Christopher Carter v Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd

[2020] FWC 4348

[2020] FWC 4348

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.526—Stand down

Christopher Carter
v
Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd
(C2020/2566)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BINET PERTH, 25 SEPTEMBER 2020

Application to deal with a dispute involving stand down.

[1] On 15 April 2020 Mr Christopher John Carter (Mr Carter) filed an application (UFD Application) with the Fair Work Commission (FWC) pursuant to section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) alleging he was unfairly dismissed by Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd (APG).

[2] On 21 April 2020, Mr Carter filed an application (Stand Down Application) with the FWC pursuant to section 526 of FW Act to deal with a stand down dispute with APG.

[3] Both applications were allocated to my Chambers and on 13 May 2020 the parties attended a conciliation conference before me. The issues in dispute could not be resolved. On 20 May 2020 Mr Carter informed the FWC that he wished to discontinue the UFD Application.

[4] In light of the above, the Stand Down Application was listed for a Hearing in Perth at 10:00am, Thursday 20 August 2020.

[5] Directions for the filing of materials in advance of the Hearing were issued to the parties on 3 June 2020 (Directions).

[6] At the Hearing Mr Carter appeared on his own behalf and Ms Anne Reynolds, in house Corporate Counsel for APG (Ms Reynolds) appeared on behalf of APG.

[7] The following witnesses gave written and oral evidence on behalf of Mr Carter:

a. Mr Carter

b. Ms Nikki Hutchinson   A former sales representative for APG

c. Mr Gavin King   A former sales representative for APG

d. Mr Peter Coupland   A client of APG

e. Mr Chris Holiday   A client of APG

[8] Ms Reynolds gave written and oral evidence on behalf of APG. Ms Reynolds is the wife of the sole director of APG, Mr Stephen Campbell. The business is owned by a family trust. 1

[9] At the Hearing Mr Carter identified a number of other witnesses that he had wished to call. These included Mr Trevor Berlemon, APG State Manager WA/SA (Mr Berlemon), Mr Ali Tiba a sales representative (Mr Tiba) who commenced employment with APG around the time Mr Carter was stood down and the warehouse manager responsible for managing stock levels in Western Australia. Mr Carter says he felt prevented from calling these witnesses and properly prosecuting his case due to correspondence he received from Ms Reynolds on 9 June 2020 in response to a request by him for a copy of his staff appraisal (June Letter). The request was made in the context of Mr Carter gathering evidence to be filed pursuant to the Directions issued by my Chambers on 3 June 2020.

[10] In the June Letter Ms Reynolds stated inter alia:

“I am not required to provide this information nor is anyone else at APG authorised to provide you with information or allocate time to this.

…

I put you on notice of the following:

1. You have obligations of confidence to APG at law and under your LOA. This includes not using confidential information for any purpose which is contrary to APGs interests or in any action against APG.

2. If you contact APG employees to obtain information etc you will be inducing breach of contract as they also have obligations of confidence to APG and are not authorised to assist you.

…

4. …it should not be necessary for you to call APG customers as witnesses and any attempt to do so could be considered vexatious and result in APG being able to claim legal costs from you.

Please note, I do not want to be rude but I will not be answering any further correspondence from you, I do not think you have a claim and I am not going to allocate any more time to this.”

[11] Mr Carter is a self-represented party without legal training or representation. He explained that, as a consequence of his stand down and termination, he is not in a financial position to risk incurring legal costs. I am satisfied that he could reasonably feel intimidated by the correspondence sent by Ms Reynolds and feel prevented from calling relevant witnesses to corroborate his own evidence.

[12] My observations of Mr Carter during the proceedings and in his correspondence with Chambers lead me to assess him as a credible witness. In contrast Ms Reynolds appeared argumentative and evasive. Despite having access as corporate counsel to relevant evidence and witnesses she chose not to call any witnesses or to tender documents (such as timesheets or stock levels) to corroborate her evidence. This is notwithstanding that given her location in Queensland and restrictions on travel, important aspects of the evidence could only have been of a hearsay nature. Mr Carter’s witnesses on the whole appeared to give their evidence with honesty and candour. In all these circumstances where their evidence has conflicted, I have preferred the evidence of Mr Carter and his witnesses over that of Ms Reynolds.

