms Eales. The investigation, warning and PIP constituted reasonable management action conducted in a reasonable manner.
Being requested to return to work in Melbourne despite the risks to Ms Eales’s safety
In the WorkCover Assist Email, Ms Eales claimed that after the domestic violence incident in 2021, she continued to be stalked and intimidated by her former partner. She stated that he slashed the tyres on her car and threatened to kill her. She said that she obtained help through the Victorian Police and the Salvation Army and that “due to [her] serious personal safety risk” the Police and Salvation Army agreed to pay for her “urgent relocation to Qld”.[43] Ms Eales further claimed that she explained her situation to Mr Pammenter who was supportive and approved her permanent relocation to Queensland.
In this context, Ms Eales contended that Mr Pammenter, and through him Equifax, were aware that she would be at risk were she to return to Melbourne. It follows, on her case, that it was unreasonable for Mr Pammenter to insist that she return to work in the Equifax office in Melbourne. Ms Eales argued that the unreasonableness of the request was compounded by the fact that Mr Pammenter had agreed for her to relocate to Queensland.
I do not accept these contentions, for several reasons. First, beyond assertions in the documents she provided to the Commission, Ms Eales has not produced any evidence to substantiate her claims that her safety was at risk in 2021 and that, as a consequence, the Victorian Police and the Salvation Army arranged for her urgent relocation to Queensland.
Second, the evidence does not support Ms Eales’s assertion that Equifax was aware of these matters. Mr Pammenter stated that he first became aware of the domestic assault incident in 2023 through Ms Eales’s workers compensation claim. He said that Ms Eales “never told [him] that she was moving to Queensland as a result of an assault, because she was in a life-threatening situation or was being urgently relocated by the Salvation Army”.[44] Rather, Mr Pammenter understood that Ms Eales began working remotely from Queensland in order to be closer to her parents who were seriously ill and to escape the strict COVID lockdowns in Melbourne.
Ms Keckeisen gave evidence to a similar effect. She stated that Ms Eales had never discussed the domestic violence incident with her and that she had no knowledge of it. She said that she first learned of the incident when it was referred to in Ms Eales’s workers compensation claim in 2023. She stated that “Ms Eales never told [her] that she was unable to return to Melbourne because she felt unsafe as a result of the incidents”.[45] Ms Keckeisen said that when she discussed with Ms Eales the need to “increase her presence in Melbourne”, the only matters that Ms Eales raised were “her need to care for her parents in Queensland and her complaint that it was too quiet in the Melbourne office and there was no purpose for her to be there”.[46]
Under cross-examination, Mr Hawkins stated that he was not aware of the 2021 domestic violence incident. He also stated that he was not aware that Ms Eales had been required to leave Melbourne “because [her] health and personal safety was in danger”.[47] Ms Clitheroe gave evidence to the same effect under cross-examination.
On the evidence, there is no basis to assert that Equifax generally, or Mr Pammenter and Ms Keckeisen specifically, were “on notice” from 2021 that there was a risk to Ms Eales were she to return to work in Melbourne.
Third, Ms Eales failed to demonstrate that, even were I to accept her description of the events of January 2021, her safety would continue to be at risk were she to return to work in Melbourne now. That is, she did not adduce any evidence of any present risk to her. Her case in this regard does not rise above uncorroborated assertion.
Had there been such evidence, it might have been possible to argue (albeit that Ms Eales did not do so) that once they had seen the material in her workers compensation claim in 2023, Mr Pammenter and Ms Keckeisen were aware of the risks asserted by Ms Eales and should have acted accordingly. But Mr Pammenter and Ms Keckeisen cannot be criticised for failing to act on a risk that has not been established.
There are several other factors which provide context to Equifax’s request that Ms Eales return to work in Melbourne. First, Ms Eales’s role was based in Melbourne. Mr Pammenter described her role as being “responsible for managing the strategic relationship with roughly half of Equifax’s telecommunications and utilities customers that were based in Melbourne, which are important to Equifax from a relationship and revenue perspective”.[48] He stated that the significance to Equifax of these clients was reflected in the fact that Ms Eales was one of the highest paid strategic account executives at Equifax.
