Burger Urge Pty Ltd v Cullam Silby
[2022] FWCFB 217
•25 NOVEMBER 2022
| [2022] FWCFB 217 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.604—Appeal of decision
Burger Urge Pty Ltd
v
Cullam Silby
(C2022/6720)
| VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 25 NOVEMBER 2022 |
Appeal against decision [2022] FWC 2426 of Commissioner Simpson at Brisbane on 14 September 2022 in matter number U2022/5469 – permission to appeal refused.
Introduction
Burger Urge Pty Ltd (Burger Urge) has lodged an appeal pursuant to s.604 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for which permission to appeal is required against the decision (the Decision)[1] of Commissioner Simpson (Commissioner) issued on 14 September 2022.
The Decision concerned an application by Mr Cullam Silby for an unfair dismissal remedy against Burger Urge pursuant to s.394 of the Act, in which the Commissioner found Mr Silby was unfairly dismissed and awarded compensation in the sum of $5,421.64 plus superannuation.
By consent, the Decision and subsequent compensation order made by the Commissioner were stayed pending the hearing and determination of this appeal.[2]
On 18 November 2022, we conducted a hearing, by video conference, in relation to both permission to appeal and the merits of the appeal. At that hearing each party was afforded an opportunity to present oral submissions to supplement their written submissions in relation to the appeal. We have taken into account the parties’ submissions in determining this matter.
Commissioner’s Decision
Mr Silby was employed by Burge Urge as a Team Leader in its store located at Dubbo, New South Wales.
On the evening of Saturday, 30 April 2022, there was an attempted theft of Mr Silby’s motor scooter while he was at work. The scooter had been parked under the building in which Mr Silby worked. Mr Silby attempted to have his motor scooter removed from the car park but the tow truck driver he contacted for that purpose could not access the car park. As a result, Mr Silby left his motor scooter in the car park overnight. The motor scooter was then stolen from the car park and taken for a joy ride on Sunday, 1 May 2022. The police contacted Mr Silby and informed him that his motor scooter had been found in a state of disrepair.[3]
The motor scooter was Mr Silby’s primary form of transport. He was required to attend the police station to file reports in relation to his stolen motor scooter. These were the reasons for which Mr Silby did not attend work for his rostered shift from midday to 9:30pm on Sunday, 1 May 2022.
At approximately 4:26am on Sunday, 1 May 2022, Mr Silby posted a message on Facebook in a message group used by employees of Burger Urge. The message stated:[4]
“Hey I know it’s early is anyone with eod [end of day] access be able to do my close I need to sort out this stuff with my bike out with the police tomorrow and don’t know how it will go. I’m happy to trade shifts with you and or anything to help you out.”
The Facebook message was somewhat ambiguous; it referred to Mr Silby’s commitments “tomorrow” (i.e. Monday, 2 May 2022) but was intended to be a request to cover Mr Silby’s shift on Sunday, 1 May 2022.[5]
Mr Silby initially claimed that in addition to posting the Facebook message he called the Dubbo store and spoke to an employee, Ms Watson, about his unavailability.[6] Ms Watson was not called to give evidence at the hearing. She provided an email stating that she spoke to Mr Silby on 3 May 2022. When the date of Tuesday, 3 May 2022 was put to Mr Silby at the hearing, he accepted that he did not call Ms Watson until Tuesday, 3 May 2022, and the purpose of that call was to let her know that his motor scooter had been damaged and he had to provide a witness statement about it.[7]
Ms Post was the Manager working in Burger Urge’s Dubbo store on 1 May 2022. When Ms Post became aware that Mr Silby did not attend work at his rostered start time she was informed by the Team Leader who was present that Mr Silby had posted in the Facebook message group a request for his end of day shift to be covered.[8]
Ms Post attempted, without success, to call Mr Silby. However, Mr Silby sent a text message to Ms Post to inform her that he was with the police and would not be able to come into work.[9] As a result, Ms Post, who had been in the store undertaking a stock take since 7am, was required to work Mr Silby’s closing shift (until 11pm) on 1 May 2022.[10]
The Commissioner found that Mr Silby did not attend work for his rostered shift on Sunday, 1 May 2022, and he failed to comply with the requirement in which he had been trained to call his manager if he could not attend work.[11] As mitigating factors, the Commissioner found that there was a genuine and logical explanation for Mr Silby’s failure to attend work for his rostered shift on 1 May 2022 and although he had not complied with the correct procedure to call the store if he could not attend work, he followed an ‘informal arrangement’ by using the Facebook group message to try to obtain cover for his shift.[12]
Mr Bryant, Burger Urge’s Chief People Officer, commenced an investigation into Mr Silby’s failure to attend work on 1 May 2022. Mr Bryant spoke to Mr Silby on two occasions on Thursday, 5 May 2022 as part of his investigation. In the second discussion, the Commissioner found that the conversation became heated and Mr Silby apparently said words to the effect that “this is bullshit”.[13] Mr Bryant then, in the same discussion, told Mr Silby that he was being summarily dismissed.[14] A letter of termination was sent to Mr Silby later that day. It stated:[15]
“Dear Cullam,
Management has conducted a thorough investigation into the following act of policy breach.
