“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU) v ACI Operations Pty Ltd T/A O-I Australia
[2018] FWC 1750
•26 MARCH 2018
| [2018] FWC 1750 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.472—Protected action
“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU)
v
ACI Operations Pty Ltd T/A O-I Australia
(B2016/1256)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY | MELBOURNE, 26 MARCH 2018 |
Application for an order relating to partial work bans.
[1] The “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) has applied for orders under s.472 of the Fair Work Act 2009 to vary the proportion by which employees of ACI Operations Pty Ltd had their wages reduced for implementing work bans.
Background
[2] In November 2016, members of the AMWU employed as maintenance workers imposed bans on the performance of some work. This industrial action was protected industrial action.
[3] The relevant industrial action for the purpose of this decision included an indefinite ban on using computers, phones and headsets.
[4] The industrial action commenced on 9 November 2016 1 and on 8 November 20162 ACI notified the relevant employees that their hourly rate of pay would be reduced in relation to each ban.
[5] The amounts varied depending on the estimate of the time spent by each class of employee. The submissions of ACI 3 set out the deduction applied and the adjustment sought be the AMWU:
Ban | Claiming employees | Witness giving evidence on behalf of group | Deduction applied to group | Adjusted deduction sought by Applicant |
Phone | Daniel Briffa Tony Calleja | Daniel Briffa | 15% | 7.5% |
Computer | Daniel Briffa Tony Calleja | Daniel Briffa | 10% | 5% |
Tuan Truong | Tuan Truong | 10% | 5% | |
Headsets | Craig Matthews | Villaruel Dimaano | 13% | 0% |
Villaruel Dimaano | ||||
Robert Minichelli | Robert Minichelli | 13% | 0% | |
Tuan Truong | Tuan Truong | 13% | 0% |
[6] The industrial action ceased on 16 November 2016 but the ban on phones was reintroduced on or around 2 December 2016. 4
[7] Based on a working day of 7.5 hours per day, 1% was the equivalent of 4.5 minutes.
The evidence
[8] The ACI witnesses each gave evidence about how they calculated the relevant deduction.
[9] Mr Truong was advised that his pay would be reduced by 10% for the computer ban and initially 13% for the headset ban but this percentage was changed to 10%. 5
Mr Truong - use of computers
[10] Mr Keith Hewitt 6 estimated that Mr Truong spent at least 45 minutes on the computer per day. Mr Truong is required to prepare a report for each job change he is involved in which averages one per day.7 He is required to prepare a weekly report.8 He is also required to enter jobs onto the SAP which is the maintenance planning system9. Further, Mr Truong was required to read and send emails, check production plans and research spare parts.10 Mr Hewitt said he had observed Mr Truong doing this work and he could be on the computer for half an hour or more researching parts. Because he did not do this work, another employee was required to enter Mr Truong’s handwritten notes into the system, which meant that there was duplication and prevented the other employee from doing his or her work.11 Further, Mr Hewitt was required on occasion to enter Mr Truong’s notes and this took a half an hour per day. Further, because Mr Truong was not using the computer, Mr Hewitt had to do the research himself and some work was delayed until after the bans were lifted.12 Mr Hewitt said that the estimate of 45 minutes was conservative.13
[11] Mr Truong gave evidence that instead of entering his reports onto the computer he hand wrote them and gave them to his supervisor. He estimated that this would take half an hour per day. 14 Mr Truong accepted Mr Hewitt’s evidence at [16]-[21] but says it varies from week to week.15 In cross-examination, Mr Truong accepted that 45 minutes was a fair estimate.16
Mr Truong - headsets
[12] Mr Hewitt gave evidence that employees are required to wear headsets during the job change process. 17 Job changes vary in complexity and hence the time taken varied.18 Mr Hewitt said that the average time taken for a job change was on hour and on average there would be one job change per day.19 Mr Hewitt said that Mr Truong was required to work on job changes at both the hot and cold end and that apart from when he as cleaning the hood at the hot end, which takes about 15 minutes he was required to wear a headset.20 The headsets play an important safety function because they enable the workers to communicate with each other.21