Background

[13] APG is a national importer and distributor of vehicle parts which are predominantly sold to the crash repair sector. The Head Office is based in Queensland and the company has traded for more than 20 years, employing approximately 200 employees. 2

[14] Mr Carter began employment with APG on 17 October 2017, in the role of State Sales Manager (WA). His letter of appointment states that his employment is covered by the Vehicle Manufacturing Repair Services and Retail Award 2010. 3

[15] His role was to establish the WA Distribution Centre from scratch following the earlier purchase of an empty warehouse in June 2017. Mr Carter says that having been in the industry for more than 20 years he was able to provide a database of approximately 1630 customers, including 330 accident repair businesses with whom he had strong relationships.    For the first seven months he worked from his home office utilising his own office equipment, such as his printer, LCD monitor, scanner and internet access. 4

[16] Mr King commenced employment as a sales representative reporting to Mr Carter in September 2018. 5

[17] The WA premises opened to the public in October 2018 and was generally hitting targets up until September 2019. In his role as State Sales Manager, Mr Carter had individual sales territories which made up approximately 45% of the branch's monthly revenue. 6

[18] From October 2019 Mr Carter’s relationship with his supervisor Mr Berlemon deteriorated. Mr Berlemon began tracking Mr Carter’s movements and remotely reading the contents of messages, pictures and calls on Mr Carter’s company phone. Mr Carter says he complained of harassment to the owner of APG but his concerns were not addressed. 7

[19] On 6 November 2019 Ms Hutchinson commenced as a sales representative reporting to Mr Carter. Shortly after her commencement she was told to report to Mr Berlemon, who was based in South Australia, rather than Mr Carter. Ms Hutchinson says that Mr Berlemon made many derogatory comments about Mr Carter to her which she believed to be unfounded. In January 2020 she decided she did not like the workplace culture and tendered her resignation. 8

[20] In March 2020 Mr King was demoted to the role of parts interpreter after undergoing a “sales personality test” which APG claimed indicated that he was not suited to a sales role. Approximately a week later he was issued with a first and final warning for forwarding a customer list to his private email account to print the document. He explained at the time that he did so because he could not access the information using company software but the warning was issued nevertheless. 9

[21] On 23 March 2020 Mr Carter was invited to attend a meeting later the same day with a number of members of the APG management team which he was informed “could result in the termination of his employment.”  10

[22] At the meeting Mr Carter was asked why he had emailed documents on two occasions to his personal email address. Once in June 2019 and once in March 2020. Mr Carter says that he explained that the first document in question was sent to his personal email with permission from Mr Glover (Queensland State Manager), so that he could utilise his larger screen in his home office to view a large spreadsheet with numerous tabs. On the second occasion he says he utilised his home office to print two columns of a spreadsheet to save driving 38 km to print the document in the Welshpool office and then driving back to Wanneroo to his first call.  11

[23] After an adjournment of the meeting Mr Carter was informed that he would be issued with a first and final warning. He says that such a warning was completely inconsistent with the practices of members of the management team of sending multiple business documents to Mr Carter’s personal email account. Nor was it consistent with the fact that for the first few months of his employment he was required to use his own equipment in his own home office to conduct APG business because APG did not yet have office facilities established in Western Australia. 12

[24] According to Ms Reynolds from January 2020 the supply of parts to the business became increasingly adversely impacted by reduced production in its Asia based factories and by delays in transport caused by the evolving COVID19 epidemic.

[25] Ms Reynolds says that in order to reduce business costs and the risk of transmission on or around 25 March 2020:

a. Company travel was cancelled.

b. Training initiatives were suspended.

c. Discretionary bonuses were withheld.

d. New hiring was suspended.

e. Marketing initiatives were cancelled.

f. Deliveries were reduced to once daily.

g. Staff able to work from home were directed to do so.

[26] Following the 24 March 2020 announcements by the Prime Minister APG decided to close its offices nationally to visitors and to limit the number of employees in its offices. 13

[27] At 3pm on Thursday 25 March 2020 Mr Carter was called to a meeting with Mr Berlemon and handed a letter informing him that he was stood down without pay effective immediately for a period expected to be no less than three months because he could “no longer do useful work.” He was informed by Mr Berlemon that all his entitlements (including annual leave) were frozen, and that he was to return all company property (car, mobile phone, laptop, credit card etc).  14

[28] Considering that the business had been operating as usual, despite the coronavirus outbreak, Mr Carter says that he was confused about the grounds for the stand down. A new sales representative who reported to him had commenced only a week earlier and another commenced the week he was stood down.  15

[29] On the same day Mr King was also informed he was stood down without pay on the grounds that there was no useful work for him to do. He requested to be able to access his accrued annual leave and this was denied. He says he was extremely surprised by the stand down because business had been operating as per normal other than that one of the other parts interpreters was working from home. 16

[30] Of the 14 APG employees in Western Australia Mr King and Mr Carter were the only employees who were told that they were ‘stood down’. The other sales representatives and parts interpreters continued to work.