· You were absent from work on 1/05/2022;
· Your absence was not approved;
· Your direct report did not receive appropriate communications regarding your absence;
· Communications received misled the entire team.
You were communicated and provided with full particulars regarding the above allegations and were offered an opportunity to respond. We note that you recognised your communications were not sufficient and that as a Team Leader, you knew you had to lead by example.
However, having considered the facts and the outcomes of our meeting on 5/05/2022, we find that the allegation against you have been substantiated. Such action is considered to constitute gross misconduct due to your knowledge of the staffing environment, Burger Urge policy, and costs to the organisation in event of a no show without an excuse.
Your employment will be summarily dismissed effective immediately. This letter confirms the termination of your employment due to gross misconduct.”
The Commissioner found that, contrary to Burger Urge’s submission, Mr Silby had not abandoned his employment.[16]
The Commissioner noted that Mr Silby did not have any prior record of performance or conduct issues and his failure to attend a single shift may have warranted counselling or a warning but it certainly did not justify summary dismissal.[17] The Commissioner concluded that Burger Urge did not have a valid reason for dismissing Mr Silby.[18]
The Commissioner found that Mr Silby was notified of the reason for his dismissal during the telephone conversation with Mr Bryant on 5 May 2022, but he was not given an appropriate opportunity to respond to his summary termination.[19]
The Commissioner concluded that Mr Silby’s dismissal was unfair and assessed an amount of $5,421.64 plus superannuation as appropriate compensation in the circumstances.[20]
Permission to appeal
An appeal under s.604 of the Act is an appeal by way of rehearing and the Commission’s powers on appeal are only exercisable if there is error on the part of the primary decision maker.[21] There is no right to appeal and an appeal may only be made with the permission of the Commission.
This appeal is one to which s.400 of the Act applies. Section 400 provides:
“(1) Despite subsection 604(2), the FWC must not grant permission to appeal from a decision made by the FWC under this Part unless the FWC considers that it is in the public interest to do so.
(2) Despite subsection 604(1), an appeal from a decision made by the FWC in relation to a matter arising under this Part can only, to the extent that it is an appeal on a question of fact, be made on the ground that the decision involved a significant error of fact.”
In the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Coal & Allied Mining Services Pty Ltd v Lawler and others, Buchanan J (with whom Marshall and Cowdroy JJ agreed) characterised the test under s 400 as “a stringent one”.[22] The task of assessing whether the public interest test is met is a discretionary one involving a broad value judgment.[23] In GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Makin a Full Bench of the Commission identified some of the considerations that may attract the public interest:
“... the public interest might be attracted where a matter raises issues of importance and general application, or where there is a diversity of decisions at first instance so that guidance from an appellate court is required, or where the decision at first instance manifests an injustice, or the result is counter intuitive, or that the legal principles applied appear disharmonious when compared with other recent decisions dealing with similar matters.”[24]
It will rarely be appropriate to grant permission to appeal unless an arguable case of appealable error is demonstrated. This is so because an appeal cannot succeed in the absence of an appealable error.[25] However, the fact that the Member at first instance made an error is not necessarily a sufficient basis for the grant of permission to appeal.[26]
An application for permission to appeal is not a de facto or preliminary hearing of the appeal. In determining whether permission to appeal should be granted, it is unnecessary and inappropriate for the Full Bench to conduct a detailed examination of the grounds of appeal.[27]
Summary of Burger Urge’s grounds of appeal, submissions and public interest contentions
The notice of appeal filed by Burger Urge identifies six grounds of appeal in relation to errors of fact and one ground of appeal in relation to a significant error of fact.