[13] It was Mr Hewitt’s evidence that Mr Truong was on the job change for the duration of the job change regardless of whether he completed his tasks earlier. 22 He also said that employees were required to wear headsets while setting up the job change and during the settling down period.23
[14] Because the tradespeople were not wearing headsets and were communicating by hand signals, yelling or walking over to the talk to someone, ACI arranged for additional glass workers to be present who wore headsets and facilitated communication between the tradespeople and the glass workers. This represented an additional cost to ACI. 24
[15] Mr Hewitt estimated that Mr Truong would be using the headset for 45 minutes per day and hence his wage was reduced by 10%. Mr Hewitt, in cross-examination, accepted that when Mr Truong finished at the hot end he would go to the cold end but he said if the hot end job change is continuing he must then return to the hot end. 25 Mr Hewitt did not directly supervise Mr Truong26 because he worked both the hot end and the cold end. Mr Hewitt accepted that Mr Truong was released from the job change earlier than some of the cold end workers.27 Mr Hewitt agreed that at the time of the bans the cold end workers did not wear headsets.28
[16] Mr Truong gave evidence that he wore the headset for 30 minutes per day. When the bans were in place he communicated by hand signals and by moving to talk directly to other workers. He said that this increased the time he spent on the job by 5 minutes. 29 It was Mr Truong’s evidence that, at the time of the bans, workers at the cold end did not wear headsets.30 He accepted that some days he would be on the job change for 45 minutes but generally it was 30 minutes.31 Mr Truong did the hot end set up and when he had completed his task he went to the cold end and he did not stay there after he finished his tasks.32 Mr Truong said he was not part of the system involving the additional glass workers at the hot end.33
Findings
Computers
[17] I am satisfied on the evidence before me that on average Mr Truong spent 45 minutes using his computer. I am satisfied that as a consequence of the ban that other ACI employees were required to perform this work which meant they either did additional work or the work was delayed. While the evidence was that this did not result in any additional financial cost to ACI as the workers who performed this work did not receive any additional remuneration or time in lieu for any additional work performed it cannot be said that it was without cost. More senior managers were required to do data entry rather than devote their skills to their job. While it is difficult to measure the impact of the extra workload on these employees it is relevant to a consideration of the fairness between the parties.
Headsets
[18] I am not satisfied that Mr Truong spent on average 45 minutes on the job change. His direct evidence that he returned to the workshop when he finished his tasks was not challenged by direct evidence. Mr Hewitt did not have direct knowledge of what occurred in practice. However it was accepted by the parties the Commission’s assessment of the reduction is broader than a simple estimate of time. It is relevant that ACI was required to engage glass workers to facilitate communication between the tradespeople and the glass workers. I also accept the evidence that Mr Andrew Butler played a more active role during the job changes than he normally did and this meant he was not attending to his other tasks.
[19] I do not accept the submission that the job change process was unaffected by the bans because the workers communicated in other ways. While the work was performed, without the steps taken by ACI, it would have been a less safe operation and ACI was entitled to take the steps it did. There was no evidence however that a glass worker was engaged to shadow Mr Truong and in any event when he was working on the cold end the ban had no impact as the cold end workers did not wear headsets.
[20] I am satisfied that the reduction for Mr Truong was not reasonable in all the circumstances. Mr Truong continued to perform his work and ACI received the benefit of that work.
Mr Minichelli and Mr Dimaano - headsets
[21] Mr Robert Minichelli and Mr Villaruel Dimaano were advised that their pay would be reduced by 13% because of the ban on using headsets.
