Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, The v Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd

[2013] FWC 2324

[2013] FWC 2324

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.437—Protected action

Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, The
v
Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd
(B2013/753)

COMMISSIONER SIMPSON BRISBANE, 19 APRIL 2013

Proposed protected action ballot by employees of Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd.

[1] This decision concerns an application made pursuant to s.437 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (the “AMEIU”). The AMEIU seeks a protected action ballot order in relation to certain employees of Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd (“the Company”).

[2] The Company advised through their representative that they opposed the application.

[3] The matter was listed for hearing on 10am 4 April 2013 however correspondence was received from both the Applicant and Respondent requesting this matter be re-listed at a later date. The matter was re-listed for 1pm 12 April 2013. At the hearing Mr L Norris appeared for the AMIEU and Mr Williams from Minter Ellison appeared for the Employer.

[4] The Respondent in its application to oppose the granting of a PABO Order in favour of the Applicant concedes for its part, that s.443(1)(b) is the only basis for the Respondents opposition, and that the other requirements for a PABO to be issued have been met by the Applicant. On having considered the material before me I accept that submission and proceed to deal with the matter on that basis.

Relevant Legislation

[5] In the circumstances the relevant part of Section 443 of the Act provides as follows:-

“443 When FWA must make a protected action ballot order

(1) FWA must make a protected action ballot order in relation to a proposed enterprise agreement if:

(a) an application has been made under section 437; and
(b) FWA is satisfied that each applicant has been, and is, genuinely trying to reach an agreement with the employer of the employees who are to be balloted…”

[6] In dealing with the history of the matter the Respondents view of events is that a delineation should be drawn between events that occurred prior to Christmas 2012 and a subsequent unsuccessful ballot conducted between 20 and 22 February 2013, and events following that unsuccessful ballot to the point in time when the AMIEU application was filed. Based on events as they have unfolded and with that perspective in mind the Respondent argues that the application was premature in the circumstances as there has been insufficient articulation and consideration of, and response to, claims on both sides.  1

[7] It was the evidence of Mr Journeaux, an AMIEU Lead Organiser that in the latter half of 2012 the AMIEU was pressing the Company to commence bargaining and ultimately the Company agreed in September 2012. At the time Mr Journeaux claimed the AMIEU had approximately 550 to 600 members who would be covered by the proposed agreement.  2

[8] Mr Journeaux said prior to tabling a formal log of claims the AMIEU undertook extensive consultation, including a survey mailed to the home of each member in October 2012. The AMIEU also held meetings with members about this time and several employee representatives on the Joint Consultative Committee (JCC) had extensive input into the claims ultimately made.  3

[9] Meetings were held between the parties on;

(a) 2 November 2012;

(b) 14 November 2012;

(c) 12 December 2012;

(d) 17 December 2012;

(e) 19 December 2012;

(f) 21 January 2013;

(g) 18 February 2013.

[10] The unsuccessful ballot was declared on 22 February 2013, recording an 85% no vote, 572 voting, 86 yes, 486 no, 7 invalid. After the unsuccessful ballot further meetings were held on;

(h) 27 February 2013;

(i) 18 March 2013.

[11] Mr Salter, the General Manager of Workplace Relations for the Company gave evidence that he was in attendance at all of these meetings.  4 Mr Salter gave evidence for the Company that the AMIEU presented a log of claims and spoke briefly in justification of each item in the claim at the first meeting on 2 November 2012.5 6 He said the Company detailed the matters it wished to discuss at the meeting of 14 November 2012. 7

[12] It was common ground that a log of claims was also emailed to Mr Salter for the Company on 7 November 2012. That log of claims emailed by Mr Journeaux to Mr Salter said the following;

TEYS BEENLEIGH LOG OF CLAIMS

1. 4% wage increase.

2. 30% for additional days or all-purpose paid.

3. Agreed shrinkage in boning room.

With the implementation of the spray chillers the committee believes the current method of weight calculation in the boning room is not accurate.