In relation to paragraphs [11], [12], [63], [64] and [78] of the Decision, Burger Urge contends that Mr Bryant has confirmed that Ms Matthews did not tell employees to use the Facebook group as she knew the rules and the other stores Ms Matthews was overseeing (Tamworth and Armidale) do not utilise a Facebook messenger group in this way. It is submitted that this is affirmed by Ms Post being unaware of the Facebook group and not seeking to become aware of it due to it not being the process at any store in the Burger Urge network. Further, it is submitted that staff do not use the Facebook messenger group for the purpose of notifying the venue of their absence as not all staff are in the group and not a single staff member responded to the message, acknowledged it, or passed on the information to Ms Post or the venue. It is submitted that the Commissioner did not consider the practice across Ms Matthews other venues, the practice across the Burger Urge network, nor did the Commissioner attempt to arrange contact with Ms Matthews or seek additional information from Ms Post regarding the process.
In relation to paragraph [14] of the Decision, Burger Urge submits that all staff prior to commencing their first shift are required to undergo onboarding and introductory training, which includes the process required to take leave and specifically prohibits the use of Facebook messenger. It is contended that the Commissioner did not fully consider Mr Silby’s failure to comply with a reasonable and lawful direction by the employer, particularly in circumstances where the applicable enterprise agreement permitted Burger Urge to summarily dismiss an employee for any failure to follow a reasonable and lawful direction.
In relation to paragraphs [20] and [21] of the Decision, Burger Urge submits that Mr Silby presented a false witness statement in an attempt to show that he followed the correct process. It is contended that the Commissioner said to Mr Silby during his evidence words to the effect, “I do not mean to put words in your mouth, but did you mean the call was to let her know that the scooter had been damaged”. Burger Urge submits that this phrasing ‘backtracked’ a lie made by Mr Silby under oath. It is submitted that Mr Silby could have easily looked at his phone to get the exact date and time the call was made, which the Commissioner failed to recognise or verify.
In relation to paragraphs [37] and [67] of the Decision, Burger Urge submits that Mr Bryant was not ‘firing’ Mr Silby but was still investigating when Mr Silby became aggressive. It is submitted that Mr Bryant conducts many investigations and does not give away any emotion during the process, just interprets the facts. As per paragraph [45] of the Decision, it is contended that Mr Bryant always follows the proper process except during exceptional circumstances such as being subjected to abusive language by someone during a routine investigation.
In relation to paragraph [68] of the Decision, Burger Urge submits that the Commissioner failed to recognise that Mr Bryant was stating that the unprofessional conduct was the reason why the process was not followed which prevented a more in-depth investigation taking place. Further, it is submitted that the outcome would still have resulted in Mr Silby’s termination if a longer investigation process had been undertaken. Burger Urge submits that Mr Silby engaged the following misconduct: failure to follow a reasonable and lawful direction, failure to follow Burger Urge policy and procedure, failure to notify his manager about an absence from work, and failure to attend a rostered shift resulting in an unauthorised absence.
In relation to paragraph [69] of the Decision, Burger Urge contends that the Commissioner incorrectly interpreted Mr Bryant’s agreement that during the day the venue could be run by three staff to mean that it could be run by the same number of staff from opening time to closing time. It is submitted that wait times ‘blew out’ during the night and customer service suffered due to there being three staff working and not eight staff as required on a Sunday night. Only four staff were rostered due to significant staffing shortages.
In relation to paragraph [84] of the Decision, Burger Urge submits that the Commissioner made a significant error of fact by failing to give consideration to the statements made under oath by Mr Bryant regarding the nature of the hospitality industry in regional areas such as Dubbo. It is submitted that applicants find jobs within one or two days of applying but it takes up to 4 months for employers to fill roles such as Manager or Supervisor. Mr Bryant says that he has had multiple instances of applicants applying in the morning and when contacted the same day they have already found employment. It is contended that Mr Silby’s claim of taking eight weeks to find suitable alternative employment is fraudulent especially as Mr Silby has managerial experience. Burger Urge contends that there are many jobs advertised on Seek, Indeed, JORA, Careerone, Workforce Australia, and multiple jobs on employer’s websites such as KFC, Hungary Jacks, McDonald’s, and many others in Dubbo that match Mr Silby’s abilities, experience, and travel restrictions. It is also contended that the Commissioner made no consideration regarding Mr Silby’s access to JobSeeker payments, nor did the Commissioner request evidence from Mr Silby regarding his financial status or history of making applications for jobs. Burger Urge submits that an excessive compensation order was made without consideration of these factors but in reliance on Mr Silby’s fraudulent claims made under oath.
