Dana Webster v Host Corporation Pty.Ltd
[2021] FWC 5617
•14 SEPTEMBER 2021
| [2021] FWC 5617 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.365—General protections
Dana Webster
v
Host Corporation PTY.LTD.
(C2021/3122)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MANSINI | MELBOURNE, 14 SEPTEMBER 2021 |
Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal.
[1] This decision concerns an application by Ms Dana Webster (the Applicant) for the Commission to deal with a general protections dispute involving dismissal from her employment with Host Corporation Pty. Ltd. (Respondent), made under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act).
[2] I have determined that the Applicant did not file within the statutory timeframe and not to allow a further period within which to lodge her application. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. The reasons for this decision follow.
Procedural context
[3] On 1 June 2021, at 11.53pm (AWST), the initial application form was filed with the Commission. The application as lodged was identified by the Commission’s registry function as “incomplete” because it said “unsure” as to the effective date of dismissal at item 1.3 of the form (although the response to item 1.4 elaborated on this uncertainty by reference to a verbal communication of termination on 10 May 2021, separation certificate issued on 12 May 2021 and notice paid in lieu on 12 May 2021).
[4] On 2, 15, 16 and 17 June 2021, Commission staff attempted to contact the Applicant on her nominated contact details for service using a range of methods (telephone, SMS and email), regarding her “incomplete” application. The Applicant was not able to be reached on those occasions.
[5] On 18 June 2021, a member of the Commission’s general protections team was able to reach the Applicant by telephone. The Commission’s records indicate that, during this discussion, the Applicant said she was unsure of the effective date of her dismissal but ultimately confirmed an alleged effective date of her dismissal in response to item 1.3 (she said 12 May 2021). There was also discussion about the process. The Respondent was then served with a copy of the Applicant’s application form and an email from the Commission with the Applicant’s response to item 1.3 as confirmed by the Applicant.
[6] On 2 July 2021, the Respondent filed its initial response. Among other things, the response contended that the Applicant’s effective date of dismissal was 10 May 2021 and therefore the application was filed outside the statutory timeframe (1 day late).
[7] As the Respondent consented to attempt conciliation, the matter was listed for conference on 5 July 2021. The first conference did not proceed as listed because the Applicant did not have mobile phone service (although she did have email access) at the listed time. The conference was relisted for 23 July 2021. The second conference did not proceed when the Applicant did not respond to 8 attempts made by the staff conciliator to reach her at her nominated telephone number, at the listed time.
[8] On 23 July 2021, the Respondent’s representative emailed the Commission’s general protections team (and copied the Applicant, at her nominated email address). The Respondent requested that the Commission determine its jurisdictional objection given the Applicant’s second failure to attend conferences at “significant inconvenience” to the Respondent. Alternatively, the Respondent requested the Applicant discontinue her application immediately.
[9] The matter was then allocated to me for determination of the jurisdictional objection.
[10] On 4 August 2021, directions were sent to the Applicant and the Respondent at the nominated email addresses for service. The directions required the Applicant to file with the Commission and serve on the Respondent an outline of submissions, witness statement(s) and any other materials on which she wished to rely in relation to the jurisdictional issue by 4.00pm (AWST) on 11 August 2021. Those directions listed the matters to be addressed in the Applicant’s materials and included an important note that failure to comply may result in the Commission proceeding to determine the matter having regard to the material before it. The cover email included links to resources and further information. The Applicant did not file any materials or otherwise communicate with the Commission by 4.00pm (AWST) on 11 August 2021.
[11] On 12 August 2021, an email was sent to the Applicant regarding her non-compliance with the Commission’s directions of 4 August 2021. The Applicant was directed to advise the Commission whether she wished to proceed with the matter and, if so, the reason(s) for her non-compliance with the Commission’s directions with evidence (if any) in support of those reasons, by 12.00pm (AWST) on 16 August 2021. That email included an important note that failure to comply or otherwise communicate with the Commission as directed may result in the matter being determined on the materials before the Commission. Also on 12 August 2021, an SMS was sent to the Applicant’s nominated mobile phone number alerting her that the Commission had sent correspondence to her email address.