[22] Mr Stuart Wild, who was the IS Repair Manager, gave evidence that Mr Minichelli and Mr Dimaano are fitters in his team. 34 Mr Minichelli and Mr Dimaano performed work during the job change at the hot end.35
[23] Mr Wild calculated that on average Mr Minichelli and Mr Dimaano were involved in the job change for one hour. Mr Wild gave evidence of the actual job changes that occurred during the bans and during the November bans there were two category 4, one category 5, one category 3 and one category 6 changes. 36
[24] Job changes are categorised from 1 to 6 depending on their complexity. 37
[25] The hands-on time for a category 3 change is 20 minutes, category 4 is 30 minutes, category 5 is 45 minutes and category 6 is 60 minutes. Because job changes involved setting up and settling down, the actual time spent of a job change can vary from half an hour for categories 1 and 2 to two to three hours for category 6. 38 Mr Wild therefore concluded, from looking at the actual change overs, that the estimate of time was conservative.39
[26] Mr Wild agreed with Mr Dimaano’s assessment of the time spent on the job change. 40
[27] Mr Wild said that he was able to estimate the amount of time spent by both employees on job changes because he generally lost them to job changes from 7 am until 9.30 am each day. He said that they were required to use the headsets during the setup, the change and the settling down time. 41
[28] It was Mr Wild’s evidence that there was an impact on production efficiency because of the time it took the workers to walk around to talk to each other and the additional time it took as a result of them communicating with hand gestures. 42 In addition, an additional two glass workers were engaged to facilitate communication.43 It was his evidence that an additional glass worker was not allocated to Mr Minichelli but Mr Butler, the co-ordinator, altered the job change process so that he was in direct contact with Mr Minichelli at all times.44 Mr Dimaano was assigned a glass worker to facilitate communication but Mr Minichelli was not because Mr Wild said that Mr Butler stood near him to facilitate communication.45 Mr Wild gave evidence that the $820.26 cost attributed to the additional glass worker time represented one hour’s work despite the fact that they had to be called in for a minimum of four hours.46 Mr Wild did not agree with Mr Minichelli’s evidence that he only had limited communication during the job change.47
[29] Mr Minichelli gave evidence that he used headsets during job changes which normally last about half an hour per day. 48 During the bans, Mr Minichelli said he communicated with other employees either directly or by hand signals. It was his evidence that this made no difference to how he performed his job.49 Mr Minichelli said his role required little communication with others because he works alone most of the time. He said he is only required to communicate with Mr Butler for a couple of seconds at the end of the job and headsets are not necessary for this.50 Mr Minichelli said that he did not remain at the job change during the settling in period.51 Mr Minichelli accepted that during the ban either Mr Butler or one of the crew members acted as a shadow for him because he wasn’t using the headset.52
[30] Mr Dimaano gave evidence that the job change usually took from 1-2 hours per day. This included the pre-start and the settling in time. 53 He said he spent between 6-7 hours per week on job changes.54 It was his evidence that he could do his work without a headset and with the assistance of the additional glass workers who facilitated communications there was very little difference in the time the job changes took.55 Mr Dimaano said that the additional glass workers were only with them for about an hour per day.56 In cross examination, Mr Dimaano agreed that maintenance employees have to stay for the settling down time in case something else needs to be attended to.57
Findings
[31] I accept Mr Wild’s estimate of the time spent on job changes by Mr Minichelli and Mr Dimaano. It is consistent with Mr Dimaano’s own estimate and consistent with the estimates given by others about the average time taken for job change. However for the reasons outlined above, I do not consider the reduction is reasonable. Both employees completed the tasks required of them and there is no evidence that there was any real increase in the time required to complete the job changes. However ACI did incur additional costs associated with ensuring that the work was performed safely including changing the way it was performed and employing additional workers to facilitate communications.
Mr Briffa
[32] Mr Briffa was employed as a maintenance fitter/team leader. He was notified that his pay would be reduced by 15% for the phone ban and 10% for the computer ban.
[33] Mr Philip Hosie was the General Maintenance Manager and Mr Briffa was his team leader and second in charge.
[34] Maintenance at the plant falls into two main categories, that is, planned maintenance and extra work. Extra work may arise due to faults or breakdowns. A plan is drawn up weekly for the work to be performed on each day. For each job work orders are prepared. In addition when extra work comes in it is entered onto the work plan. When extra work is required the plan is modified depending on the priority to be given to the extra work. At the end of each day the plan is updated to record the status of jobs.
[35] It was Mr Hosie’s evidence that Mr Briffa assists him to develop a work plan and Mr Briffa manages the day to day activities. 58
Mr Briffa - the phone
[36] All the members of Mr Hosie’s team are allocated a phone to enable them to communicate with each other easily during the day. Further, they have a safety function as all members of the team can work in isolated locations. 59
[37] Mr Hosie said he developed the work plan but the extra work is normally notified to Mr Briffa who liaises with the team to determine who should be allocated the work. 60 This, he said, was generally done by phone. It was his evidence that each job would require Mr Briffa to be involved in at least two telephone calls. In addition, for 20% of the jobs, once the job was completed Mr Briffa may need to call the relevant department head and Mr Hosie to provide an update.61 Mr Hosie attached a plan for a “random” week62 and during cross-examination a copy of the plan for the week of the bans was tendered.63 In the week 9 November to 16 November 2016 there were 23 extra jobs allocated.
