CGL Retail Services v Carmen Chapman
[2023] FWC 1651
•7 JULY 2023
| [2023] FWC 1651 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.120—Redundancy pay
CGL – Retail Services
v
Carmen Chapman
(C2023/3308)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT ANDERSON | ADELAIDE, 7 JULY 2023 |
Variation of redundancy pay – business development manager – redundancy – alternate job offer – whether ‘other acceptable employment’ – position offered materially different in substance – application dismissed – redundancy entitlement unaltered
On 9 June 2023 CGL Retail Services Pty Ltd (CGL Retail Services, the applicant or the employer) applied to the Commission under s 120 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) to vary the amount of redundancy pay payable to a former employee, Carmen Chapman (Ms Chapman, the respondent or the employee).
Ms Chapman was made redundant and her redundancy pay entitlement under the FW Act is twelve (12) weeks.
CGL Retail Services seeks to vary the amount of redundancy pay to nil on the ground that it obtained “other acceptable employment” which was not accepted.
Ms Chapman opposes the application.
Following a conference of the parties, directions were issued on 21 June 2023. Materials were filed by CGL Retail Services and Ms Chapman.
I heard the matter by video on 5 July 2023. Both parties were self-represented.
Ms Natassja Sanjay (Human Resources Director, CGL Retail Services) and Ms Chapman gave evidence. The evidence of each was reliable within their sphere of knowledge and recall. The facts are largely not in dispute.
Facts
CGL Retail Services
CGL Retail Services is part of the Clemenger Group. It provides field marketing services to clients on a project basis.
General Mills Australia Pty Ltd is a manufacturer and distributer of food products.
CGL Retail Services entered into a commercial agreement with General Mills to provide field marketing services for the preparation of on-shelf and aisle displays in retail stores of products manufactured and distributed by General Mills. This included the sale and display of those products in independent supermarkets in South Australia.
The agreement between CGL Retail Services and General Mills was time limited. It (or a relevant part of it dealing with independent supermarkets) concluded on 30 June 2023. It concluded because the services were put to tender and CGL Retail Services did not win the tender. It went to a competitor.
As a consequence of losing the tender, the employment of certain persons employed by CGL Retail Services came to an end by redundancy. Ms Chapman was one of those persons.
Ms Chapman’s employment
Ms Chapman is a resident of Adelaide.
Ms Chapman commenced employment in 2013 as a casual merchandiser. Over the decade that followed she became a part time sales executive and then a part time Business Development Manager. As a part time Business Development Manager Ms Chapman initially was employed (part time) to place the retail products of a client manufacturer (Proctor and Gamble) in retail stores (Woolworths and Coles). Subsequently, Ms Chapman was employed (part time) to place retail products of a different client manufacturer (General Mills) in other retail stores (independent supermarkets).
In August 2020 Ms Chapman was offered and accepted the position of full time Business Development Manager performing her immediately preceding role - placing retail products of General Mills in independent supermarkets within a designated geographical area (Adelaide and surrounding regions).
Under the terms of her employment contract, Ms Chapman was employed in the role only for the duration of the (General Mills) project.
Ms Chapman’s employment was governed by the Commercial Sales Award. She was paid over award rates. She was classified as a “commercial traveller” under that award.
A position description of Business Development Manager was incorporated into Ms Chapman’s employment contract. It read:[1]
“BDM JOB DESCRIPTION
JOB TITLE: Business Development Manager (BDM)
FUNCTION: Sales
OVERALL JOB OBJECTIVE (PURPOSE):
To sell and influence IGA retail accounts in an assigned geography with regard to account specific sales fundamentals. This includes selling in new distribution (whilst maintaining existing), pricing, helping accounts re-sell, shelving and merchandising across multiple brands and categories to deliver superior in-store presence enabling General Mills to win at the first moment of truth.
RESPONSIBILITIES:
1. Sell volume, distribution, shelving, and merchandising in support of Head Office activity or as outlined in the Cycle Brief and Promotion Schedules.
2. Implement new initiatives and planograms, to build category value/sales via loyalty tailored solutions.
3. Understand/Develop Key Account specific business plans based on overall objectives for General Mills and the Customer.
