Application by JR

[2017] FWC 6430

[2017] FWC 6430

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.789FC - Application for an order to stop bullying

Application by JR
(AB2017/391)

COMMISSIONER SIMPSON BRISBANE, 22 DECEMBER 2017

Application for an FWC order to stop bullying – Evidence considered – Conduct of named persons reasonable management action taken in a reasonable manner - Application dismissed

[1] This matter involves an application brought under s. 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (The Act) by JR (the Applicant) against three Named Persons AI, AE, and KE (Named Persons) who the Applicant alleged to have bullied her at work. PH (the Employer) employs both the Applicant and the Named Persons.

[2] The application was filed on 13 March 2017 and was the subject of a private Conference on 21 August 2017 where the parties were unable to reach a resolution of the issues. On 15 September 2017 the matter was listed for a further Conference. As the parties were again unable to reach a resolution, the matter proceeded to a Directions Hearing on 20 October 2017, and a subsequent formal Hearing on 18 December 2017 in Brisbane.

[3] The Applicant represented herself at the Hearing with assistance from her support person AH. The Employer was represented by LH, HR Manager Qld, who also appeared on behalf of the Named Persons.

BACKGROUND

[4] The Applicant commenced employment as a catering attendant in the catering department of the Employer on 19 March 2012. The Applicant submitted that her team leaders AE and KE, and Catering Manager AI have engaged in repeated bullying behaviour against her at work since late 2014. The Applicant has not been at work since late November 2017 and was not set to return to work until after the hearing of this matter.

[5] The Applicant filed an F72 that contained a summary of allegations made with a series of annexures. The Applicant also filed a summary of her argument 1, a statutory declaration,2 a journal3 and statutory declarations from AH,4 MB5, EY6, AT7 and JM8.

[6] The Employer filed an F73 and witness statements of the Named Persons AI 9, AE10 and KE.11 The Employer also filed a witness statement from JL, Director of Clinical and Hospitality Services.12

[7] The Applicant said she had worked as a catering attendant for seven years, five of those being with the Employer.

[8] The Applicant submitted that since late 2014, when she made a formal complaint against AE, that the Named Persons and other senior staff have bullied her. The Applicant made a number of allegations of bullying against her and submitted that the several disciplinary actions taken against her by the Named Persons were not reasonable management action, and instead were an exercise by the Named Persons and other senior staff in “case building” to have her dismissed.

[9] The Employer submitted during the incidents as described above, the Named Persons were carrying out reasonable management action in a reasonable manner. The Employer disputes the conduct of the Named Persons amounted to bullying.

LEGISLATION

[10] Section 789FD of the Act provides the relevant criteria the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) must consider when making a determination on whether an applicant has been bullied at work.

[11] 789FD reads:

“When is a worker bullied at work?

(1)  A worker is bullied at work if:

(a)  while the worker is at work in a constitutionally-covered business:

(i)  an individual; or

(ii)  a group of individuals;

repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards the worker, or a group of workers of which the worker is a member; and

(b)  that behaviour creates a risk to health and safety.

(2)  To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not apply to reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner…”

ALLEGATIONS

3 December 2014 - Lunch room incident

[12] The Applicant submitted that on 3 December 2014, an incident occurred between AI and herself after she used the Volunteer Coordinators office during her lunch break.

[13] The Applicant submitted that on being confronted by AI about her lunch location, she raised with AI that she had no access to a staff room for breaks, and that she was not aware the Volunteer Coordinator office was out of bounds.

[14] The Applicant submitted AI was “unprofessional and displayed no empathy to the plight I raised that we as staff had no access to a staff room or provision to accommodate our breaks.” 13 The Applicant submitted she was being reprimanded for a mistake that was normal human error, and was not made aware that she was unable to use the area. The Applicant submitted AI yelled at her and treated her like a child.