[38] In calculating the time spent on this work, Mr Hosie had regard to the number of calls Mr Briffa would make and receive as a result of extra work arising. Further, he said Mr Briffa would need to make calls to other trades, other staff members, the store and external suppliers. He estimated that Mr Briffa needed to make an additional two to four calls per day. 64 Mr Briffa works an eight hour shift plus half an hour for lunch. He determined that Mr Briffa would spend 15 minutes per hour on the phone. However, despite this, he determined that Mr Briffa’s percentage deduction should only be 15% which is the equivalent of 9 minutes per hour.65 However to ensure fairness to Mr Briffa, it was agreed to use the 7.5 hour calculator and this meant they determined that his total phone use per day was 67.5 minutes. Mr Hosie accepted that the calls would be of varying duration. He said some calls may be as short as 30 seconds but he has had phone calls on technical issues with Mr Briffa which have lasted up to 10 minutes.66
[39] Mr Briffa said that on quiet days he received no calls and on busy days he could get three or four calls. He may call out 1-2 times and up to 20 times in a day. 67 He said that when the bans were in place instead of calling him the workers would come and find him and he said they would know where he was because of the plan. If he needed to allocate work to someone, he would go and find them.68 He said that the phone ban added 15 to 20 minutes to his time or to the time of others.69 Mr Briffa said that in a week comparable to the ban week he made 14-15 calls. He said it would be very rare for him to make 80 calls per week.70 Mr Briffa said that in the ban week there were only 7-10 extra work requests.71
Mr Briffa – the computer ban
[40] Mr Hosie said that Mr Briffa used the computer daily. He needed to raise and close work orders and he would have approximately ten orders per week which would take two minutes per order. 72 He assisted with completing the weekly maintenance plan; managed the daily plan which would take a half hour per day; send and receive emails; checked manuals or data; looked up information on the internet including searching for parts and preparing mandatory monthly reports.73
[41] It was his evidence that as Mr Briffa’s role comprised 50% planning and 50% co-ordinating, he was required to spend a reasonable portion of this time on the computer to complete his work requirements. 74
[42] Mr Hosie estimated that Mr Briffa spent 10% of his time on the computer. 75 Because Mr Briffa was implementing the computer ban, Mr Hosie was required to attend work early each day to prepare a comprehensive daily plan. Because of the phone bans his team would not be as responsive and he needed to ensure that the daily plan was more carefully structured because he couldn’t solve a problem with a quick phone call.76 Mr Hosie took all the phone calls from production and other staff which would have been directed to Mr Briffa. In addition, he needed to raise the work orders on the computer and then locate Mr Briffa to relay the details of the work orders to him and then Mr Briffa had to organise a member of the team to do the work.77
[43] This was less efficient and if Mr Briffa was out of the workshop Mr Hosie had to go and find him or wait for him to return to discuss the requirements with him. 78 In addition, Mr Hosie had to do all the ordering of the spare parts.79 It was Mr Hosie’s evidence that the bans added an extra two hours of work per day for him. While Mr Hosie accepted that the plant’s production did not drop during this period, that the team was able to continue to work efficiently during the bans was a result of the extra planning he and other managers did prior to and during the period of the bans.80
[44] During this time, to facilitate communication between Mr Briffa and Mr Hosie, Mr Hosie directed Mr Briffa to, other than for supervisory duties, remain in the workshop which limited the tasks that could be allocated to him. As a consequence, Mr Hosie spent additional time walking around the factory communicating messages to team members. 81
[45] It was Mr Hosie’s evidence that while he completed all the critical computer work that would normally be done by Mr Briffa, some of Mr Briffa’s work was not done during the period of the bans. 82
[46] Mr Briffa said that he used computers on a daily basis to update the maintenance plan and enter work orders. Sometimes he would get quotes or look up parts on the internet or email. 83 He said that the most he would use the computer on any day was 25 minutes and sometimes he did not use it at all and sometimes for 15 minutes or less.84 In his reply statement, Mr Briffa said he may use the computer for an hour to get his computer work up to date and then only use it for 5 minutes the next day or two. It was his estimate that his use averaged 15-20 minutes per day.85 In cross-examination Mr Briffa said that at the end of each day he has to mark off on the computer what jobs had been done each day and raise work orders.86 He further said that most of his communication with the stores is done face to face.87 It was Mr Briffa’s evidence that his is a hands-on role.88 It was Mr Briffa’s evidence that he only raised extra work orders for the work he performed and the other tradespeople raised their own orders. However, he accepted that during the ban Mr Hosie was required to raise all the extra work orders.89 Mr Briffa accepted that he used the computer for other purposes but denied using it to look up manuals because these were provided in hard copy.90