[12] At 11.43am (AWST) on 16 August 2021, the Applicant emailed the Commission (and did not copy the Respondent or its representative) as follows:
I wish to proceed with my application and ask that the following be considered as a reason to non-compliance on the 22nd July , 2021.
1. Appearance at the Perth District Court to provide evidence in relation to Domestic Violence charges of an immediate family member.
2. Working shift work
3. Grief symptoms.
4. An increased anxiety and stress experienced while enduring this process, suggesting my requirement for a support person.
[13] The Applicant’s email of 16 August 2021 did not include any evidence or attachments in support.
[14] On 17 August 2021, the Respondent’s representative emailed the Commission (and copied the Applicant, at her nominated email address) in which it applied for the application to be dismissed. The Respondent and its representative had not, at that time, been served with the Applicant’s response of 16 August 2021. Subsequently, on 17 August 2021, the Commission provided a copy of the Applicant’s 16 August 2021 email to the Respondent and its representative.
[15] Also on 17 August 2021, as no evidence had been filed as directed, the matter was listed for non-compliance hearing at 9.00am (AWST) on 20 August 2021.
[16] At 9.00am (AWST) on 20 August 2021, the Applicant, the Respondent and the Respondent’s representative attended the non-compliance hearing. The Applicant confirmed that she wished to proceed with the application and her prior non-compliance was discussed. There was also a discussion about the process and what the Commission needs to be satisfied of in determining the jurisdictional objection. The Applicant was directed to file whatever evidence she wished to file in support of the reasons for her non-compliance, by the end of 23 August 2021. The Applicant was directed to file her witness statement in relation to the matters the Commission needs to be satisfied of in determining the jurisdictional objection, by the end of 30 August 2021.
[17] On 23 August 2021, the Applicant emailed the Commission (and did not copy the Respondent or its representative) attaching a series of documents including a medical certificate citing “greeve counselling” (sic.) dated 20 May 2021, a Centrelink medical certificate citing “bereaevement/greave” (sic.) dated 27 July 2021, a witness statement of the Applicant’s brother and some other documents indicating that she attended separate legal proceedings with him and/or his lawyers on 24 May, 25 June, 22, 23, 26, 27 and 30 July 2021 and payslips (showing hours worked in her subsequently obtained employment) dated 26/07/2021 - 01/08/2021, 02/08/2021 - 08/08/2021 and 09/08/2021 - 15/08/2021. The Applicant’s cover email stated that these documents were “supporting evidence” in relation to the matter. Also on 23 August 2021, the Commission telephoned the Applicant and reminded her to attend to service of this email, which she subsequently served on the Respondent and its representative.
[18] On 26 August 2021, the Respondent’s representative emailed the Commission (and copied the Applicant, at her nominated email address) in which it contended that the Applicant’s evidence was insufficient to explain her non-compliance and applied for dismissal of the application pursuant to s.587 of the Act by reason of the Applicant’s failures to prosecute her case and because it alleged that the application has no reasonable prospects of success.
[19] The Applicant did not file any further materials or attempt to communicate with the Commission again by the end of 30 August 2021.
[20] On 31 August 2021, the matter was listed for hearing on 3 September 2021 to determine the jurisdictional issue. The Commission also sent an email which explained that the matter would be listed for hearing and directed the Applicant to file any evidence and submissions in reply to the Respondent’s response, by 12.00pm on 2 September 2021. The email also had a link to the Commission’s website for more information about the things the Commission needs to be satisfied of; explained that all relevant witnesses were required to be in attendance at the hearing; and included an important note: “If either party does not attend the hearing then the Deputy President will proceed to determine the matter on whatever materials are before the Commission, without hearing further from you”. Also on 12 August 2021, an SMS was sent to the Applicant’s nominated mobile phone number alerting her that the Commission had sent correspondence to her email address.
[21] The Applicant did not file any further materials or attempt to communicate with the Commission again by 12.00pm on 2 September 2021.
[22] Around 1.5 hours prior to the hearing on 3 September 2021, the Applicant left a voice mail with my chambers. Around 30 minutes prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Applicant emailed the Commission (the Respondent and its representative were not copied) in which she indicated that she would not be attending the hearing and further stated:
I'm aware the conference will go ahead without me, do not wish to respond to correspondence from the respondent, however wish to state that healing through grief is not linear and all evidence is credible.