4. Maintain appropriate coverage disciplines to ensure SDO objectives are achieved within cycle brief schedules.
5. Manage in-store conditions so we achieve competitive and superior in -store presence on CBD fundamentals.
6. Monitor/Report competitive activity as required.
7. Continually build understanding and expertise of category brand dynamics.
8. Continually work to build individual and organizational capacity and capability.
9. Identify and develop appropriate action plans to counter competitor brand activity.”
This position description applied at the time of redundancy.
Ms Chapman was not the only employee working on the General Mills project. There were other Business Development Mangers (in other States) and also merchandisers (including in South Australia).
Redundancy
Upon CGL Retail Services losing the General Mills contract, the position Ms Chapman held became redundant.
The redundancy was to take effect from 30 June 2023. Ms Chapman was given five weeks’ notice and required to work out that notice.
On 26 May 2023 Ms Sanjay and other CGL Retail Services officers spoke to Ms Chapman (who was in New Zealand) about the redundancy and the employer’s desire to keep her in the company and find her alternative work.
Ms Chapman had no particular desire to leave the business but also immediately began looking at, and applying for, positions advertised in the wider labour market.
Offer of alternate role
CGL Retail Services identified that in light of a contract it had to merchandise Coles stores, it was establishing five roles nationally to undertake those services. Those roles (part of its ‘Coles Relay Team’) had not yet been filled, and it considered that one should be offered to Ms Chapman.
On 30 May 2023 the employer offered the position of Coles Relay Tactical Lead to Ms Chapman. The employer requested a response by 1 June 2023.[2]
The job description attached to the offer was:[3]
“Coles Relay
Tactical Lead Position Profile
| Description | · The Tactical Lead is a senior field merchandiser with a broad skill-base suitable to ensure compliant implementation, proactive store and stakeholder engagement, and expert validation. |
| Specialities | · Provides a level of practical leadership, accountability, and mobility which allows this team member to support and resolve issues across an area of stores, sometimes at short notice · Can take ownership of an implementation and the supervision of multiple merchandisers where required, as per instructions, and regardless of base resource provider · Uses their experience and capability to work directly with, and provide quality feedback, through to the Field Services Central Team |
| Capability | · Understands, aligns their intentions, and consistently follows and implements Coles Relay and Coles Store standards · Able to proactively coach and validate standards effectively · Can communicate at a sufficient level to understand new processes and provide quality feedback to the Coles Relay Central Field Team on tasks or trials · Confident to engage with stakeholders at a professional level and manage these relationships appropriately · Uses the tools available at the level required · Is consistently well presented, punctual, and available for work |
| Mobility | · Allocated a base store · The support area is 30km radius from the base central store · Attendance at a store within the allocated support area is regarded as travelling to work and does not incur travel charges, except: o movement between stores during the same day does incur travel charges (travel time and km allowance) equivalent to the travel distance and time required between the two stores · Attendance at a store outside the allocated base area incurs travel charges starting from the 30km radius from the base store. · There may be occasions where travel may be required over multiple days in which case accommodation may be provided |
| Engagement | · Expectations of Monday to Friday full business hours availability during normal business weeks · Reduced availability requirements during blackout periods (as advised) · Booking of leave to be conducted well in advance of requirement to support resource planning · 3 month probation prior to non-casual tenure · Availability of a reliable form or transport with appropriate licenses |
| Reporting Line | · Default managed and task allocated through the provider · Dotted-line through to the Coles Relay Central Field Services team where required |
| Productivity | · All tasks will be allocated, with normal tasks at a base store supported by the Tactical Lead in normal circumstances. · Where the Tactical Lead is requested to travel to another store or take on other tasks, their normal tasks at the base store should be back-filled by another merchandiser |
On 31 May 2023 Ms Chapman requested:[4]
“details of my redundancy package, to be outlined in writing by Thursday 1st of June, so that I am able to make an informed decision regarding the alternative role that has been given within the proposed deadline?”
The employer replied:[5]
“Hi Carmen,
Thanks for your email.
As discussed on Friday, redundancy was a last resort if we were not able to find you suitable redeployment.
As the CRT role on offer is a reasonable and suitable alternative, taking into consideration your location, remuneration, skills and competencies, redundancy would not apply.
If you need, we are happy to give you till COB Friday to consider this offer. I have attached the position profile again for your reference.