Burger Urge submits that it is in the public interest for the Commission to grant permission to appeal because:
the Commissioner provided an opportunity for Mr Silby to recant a false statement given under oath;
the Commissioner did not take into account the unprofessionalism or the abusive language received during a routine investigation and how that may impact the investigation; and
the Commissioner did not consider the current job market in hospitality or construction, or the ease with which people can get employed in those industries. Further, the Commissioner did not look at the facts of the industry and instead provided a response suited to the pre-COVID-19 job market.
Consideration
We do not consider that any of Burger Urge’s appeal grounds disclose an arguable case of appealable error.
The Commissioner accepted that sending a message to the Facebook messenger group was not an authorised method of communicating an employee’s unavailability to work a particular shift, nor did it accord with the way in which all employees, including Mr Silby, were trained to communicate their unavailability by telephoning the store.[28] The Commissioner did, however, take into account as a mitigating factor the action by Mr Silby in attempting to find a replacement for his shift on Sunday, 1 May 2022 by using Facebook messenger. The Commissioner found that “there probably had been an informal arrangement prior to Ms Post being the store manager, that a number of staff used the Facebook message group to try to cover shifts”.[29] That finding is supported by the fact that the Team Leader who was working on 1 May 2022 saw Mr Silby’s Facebook message posted at 4:26am that morning and was able to bring it to the attention of Ms Post.[30] We consider that it was appropriate for the Commissioner to have regard to Mr Silby’s conduct in this regard as a mitigating factor. This was not a case in which an employee simply failed to turn up to work and did not make any attempt to obtain a replacement employee to cover his shift. It was not relevant for the Commissioner to consider the existence of any practice across the Burger Urge network or the stores for which Ms Matthews was responsible; the procedures and practices at the Dubbo store were relevant to Burger Urge’s decision to dismiss Mr Silby for failing to work his rostered shift on 1 May 2022 and not complying with the requirement to ring the store to provide notice of his unavailability. Further, there is no merit in the argument that the Commissioner erred by failing to attempt to arrange contact with Ms Matthews or seeking additional information from Ms Post. The Commissioner made findings of fact on the evidence adduced by both parties. That evidence addressed the issues in contest between the parties.
The Burger Urge Enterprise Agreement 2015 applied to Mr Silby during his employment with Burger Urge. Clause 6.1.3 of that enterprise agreement provides that Burge Urge has the right to dismiss an employee “without notice for conduct that justifies instant dismissal, including but not limited to … any failure to follow reasonable and lawful directions”. Not every failure to follow a reasonable and lawful direction will justify instant dismissal. Consider, for example, an employee who fails to comply with a reasonable and lawful direction to attend work on time by turning up 40 seconds late on one occasion. Such conduct could never justify instant dismissal. The Commissioner was correct, in our view, to conclude that Mr Silby’s failure to attend work for a single shift on 1 May 2022, coupled with his failure to ring the Dubbo store to provide notice of his unavailability on the day, did not justify Mr Silby’s summary dismissal nor did it give Burger Urge a valid reason to dismiss him. As the Commissioner found, Mr Silby had a good reason for not attending work on 1 May 2022 and he made some attempt, albeit through inappropriate means, to find a replacement employee for his shift on that day. There is no suggestion that Mr Silby had acted in this way in the past, or that he had any history of poor performance or conduct.
The Commissioner made express reference in his Decision to Mr Silby’s initial claim that he rang the store on the day and spoke with Ms Watson.[31] The Commissioner then had regard to the dates contained within the email provided by Ms Watson and Mr Silby’s subsequent acceptance that he did not call Ms Watson until Tuesday, 3 May 2022.[32] In exploring this issue during Mr Silby’s evidence, it was appropriate for the Commissioner to ask questions with a view to understanding why Mr Silby may have called Ms Watson on 3 May 2022. In the result, the Commissioner did not make a finding that Mr Silby was dishonest in his initial claim that he called the store on 1 May 2022. The Commissioner accepted Mr Silby’s concession that he called Ms Watson on 3 May 2022, not 1 May 2022.[33] There is no arguable error in relation to this finding by the Commissioner.