[15] The Employer denied the Applicant’s allegation that AI had screamed and humiliated the Applicant, and submitted the incident on 3 December 2014 was unsupported by a witness. In his statement, AI gave evidence that when he became aware the Applicant was using the Volunteer Coordinators office for her breaks, he told the Applicant not to do so. AI strongly denied yelling at the Applicant or that his conduct was anything other than firm and professional. 14 AI submitted that the Applicant was loud and talked over him during this confrontation.

[16] Following the incident on 3 December, the Applicant made a complaint to the then Hospitality Services manager AK. The Employer submitted that in February 2017, AK responded to the Applicant following an investigation into these allegations stating that no evidence could be found to support the Applicant’s allegations that AI had acted inappropriately in any way.

[17] It was not in dispute that the Applicant used the Volunteer Coordinator office as a lunch room, or that it was the wrong place to have lunch. It is also not disputed that AI confronted the Applicant and told her not to do so. What is disputed is the manner in which AI confronted the Applicant about the issue.

[18] There has been little evidence provided to the Commission regarding this incident. On the balance of probabilities I am not satisfied that AI behaved unreasonably towards the Applicant. I cannot be satisfied that AI raised his voice towards the Applicant, or that he behaved unprofessionally. I am of the view that an informal reprimand for using an inappropriate area for lunch breaks is reasonable management action that AI carried out in a reasonable manner. There is insufficient evidence to determine AI engaged in bullying behaviour against the Applicant on this occasion.

29 December 2014 – Tray incident

[19] The Applicant submitted that on 3 December 2014, an incident occurred between AE and herself where she was “dressed down” and publically humiliated by AE in front of other staff. 15  The Applicant submitted AE was “hostile” towards her and that the way AE looked at her made her feel uncomfortable. 16 The Applicant did not give any specific evidence on this incident in any of her statements or during the course of her oral evidence, but chose to raise it during her cross-examination of AE.

[20] The Employer submitted that AE had asked the Applicant to deliver four breakfast trays to CCU with the instruction to then help another employee deliver meals to 2B and 2C. AE submitted when the Applicant returned 15 minutes later, AE asked the Applicant if she had helped the other staff member to which the Applicant responded by screaming at AE saying she had not been asked to do that. AE said she then asked the Applicant to help the other employee, where the Applicant proceeded to storm out of the department screaming again that this is not what AE had asked her to do. 17 The Employer submitted this incident was witnessed by four other staff members.

[21] The Employer submitted that later that same day, AE advised that she wrote on the board who was collecting trays and from where. The Employer submitted it was written that the Applicant would collect 4E and 5E, and two other employees would collect 1B and 1C. The Employer submitted the Applicant collected 1B and 1C. It submitted that when AE told the Applicant she was supposed to collect trays from 4E and 5E, the Applicant screamed at AE that she had told her 1B and 1C. It was submitted that AE asked the Applicant to stop screaming at least half a dozen times. It was submitted one of the chefs yelled out for the Applicant to “shut up”. The Employer submitted this incident was witnessed by three witnesses whose accounts all supported AE’s version of events.

[22] AE gave evidence in her statement to support the Employer’s submissions. 18 AE also said that as a team leader, she had the responsibility for ensuring the prompt delivery and collection of meal trays from patients within the Hospital and for directing employees to undertake those tasks. AE said her conduct was reasonable in the circumstances and was carried out in a reasonable manner.

[23] During cross-examination, the Applicant seemed to put questions to AE concerning AE’s conduct in handling this incident. The Applicant put it to AE that she did not follow the correct procedure when dealing with this situation, and that there were no statements from any of the witnesses who were present at the time. AE asserted she followed the correct procedure on this occasion.

[24] Whether or not AE followed the correct procedure following this incident is not relevant to determinations I must make in this matter. In this type of application, the onus does not rest with the Named Persons to prove to the Commission that the Applicant engaged in misconduct. The onus rests with the Applicant to prove that the Named Persons engaged in bullying behaviour against them.