Best,
Tash”
Later on 31 May 2023 CGL Retail Services also indicated to Ms Chapman that whilst it considered the Coles Tactical Lead position to be a currently available suitable alternative, it may also have other options, and requested her updated resume to explore with clients.
Dispute over alternate offer
On the afternoon of 31 May 2023, and having read the job description for the proposed role, Ms Chapman wrote to the employer indicating that she was “struggling to understand the similarity between the two roles” and that she considered “the nature of the work is completely different”. Ms Chapman added:[6]
“I understand and very much appreciate the effort that has gone into trying to redeploy me within the business, I have looked at the Fairwork Act and believe that if this new position being created is the only role I can be offered I should be entitled to redundancy pay, as the role being proposed is not an acceptable alternative to my current skill set and responsibilities - especially given my 10 years of service and loyalty to the business.”
On 2 June 2023 Ms Sanjay and Ms Chapman discussed the issue by telephone. In light of Ms Chapman having earlier indicated that she did not consider the offered role an acceptable alternative, Ms Sanjay had prepared, for her own benefit, a tabular comparison. It read:[7]
Key Accountabilities
CRT Tactical Lead
General Mills BDM
Sales
Soliciting orders
N
Y
Negotiation
Overcoming objections in store, negotiating additional space
Y
Y
Shelf Merchandising
Ensuring shelf is as per brief from client or planogram from store
Y
Y
Display Merchandising
Execution of in store displays - ends, off location displays and anything involving Point of sales materials
Y
Y
Auditing
Undertaking complete audit of store based on client briefs
Y
Y
Reporting
Accurately capturing in store intelligence, task completion and other data as requested by the client
Y
Y
Training
Training of other team members or store staff
Y
N
Salary
Unchanged
Same
Same
The 2 June 2023 discussion between Ms Sanjay and Ms Chapman did not resolve the issue. The offer remained unacceptable to Ms Chapman. She maintained that she was entitled to redundancy pay. Ms Sanjay advised that as the employer considered the offer to be acceptable alternative employment, it would apply to the Commission to have the redundancy pay entitlement reduced to nil.
Following the discussion, Ms Sanjay wrote to Ms Chapman setting out the employer’s position. The letter confirmed the redundancy, that it would take effect with the five weeks’ notice already advised, that the employer considered the offer acceptable alternative employment, and would apply to the Commission to have the redundancy pay entitlement reduced to nil. The letter included the tabular comparison that Ms Sanjay had prepared.
CGL Retail Services made this application on 9 June 2023.
In light of the 2 June 2023 stalemate, Ms Chapman pursued her search in the labour market. She preferred to remain working with the independent supermarket sector. She accepted a position with the competitor to CGL Retail Services which had won that tender.
On 9 June 2023 Ms Chapman advised a CGL Retail Services field manager of that fact.[8]
To date, and although her redundancy has taken effect but given these proceedings, CGL Retail Services has not made a redundancy payment to Ms Chapman.
Submissions
CGL Retail Services submit that the redundancy pay should be varied for the following reasons:
- the alternate position offered was “other acceptable employment”. It had comparable duties and responsibilities, utilised Ms Chapman’s skill set, was on the same salary, was similarly full time and had comparable seniority, location, job security and continuity of service;
- the employer made the offer with genuine intent to keep Ms Chapman employed in the business; and
- it is fair to vary the redundancy pay to nil as Ms Chapman caused any further negotiation or search for alternatives within CGL Retail Services to be abandoned prior to her notice period exhausting when she accepted employment with a competitor business.
Mr Chapman submits that the redundancy pay entitlement should not be reduced because:
- the position offered was not “other acceptable employment”;
- the duties to be performed were materially different, requiring lesser discretion, skill and responsibility;
- the position offered was, in practice, less senior despite its title, and objectively a demotion because it would have returned her to performing basic merchandising tasks performed when first employed;
- the position offered did not match Ms Chapman’s skill set as it had developed nor her career path; and
- in the alternative, even if the position offered was “other acceptable employment”, it would be unfair to reduce the amount of redundancy pay to nil because her obtaining new employment with a different business was a rational response to CGL Retail Services making an application to the Commission. By doing so, the employer indicated that the dispute would be litigated, therefore bringing the prospects of negotiation of further alternatives to an end.