4. Donning and doffing time for new tunics or company to clean.

The new tunics require more time to remove, wash and put on. Once all boners, slicers and Slaughter men are required to wear the tunics this situation is only going to become more difficult to manage. The claim is to have more paid time for this to be done or the company manages the cleaning of the Tunics.

5. Some public holidays declared sacred.

The suggestion is to create one of the public holidays that Teys currently work, classed as a sacred day to allow all employees time with their family preferably in the later part of the year.

6. Maximum quantum’s of work in boning room.

There is currently a handshake agreement that 7600kg per boner is maximum weight to be performed on the extended day the proposal is to put this in the agreement and a pro rata equivalent to apply depending on the length of the day.

7. Length of time warnings applied to forklifts.

Some forklift operators believe that the current warning system for breaches is too excessive and would like to see all forklifts warning to have an effective life of 12 months.

8. Holidays to be 20 working days or equivalent on 4 out of 5 day roster (4 weeks annual leave 16 working days)

9. If break down maximum amount of time required to stay in ready to work.

10. Reclassifications

1. Behind saw 2 jobs.
2. Disability Allowance for gut/tripe room.
3. Stand up fork lift paid same as fork lift.
4. Scales in offal room.

11. Long service as per state act.

12. Appropriate representative for the department concerned during disciplinary issues.

This claim is if someone attends a disciplinary meeting that they can be represented by a representative of their choosing. Some employees feel that someone with knowledge of a particular department can better represent them in meetings.

13. 2 week suspension too excessive for particular breaches.

This issue relates mainly to OHS breaches that are more of a policy issue than an EBA issue.

14. 10% shift allowance to remain for grand fathered slaughter floor employees.

15. The introduction of a safety bonus for forklift operators.

If a forklift operator remains incident free for 12 months then a safety bonus of $19.00/week indexed to the wage increase and forforted if written up for a breach.

16. 95% of boners rate reinstated to existing slicers.

The introduction of additional cuts and specifications the value of Slicers to increase back to its original relativity.

17. Access to chiller allowance after 6 cumulative hours and access to freezer allowance after 4 cumulative hours.

18. All forklift operators to be paid BC3.

[13] Mr Journeaux gave evidence that some of these claims, such as disciplinary procedures were not “new” issues as they had arisen during the life of the current agreement and had been an ongoing source of tension.  8

[14] Mr Journeaux said the AMIEU tabled an additional claim at the second meeting of 14 November 2012 for parity of wages and conditions between employees employed under the proposed agreement and any labour hire employees that might be used by the Company.  9 Mr Journeaux refuted a claim in the statement of Mr Salter that a draft labour hire clause had not been tabled by the AMIEU at the meeting of 14 November 2012 10 providing evidence of an email of Mr Salter to Mr Brad Teys the Chief Executive of the Company dated 15 November 2012, the day after the meeting where Mr Salter forwarded Mr Teys a copy of the clause tabled. 11

[15] Mr Journeaux gave evidence that he understood further discussions regarding the proposed clause occurred between Mr Salter, Mr Crawford the Branch Secretary of the Union, Mr Norris of the Union.  12 According to Mr Journeaux these discussions were followed by a further email from Mr Norris to Mr Salter and Mr Teys dated 28 November 2012. I note in paragraph 10 of this email from Mr Norris direct reference is made to the labour hire clause being sought at Beenleigh. I also note in an email in response from Mr Brad Teys on behalf of the Company to Mr Norris he said as follows;

“So, in short, Teys Australia rejects the Unions basis for inserting the previously mentioned clause into the Beenleigh agreement.”  13