[23] The Respondent and its representative attended the hearing at the listed time on 3 September 2021. The Respondent sought and was granted application to be represented by a lawyer or paid agent pursuant to s.596 of the Act. The Respondent requested that the hearing proceed.
[24] In all of the circumstances, I considered the hearing should proceed as listed and in the absence of the Applicant. At the hearing, the Respondent again applied for the claim be dismissed pursuant to s.587 due to the Applicant’s non-compliance and in the alternative pressed its jurisdictional objection that the application was filed outside the statutory time for filing and the Commission should not be satisfied to grant an extension of the time for filing. The Commission heard evidence from a Ms Jax Corbett (Customer Service Manager, of the Respondent) in support of the Respondent’s jurisdictional objections.
Application to dismiss pursuant to s.587
[25] By the email of its representative dated 26 August 2021, the Respondent sought to rely on submissions made at the 20 August 2021 non-compliance hearing and further stated that the claim should be dismissed pursuant to s.587 of the Act because, in summary, “the Applicant’s out of time application has no reasonable prospects of success”. The Respondent said it relied on the case of Quinlan v Ethical Investment Services 1 in support.
[26] At the hearing on 3 September 2021, the Respondent reiterated this request and submitted that the Applicant had been provided repeated opportunities but failed to comply with Commission directions; the evidence regarding non-compliance was not sufficient; the Applicant did not meet the “exceptional circumstances” test; and the Respondent had at all times remained ready and willing to proceed.
[27] The Applicant did not directly respond to the application to dismiss her claim in her filed materials and, in her email of 3 September 2021, the Applicant stated that she did not wish to respond to the Respondent’s correspondence.
[28] Section 587 of the Act provides as follows:
587 Dismissing applications
(1) Without limiting when the FWC may dismiss an application, the FWC may dismiss an application if:
(a) the application is not made in accordance with this Act; or
(b) the application is frivolous or vexatious; or
(c) the application has no reasonable prospects of success.
Note: For another power of the FWC to dismiss an application for a remedy for unfair dismissal made under Division 5 of Part 3 2, see section 399A.
(2) Despite paragraphs (1)(b) and (c), the FWC must not dismiss an application under section 365 or 773 on the ground that the application:
(a) is frivolous or vexatious; or
(b) has no reasonable prospects of success.
(3) The FWC may dismiss an application:
(a) on its own initiative; or
(b) on application.
[29] In performing functions or exercising powers, including that at s.587, the Commission must take the following into account:
(a) the objects of this Act, and any objects of the part of this Act; and
(b) equity, good conscience and the merits of the matter; and
(c) the need to respect and value the diversity of the work force by helping to prevent and element discrimination on the basis of race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family or carer’s responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin.
[30] Section 587 confers a sufficiently broad discretion to allow an application under s.365 to be dismissed for want of prosecution by an applicant, in an appropriate case, to be exercised with caution and having regard to the matters the Commission is required to take into account in the performance of its functions. 2
[31] The objects of the general protections provisions at Part 3-1 of the Act include to protect workplace rights and provide protection from workplace discrimination.
[32] Having regard to the context set out above, it is apparent that the Applicant’s compliance with the Commission’s various directions has been sporadic at best and she has otherwise made limited effort to pursue her claim. The Applicant’s filed materials (even if they were accepted as evidence despite her failure to attend the hearing and affirm the truth of those materials) do not provide full or adequate explanation for her non-compliance. I accept that the Respondent may have been inconvenienced as a result. However, this is not a case where the Applicant has failed to take any steps whatsoever to pursue her claim. Further, in notifying of her non-attendance at the hearing, the Applicant acknowledged her understanding it would proceed in her absence but did not withdraw or discontinue the application. For completeness, each case turns on its own facts and I consider the facts of this matter to be distinguishable from that of the authority on which the Respondent sought to rely in support of its dismissal application.
[33] The power at s.587 is not to be exercised lightly. In all of the circumstances and having regard to the objects of the Act, I am not persuaded that this is an appropriate case to exercise the discretion at s.587 of the Act to dismiss the claim and am satisfied that the application should now be determined on the materials before the Commission.