Second, Mr Pammenter denied that he approved Ms Eales relocating to Queensland on a permanent basis. He was aware that Ms Eales had moved to Melbourne during COVID to be closer to her parents. At that time, there were lockdowns in Melbourne and it made no difference where she worked. However, it was always his understanding that Ms Eales’s role required her to be in Melbourne. He said that he had communicated this to Ms Eales on a number of occasions. He stated that he did not, in any event, have the delegation to approve Ms Eales working remotely on an ongoing or permanent basis.
Mr Pammenter accepted, however, that he did have discussions with Ms Eales as to how her move to Queensland might be made permanent. He stated that there was no role for Ms Eales in Queensland, as Equifax did not have a sufficient presence in telecommunications and utilities in that State. Instead, he discussed with Ms Eales things that might have facilitated her permanent relocation to Queensland, such as a business relocation or someone leaving the business. He was aware of Ms Eales’s personal circumstances involving her parents and would have been supportive of a move if things fell into place. But the circumstances in which a permanent relocation might have become possible never eventuated.
I accept Mr Pammenter’s evidence on these matters.
Third, the evidence clearly demonstrates that Equifax, through Mr Pammenter and Ms Keckeisen, were sympathetic to Ms Eales’s situation regarding her ill parents and made appropriate allowances. The evidence of Mr Pammenter and Ms Keckeisen in this regard, which I accept, is consistent.
In his statement, Mr Pammenter stated:[49]
“15. I was trying to be as flexible as possible with Ms Eales’ return to the Melbourne office because I had empathy for Ms Eales’ difficult family situation. She told me at the time that her parents were terminally ill and she wanted to be close to them to provide care when she could. …I was however balancing this with the needs of Equifax. Ms Eales’ role required her to be present in person in Melbourne so that the customer relationships that she was responsible for could be closely managed, particularly given they were complex in nature and there had been an extended period of lack of direct, face-to-face contact with these customers. Ms Eales’ customers were in a key industry sector for Equifax and of importance to Equifax’s business and, accordingly, Ms Eales was one of the highest paid Client Executives. The business needed her to be in Melbourne, engaging with customers in her portfolio.
16. In all my discussions with Ms Eales from late 2020 regarding her working remotely from Brisbane, I was clear that Ms Eales’ role was a customer facing role in Melbourne but that we would do what we could to support her in caring for her family. …”
In her statement, Ms Keckeisen stated:[50]
“20. I cannot recall exactly when but I had discussions with Ms Eales regarding the complications that she had in her personal life with her parents being ill and that she needed to be in Queensland. I remember that I said that we would have to be flexible and find a way around this and look for workarounds, but that we needed to see customers in person. In my mind there would not have been any issue with Ms Eales working a few days from Melbourne and a few days from Queensland, or some other variation which ensured that the objectives of the role were met but that still allowed Ms Eales to care for her parents.
…
22. In March 2022, Equifax introduced its global Flexible Working Framework which effectively introduced a mandate for employees to work from the office the majority of the time. …From the introduction of the policy, there was an explicit mandate for all employees to get into the office.
…
23. Nonetheless, I did not put pressure on Ms Eales to return to the office because of her family situation and her need to care for her parents and therefore Ms Eales continued to work remotely throughout the majority of 2022. I understood that the business would support Ms Eales working remotely for a period of time and that her situation was sensitive due to ill and elderly family members. …
24. It became more challenging in late 2022 as there was pressure on all leaders to get the teams back into the office. …As a result of these factors I recall that I sent an email to Ms Eales and had two or three discussions asking her to come up with a plan for her to be working from Melbourne whilst balancing her family obligations. …”
For all of these reasons, I find that Equifax, Mr Pammenter and Ms Keckeisen did not behave unreasonably towards Ms Eales by requesting that she return to work in Melbourne.
Alleged repeated threats to terminate Ms Eales’s employment
As outlined above, Mr Pammenter wrote to Ms Eales on 3 August 2023, 11 December 2023 and 19 July 2024 regarding her ongoing absence from work and her apparent incapacity to perform the inherent requirements of her position with Equifax. Those letters raised the possibility of Ms Eales’s employment being terminated if she were unable to return to work.