[25] The Applicant did not provide any specific evidence on how AE “humiliated” her or how she was “dressed down.”

[26] I accept AE’s evidence that the Applicant was questioned after not following instructions from a team leader. It is untenable that every reprimand needs to be formal or private in a busy workplace. I am satisfied AE’s conduct was reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner. There is insufficient evidence to support the Applicant’s claim that she was bullied by AE on this occasion.

December 2014 - Formal complaint and investigation

[27] Following the incident on 29 December 2014, the Applicant made a formal complaint to the then Hospitality Services manager AK. On 27 February 2017 AK sent a letter to the Applicant following an investigation into these allegations stating that no evidence could be found to support the Applicant’s allegations that AE had acted inappropriately in any way.

[28] The Applicant first contended that the three month delay in making findings alone is evidence of a bias against her. She further submitted that it was wrong of the results to make reference to instances of her past behaviour without specific reference or evidence.

[29] The Applicant has alleged that the way in which AK responded to her complaint demonstrated he was building a “false case” against her and was a form of bullying. 19 I am not inclined to make a finding on this allegation as AK is not a Named Person to this application and is no longer employed by PH.

Late 2014 – Dining Host shifts

[30] The Applicant submitted she had been targeted by the “Team Leaders/staff and Catering Manager” because she was the only catering assistant in her department not to be placed on a “Dining Host” shift. The Applicant submitted that to date, despite asking numerous times to be placed on the “Dining Host” shift, she has been kept in the kitchen.

[31] The Applicant submitted that after escalating the matter to her manager, she was eventually placed on a “Dining Host” shift however the week she was rostered to do the shift, the ward was closed due to low occupancy. The Applicant submitted this was “deliberate to avoid me having to actually complete my shift.” The Applicant submitted this has made her feel victimised and concerned she has been discriminated against. 20

[32] The Employer strongly denies that a ward was closed to patients so that the Applicant could be denied a shift as a “Dining Host”. The Employer submitted the “Dining Host” position is separate to a catering assistant. The Employer submitted the Applicant had been rostered on to work “Dining Host” shifts on a number of occasions, and listed a series of dates throughout 2016 and 2017.

[33] On the balance of probabilities I accept the Employer’s submission that the Applicant was not deliberately left off the “Dining Host” roster. There is insufficient evidence before me to establish that any of the Named Persons to this application engaged in bullying behaviour in relation to this allegation.

30 and 31 January 2016 – Formal complaint investigation

[34] On 30 January 2016 a meeting was held between the Applicant, KE, AE and another team member to address a formal complaint against the Applicant by another member of staff. The subject of the formal complaint against the Applicant was that she called another staff member ‘lazy’. The Applicant submitted the complaint was poorly managed by the team leaders, and was escalated to “drag the matter out.” 21

[35] The Applicant submitted that the fact all three team leaders and the catering manager were involved in following up on a small issue “highlights a case of myself being “hazed”/victimised and felt like I was now being “ganged up” upon.” 22 The Applicant submitted that AE and KE were intimidating towards her during the formal meeting, and acted aggressively towards her. The Applicant submitted both team leaders were against her from the beginning, and did not allow her to speak making her feel victimised and intimidated in front of her colleague.23

[36] The Employer submitted that during the meeting the team leaders present were civil while the Applicant was yelling and talking over people. The Employer further submitted that they take formal complaints very seriously and would be wrong to not investigate a formal complaint against the Applicant of name calling.

[37] KE gave evidence in her witness statement that she had cause to speak with the Applicant following a complaint from a work colleague about the Applicant’s behaviour towards this colleague. KE said the discussion was managed in a reasonable and professional manner despite the Applicant raising her voice, talking over the top of KE and standing over the top of her in a threatening manner whilst KE was seated. KE said the Applicant left before the meeting concluded.