Effective date of the dismissal
[34] Section 366 requires that a general protections application involving dismissal be made within 21 days after the dismissal took effect, or within such further period as the Commission allows under s.366(2).
[35] In this case, there appears to be a dispute about when the dismissal took effect.
[36] A dismissal takes effect when it is communicated to the employee. 3 An employer may communicate a dismissal to an employee “by plain or unambiguous words or conduct”.4 In the case of a dismissal without notice, the dismissal needs to be communicated to the employee in such a way that the employee knows, or at least has a reasonable chance to find out, that he or she has been dismissed.5
[37] In her original online application form lodged at 11.53pm (AWST) on 1 June 2021, the Applicant said:
• That she was notified of her dismissal on 10 May 2021 (item 1.2);
• That she was “unsure” of the date that her dismissal took effect (item 1.3);
• In response to the question “Are you making this application within 21 calendar days of your dismissal taking effect?”, that: “The intention to end employment was communicated verbally by employer on Monday the 10th of May, 2021. At this time, it was also communicated that a written letter of termination would be provided. To date, this has not been provided”; termination payments were received on 11 and 12 May 2021; and a separation certificate was received on 12 May 2021 (item 1.4).
[38] After a discussion with the Commission’s general protections team, the Applicant confirmed her response to item 1.3 of the application form was that her effective date of dismissal was 12 May 2021. There were no other changes to the original online application form.
[39] The Respondent contended that the effective date of the Applicant’s dismissal was 10 May 2021. Ms Corbett gave evidence that she attended a meeting with the Applicant at around 3.00pm on 10 May 2021 in which:
• The Applicant was clearly advised that her employment was terminated effective immediately;
• It was also made clear that the Applicant would be paid 5 days’ notice which she was not required to work; and
• The Applicant expressly acknowledged that she understood the dismissal was effective immediately and also requested that written confirmation be provided as soon as possible.
[40] Ms Corbett also gave evidence that the Applicant did not present for work the following day (being an ordinary working day) or at any time after 10 May 2021.
[41] The Applicant’s unsigned contract of employment was in evidence. The Respondent said the Applicant’s employment was subject to this contract and, on the materials before the Commission, I accept that it applied. The contract includes a provision that the Respondent may notify of termination with immediate effect by, at its discretion, making payment in lieu of or part of the notice period that would otherwise be provided in accordance with its terms.
[42] A separation certificate was also in evidence. It is dated 12 May 2021 and contains a declaration by the Respondent that the employment ceased on 10 May 2021. The unchallenged evidence, which I accept, was that a correction was subsequently made on 17 May 2021 in response to a request by the Applicant to correct her start date with the Respondent.
[43] The effective date of dismissal is a question of fact to be determined on the evidence before the Commission. Whilst I do not necessarily consider the application as lodged to have been “incomplete” on account of the response that was provided to item 1.3, I do not regard the Applicant’s further response as determinative or even persuasive when all of the materials before the Commission are considered.
[44] On the evidence before the Commission, I accept that the dismissal was clearly communicated to the Applicant in the meeting of 10 May 2021. From the Applicant’s own application, by the Respondent’s verbal communication on 10 May 2021 she clearly understood that her employment was terminated. Within days and by 17 May 2021, the Applicant had taken steps to have the commencement date corrected on the separation certificate but did not dispute the recorded termination date (10 May 2021). There is no dispute that the Applicant was paid notice in lieu and did not attend for work again after 10 May 2021. This is consistent with the Respondent’s unchallenged evidence of the meeting of 10 May 2021 and the terms of the contract of employment. That the final termination payments were made on 11 and 12 May 2021, and the separation certificate was provided on 12 May 2021 (but recorded a dismissal date of 10 May 2021), do not (when considered together or separately) alter my conclusion in the particular circumstances of this case.
[45] The period of 21 days ended at midnight on 31 May 2021. As the application was not lodged until 11.53pm (AWST) on 1 June 2021, it was lodged 1 day out of time. For completeness, the Applicant and the Respondent are in the State of Western Australia and there was no dispute that the application ought be taken as lodged in the Perth Registry of the Commission, in Australian Western Standard Time.
[46] It is understood that the Applicant asks in the alternative that the Commission allow a further period for the application to be made. The Respondent opposes.