[31] On 15 April 2020, the same day as Mr Carter filed the UFD Application, Mr King contacted APG again seeking to access his annual leave entitlements and was told he could access them only if he resigned.  17

[32] On 21 April 2020 at 9:30am Mr Carter filed the Stand Down Application.

[33] On 21 April 2020 Mr Carter was informed that his position was redundant and that his employment would end on 21 April 2020. He was paid in lieu of notice and received severance pay as well as his accrued entitlements including those accrued during the period he was stood down. 18

[34] Sometime before Monday 18 May 2020, Mr King was informed that he was eligible for job keeper and was asked to return to work. He returned to work on Monday 18 May 2020 and shortly thereafter discovered an email to staff members directing them not to talk to any stood down employees. Mr King believed this email was not in good faith and decided to resign from his employment with APG effective Wednesday 20 May 2020.  19

[35] Mr Carter submits that he was not lawfully stood down during the period from 25 March 2020 until the termination of his employment on 21 April 2020 (Stand Down Period) and seeks an order for his unpaid wages and commission.

Relevant Legislation

[36] Section 524 of the FW Act provides that:

“Employer may stand down employees in certain circumstances

(1) An employer may, under this subsection, stand down an employee during a period in which the employee cannot usefully be employed because of one of the following circumstances:

(a) industrial action (other than industrial action organised or engaged in by the employer);

(b) a breakdown of machinery or equipment, if the employer cannot reasonably be held responsible for the breakdown;

(c) a stoppage of work for any cause for which the employer cannot reasonably be held responsible.”

(2) However, an employer may not stand down an employee under subsection (1) during a period in which the employee cannot usefully be employed because of a circumstance referred to in that subsection if:

(a) an enterprise agreement, or a contract of employment, applies to the employer and the employee; and

(b) the agreement or contract provides for the employer to stand down the employee during that period if the employee cannot usefully be employed during that period because of that circumstance.

Note 1: If an employer may not stand down an employee under subsection (1), the employer may be able to stand down the employee in accordance with the enterprise agreement or the contract of employment.

Note 2: An enterprise agreement or a contract of employment may also include terms that impose additional requirements that an employer must meet before standing down an employee (for example requirements relating to consultation or notice).

(3) If an employer stands down an employee during a period under subsection (1), the employer is not required to make payments to the employee for that period

[37] The parties agree that no enterprise agreement applied to Mr Carter’s employment. The Employment Contract and the relevant Modern Award do not contain any stand down provisions.

[38] Section 526 of the FW Act sets out how the FWC may deal with a dispute about the operation of section 524 as follows:

“526 FWC may deal with a dispute about the operation of this Part

(1) The FWC may deal with a dispute about the operation of this Part.

(2) The FWC may deal with the dispute by arbitration.

Note: The FWC may also deal with a dispute by mediation or conciliation, or by making a recommendation or expressing an opinion (see subsection 595(2)).

(3) The FWC may deal with the dispute only on application by any of the following:

(a) an employee who has been, or is going to be, stood down under subsection 524(1) (or purportedly under subsection 524(1));

(b) an employee in relation to whom the following requirements are satisfied:

(i) the employee has made a request to take leave to avoid being stood down under subsection 524(1) (or purportedly under subsection 524(1));

(ii) the employee’s employer has authorised the leave

(c) an employee organisation that is entitled to represent the industrial interests of an employee referred to in paragraph (a) or (b);

(d) an inspector.

(4) In dealing with the dispute, the FWC must take into account fairness between the parties concerned.”

[39] Mr Carter filed the Stand Down Application at 9:30am on 21 April 2020. On the same day he was informed that his last day of employment would be 21 April 2020. I am satisfied that at the time Mr Carter filed the Stand Down Application he had standing to make the Stand Down Application in his capacity as an employee who has been stood down or purportedly stood down under subsection 524(1) of the FW Act.

[40] Mr Carter’s employment with APG ceased on 21 April 2020. However, this application retains utility because a finding in this matter would allow him to commence proceedings to recover his unpaid wages and commission during the period he was ‘stood down’.