The Commissioner found that Mr Silby said words to the effect that “this is bullshit” during the investigation and before Mr Bryant informed him of his summary dismissal.[34] The Commissioner then concluded that “not much turns on the matter” because (a) Mr Bryant’s evidence was to the effect that Mr Silby would have been dismissed in any event, (b) saying words to the effect that “this is bullshit” was not a proper basis to warrant summary dismissal, and (c) Burger Urge’s case always “rested on the alleged gross misconduct of not communicating appropriately the non-attendance on 1 May, and the subsequent non-attendance”.[35] Further, contrary to Burger Urge’s submissions, it is apparent from the Commissioner’s reasons for Decision that he appreciated the fact that the investigation was still being undertaken when Mr Silby said “this is bullshit” and Mr Silby’s conduct in this regard is the reason why the usual process was not followed and a more in-depth investigation did not take place.[36]
The Commissioner had regard to the impact of Mr Silby’s failure to attend work for his rostered shift on 1 May 2022. In particular, the Commissioner found that it was “not desirable that another member of staff had to work overtime that day, however it could not be said that Mr Silby’s failure to attend had a dire effect on the business, such as the store being forced to close”.[37] There is no arguable error associated with these findings. There was no dispute that Ms Post, the new store Manager, ended up having to work to cover for Mr Silby’s absence and the stored remained open until closing time on 1 May 2022.[38] Contrary to Burger Urge’s submissions, the Commissioner did not find that the Dubbo store could be run by three staff members from opening time to closing time. The Commissioner was aware from Mr Silby’s evidence that “there would usually be three people on shift during the day time and more in the evening”.[39] Burger Urge submits that eight staff were required on the evening of Sunday, 1 May 2022, but only four staff were rostered due to significant staffing shortages. Mr Silby’s absence from work accounted for one of these shortages.[40] The other shortages were not caused by any conduct on Mr Silby’s part.
As to the alleged significant errors of fact associated with the calculation of $5,421.64 (plus superannuation) compensation awarded to Mr Silby, the Commissioner had regard to the evidence and submissions from both Mr Silby and Burger Urge in relation to the steps taken by Mr Silby to obtain alternative employment after his dismissal on 5 May 2022.[41] The Commissioner found that Mr Silby undertook efforts from 5 May 2022 to seek alternative employment.[42] Those efforts included, according to Mr Silby, applying for approximately 2-3 jobs per day at a range of places including KFC, McDonalds and various labouring jobs.[43] In the result, Mr Silby commenced full-time employment in a fast food outlet on 25 July 2022.[44] Burger Urge submitted to the Commissioner that the current employment market made it unlikely that Mr Silby took two months to find employment.[45] After considering the evidence and submissions in relation to this issue, the Commissioner was satisfied that Mr Silby took reasonable steps to mitigate his loss.[46] We are not persuaded that there is an arguable case of a significant error of fact in relation to the state of satisfaction reached by the Commissioner on this question. The fact that many jobs are available in a buoyant employment market does not necessarily mean that an individual employee who has just been summarily dismissed will obtain alternative employment quickly. The Commissioner had regard to relevant evidence and submissions before him in relation to this issue. We do not consider that the Commissioner’s finding was contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
Nor is there an arguable appealable error in the fact that the Commissioner (a) did not request evidence from Mr Silby regarding his “financial status or history of making applications for jobs” and (b) “made no consideration regarding Mr Silby’s access to JobSeeker payments”. Any social security or unemployment benefits received by Mr Silby in the period from his dismissal on 5 May 2022 until he took up his new job on 25 July 2022 are not “remuneration earned … from employment or other work” within the meaning of s.392(2)(e) of the Act and do not need to be deducted from any compensation awarded to Mr Silby.[47] Evidence was adduced by Mr Silby of his attempts to obtain alternative employment. Burger Urge could have sought an order for the production of documents from the Commissioner for documents evidencing or disclosing job applications made by Mr Silby or remuneration earned by him in the relevant period of time. There is no arguable error associated with the fact that the Commissioner did not, of his own motion, request or require the production of such documents.
We consider that the Commissioner applied orthodox principles in assessing whether Mr Silby was unfairly dismissed and calculating the compensation payable to him in respect of his unfair dismissal.