[38] KE gave oral evidence that was consistent with her statement. During cross-examination the Applicant to put questions to KE concerning her general conduct as a team leader. The Applicant questioned KE on the performance review process at PH the performance managements processes. I am not of the view these were relevant to the determinations I must make in this matter.

[39] The Applicant put it to KE that it was unnecessary to escalate this incident to management, and that KE had done so in an attempt to single out the Applicant and discriminate against her. KE responded that it was not the subject of the complaint that caused the matter to be escalated, but the way in which the Applicant had behaved during the meeting which created a bigger issue.

[40] AE also gave evidence in her statement that during the course of the meeting the Applicant began raising her voice, standing over the top of KE whilst she was seated and left the meeting before it concluded. AE said she made attempts to calm the Applicant down to no avail. 24 AE said KE handled the discussion in a reasonable and professional manner. AE gave oral evidence that was consistent with her witness statement.

[41] During cross-examination it was put to AE that she was only there for part of the meeting. AE accepted she came in to the meeting towards the end, and that is where she witnessed the Applicant raising her voice and acting aggressively towards KE. The Applicant disputed she stood over KE.

[42] The Applicant submitted that on 31 January 2016 she was again called into KE’s office without notice, and that she was exhausted because it was around 4pm in the afternoon. The Applicant said she asked if the meeting could be moved to the next day when she was calmer and KE refused this request. The Applicant submitted she was forced to sign a file note under duress and that she didn’t understand what she was signing. The Applicant submitted the note was blank, though she did not ask what she was signing because she was too tired. 25

[43] On the balance of probabilities I prefer the evidence of AE and KE that they acted in a civil and professional manner during the course of the meeting on 30 January 2016. Their evidence is consistent and there is insufficient evidence for me to determine otherwise. I am satisfied both team leaders were carrying out reasonable management action by holding a formal meeting over a formal complaint. To do otherwise would risk an injustice to the complainant. This is especially the case since the Applicant admits she did call the employee lazy. I do not accept that formal investigation of the complaint was inappropriate. There is insufficient evidence to show that the conduct of AE or KE amounted to bullying on this occasion.

[44] I also prefer the evidence of AE in relation to the file note incident. There is insufficient evidence to show the team leaders deliberately made the Applicant sign something she did not understand. Further, the Applicant ought to know not to sign a document if it is not understood what is being signed. I do not find that the conduct of KE and AE amounted to bullying on this occasion.

1 February 2016 – Incident involving AI

[45] The Applicant submitted that the following morning on 1 February 2016 she approached AE and asked her for a copy of the document she had signed and told AE she didn’t understand what she had signed. The Applicant submitted AE told her that it was explained to the Applicant what the document was so she should have understood what it entailed. The Applicant submitted AE had no right to assume the Applicant understood. 26

[46] The Applicant submitted AE said she would get the document, and proceeded to walk into the catering manager AI’s office. The Applicant submitted AI then approached her angrily and yelled at her to come into his office and told her she had been rude to AE. The Applicant submitted she felt shocked and that she was being singled out that the matter had been escalated to management.

[47] The Employer submitted that on 1 February when approached by the Applicant, AE told her that she had been present when KE asked the Applicant to sign the file not and that KE had been very thorough in her explanation of the details of the file note, but that she would get the Applicant a copy anyway.

[48] AE gave evidence confirming this and said KE had asked the Applicant more than once if she understood what she was signing at the time. AE said she told the Applicant she should never sign something she does not understand, but that she would get the document for the Applicant. AE said the Applicant then went into a rant about how it was unfair and she had done nothing wrong, referring to the complaint from the employee. AE said this is when AI heard the Applicant screaming and asked the Applicant to come into her office.

[49] On 1 February 2016 the Applicant forwarded a complaint to AK alleging that AE and KE had “intimidated and victimised” her during this meeting. The Employer submitted that following this, AK and the Human Resources Manager AP undertook an investigation into the allegations made by the Applicant that the team leaders had acted inappropriately. 27 In a letter to the Applicant dated 27 April 2016 from AP, the Applicant was advised that her accusations of inappropriate behaviour by the team leaders and catering manager were not supported following an investigation into the matter. The Applicant submitted the investigation was “substandard.”