[41] Essentially there are three requirements for a stand-down to be valid:

a. one or more of the three circumstances specified in s 524(1)(a) to (c) must exist (Circumstances Requirement);

b. it must be the case that the relevant employee “cannot usefully be employed” (No Useful Work Requirement); and

c. the fact that the employee “cannot usefully be employed” must arise “because of” the relevant circumstance (Causation Requirement).

[42] APG submit that each of the requirements of section 524(1) of the FW Act were satisfied during the Stand Down Period. Namely that Mr Carter could not be usefully employed between 26 March 2020 and 21 April 2020 because a stoppage of work for a cause for which APG could not reasonably be held responsible.

Was there a stoppage of work for the purposes of section 524(1)(a) of the FW Act?

[43] What constitutes a stoppage of work for the purposes of section 524(1) of the FW Act was considered by Deputy President Anderson in Ryan La Plume v Thomas Foods International Pty Limited t/a Thomas Foods International 20 where he said:

“For the aforementioned reasons, what constitutes a “stoppage of work” in section 524 should not be so broadly construed as to include a mere downturn in business activity nor be so narrowly applied as to require the entire cessation of business activity. The statutory phrase is a stoppage of work, not a stoppage of the business. For there to be a stoppage of work some defined business activity with respect to which work is performed needs to cease, but not the cessation of business activity entirely.” [Footnotes omitted]

[44] A mere reduction in available work can not constitute a stoppage of work. This would go against the ordinary definition of a ‘stoppage’ as required by the principles of statutory interpretation. Such an interpretation would result in a perverse outcome where section 524 of the FW Act could be applied so liberally as to deprive employees of their fundamental entitlement to be paid when they are ready willing and able to work in accordance with their contract of employment. 21

[45] Mr Carter submits that no stoppage of work occurred.

[46] APG concede that it “continued to open for trade” and that it “continued to operate” throughout the period in which Mr Carter was purportedly stood down albeit in a manner which was different.  22

[47] APG say that it was supply side considerations, in particular the decrease in supply of product manufactured in its factories in Asia and the delays in receiving product, which drove the decision to make stand downs. Ms Reynolds asserts that as a result of supply issues the Western Australian branch had limited stock available to sell to its customers.   

[48] According to Ms Reynolds: 23

“Demand side considerations, which led to our eligibility for the Job Keeper program were not taken into consideration when the stand down decision was made.”

[49] Mr Carter asserts that stock continued to be available for customers across the national branch network and that in fact APG WA received a high volume of stock shortly before he was stood down. According to Mr Carter the WA branch had higher stock levels at the time he was stood down than it had in the previous 6 months.    Mr Carter says that APG staff responsible for stock management could verify his assertions however he felt prevented from calling them by the June Letter.

[50] Mr Carter says that throughout the stand-down period, and since, the APG online shop has consistently indicated stock availability and has not at any time indicated widespread shortages of stock as alleged by Ms Reynolds.

[51] Ms Reynolds says that the stand down decision was also driven by the government advice to observe social distancing and an expectation that the government would extend mandatory business closures to the automotive sector. Ms Reynolds says that it was in accordance with this advice that on 25 March 2020 APG closed its premises to visitors, imposed restrictions on employees attending the workplace, cancelled company travel, halted hiring and suspended training initiatives.  24Ms Reynolds says that around the same time most of APG’s clients also closed their premises to visitors. Ms Reynolds says that as a consequence, marketing and sales initiatives were suspended because sales opportunities were limited.25

[52] Mr Carter points out that there was no mandatory government closure of the accident/ mechanical repair sector. He says that customers remained open and continued ordering parts and repairing cars. He says that typically less than 1% of APGs trade is transacted over the counter and that therefore the closure of the APG premises to visitors was of limited significance to business trade.

[53] According to Mr Carter APG representatives continued calling on customers albeit on a 4 day a week basis. For example, Mr Carter gave evidence of a conversation he had with one of the newly appointed sales representatives during the period in which Mr Carter was ‘stood down’. According to Mr Carter, Mr Tiba called him from outside of Kingsley Smash Repairs (one of Mr Carter’s customers) seeking background on the customer before entering the client’s premises.  26

[54] Mr Carter says that with the exception of one business the customers continued to accept visits from their key supplier's representatives.