[16] Mr Salter said in oral evidence Mr Journeaux did table a clause on 13 November but that it was proposed to be agreed by an exchange of letters and not part of an agreement. Mr Salter confirmed he received an email from Mr Norris concerning whether the unions labour hire clause could be included in an enterprise agreement or not.  14 He maintained the discussions about the clause did not pertain to Beenleigh specifically but were generic in nature. He conceded there were no other enterprise agreement negotiations occurring between the parties at the time. Mr Salter agreed on the basis of the email of Mr Teys of 28 November that Mr Teys was under no illusion that the Union was seeking the inclusion of the labour hire clause in the Beenleigh agreement. 15 Mr Salter also agreed an email from Mr Teys of the Company to him of 15 November 2012 was not supportive of such a claim.16

[17] I am satisfied from this evidence the nature of claim had been sufficiently explained to the Company, the claim did pertain to the negotiations at Beenleigh, and as from 29 November 2012 the claim had been rejected by the Company. The claim was later included in the amended log of claims tabled after the unsuccessful ballot.

[18] Mr Journeaux said the AMIEU also tabled a claim during negotiations for formulas that determine quantum of Workcover payments to be preserved at their present status. He said he believed this claim was tabled at the 14 November meeting.  17

[19] Mr Journeaux said the initial AMIEU log of claims was discussed extensively, however at the 12 September 2012 meeting Mr Salter for the company raised a proposal of a “roll-over” agreement with a wage increase and minimal change to the existing agreement. Mr Journeaux said this matter was not raised by the Company at either of the first two meetings. Further, Mr Journeaux said regarding the meetings of 12 and 17 December “virtually the entire time was taken on continued negotiation of the Union’s log of claims. Whilst I understood the Company’s roll over proposal, it was my objective as the Union’s lead negotiator to attempt to secure as many items from the Union’s log of claims as possible in the proposed agreement.  18 It was Mr Journeaux’s evidence that by time of the 17 December meeting the 20 claims of the Union (which I understand to refer to the 18 claims in the initial log plus the subsequent additional labour hire and workcover claims) had been exhaustively discussed. 19

[20] Mr Journeaux said claim 3 “ Shrinkage in Boning room” had been the subject of exhaustive discussions between the Company and the Union prior to it becoming a formal bargaining issue.  20 He gave evidence that the Company and Union had previously agreed a 3% reduction in the hot standard killing weight (‘HSKW’) in the context of “chilling” using conventional technology resulting in shrinkage affecting remuneration based on “cents per kilo”. With the introduction of “spray chilling” approximately 2 years ago weight loss is reduced and the Union sought to revisit the weight figure of 3% previously agreed. On the basis of the evidence of Mr Salter concerning this claim 21 I am satisfied that the claims was properly explained and understood by the Respondent.

Roll Over Proposal and events of 17 and 18 December 2012

[21] Mr Salter said that based on his experience he could see protracted negotiations emerging including the weight shrinkage claim, and he convinced the Company’s management to table a proposal for a “roll over” agreement with minor amendments, tabling it on 12 December, with further discussions occurring on 17 December (the fourth meeting) during which the AMIEU rejected the proposal on the grounds the Union log of claims had not been significantly addressed.  22 Mr Salter agreed there were items in the Unions claim that it preferred not to even discuss and negotiate. 23

[22] It was Mr Journeaux’s evidence that toward the conclusion of the 17 December meeting he was still arguing for the parity of wages clause (labour hire clause) and at this time Mr Salter stated that the Company “would not be entering into any deeds of agreements with the Union.” Mr Journeaux said the Union had at the time informal agreements outside the terms of a registered agreement with the Company concerning payroll deductions and union participation in inductions of new employees. 24

[23] He said at the meeting neither the Union or employees representatives were willing to express agreement to the Companies “roll-over” proposal, however in discussions after the meeting the consensus opinion was that some employees may view the offer as attractive and “it might be a good idea to let them decide.”

[24] Mr Journeaux said he had a discussion with Mr Salter at a different site the next day 18 December and confirmed with Mr Salter that payroll deductions and inductions were not part of the Companies offer. Mr Salter agreed that he told Mr Journeaux that day the Company would not be entering into any arrangements concerning payroll deductions and union involvement in inductions.  25 Mr Journeaux claims he said to Mr Salter after that point that he had conducted a meeting with employee representatives and he said words to the effect of;

“they believe the company’s proposal could go for a vote and let the people decide.”