Consideration
Section 120 of the FW Act provides:
“120 Variation of redundancy pay for other employment or incapacity to pay
(1) This section applies if:
(a) an employee is entitled to be paid an amount of redundancy pay by the
employer because of section 119; and(b) the employer:
(i) obtains other acceptable employment for the employee; or
(ii) cannot pay the amount.
(2) On application by the employer, the FWC may determine that the amount of
redundancy pay is reduced to a specified amount (which may be nil) that the FWC
considers appropriate.(3) The amount of redundancy pay to which the employee is entitled under section 119 is the reduced amount specified in the determination.”
CGL Retail Services has standing to make the application. It is a national system employer. It was at all relevant times Ms Chapman’s employer.
It is a jurisdictional precondition to considering an application under s 120 that the employee is entitled to be paid an amount of redundancy pay under s 119.
This is not in dispute. Ms Chapman worked for CGL Retail Services in excess of ten years. Under the terms of the FW Act (National Employment Standards) the employer was required to pay Ms Chapman twelve weeks redundancy pay (in addition to the notice given). None of the exclusions or limits in ss 121 or 123 apply.
CGL Retail Services does not seek to vary the redundancy amount payable on the ground of incapacity (s 120(1)(b)(ii)). It does so on the ground that it obtained “other acceptable employment” (s 120(1)(b)(i)).
There is no doubt that CGL Retail Services “obtained” the alternative employment for Ms Chapman. It made an offer of the new position in its business such that Ms Chapman could have accepted the same.
The matter in issue is whether the position of Coles Relay Tactical Lead offered to Ms Chapman was “other acceptable employment”.
Applicable principles
This question is to be determined objectively.[9] That the applicant employer considered it so does not make it so, and vice versa. As noted by a full bench in Australian Chamber of Manufacturers and Derole Nominees Pty Ltd:[10]
“What constitutes “acceptable alternative employment” is a matter to be determined, as we have said, on an objective basis. Alternative employment accepted by the employee (and its corollary, alternative employment acceptable to the employee) cannot be an appropriate application of the words because that meaning would give an employee an unreasonable and uncontrollable opportunity to reject the new employment in order to receive redundancy pay; the exemption provision would be without practical effect.
Yet, the use of the qualification “acceptable” is a clear indication that it is not any employment which complies but that which meets the relevant standard. In our opinion there are obvious elements of such a standard including the work being of like nature; the location being not unreasonably distant; the pay arrangements complying with award requirements. There will probably be others.”
The onus of establishing that the alternative employment was acceptable rests with the applicant employer[11]. It is a serious step for the Commission to make an order to limit or remove an employee’s statutory entitlement to redundancy payments.[12]
In order to establish whether alternative employment obtained by the employer is acceptable, regard is to be had to the totality of the circumstances including (non-exhaustively) factors such as pay levels, hours of work, seniority, fringe benefits, workload, job security, location and travelling time.[13] No one matter is determinative.[14]
Acceptable employment does not mean identical employment; however, it has been held by the Commission that:
“…the objective test of acceptability appears to be that the alternative work bears a sufficient comparability to the original work and is not unreasonably removed from the employee’s original duties, skills set, qualifications, experience and other terms and conditions of employment. The test is not whether or not the employee is capable of carrying out the new employment as such, it is whether there is sufficient correlation between the relevant indicia of the current work and the alternative employment as proposed.”[15]
Further, employees should not unreasonably refuse offers of alternative employment merely because they wish to access the benefits of redundancy pay.[16]
If the Commission is satisfied that acceptable alternative employment has been obtained, a discretion then arises (but only then) to reduce all or some of the redundancy pay amount having regard to the relevant circumstances.[17]
Other acceptable employment?
I now consider whether the position of Coles Relay Tactical Lead was “other acceptable employment”.
I take into account the position description of that role, as well as the position description of the role Ms Chapman held. I also take into account Ms Chapman’s evidence about the responsibilities and skills undertaken when performing the role of Business Development Manager, and the evidence generally.
I have regard to but exercise some caution with the two comparisons in evidence prepared by the employer (A1 Attachment C and A1 Attachment J). Firstly, they are not word for word reflections of the job descriptions. They compare the job descriptions as expressed and understood by Ms Sanjay based in part on her discussion with Ms Chapman’s managers. They do not input the views of Ms Chapman as to how her role was performed. Secondly, they identify a duty or function and whether that duty or function was or is required to be performed. However, they provide no quantitative nor qualitative assessment of whether a particular duty or function was a minor or major part of the role.