[55] This is consistent with the evidence of Mr Coupland who says that his business did not stop trading during the relevant period and did not prohibit sales representatives from attending their business premises. Mr Coupland is the owner of Bowra Car Craft and Vice Chairman of the Car Craft Group which is made up of 30 independent body repairers predominantly based in metropolitan Perth. Furthermore, in his capacity as Chairman of the Body Repair Association he says that he was not aware of any other business closures in the industry during this period. It is also consistent with the evidence of Mr Holliday who said that his business continued to buy parts from APG throughout the Stand Down Period.

[56] Ms Reynolds did not tender any evidence of stock levels and did not call as witnesses any APG employees with responsibility for maintaining stock levels. Nor did she tender any other evidence of an incapacity on the part of the business to meet customer demands. I am not therefore satisfied that supply side issues caused a stoppage of work for the purposes of the FW Act which might form the basis upon which Mr Carter might be stood down.

[57] There was no mandatory business closure in the automotive sector during the period Mr Carter was stood down. There is no evidence before me that the trading hours of the WA Branch were reduced during the period Mr Carter was stood down. The evidence is that little of APGs business occurs via counter sales at its premises, therefore I am not satisfied that the decision that APG made to exclude visitors from its premises would have had a significant impact on its trade. There is no evidence before me to explain how telephone or online sales were prevented by the social distancing arrangements implemented by the company.

[58] Ms Reynolds did not call as witnesses either of the two new sales representatives which commenced at, or around, the time Mr Carter was stood down to contest Mr Carter’s assertion that they continued to service customers during the period he was stood down. Nor did she tender any evidence of their sales records or activity. Mr Carter and Ms Hutchinson’s evidence is that the business tracks the movements of its sales staff. If it was in fact the case that its sales staff were not visiting clients it is surprising that such evidence was not produced. Mr Carter has provided a credible explanation as to why he did not call the two new sales representatives. In the circumstances I have favoured the evidence of Mr Carter that the two new sales representatives continued to visit client premises during the period of the stand down.

[59] In his role as State Sales Manager, Mr Carter had individual sales territories which made up approximately 45% of the branch's monthly revenue. In addition to maintaining and establishing new accounts he was responsible for coaching other sales representatives. The evidence is that the business activity in which Mr Carter was engaged, namely sales and coaching continued to occur during the period in which he was purportedly stood down.

[60] Clearly in this case there was no stoppage of business. APG on its own admission continued to trade. Of the fourteen staff employed by APG in Western Australia, Mr Carter and Mr King, who were at that time both on first and final warnings, were the only employees stood down. The evidence is that other employees performing similar duties to Mr Carter and Mr King continued to perform their work, albeit for a relatively short period of time in a slightly modified way. Based on the evidence I am not satisfied that there was a ‘stoppage of work’ for the purposes of the FW Act which might form the basis upon which Mr Carter might lawfully have been stood down

Was there no useful work for Mr Carter to perform during the Stand Down Period?

[61] In RE Carpenters and Joiners Award 1967 [1971] CAR 479, the Full Court of the Federal Court stated:

“It cannot be said that an employee cannot be usefully employed on a particular day if there is a day’s work available for him which if performed on that day, will, having regard to the probable course of the employer’s business, contribute beneficially to the reasonable and efficient conduct thereof.”

[62] It is clear from the authorities that an employee may be usefully employed for the purposes of section 524 of the FW Act although as a matter of convenience the employer would prefer the employee not to be at work.

[63] Ms Reynolds says that both APG and its customers had closed their premises to visitors and that APG had directed only essential workers to attend its premises. Ms Reynolds also says that in light of the social distancing requirements and economic downturn all marketing and training initiatives had been suspended. She asserts that there was therefore no useful work for Mr Carter to do visiting customers and/or supervising other employees.

[64] Mr Carter submits that he could have been usefully employed during the period he was purportedly stood down:  27

“Given there was no stoppage I could have continued to do exactly what I had been employed to do which was to achieve sales targets in my assigned territories and manage other sales representatives as per my job description.”

[65] He characterises his duties as primarily visiting customers and training and supervising other sales staff. This is consistent with his position description. 28

[66] Mr Carter says that in addition to servicing his own sales territory, two new sales representatives had started in March. According to Mr Carter one representative started the week he was stood down and was assigned a number of his customers the following week. Given that both had never worked in the accident repair industry and one had never been a field representative he says that there was work to do supervising and guiding them. For example, Mr Carter gave evidence of a conversation with one of the newly appointed sales representatives who he says called him from outside of Kingsley Smash Repairs (one of Mr Carter’s customers) seeking background on the customer before visiting the client’s premises.  29

[67] It is inexplicable why the business would have a new sales representative commence employment when it has only days earlier stood down a senior seasoned sales representative because there was allegedly no useful work for the sales representative to perform.