[25] He disputed Mr Salter’s version  26 that “the Union was now supporting that approach because it did not want its Beenleigh members caught up in disputes occurring away from Beenleigh.” Mr Journeaux said at no time did he say the Union would support the proposal. 27 He said support had historically always been connected with a “quid pro quo” agreement concerning payroll deductions and inductions. Mr Salter said he met Mr Journeaux again later that day and he “gained the impression” 28 that the Union was supportive of the Company proposal. Mr Salter agreed that Mr Journeaux never said at any time that the union would encourage members to vote for the proposal, and also said he couldn’t remember if Mr Journeaux used the words “in principle support”. 29 Mr Salter’s oral evidence undermines the claim in his written statement that he believed an agreement had been reached with the Union to support the role over proposal which the Union departed from on 5 February 2013.

Meeting of 19 December 2012

[26] A 5th meeting occurred on 19 December 2012 where Mr Salter said “in-principle” agreement was reached on the details of the proposed agreement and it was agreed a sixth committee meeting would be held on the 21 January 2013 to work through remaining issues before a vote.

[27] Mr Salter said the AMIEU asked if the company would agree to paid meetings before the plant closure, and on resumption and the Saturday before the proposed ballot. Mr Salter said in his statement at paragraph 20 that the Respondent agreed on the basis that the agreement would be supported by the committee and the union. He did not say however if the AMIEU accepted that condition.This fact tends to indicate to me that the AMIEU never agreed to this request consistent with the version of Mr Journeaux.

Meeting of 21 January

[28] Mr Journeaux said a further meeting was held on 21 January however he received no notice of it and consequently did not attend. Typically he said the Company would advise him of meetings by SMS or email but he did not receive such notification on this occasion. Mr Salter said the committee reconvened on 21 January and it was agreed a ballot for a proposed “roll-over” would occur on 20 to 22 February 2013.

Events of 5 February 2013 and Position Taken by AMIEU on Ballot

[29] Mr Salter said he and Des Archie, the Teys Beenleigh Human Resource Officer met Mr Journeaux on 5 February 2013 to finalise process issues for the conduct of the ballot. Mr Salter regarded bargaining as having concluded on 21 January as all matters had been agreed “in-principle”.

[30] At this meeting Mr Salter said he stressed to Mr Journeaux that in December and January 2013 the Company was asked if the Union could conduct paid union meetings during working hours and this was agreed on the basis that the Union would endorse the agreement. Mr Juereaux responded that the union would want to be a signatory of the majority voted for it, and it would file an F18 and further the Union was taking a neutral position regarding the proposed agreement, and further raised the matter of the Company embarking on a deunionisation campaign.

[31] It is common ground between the parties that the AMIEU through Mr Journeaux stated at a meeting on 5 February 2013 that the Union would be taking a neutral position regarding the proposed ballot for the agreement.  30 31

[32] The evidence is clear that the Respondent understood the position the AMIEU was taking with regard to the ballot from 5 February 2013. Mr Salter confirmed this in oral evidence.  32 In this knowledge a decision was made to put the Agreement as proposed by the Company to ballot, a position only conceding a few of the approximately 20 claims made by the AMIEU.

[33] Mr Salter said in evidence he holds the view that the AMIEU advocated against acceptance of the proposal.  33 Mr Journeaux was consistent in his evidence that in consultation meetings with employees prior to the ballot the Union did not recommend a yes or no vote, outlining the positive aspects of the offer and also the negative from the perspective of the AMIEU, including that there was no agreement between the AMIEU and the Company over future arrangements for payroll deductions and inductions.

[34] I am not satisfied on the evidence that there was ever an in-principle agreement that the union would endorse or support the “roll over” agreement, and even if there was which I don’t accept, the Union’s position at least from 5 February 2013 was clear that it was not supporting the agreement, and claimed its position as being neutral.