Findings
The phone ban
[47] I am not satisfied that the estimate of Mr Briffa’s phone use made by Mr Hosie is accurate and I am satisfied that Mr Briffa’s estimate of his phone use is closer to the mark. If we take the week of the bans, there were 23 extra jobs recorded. At a minimum this involved 46 calls. Accepting Mr Hosie’s estimate that 20% would require an extra two calls that is approximately an additional ten calls. Assuming at 2 minutes per call, this would mean in the week there were 112 minutes for these calls which was just over 20 minutes per day. Now I accept that Mr Briffa was required to make additional calls and some calls may have been longer but I conclude on the evidence that it would be unusual for Mr Briffa to spend 67.5 minutes per day on the phone. However it is not just the time that is spent on the phone that needs to be considered. Because Mr Briffa was not taking or making the calls, Mr Hosie had to step into his place. Further, because the other tradespeople were not taking calls either Mr Briffa or Mr Hosie had to go and find them to communicate the reallocation of work to them. This had the necessary effect of slowing down response times to jobs.
The computer ban
[48] I accept the evidence of Mr Hosie that he was required to do more work because Mr Briffa and others implemented the computer ban. I also accept that he was required to do additional planning to ensure the maintenance work was done efficiently. However I accept Mr Briffa’s evidence that he spent between 15 and 20 minutes on the computer per day. However, making an assessment of whether the reduction was fair, regard must be had to the additional work that was required to be performed and the duplication that arose because Mr Briffa hand wrote information that needed to be inputted into the computer.
Other matters
[49] It was submitted the bans had limited effect on the employees’ output and that the bans were a protest being symbolic acts of defiance. Further, it was submitted that the employees in good faith worked around the bans to minimize their effect. It was submitted that “when a balanced look is taken on the deductions vis-à-vis their effect on the respondent’s operations, there is a substantial net gain to the respondent, and this detracts from the fairness to the parties.”
[50] I do not accept this submission. While I accept the evidence that production levels were not affected, I am unable to conclude on the evidence before the Commission that the productivity levels were unaffected by the bans. It is clear that, at least in relation to the headset ban, additional labour was required to ensure the work was performed safely. Further, it is clear even on the evidence of Mr Briffa that jobs took longer to complete. Further, it is clear that much of the impact of the bans was reduced because of the willingness of staff employees to work additional hours. Further, it was the unchallenged evidence of ACI that some work was delayed because of the bans.
Conclusions
[51] I am not satisfied particularly in relation to the headset ban that the reductions were reasonable having regard to the nature and the extent of the partial work bans taking into account fairness between the parties. The evidence established that the work required to be performed was performed albeit it may have been less safe. To ameliorate that risk, ACI engaged two additional workers and existing supervisors took on greater responsibilities. In those circumstances to deduct for the time spent on the job was unreasonable. However, I do not accept that there was no cost to ACI and that no deduction should be made. Further, on the AMWU’s own evidence, the jobs took longer to perform. I consider that in all the circumstances a deduction for Mr Truong of 5% would have been reasonable and for the other employees a deduction of 7% would have been reasonable.
[52] In relation to the computer use, while I am satisfied that the time estimate used by ACI overstated the amount of time Mr Briffa spent on the computer, I am not satisfied that I should reduce the deduction by the amount sought by the AMWU. The ban put in place by Mr Briffa had flow on effects in that it increased the work of Mr Hosie for reasons other than that he had to input Mr Briffa’s data into the computer. I accept his evidence that to ensure that the work of the department continued with minimum disruption he was required to spend more time on the preparation of the plans. While not all of this was attributable to Mr Briffa, I consider that it is a relevant consideration in determining the amount to be deduced from Mr Briffa’s wage. I am not satisfied that the amount deducted by ACI was unreasonable in all the circumstances.