[68] The evidence suggests that there was sales and coaching work to perform. To the extent that the amount of available work was reduced (although there is no empirical evidence of this before me) the allocation of available work appears to be unfair given Mr Carter’s experience in the industry. The failure to allocate Mr Carter work appears to be a continuance of the behaviour prior to the COVID19 Epidemic which saw Mr Carter unfairly targeted and which caused Ms Hutchinson to resign.

[69] On the evidence before me I am not satisfied that there was no useful work for Mr Carter to perform during the period he was purportedly stood down. Consequently, I am also satisfied that the Causation Requirement could not have been met.

Fairness Considerations

[70] A stand down under section 524 of the FW Act is a statutory tool available to a business (if pre-conditions are met) in situations where an employer temporarily does not have work for an employee to perform for reasons beyond the control of the employer but wishes to preserve the employment of an employee. While on stand down an employee must hold themselves ready, willing and able to return to work, yet they are not entitled to payment of wages.

[71] As a matter of fairness before taking the drastic step of refusing to pay an employee’s wages the employer should explore what alternative arrangements might be entered into. For example, exploring the options for agreed reduction in hours and/or days of work or allowing employees to take leave at normal or reduced pay rates.

[72] In this case Mr Carter says that he was unreasonably denied the opportunity to explore such options. While Ms Reynolds says that she instructed managers to explore such arrangements before standing down employees there is no evidence before me to suggest that this occurred in Mr Carter’s case or Mr King’s case. Ms Reynolds chose not to call the relevant manager to contest the evidence of Mr Carter and Mr King. In the circumstances I favour the evidence of Mr Carter and Mr King.

[73] The evidence is that Mr Carter had accrued leave available to him. It is unfair that APG did not explore with him alternatives to being stood down without pay.

[74] I am not satisfied that even if Mr Carter’s stand down was lawful that it would have in all of the circumstances of this Application been fair.

Remedy

[75] Of the remedies sought by Mr Carter in his Form F13 – Stand Down Dispute the outstanding items not addressed in his subsequent retrenchment are:

a. Restraint of trade removed.

b. Payment during the period of stand down (other than public holidays).

[76] Mr Carter has not identified any legal basis upon which I might vary the contractual terms of his now terminated contract of employment.

[77] In Schell v Ensign Australia Pty Ltd 30 Commissioner Johns observed:

“[2] … Each of the original applications sought an order that the applicants be paid an amount referable to the period from when they were stood down to when their employment was terminated. In essence the original orders sought had all the hallmarks of a claim for back payments in respect of the identified period. On the face of the original applications it seemed, more likely than not, that the applicants, by way of remedy, wanted the Commission to enforce a past right. That is to say they wanted the Commission to exercise judicial power rather than arbitral power. That would have been beyond the jurisdiction of the Commission.”

[78] Applying this analysis to the matter before me, it is not within my power to order APG to pay Mr Carter his wages for the Stand Down Period. Only a Court may declare a purported stand down null and void and make such orders. 31

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

Mr. C Carter appeared on his own behalf
Ms. A Reynolds appeared on behalf of the Respondent

Hearing details:

2020,
Perth;
20 August

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR721919>

 1   Digital Court Book Pages 18-22.

 2   Ibid 12-13.

 3   Ibid.

 4   Ibid.

 5   Ibid 14.

 6   Ibid 12-13.

 7   Ibid.

 8   Ibid 16-17.

 9   Ibid 7-8

 10   Ibid.

 11   Ibid.

 12   Ibid.

 13   Ibid 2.

 14   Ibid 12-13.

 15   Ibid.

 16   Ibid 14-15.

 17   Ibid.

 18   Ibid 2.

 19   Ibid 14-15.

 20   [2020] FWC 3690

 21   [2020] FWC 2721 at [12]

 22   Digital Court Book Pages 10-11

 23   Ibid 18-22.

 24   Ibid.

 25   Ibid.

 26   Ibid 5-6.

 27   Ibid.

 28   Ibid.

 29   Ibid

 30   [2015] FWC 8825

 31   Dylan Collis v SPI Plumbing (Australia) Pty Ltd[2020] FWC 4196 applying Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v DP World Melbourne Ltd[2020] FWC 4147 at [46] and Bristow HelicoptersAustralia Pty Ltd v AFAP [2017] FWCFB 487 at [53] to [57]