[35] Mr Salter subsequently contacted Mr Brian Crawford the Union Branch Secretary who confirmed the AMIEU position as stated by Mr Journeaux.  34

[36] A paid Union meeting occurred on 16 February and the 7th meeting was held on 18 February 2013 as, according to Mr Salter he wanted to give the committee an opportunity to raise any issues to either delay the vote or abort it. The committee said the vote should proceed.

Negotiations Since Ballot

[37] Mr Salter and Mr Journeaux confirmed further meetings were held after the unsuccessful ballot on 27 February and 18 March 2013. Mr Journeaux said an updated log of claims was provided by the Union at the meeting of 27 February.  35 Mr Journeaux says all claims were fully explained and discussed on 27 February and further extensive discussion occurred on 18 March. In cross examination he was not clear on whether a written copy of the updated log was actually provided at the meeting. 36 Mr Salter said Mr Journeaux indicated at the 27 February meeting that the strong feedback of employees was that the AMIEU log had not been addressed. He said the Union indicated three log items of particular importance were the level of wage increase, EBA rates to apply regardless of employer (labour hire clause) and the boning shrinking room issue.

[38] Mr Salter confirmed the matters of payroll deductions and union involvement in inductions was raised by the AMIEU at the 27 February meeting,  37 as well as the AMIEU raising that many employees were not happy about the attendance bonus changes, particularly in respect of carer’s leave counting as absence, and load out employees wanting some relaxation of poor workmanship warning and changes to freezer allowance.

[39] Mr Salter said in his statement that the revised log of claims added claims which had not previously been made, 38 and that he received it on 4 March 2013. 39 This is rejected by Mr Journeaux who said the significant additional log items concern payroll deductions and inductions 40 were provided to the company in the exact form of words found in informal agreements that have existed between the parties for 15 years. Further the position of the Company at the point of ballot was it rejected having an agreement with the Union on these matters. 41 Mr Salter said in evidence he didn’t debate that he had given an indication of what the response might be on these clauses.42

[40] Mr Salter confirmed a further meeting occurred on 18 March 2013 where the AMIEU addressed it log of claims and there was general discussion about many of the items however he said there were not detailed negotiations.  43 Mr Salter agreed Mr Joureaux was actively pursuing the original log and the updated log through this period. 44 On 2 April Mr Salter said it was agreed a further meeting would be held on 15 April 2013. The application before me was filed with the FWC on 3 April 2013.

[41] Mr Journeaux accepted that at the meeting on 18 March 2013 an agreement has been made to conduct a further meeting on 15 April 2013.  45 I see no reason to believe that because the parties had made an agreement to conduct a further meeting and in the intervening period the AMIEU made a decision to bring an application under s.437 that this indicates the Union is not genuinely trying to reach an agreement.

Conclusion

[42] It appears certain matters including payroll deduction and inductions were not formally part of the union log prior to 27 February, however their addition to the log was in response to the Company indicating clearly before the ballot and as early as December 2012 that it was departing from previous informal agreements that had existed for approximately 15 years between the parties. The form of words proposed by the Union was in the same form as the words used in these previous arrangements. I do not accept that the addition of these items to the log on 27 February should give cause for this application to be dismissed on the basis that it is premature because the Company has not had an adequate opportunity to consider these claims and respond to them. It is simply not plausible for the Company to argue they were not clear on what was being sought and needed more time to respond. The Company was intimately familiar with the nature of what was being claimed.