[53] As for the telephone use, I am satisfied that the time estimates used by ACI overstated the amount of time Mr Briffa spent on the phone but again the impact of the ban did not simply mean that Mr Hosie was required to take the calls normally taken by Mr Briffa. There was inefficiency caused by either he or Mr Hosie having to go and speak directly to the tradesperson and there was the time the tradesperson was required to come and speak to them face to face. Further, Mr Briffa could not be utilised as he was normally utilised and while I accept that he was performing work whilst in the workshop, as Mr Hosie said, ideally Mr Briffa is a very skilled tradesman and ideally you would have him out on larger tasks or floating amongst all the larger tasks in the workplace. 91 There was a cost albeit intangible in having him located in the workshop. I am satisfied however that the amount of 15% was unreasonable and a more reasonable amount would have been 10% having regard to all the circumstances.
[54] Mr Truong and ACI agreed about the amount of time he would spend on the computer. While I accept that Mr Truong still did the some of the work associated with the information that was required to be entered into the computer, the reality was that someone else had to perform that work. I am not satisfied that any reduction in the amount calculated by ACI is warranted.
[55] I have therefore determined that the appropriate reductions implemented by ACI should be reduced to the following percentages:
Ban | Claiming employees | Deduction applied to group | Adjusted deduction |
Phone | Daniel Briffa Tony Calleja | 15% | 10% |
Computer | Daniel Briffa Tony Calleja | 10% | none |
Tuan Truong | 10% | none | |
Headsets | Craig Matthews | 13% | 7% |
Villaruel Dimaano | |||
Robert Minichelli | 13% | 7% | |
Tuan Truong | 10% | 5% |
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
B. Terzic for the Applicant.
K. Brotherson for the Respondent.
Hearing details:
2018.
Melbourne:
19 March.
<PR601461>
1 Submissions of ACI at [12]
2 Exhibit A4 at TT1
3 Submissions of ACI at [7]
4 Submissions of ACI at [16]
5 Transcript PN1126
6 Exhibit R3
7 Ibid at [18]
8 Ibid
9 Ibid at [19]
10 Ibid at [20]
11 Ibid at [19]
12 Ibid at [20]
13 Ibid at [21]
14 Exhibit A4 at [7]
15 Exhibit A5 at [1]
16 Transcript PN 507
17 Exhibit R3 at [22]
18 Ibid at [23]
19 Ibid at [24]
20 Ibid at [26]-[27]
21 Ibid at [28]
22 Ibid at [30]
23 Ibid at [31]
24 Ibid at [33]-[35]
25 Transcript PN 927
26 Ibid PN 935
27 Ibid PN 944
28 Ibid PN 948
29 Exhibit A4 at [5]
30 Transcript PN 454
31 Ibid PN 460
32 Ibid PN 467, 471, 472
33 Ibid PN 479
34 Exhibit R4 at [10]
35 Ibid at [14]
36 Ibid at [22]
37 Ibid at [17]
38 Ibid at [17]-[18]
39 Ibid at [23]
40 Ibid at [24]
41 Ibid at [28]
42 Ibid at [30]
43 Ibid at [31]-[32]
44 Ibid at [32]
45 Transcript PN 1051-1054
46 Ibid PN 1070
47 Ibid PN 1072-1078
48 Exhibit A6 at [8]
49 Ibid at [9]
50 Exhibit A7 at [2]
51 Transcript PN 597
52 Ibid PN 632
53 Ibid PN 702-703
54 Exhibit A8 at [12]
55 Ibid at [15]
56 Exhibit A9 at [2]-[3]
57 Transcript PN 692-693
58 Exhibit R2 at [10]
59 Ibid at [13]
60 Ibid at [14]
61 Ibid at [15]-[16]
62 Ibid at PH5
63 Exhibit R1
64 Exhibit R2 at [20]
65 Ibid at [24]
66 Ibid at [27]
67 Exhibit A2 at [6]
68 Ibid at [7]-[8]
69 Ibid at [9]
70 Exhibit A3 at [3]
71 Ibid
72 Exhibit R2 at [31]
73 Ibid
74 Ibid at [32]
75 Ibid at [35]
76 Ibid at [38]
77 Ibid at [40]
78 Ibid at [41]
79 Ibid at [42]
80 Ibid at [45]
81 Ibid at [46]
82 Ibid at [47]
83 Exhibit A2 at [10]
84 Ibid at [12]
85 Exhibit A3 at [4]
86 Transcript PN 96
87 Ibid PN 99
88 Ibid PN 106
89 Ibid PN 293-295
90 Ibid PN 303-308
91 Transcript PN 903
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
0
0
0