Are there exceptional circumstances?
[47] Having concluded that the application was made after the prescribed timeframe, it is necessary for the Applicant to obtain an extension of time under s.366(2) to make the application. This can only occur if I am satisfied that there are “exceptional circumstances”. The matters of which I must be satisfied are set out in s.366(2) of the Act.
[48] The exceptional circumstances test establishes a high hurdle for an applicant. 6 In this context, to be exceptional the circumstances must be out of the ordinary course, or unusual, or special, or uncommon, although they need not be unique or unprecedented.7 Exceptional circumstances can include a single exceptional matter, a combination of exceptional factors, or a combination of ordinary factors which, although individually of no particular significance, when taken together can be considered exceptional.8
[49] My consideration of the matters set out at s.366(2) follows.
Reason for the delay – s.366(2)(a)
[50] The Act does not specify what reason for delay might tell in favour of granting an extension however decisions of the Commission have referred to an “acceptable” or “reasonable” or “credible” explanation. 9 The absence of an explanation for any part of the delay will usually weigh against an applicant in such an assessment whereas a credible explanation for the entirety of the delay will usually weigh in an applicant’s favour.10 Ultimately, it is a question of degree and insight.11
[51] The period of the delay is that commencing immediately after the time for lodging an application had expired and ending on the day on which the application was lodged. However, the circumstances from the date the dismissal took effect may be considered relevant in assessing the explanation for the delay. 12
[52] In her initial application form, the Applicant indicated confusion as to whether the application was filed within the 21 calendar days of the dismissal taking effect. She described her uncertainty as to the effective date of her dismissal and concluded that:
Therefore this application could be ‘out of time’ or valid according to time limits. Admittedly, this application / issue has not been first priority or focus on my personal life, due to the sudden and unexpected loss off my father on the 30th April, 2021, that resulted in over 3 week delay to hold a funeral, as subject to coronial investigation.
[53] The Applicant also filed materials which she contended supported her claim that there were other priorities which required her focus, taking precedence over attending to filing this application (and also supported the reasons for her non-compliance after filing the application).
[54] I acknowledge the Applicant’s stated confusion about the effective date of the dismissal but do not consider this sufficiently explains her delay - including the Applicant’s own admission in the application that it was clearly conveyed to her on 10 May 2021 that her employment had come to an end and she acted accordingly, by not attending for work again after 10 May 2021. In any event, mere ignorance does not amount to an acceptable or reasonable explanation of the delay and is not, in my view, an exceptional circumstance.
[55] I also acknowledge that the Applicant has filed materials which support her claims that she has experienced personal difficulties involving her immediate family. The truth of those circumstances was not disputed but the Respondent alleged that the documents provided and the Applicant’s explanation fall well short of establishing any actual incapacity or inability to attend to filing of the application within the statutory timeframe. Accepting the truth of the Applicant’s difficulties, I certainly empathise with the Applicant’s circumstances. However, to the extent that the documents she has filed relate to periods of time that are relevant to the Commission’s consideration under s.366(2)(a), I am not persuaded on what is before the Commission that these circumstances reasonably or acceptably explain the delay.
[56] On the materials before the Commission, I am unable to identify any acceptable or reasonable explanation for the delay in filing and consider this weighs against the grant of an extension of time in this case.
Action taken to dispute the dismissal – s.366(2)(b)
[57] In respect of s.366(2)(b), I am required to take into account any action taken by the Applicant to dispute the dismissal or to place the employer on notice of her intention to dispute the dismissal.
[58] On the materials before the Commission, the Applicant had some further engagement with the Respondent following her dismissal including to request a correction of her commencement date on the separation certificate and she also alleges to have disputed payment of her entitlements directly with the Respondent.
[59] Even if that were the case, there is no evidence of action taken to dispute the decision to dismiss the Applicant from her employment (as distinct from any dispute about the entitlements owed). Accordingly, I am not persuaded that this is action of a kind contemplated by s.366(2)(b).
[60] I consider these circumstances to be a neutral factor in this case.
Prejudice to the employer – s.366(2)(c)
[61] I cannot identify any particular prejudice that would accrue to the company if an extension of time were to be granted. The mere absence of prejudice is not in my view a factor that would point in favour of the grant of extension of time.