[43] The Respondent has argued other claims including the labour hire clause and the shrinkage claim in particular have not been adequately particularised and the employer has not had a proper opportunity to consider and respond to them. I reject that submission and the view that the Respondent did not fully understand what the AMIEU claim was. Mr Salter’s own evidence was he believed he had sufficient particulars of all of the Unions claims. 46 47

[44] I prefer the view that the progress of negotiations from there commencement on 2 November 2012 through to the rejection of the roll over proposal on 22 February, and further discussions after that point up to the point of the filing of this application should all be seen as being part of a continuing and ongoing negotiation process, and it would be artificial to segregate the events before and after the ballot. Seen in that way, I therefore do not accept that the AMIEU can be seen as not genuinely trying to reach agreement with the employer on the basis that there has been insufficient articulation and consideration of and responses to the claims on both sides since the unsuccessful ballot. The employer has been engaged in a process over a cumulative time period of approximately 10 weeks. It is not reasonable for the employer to maintain in the circumstances it is entitled to more time to consider and respond to the claims.

[45] The AMIEU had no knowledge until the third meeting on 12 December 2012 that the Respondent even intended to propose a “roll-over” agreement. The AMIEU to that point was progressing up until after the completion of the fourth meeting on 17 December on the basis that it was pursuing its log of claims. This was accepted by Mr Salter.  48

[46] It seems the decision of the Union officials to reverse the initial rejection of a roll over was swayed by the views of employee representatives on the committee who according to the evidence of Mr Salter wanted a ballot to proceed. This conduct does not indicate that the AMIEU was not genuinely trying to reach agreement. The Union decided to adopt the position advocated by employee site representatives.

[47] To the extent that it may ultimately be relevant in this matter the evidence does not satisfy me that the AMIEU acted in any way dishonestly in how it characterised its position as “neutral” to both the Company and to its employees regarding the ballot. Mr Journeaux was consistent with his written statement throughout his oral evidence that he did not tell employees to vote no but did identify concerns about what was not in the proposed agreement. The ballot proceeded as a secret ballot and there is no suggestion the ballot itself was not conducted appropriately and it resulted in a resounding rejection of the “roll over” proposal.

[48] The AMIEU has argued that the position adopted by the Company in deciding to take an agreement to a ballot of its employees (with agreement to conduct a ballot, but I accept on the evidence without agreement to support the proposed agreement itself) that did not address the majority of the AMIEU log, was effectively a rejection by the Company of those claims not addressed. Despite some inconsistency in evidence from Mr Journeaux at one point maintaining the claims were rejected,  49 and at a later stage appearing to accept the agreement to conduct a ballot on the roll over proposal was an agreement to defer claims.50 I prefer the AMIEU characterisation that items not accepted were in fact rejected for the purposes of that particular proposal put to ballot. The only basis on which the claims could again be pursued would be in the event the ballot failed, as it did.

[49] Further the AMIEU argues that because the Respondent effectively rejected the majority of the log of claims by proceeding with a ballot, and the nature of the amended/additional items added to the AMIEU log of claims since the ballot are well understood by the Company or otherwise only minor in nature, the AMIEU cannot be taken not to be genuinely trying to reach agreement on the basis it has not afforded the Company an adequate opportunity to consider these claims and respond to them. I also accept that submission. In arriving at this view I am mindful discussions commenced approximately 5 months before this application was filed, the bulk of the claims were outlined in the initial log and the Company was aware of and comprehended the nature of the additional claims from probably 27 February, but no later than 4 March 2013. That is approximately a month before this application was filed.

[50] Both the Union and the Company cite J.J Richards & Sons Pty Ltd v Fair Work Australia [2012] FCAFC 53 and specifically the judgement of Flick J. With reference to relevant passages of that decision I am satisfied that the AMIEU has approached the Company and informed it of the general ambit of that for which agreement is sought; and that the employer has foreshadowed in general terms it attitude to the proposed agreement.

[51] In terms of what else might be required I am satisfied the AMIEU has achieved disclosure of that for which consensus is sought. To the extent that the employer has not provided explicit responses to certain Union claims despite the discussions having commenced on 2 November 2012, I am not prepared to accept that the failure of the employer to provide such response on the particular facts of this case is a basis for concluding that this application has been filed “too early”, as was argued for the Company. The Union had put the Company in a position where it was well able to say yes or no to its proposals, and had solicited responses over an extended period of time. The fact that the Company had been slow to respond should not be visited upon the Union.