Ms Eales argued that these letters constituted bullying conduct. I do not agree.
Ms Eales has been absent from work since 23 February 2023. Throughout that period she has claimed to be unfit to return to work. The evidence shows that she was not always proactive in keeping Equifax up-to-date with her condition. She did not always respond to Equifax’s enquiries in a timely fashion, and sometimes did not respond at all. She was guarded about providing any prognosis as to her return to work. On a number of occasions, she stated verbally or in emails that she expected to return to work on a particular date, only for her to tell Mr Pammenter that there had been a change in her condition necessitating further time off work.
Mr Pammenter and Ms Keckeisen gave evidence that Ms Eales’s ongoing absence was having a detrimental impact on the Equifax Telecommunications & Utilities team. Mr Pammenter described the team as being “continually stretched”.[51] This was consistent with Ms Keckeisen’s evidence as to the extra work involved in managing Ms Eales’s absence.
In the circumstances, it was not unreasonable for Mr Pammenter to seek clarity regarding Ms Eales’s condition and prognosis and when, or if, she was likely return to work. There was nothing untoward in him alerting her to the possibility that her employment may be terminated if she remained unable to perform the inherent requirements of her job. To the contrary, it demonstrated transparency and fairness. The sending of the letters was an entirely orthodox approach for an employer to take in the face of an extended employee absence with no end in sight.
I find that Mr Pammenter did not behave unreasonably towards Ms Eales when he sent the letters. He was engaging in reasonable management action in a reasonable manner.
Allegations relating to Ms Eales’s workers compensation claims
As seen in the chronology outlined above, Ms Eales brought a number of workers compensation claims. The circumstances surrounding those claims give rise to a number of Ms Eales’s allegations of bullying conduct.
Inappropriate forwarding of the claim to Equifax’s Queensland insurer
Ms Eales’s compensation claim in Queensland was declined on the basis that WorkCover Queensland was not satisfied that her employment was connected with that State. Ms Eales seemed to suggest that Equifax had, therefore, acted inappropriately in forwarding the claim to its Queensland insurer. I do not accept that.
The work capacity certificate which Ms Eales had provided to Ms Clitheroe stated that the injury occurred when Ms Eales was working remotely in Queensland. It was not unreasonable in those circumstances for the claim to have been referred to Equifax’s Queensland insurer.
Further, Ms Eales’s argument in this regard is a case of wisdom with hindsight. That is, because the claim was ultimately rejected, Equifax should have known that Queensland was not the appropriate jurisdiction. However, I observe that as at 24 January 2024 Ms Dwyer and her lawyers were of the view that Queensland was the appropriate jurisdiction. This is made clear in the letter from Dwyer Law Group to Mr Pammenter of that date, which stated that the matter was to be referred to the Worker’s Compensation Regulator for determination of that issue.
Provision of false and misleading information to Equifax’s workers compensation insurers
Ms Eales made a number of allegations to the effect that Mr Hawkins and Ms Clitheroe gave deliberately false and misleading information to Equifax’s workers compensation insurers. I find that these allegations cannot be substantiated, for the following reasons.
Ms Eales’s allegations against Mr Hawkins stem predominantly from a statement that he provided to EML in the course of its investigation into Ms Eales’s workers compensation claim in New South Wales. The evidence includes a copy of that statement with handwritten annotations made by Ms Eales. Those annotations refer to the contents as being “false”, “incorrect”, “bullshit” or “misrepresentation”.[52] Precisely why that is alleged to be the case is not always clear.
The focus of Ms Eales’s attention appears to be a statement by Mr Hawkins to the effect that the location of Ms Eales’s employment was in Melbourne and that she had not received approval to reside in Queensland to perform her duties. For the reasons I have already explored, I do not consider that this statement was false.
For the same reason, I reject Ms Eales’s assertion that Mr Pammenter, Ms Keckeisen and/or Ms Clitheroe had acted inappropriately by telling Mr Hawkins that she did not have approval to work remotely from Queensland on an ongoing or permanent basis.
In his statement in these proceedings, Mr Hawkins denied that he provided false information to EML. He addressed each part of his EML statement that Ms Eales claimed to be incorrect. He explained why it was not false. It is not necessary to traverse all of that evidence. I accept it.