I now consider specific factors relevant to the evaluative assessment the Commission is required to make.
Remuneration
The Coles Relay Tactical Lead position was offered on the same salary and remuneration.
Hours of work
The Coles Relay Tactical Lead position was offered as a full time role with comparable hours of work.
Job security
The position Ms Chapman held had only limited job security. It was only secure whilst the employer held a contract with General Mills. Similarly, the Coles Relay Tactical Lead was project specific in that it applied only whilst a contract to provide services to Coles existed. Job security between the two roles was broadly comparable.
Location
Both roles were performed or to be performed from Adelaide. However, the geographical coverage of the role held by Ms Chapman was greater than the offered position. Whereas as Business Development Manager working with independent supermarkets Ms Chapman covered Adelaide and some regional areas (a 50km radius from Adelaide) the offered position was Adelaide based only and then only a portion of the Adelaide metropolitan area.
Retail stores serviced
As a consequence of the differential geographical coverage of the roles, the number of retail stores serviced differed between the two roles. In Ms Chapman’s role she serviced up to 85 stores. These stores operated under multiple independent supermarket banners, and in many instances were separately owned. In contrast the number of Coles stores to be serviced within the offered position was considerably fewer and in all cases owned by the one business.
Seniority
I take into account that within CGL Retail Services Ms Chapman would have, had she accepted the offered position, been regarded by the employer as equally senior evidenced by a common salary and that both roles had some leadership quality attached to them (one was described as a “Manager”, the other as a “Lead”). However, having regard to the more limited number of stores serviced, the fact that the stores to be serviced under the offered position were owned by a single entity and my findings (below) concerning the duties and responsibilities (in particular the absence of sales functions and a material reduction in the negotiation authority over merchandising options with store owners and managers) I conclude that the offered position was somewhat less senior.
Duties and functions
In a broad sense, the position held by Ms Chapman and the offered position both concerned the marketing and merchandising of manufactured food products in retail supermarkets. Both roles were part of the Clemenger Field Marketing division.
However, beyond this broad canvass, significant and material differences existed.
The position of Business Development Manager involved sales; that is, the task of negotiating with a retail store to carry a particular food product manufactured by the client such that the store would be encouraged to purchase the product and then put it on display for on-sale to consumers. This was not a minor or incidental part of the role of Business Development Manager. It was a primary feature of that role. Aside from Ms Chapman’s evidence (which I accept) to this effect, the position description attached to her employment contract stated as much. Her role was described as:[18]
“JOB TITLE: Business Development Manager
FUNCTION: Sales”
Hence, the position held by Ms Chapman both contractually and in practice involved both sales and merchandising on behalf of the client manufacturer, and each to a material degree.
In contrast, the offered position did not include a sales function. It was solely a merchandising role. Its position description describes the role as a “senior field merchandiser”. No reference in the position description is made to sales. It is not in dispute that it was not a sales oriented role.
Further evidence to this effect can be gleaned from the fact that the award classification the employer applied to the Business Development Manager position held by Ms Chapman was “Commercial Traveller” whereas the employer indicated at the hearing that the classification under the award which it considered appropriate to apply to the offered role was “Merchandiser”.
The relevant award definitions of these terms highlight the difference in positions and in particular the absence of sales responsibilities:
A “commercial traveller’ is defined by the award as:
“a person employed, substantially away from the employer’s place of business, for the purpose of soliciting orders for, or selling articles, goods, wares or merchandise or material for wholesale sale, for resale, or for use in or in connection with the production and/or preparation and/or distribution of commodities for sale by the customer.”
A “merchandiser” is defined by the award as:
“a person who is employed away from, or substantially away from, the employer’s place of business in promoting the employer’s products, re-ordering stock and preparing display units and gondola ends, and who in conjunction with these principal functions may solicit orders as a minor feature of the employee’s work.
A further and significant and material difference between the two roles is the level of negotiating authority both with respect to sales and merchandising.
The absence of a sales function in the offered position necessarily meant that there was no negotiating authority with supermarket owners or managers on the sale of client products.