[62] I consider this to be a neutral factor in this case.
Merits of the application – s.366(2)(d)
[63] An application to extend time is essentially an interlocutory matter that does not allow for the merits to be fully tested. The merits are nonetheless a matter which I am required to take into account in assessing whether there are exceptional circumstances.
[64] To succeed in this claim, the Applicant would need to establish that her dismissal was in contravention of the general protections provisions of the Act. The Applicant has identified a range of alleged workplace rights and otherwise alleges unfair treatment underscoring the reason(s) for her dismissal. In the application, she identifies a range of other alleged contraventions of Part 3-1 of the Act.
[65] The Respondent strongly denied that the Applicant was dismissed for any reason other than its decision not to continue her employment beyond her contractual probationary period (extended, it claims by agreement, to 6 months), on account of alleged failure(s) on the part of the Applicant to comply with the terms of her employment contract and employee handbook. It also claims to have offered support to assist the Applicant with regard to personal difficulties disclosed during the course of her employment and denies prior knowledge of certain other personal circumstances subject of the allegations.
[66] On the materials before the Commission, it is evident that the merits of the application turn on contested points of fact which would need to be tested if an extension of time were granted and the matter were to proceed. It is not possible to make any firm or detailed assessment of the merits. The Applicant has at least a prima facie case, to which the Respondent raises an apparent defence. I do not consider the merits of the present case to tell for or against an extension of time. I consider the merits to be a neutral consideration.
Fairness as between the person and other persons in a similar position – s.366(2)(e)
[67] This consideration may relate to matters currently before the Commission or to matters previously decided by the Commission. It may also relate to the position of various employees of an employer responding to a general protections application. However, cases of this kind will generally turn on their own facts. Neither party brought to my attention any relevant matter concerning this consideration and I am unaware of any relevant matter. I therefore consider this to be a neutral consideration.
Conclusion
[68] For the above reasons, the Applicant did not file this application within the statutory timeframe.
[69] Having regard to the matters I am required to take into account under s.366, I am not satisfied that the requisite exceptional circumstances exist. The absence of a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay in filing the application weighs strongly against a finding of exceptional circumstances. The other factors are considered neutral. In my view, and on balance taking into account all the matters at s.366, the circumstances of this case are not exceptional.
[70] For the above reasons, I decline to grant an extension of time under s.366(2). Accordingly, the Applicant’s application under s.365 of the Act is dismissed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
A Gonos for the Respondent
Hearing details:
2021.
Melbourne (by video).
3 September.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR733673>
1 [2021] FWC 4363.
2 McLeod v Kulgera Trading Company Pty Ltd [2014] FWC 2112 and McLachlan v Hopper Farms Pty Ltd [2019] FWC 8540.
3 Burns v Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia (Inc), Print T3496 (AIRCFB, Williams SDP, Acton SDP, Gregor C, 21 November 2000) at [24].
4 Plaksa v Rail Corporation NSW[2007] AIRC 333 (Cartwright SDP, 26 April 2007) at para. 8; citing Barolo v Centra Hotel Melbourne, Print Q9605 (AIRC, Whelan C, 10 December 1998). Mohammed Ayub v NSW Trains[2016] FWCFB 5500 (Ayub) at [17], [48] and [49].
5 Ayub at [48].
6 Stogiannidis v Victorian Frozen Foods Distributors Pty Ltd [2018] FWCFB 901(Stogiannidis) at [14].
7 Nulty v Blue Star Group Pty Ltd [2011] FWAFB 975at[12] and Perry v Rio Tinto Shipping Pty Ltd t/a Rio Tinto Marine [2016] FWCFB 6963 (Perry) at [21].
8 Ibid.
9 Perry at [23]; Matthews v Roy Morgan Interviewing Services Pty Ltd [2018] FWC 7355 at [7].
10 Stogiannidis at [39].
11 Green v Bilco Group Pty Ltd [2018] FWC 6818 at [8].
12 Shaw v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited[2015] FWCFB 287 at [12]; Ozsoy v Monstamac Industries Pty Ltd[2014] FWCFB 2149 at [31]-]33]; Perry at [23]
0
10
0