[50] In relation to the incident on 1 February, I am inclined to accept the evidence of AE. I found AE to be a credible witness throughout the course of the Hearing, and her evidence has remained consistent. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the conduct of AI amounted to bullying on this occasion.

June 2016 – Reprimand by senior staff for yelling to deaf patient in bathroom

[51] The Applicant submitted she was bullied by a senior staff member after they requested a file note for the Applicant after witnessing her speaking loudly to a patient whilst they were in the bathroom. The Applicant claimed she did not know the rule against talking to patients while they were in the bathroom. The Applicant submitted she had to yell since the patient was deaf and that the senior staff member knew that. The Applicant contended this evidences the campaign against her by the hospital.

[52] The Employer countered that the senior staff merely reminded her of the rule against talking to patients while in the bathroom.

[53] This incident does not involve any of the Named Persons to this application. There has been no conduct of AI, AE or KE that amounted to bullying on this occasion.

18 July 2017 – Trolley dolly incident

[54] The Applicant gave evidence that on 18 July 2017 at 7:45am she was approached by AI and asked to come to his office. The Applicant said she asked if she had done anything wrong, to which AI replied “no.” The Applicant said she told AI she did not want to go to his office because she always felt intimidated by him. The Applicant said after she told AI she would not go to his office, AI told her to “go home.” EY gave evidence that she heard AI shouting at the Applicant and told her three times to “go home, go home, go home.” 28

[55] The Applicant submitted AI did not tell her why he wanted to speak with her, and when she told him she would not come to his office he walked away and slammed his door.

[56] The Employer submitted that on 18 July 2017, AI had concerns with the Applicant’s performance on that shift and asked her to talk to him privately in his office, and that the Applicant refused to do so.

[57] AI gave evidence in his statement that on 18 July 2017 at 7:45am, he was startled by a loud crash outside his office door. AI said he knew straight away that someone had pushed something into the trolley of wine glasses, as he heard the glasses vibrate. AI submitted he opened his door to see what happened and saw a dolly with a rack of tea cups pushed into the trolley with wine glasses. He said the Applicant was walking towards the dishwasher.

[58] AI said he then asked AE “what is wrong with the Applicant, and where was she?” AI submitted AE replied “that is just the usual” and that she thought the Applicant had gone to the bathroom.

[59] AI said when the Applicant returned he asked her if he could speak with her in his office, to which the Applicant replied “no.” AI said he asked her again, and the Applicant replied “No, AI, I am not going into your office.” AI said he asked her a third time to which she said “I don’t want to.” AI said he then asked the Applicant if she wanted to go home, to which the Applicant replied “no.” He then asked the Applicant “Then can you come to my office please” to which the Applicant ignored him. AI said he returned to his office and notified his manager.

[60] Under cross-examination the Applicant put it to AI that he had yelled at her during this incident. AI denied that he yelled and said he simply asked the Applicant to come into his office. AI denied that he yelled “go home” to the Applicant, and said he asked the Applicant if she wanted to go home.

[61] AI accepted he did not see the Applicant push the trolley, though said he heard the glasses rattling and saw that the Applicant walked past at the same time. The Applicant put it to AI that he formed assumptions based on what he heard, to which AI accepted. AI said he followed up the matter further and received evidence from AE. AI said this is why he asked her to come into his office but she refused. AI said that as the Applicant’s manager, he is entitled to ask to speak with the Applicant.

[62] The Applicant put it to AI that he was rude. AI denied this and asked the Applicant to give a specific example of how he was rude.

[63] AE was also present at the time of the incident and gave evidence on the matter. AE said it came to her attention that a dolly was in the walkway which created a safety issue. AE said she called out “Can someone please move the dolly before someone trips over it, thank you.” AE said the Applicant was the closest person to the dolly, and ignored her request. AE said she called out again asking for someone to move it, which the Applicant again ignored.