I also observe that Ms Eales asserted that Mr Hawkins “lied under oath” when providing information to EML. That is a serious allegation which is made without any foundation. There is no evidence that Mr Hawkins gave sworn evidence to EML. He denied doing so.
Ms Eales asserted that Ms Clitheroe also provided false information to Equifax’s insurers. She did not, however, explain how Ms Clitheroe had done so. Ms Clitheroe denied the allegation. I find that it is not made out.
Failure to provide adequate support
Ms Eales asserted that Equifax did not provide her with adequate support to manage her workers compensation claims. This assertion was not well articulated.
Ms Eales asked Mr Hawkins in cross-examination whether he should have done more to “step [her] through the process or reach out to discuss [her] injury or injuries”[53] and asked several questions as to whether Mr Hawkins saw that it was his role, or that of his team, to reach out to injured workers to guide them through the process of the claim. Mr Hawkins replied that he relied on WorkCover Queensland to liaise with her. However, had Ms Eales requested assistance or guidance it would have been provided.
On the evidence, I am not persuaded that Mr Hawkins behaved unreasonably towards Ms Eales by failing proactively to liaise with or “reach out” to her in respect of her workers compensation claims.
Other grievances
At the hearing, Ms Eales raised a number of other grievances, including:
“role overload, high workloads or job demands”;[54]
poor internal communication leading to internal and external confusion. This resulted in things not getting done (such as relevant individuals not being invited to meetings) or being done by more than one person;
lack of role clarity;
having little control over how she works; and
workplace conflict arising out of disagreements as to how work should be performed.
I will not traverse these grievances. Ms Eales did not provide a basis on which I could find that they amount to behaviour by any of the Respondents towards her such as to create a risk to health and safety.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, I find that the conduct in which Ms Eales alleged the Respondents engaged either did not occur or was not unreasonable. It follows that she was not bullied at work.[55]
Eales was not at work after 23 February 2023
Before addressing the consequences of that conclusion, I will address (albeit briefly) the Respondents’ submission as to the significance of Ms Eales having been absent from work since 23 February 2023. Consistent with the authorities referred to at [69] above, the Respondents submitted that Ms Eales was not “at work” after 23 February 2023. It followed, in their submission, that any conduct after that date could not constitute bullying at work as required by s 789FF.
Had it been necessary for me to do so, I would have accepted those submissions and found that any behaviour that occurred after 23 February 2023 did not occur “at work”.
Disposition
In order to make an order to stop bullying, I must be satisfied that Ms Eales has been bullied at work by an individual or a group of individuals and that there is a risk that she will continue to be so bullied.[56] Because I have found that Ms Eales was not bullied at work, there is no power to make the orders sought by her. Her application is dismissed.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
Amanda Eales, the Applicant
Claire Brown, on behalf of Equifax Australasia Group Services Pty Ltd and Persons Named
Hearing details:
2025
Sydney (video)
16 and 17 January
[1] Statement of Anastasia Keckeisen, 11 December 2024, Annexure AK-3
[2] Statement of Anastasia Keckeisen, 11 December 2024, Annexure AK-7
[3] Statement of Anastasia Keckeisen, 11 December 2024, Annexure AK-8
[4] Statement of Anastasia Keckeisen, 11 December 2024, Annexure AK-9
[5] Statement of Steven Pammenter, 11 December 2024, Annexure SP-9
[6] Statement of Steven Pammenter, 11 December 2024, Annexure SP-10