[52] As all of the requirements for the protected action ballot have been met a protected action ballot order must be made, an appropriate order [PR535356] will now be issued with this Decision.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Mr L Norris for the Applicant Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union

Mr D Williams, solicitor Minter Ellison appeared for the Respondent

Hearing details:

2013

April 12

Brisbane

 1   Transcript 12 April 2013 PN 26 - 28

 2   Exhibit 1 Statement of Matthew Journeaux paragraphs 5 - 6

 3   Exhibit 1 Statement of Matthew Journeaux paragraph 13

 4   Exhibit 2 Statement of John Salter Paragraph 5

 5   Exhibit 2 Statement of John Salter Paragraph 9

 6   Transcript 12 April 2013 PN 348

 7   Exhibit 2 Statement of John Salter paragraph 10

 8   Exhibit 1 Statement of Matthew Journeaux paragraph 15

 9   Exhibit 1 Statement of Matthew Journeaux paragraph 16

 10   Exhibit 2 Statement of John Salter Paragraph 47 (d)

 11   Exhibit 1 Statement of Matthew Journeaux paragraphs 24-26 attachment MJ2

 12   Exhibit 1 Statement of Matthew Journeaux paragraph 27

 13   Exhibit 1 Statement of Matthew Journeaux attachment MJ4

 14   Transcript dated 12 April 2013 PN 399 - 401

 15   Transcript dated 12 April 2013 PN419

 16   Transcript dated 12 April 2013 PN 426

 17   Exhibit 1 Statement of Matthew Journeaux paragraph 17

 18   Exhibit 1 Statement of Matthew Journeaux paragraph 21

 19   Exhibit 1 Statement of Matthew Journeaux paragraph 22

 20   Exhibit 1 Statement of Matthew Journeaux paragraph 31

 21   Transcript dated 12 April 2013 PN 380 - 383

 22   Exhibit 2 Statement of John Salter paragraph 13 - 17

 23   Transcript dated 12 April 2013 PN 357

 24   Exhibit 1 Statement of Matthew Journeaux paragraph 48

 25   Transcript dated 12 April 2013 PN 438 - 439

 26   Exhibit 2 Statement of John Salter paragraph 17

 27   Exhibit 1 Statement of Matthew Journeaux paragraph 51

 28   Exhibit 2 Statement of John Salter paragraph 18

 29   Transcript dated 12 April 2013 PN 444 - 445

 30   Exhibit 1 Statement of Matthew Journeaux paragraph 59

 31   Exhibit 2 Statement of John Salter paragraph 27(b)

 32   Transcript dated 12 April 2013 PN 449

 33   Exhibit 2 Statement of John Salter paragraph 77

 34   Exhibit 2 Statement of John Salter paragraph 29

 35   Exhibit 1 Statement of Matthew Journeaux paragraph 66

 36   Transcript dated 12 April 2013 PN 133

 37   Exhibit 2 Statement of John Salter paragraph 36 (d)

 38   Exhibit 2 Statement of John Salter paragraph 47 (b)

 39   Exhibit 2 Statement of John Salter paragraph 41

 40   Exhibit 2 Statement of John Salter attachment JS5

 41   Exhibit 1 Statement of Matthew Journeaux paragraphs 68 -69

 42   Transcript dated 12 April 2013 PN 341

 43   Exhibit 2 Statement of John Salter paragraph 42

 44   Transcript dated 12 April 2013 PN367

 45   Transcript dated 12 April 2013 PN 148

 46   Transcript dated 12 April 2013 PN 481

 47   Transcript dated 12 April 2013 PN 495

 48   Transcript dated 12 April 2013 PN 430 -431

 49   Transcript dated 12 April 2013 PN 82 - 86

 50   Transcript dated 12 April 2013 PN 269

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR535745>