[64] AE said she then saw the Applicant walk past and push something and heard a loud crash. AE said she was startled and that the Applicant had pushed the dolly into a tea tray with full force. AE said AI had heard the crash and came out of his office to speak with the Applicant, but she had gone.

[65] During cross-examination AE accepted that she did not see the Applicant push the dolly, only that she saw the Applicant “push something” and then heard the loud bang.

[66] The Employer submitted the matter was then escalated to the Hospitality Services Manager, LC who asked the Applicant to speak with her privately about these matters. Written requests for a meeting were attempted to be issued but the Applicant refused to take them. The Employer submitted the Applicant refused to meet with LC. The Applicant claimed she did not want to go in to any meetings because of her concerns over AI and other senior staff’s intimidating behaviour towards her.

[67] The Applicant seemed to be of the view that because AI had not directly seen her push the dolly, there was no proof she did anything wrong and it was therefore somehow inappropriate for AI to ask her to go in to her office. I am of the view that regardless of whether AI saw the Applicant push the dolly or not, he was entitled to ask the Applicant to speak with her. I am satisfied that this was reasonable management action.

[68] There is a dispute surrounding the question of whether AI acted in a reasonable manner. There were two independent witnesses to the exchange who have conflicting evidence on whether AI yelled at the Applicant to “go home”. AE gave evidence that AI “suggested” that the Applicant go home 29, where as EY asserted she heard AI yell at the Applicant telling her to “go home.” EY accepted under cross-examination that she was not aware of the context in which this exchange occurred. I am inclined to prefer the evidence of AE on this point. The Applicant also submitted AI was rude in the way he spoke to her, but did not give specific examples of how this was so. I accept AI acted in a reasonable matter on this occasion. There is insufficient evidence to show AI’s conduct amounted to bullying on this occasion.

18 July 2017 – Blowing nose on Napkin

[69] The Applicant submitted she was targeted by AE after being reprimanded for blowing her nose on a napkin and placing it on the cutlery bench. The Applicant disputes this occurred, and said she spilt orange juice on the floor and cleaned it up with a napkin.

[70] AE gave evidence that she witnessed the Applicant throwing her napkin on the cutlery table. AE she went down to see where it landed and could see it on the cutlery bench on top of cutlery. AE said another member of staff by the name of N was going to pick it up and AE told her not to pick it up as someone had just blown their nose on it. AE said she witnessed a conversation between N and the Applicant, where the Applicant then walked over, picked up napkin and put it in the bin.

[71] During cross-examination the Applicant asked AE whether this is something that would warrant escalation. AE said it would as it was a contamination issue. The Applicant asked why AE did not simply approach the Applicant instead of escalating it. AE said she did not immediately approach the Applicant because the Applicant had already had a “meltdown” earlier in the day following the dolly incident, and did not gauge the Applicant was in a position to be approached by AE.

[72] The Employer submitted that the incident was formally investigated by HR where it was found on the balance of probabilities the incidents occurred as alleged by AE.

[73] I accept the evidence of AE in relation to this incident. I am satisfied AE was carrying out reasonable management action in a reasonable manner and that her conduct did not amount to bullying on this occasion.

27 August and 10 September 2017 – Treatment of other staff

[74] The Applicant gave evidence that on 27 August 2017 a fellow colleague picked up some pork without any gloves on and did not wash his hands. The Applicant said she brought this to the attention of AE, and said “if that were me, tomorrow I would be in human resources or written warning.” The Applicant said AE responded saying “thank you for telling me.” 30 The Applicant submitted that this is an example of the imbalance and bias, and that some employees are targeted and victimised, and that some are not.