[7] Statement of Steven Pammenter, 11 December 2024, Annexure SP-11
[8] Statement of Steven Pammenter, 11 December 2024, Annexure SP-12
[9] Statement of Steven Pammenter, 11 December 2024, Annexure SP-14
[10] Statement of Geoff Hawkins, 11 December 2024, par 18
[11] Statement of Steven Pammenter, 11 December 2024, Annexure SP-17
[12] See in particular Amie Mac v Bank of Queensland Limited; Michelle Locke; Matthew Thompson; Stacey Hester; Christine Van Den Heuvel; Jane Newman[2015] FWC 774 at [74]-[95]
[13] Amie Mac v Bank of Queensland Limited; Michelle Locke; Matthew Thompson; Stacey Hester; Christine Van Den Heuvel; Jane Newman[2015] FWC 774 at [75]
[14] Amie Mac v Bank of Queensland Limited; Michelle Locke; Matthew Thompson; Stacey Hester; Christine Van Den Heuvel; Jane Newman[2015] FWC 774 at [76]
[15] Within the meaning of s 789FC(2)
[16] Respondent’s Outline of Submissions, par 9
[17] Respondent’s Outline of Submissions, par 11
[18] Within the meaning of s 789FD(3)
[19] Sharon Bowker & Ors v DP World Melbourne Limited & Ors[2014] FWCFB 9227 at [51], quoted with approval in Amie Mac v Bank of Queensland Limited; Michelle Locke; Matthew Thompson; Stacey Hester; Christine Van Den Heuvel; Jane Newman[2015] FWC 774 at [83]
[20] Amie Mac v Bank of Queensland Limited; Michelle Locke; Matthew Thompson; Stacey Hester; Christine Van Den Heuvel; Jane Newman[2015] FWC 774 at [87]
[21] Re SB[2014] FWC 2104 at [41], quoted with approval in Amie Mac v Bank of Queensland Limited; Michelle Locke; Matthew Thompson; Stacey Hester; Christine Van Den Heuvel; Jane Newman[2015] FWC 774 at [88], noting the additional observations of Vice-President Hatcher (as the President then was) at [89]-[91]
[22] Re SB[2014] FWC 2104 at [44][45], quoted with approval in Amie Mac v Bank of Queensland Limited; Michelle Locke; Matthew Thompson; Stacey Hester; Christine Van Den Heuvel; Jane Newman[2015] FWC 774 at [93]
[23] Amie Mac v Bank of Queensland Limited; Michelle Locke; Matthew Thompson; Stacey Hester; Christine Van Den Heuvel; Jane Newman[2015] FWC 774 at [94]
[24] Respondent’s Outline of Submissions, par 14
[25] This document is part of Exhibit 1. The email was forwarded by Ms Eales to Chambers in an email received at 10:42am on 28 November 2024.
[26] Statement of Steven Pammenter, 11 December 2024, par 20
[27] Transcript 16 January 2025, PN856
[28] Exhibit 1 – see email forwarded by Ms Eales to Chambers at 10:42am on 28 November 2024
[29] Transcript 16 January 2025, PN1189
[30] Transcript 16 January 2025, PN706
[31] Exhibit 1 – see email forwarded by Ms Eales to Chambers at 10:42am on 28 November 2024
[32] Statement of Anastasia Keckeisen, 11 December 2024, Annexure AK-5
[33] Section 789FD(2)
[34] Transcript 16 January 2025, PN694
[35] Transcript 17 January 2025, PN1547
[36] Transcript 17 January 2025, PN1809
[37] Statement of Anastasia Keckeisen, 11 December 2024, par 37
[38] Transcript 17 January 2025, PN1729
[39] Statement of Anastasia Keckeisen, 11 December 2024, par 40
[40] Statement of Anastasia Keckeisen, 11 December 2024, par 40
[41] Transcript 16 January 2025, PN1067
[42] Transcript 16 January 2025, PN600
[43] Exhibit 1 – see email forwarded by Ms Eales to Chambers at 10:42am on 28 November 2024
[44] Statement of Steven Pammenter, 11 December 2024, par 23
[45] Statement of Anastasia Keckeisen, 11 December 2024, par 27
[46] Statement of Anastasia Keckeisen, 11 December 2024, par 27
[47] Transcript 17 January 2025, PN1380
[48] Statement of Steven Pammenter, 11 December 2024, par 7
[49] Statement of Steven Pammenter, 11 December 2024
[50] Statement of Anastasia Keckeisen, 11 December 2024
[51] Statement of Steven Pammenter, 11 January 2024, par 33
[52] Statement of Geoff Hawkins, 11 December 2024, Annexure GH-2
[53] Transcript 17 January 2025, PN1310
[54] Transcript 17 January 2025, PN1730
[55] Within the meaning of s 789FD(1)
[56] Section 789FF(1)
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR784881>
0
3
0