Further, the evidence clearly supports a conclusion that the scope to negotiate the merchandising of a client product under the redundant position compared to the offered position was substantially greater. The evidence is that working in Coles stores, the positioning of products is pre-determined. There would be no store by store negotiation under the offered position. Merchandising would involve professionally setting up a display to a predetermined brief (‘planogram’) which set out the position in the store and form of display. In contrast, Ms Chapman had a much greater level of responsibility for negotiating the amount of space to be allocated, the location of the client products within the independent supermarket stores and the form of display.
This difference in negotiating responsibility over merchandising was in part a product of the fact that the position made redundant involved dealing with independently owned and managed supermarkets whereas the offered position concerned a singular owned and nationally operating business. Whilst I take into account that some of the independent supermarkets were also commonly owned under a singular trading name such that not every independent store serviced involved an individual negotiation and that in those instances a ‘planogram’ of sorts applied to stores within a singular trading banner, there was nonetheless a material difference in the negotiation of merchandising.
These differences in sales and negotiating responsibility are weighty considerations in determining this matter. They are weighty because they affected in a meaningful way the skills and responsibility attached to each role. The redundant role required a considerably higher degree of skill and responsibility. The offered position materially less so.
I take into account that the offered position involved an element of training other staff (such as less experienced merchandisers) whereas the position held generally did not. I do not consider this a substantial difference given that Ms Chapman did, on one occasion, train others in her current role. Whilst the offered position potentially involved more group work or interaction, the position held was not, contractually at least, autonomous. I do not consider that the training or team interaction element of the offered position weighs towards a finding that it was not an acceptable alternative.
Conclusion
Taking into account the totality of circumstances, including the aforementioned factors, I do not conclude that the offered position was “other acceptable employment”. It was a role that had some superficial similarity but in substance was a materially different position with lower level of responsibility and a lower level of required skill.
Despite remuneration, hours and job security being comparable and location somewhat so, there is not a “sufficient comparability”[19] between the positions in substance to conclude that the offered role was “other acceptable employment”.
In making this finding, I observe that the offered position was put to Ms Chapman by CGL Retail Services in good faith and in a genuine attempt to keep her in the company after ten years of service and to correlate as best it could an available position to her skill set. Ms Chapman acknowledged as much in her email to her employer on 31 May 2023 and in her submissions to the Commission.
Disposition
As the position obtained by CGL Retail Services was not “other acceptable employment” within the meaning of the FW Act, the discretion to consider whether the redundancy pay entitlement should be reduced is not enlivened.
Accordingly the entitlement Ms Chapman has to twelve weeks of redundancy pay stands unaltered.
The application is dismissed. An order to this effect is issued in conjunction with the publication of this decision.[20]
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
Ms T Sanjay of and on behalf of CGL-Retail Services
Ms C Chapman on her own behalf
Hearing details:
Adelaide (by video)
5 July 2023
[1] A1 Attachment A (Annexure A) and A1 Attachment B
[2] A1 Attachment E
[3] A1 Attachment D
[4] A1 Attachment F
[5] A1 Attachment G
[6] A1 Attachment H
[7] A1 Attachment J
[8] A1 Attachment L
[9] Oscar Oscar Group Services Pty Ltd v Lees[2012] FWA 3901, [18]
[10] (1990) 140 IR 123, [128] cited in Spotless Services Australia Limited t/as Alliance Catering [2016] FWC 4505
[11] Re Target Retail Agreement 2001, PR916204, 4 April 2002 at 6
[12] Clothing and Allied Trades Union v Hot Tuna (1988) 27 IR 226
[13] Re Clerks Salaried Staffs (Agriculture Award) 1999, Print S1216, 24 November 1999
[14] GCo Electrical Pty Ltd [2018] FWC 4342
[15] Von Bibra Robina Autovillage Pty Ltd [2007] AIRC 397 (16 May 2007), [26]
[16] UW v Tontine Fibres [2007] AIRCFB 1016; Spotless Services Australia Limited [2013] FWC 4484
[17] Re Clerks Salaried Staffs (Agriculture Award) 1999, Print S1216
[18] A1 Attachment B
[19] Von Bibra Robina Autovillage Pty Ltd [2007] AIRC 397 (16 May 2007), [26]
[20] PR764028
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR764027>
1
6
0