[75] AE gave oral evidence on this issue at the Hearing. AE said she did not see the employee touch the food without gloves, but thanked the Applicant for bringing it to her attention. AE said she documented the incident and escalated it to hospitality manager. AE said the employee had been disciplined and he accepted the discipline.

[76] I am satisfied AE’s conduct did not amount to bullying on this occasion.

24 September 2017 – AE asking about whereabouts

[77] The Applicant claimed AE twice questioned the Applicant’s location in front of other staff, and that this was unnecessary. A team leader asking the whereabouts of a team member is not unreasonable conduct. I am not satisfied that AE’s conduct amounted to bullying on these occasions.

27 September 2017 – Drinking water in the kitchen

[78] The Applicant claimed she was reprimanded for drinking water in the kitchen during a shift. She claimed she was doing this, despite knowing it was against the rules, because it is hot in the kitchen.   KE did not give any evidence on this incident.

[79] A verbal reprimand for a small mistake is not unreasonable behaviour from a team leader. There is insufficient evidence to show KE’s conduct amounted to bullying on this occasion.

[80] The Applicant made other various allegations of bullying in her application that involve other staff members at PH and do not relate to the Named Persons to this application. I am therefore not inclined to consider these allegations for the purpose of this decision.

CONCLUSION

[81] I have considered all of the evidence concerning this application including competing versions of events. It is clear to me that whilst the Applicant holds a strong perception that she has been the subject of bullying by AI, AE and KE this is simply not borne out by the evidence. To the contrary the evidence demonstrates the conduct of AI, AE and KE was at all times reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner.

[82] On the basis of the conclusions set out above the application is dismissed.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Ms J.R appearing on her own behalf

Ms L.H of the Employer, appearing for the Employer and Named Persons

Hearing details:

2017,

Brisbane:

December 18

 1   Exhibit 3, Applicant’s Summation Statement dated 2 November 2017.

 2   Exhibit 2, Statutory Declaration of Applicant dated 2 November 2017.

 3   Exhibit 1, Journal of the Applicant (undated).

 4   Exhibit 11, Statutory Declaration of AH dated 2 November 2017.

 5   Exhibit 12, Statutory Declaration of MB dated 2 November 2017.

 6   Exhibit 13, Statutory Declaration of EY dated 4 November 2017.

 7   Exhibit 14, Statutory Declaration of AT dated 26 October 2017.

 8   Exhibit 15, Statutory Declaration of JM dated 1 November 2017.

 9   Exhibit 16, Statement of AI dated 16 November 2017.

 10   Exhibit 20, Statement of AE dated 16 November 2017.

 11   Exhibit 18, Statement of KE dated 16 November 2017.

 12   Exhibit 21, Statement of JL dated 28 November 2017.

 13   Appendix Two to the Applicant’s Form F72 at para 2.2.

 14   Exhibit 16, Statement of AI dated 16 November 2017 at paragraph 4.

 15   Appendix Two to the Applicant’s Form F72 at para 2.2.

 16   Appendix Three to the Applicant’s Form F72 .

 17   Form F73 Employer’s Response at 6.2 para 9.

 18   Exhibit 20, Statement of AE dated 16 November 2017 at para 4.

 19   Appendix Two to the Applicant’s Form F72 at para 2.2.

 20   Appendix Two to the Applicant’s Form F72.

 21   Appendix Two to the Applicant’s Form F72 at para 2.2.

 22   Appendix Two to the Applicant’s Form F72 at para 2.2.

 23   Appendix Three to the Applicant’s Form F72 .

 24   Exhibit 20, Statement of AE dated 16 November 2017 at para 5.

 25   Appendix Three to the Applicant’s Form F72 .

 26   Ibid.

 27   Form F73 Employer’s Response at 6.2 para 15.

 28   Exhibit 13, Statutory Declaration of EY dated 4 November 2017.

 29   Exhibit 17, Letter – “Providing you with feedback and seeking your response” dated 24 August 2017.

 30   Exhibit 1, Journal of the Applicant (undated).

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR598335>