This is not a case where the legal principles applied by the Commissioner appear disharmonious when compared with other recent decisions dealing with similar matters. There is not a diversity of decisions at first instance so that guidance from an appellate bench is required. Nor does this appeal raise issues of general importance or general application.
Further, the Commissioner’s decision at first instance is not counter intuitive and does not manifest an injustice. Mr Silby failed to attend a single shift. He was summarily dismissed notwithstanding his good employment record, his reasonable excuse for not being able to work on 1 May 2022, and the fact that he made an effort, albeit not using the appropriate means, to find an alternative employee to cover for his shift. Mr Silby was awarded $5,421.64 (plus superannuation) in compensation. Factored into that award of compensation was a deduction of one week’s wages because Mr Silby “did not follow the procedure he had been trained in to alert the store manager and for his conduct in the course of the telephone call on 5 May 2022”,[48] the financial loss that Mr Silby incurred by reason of his unfair dismissal, and the steps taken by Mr Silby to obtain alternative employment commencing on 25 July 2022.[49]
For the reasons given, we do not consider that it would be in the public interest to grant Burger Urge permission to appeal.
Conclusion
We order that:
1. Permission to appeal is refused.
2. The stay order made by consent[50] ceases to operate with immediate effect.
3. Burger Urge must distribute the money held in the interest-bearing account to Mr Silby (after withholding applicable tax) and his superannuation fund.
VICE PRESIDENT
Appearances:
Mr N Bryant, Chief People Officer, appeared for the Appellant
Mr C Silby appeared for himself
Hearing details:
2022.
Microsoft Teams (Video).
18 November.
[1] [2022] FWC 2426
[2] PR746930
[3] Decision at [7]
[4] Decision at [10]
[5] Decision at [28]
[6] Decision at [11]
[7] Decision at [21] & [56]
[8] Decision at [24]
[9] Decision at [28]
[10] Decision at [25]
[11] Decision at [23] and [51]
[12] Decision at [60]-[64]
[13] Decision at [66]-[68]
[14] Decision at [46]
[15] Decision at [48]
[16] Decision at [52]-[53]
[17] Decision at [65]
[18] Decision at [70]
[19] Decision at [71]-[74]
[20] Decision at [79]-[90]
[21] This is so because on appeal the Commission has power to receive further evidence, pursuant to s.607(2); see Coal and Allied v AIRC (2000) 203 CLR 194 at [17] per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Hayne JJ
[22] (2011) 192 FCR 78 at [43]
[23] O’Sullivan v Farrer (1989) 168 CLR 210 per Mason CJ, Brennan, Dawson and Gaudron JJ; applied in Hogan v Hinch (2011) 85 ALJR 398 at [69] per Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ; Coal & Allied Mining Services Pty Ltd v Lawler and others (2011) 192 FCR 78 at [44] -[46]
[24] [2010] FWAFB 5343, 197 IR 266 at [27]
[25] Wan v AIRC (2001) 116 FCR 481 at [30]
[26] GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Makin[2010] FWAFB 5343 at [26]-[27], 197 IR 266; Lawrence v Coal & Allied Mining Services Pty Ltd t/as Mt Thorley Operations/Warkworth[2010] FWAFB 10089 at [28], 202 IR 388, affirmed on judicial review in Coal & Allied Mining Services Pty Ltd v Lawler (2011) 192 FCR 78; NSW Bar Association v Brett McAuliffe; Commonwealth of Australia represented by the Australian Taxation Office [2014] FWCFB 1663 at [28]
[27] Trustee for The MTGI Trust v Johnston [2016] FCAFC 140 at [82]
[28] Decision at [14], [51], [58] & [62]
[29] Decision at [63]
[30] Decision at [24]
[31] Decision at [11]
[32] Decision at [21] and [56]
[33] Decision at [56]
[34] Decision at [67]
[35] Decision at [68]
[36] Decision at [67]-[68] & [71]-[74]
[37] Decision at [69]
[38] Decision at [28]
[39] Decision at [27]
[40] Decision at [69]
[41] Decision at [84] & [88]
[42] Decision at [84]
[43] Ibid
[44] Decision at [82]
[45] Decision at [84]
[46] Decision at [88]
[47] McCulloch v Calvary Health Care Adelaide [2015] FWCFB 2267 at [32]-[35]
[48] Decision at [87]
[49] Decision at [82]-[90]
[50] PR746930
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR748306>
0
9
0