David John Gorman and Woolworths (SA)
[1994] IRCA 131
•17 November 1994
CATCHWORDS
INDUSTRIAL LAW - Termination of employment - Whether summary termination harsh unjust or unreasonable in circumstances - Procedural and substantive fairness - Onus of proof for criminal misconduct.
Industrial Relations Act 1988, s. 170DC.
Nicholson v. Heaven & Earth Gallery Pty Ltd unreported 20/9/94
Pfoertsh v. Balfour Wauchope Pty Ltd No. 388/92 6/5/94
Bi-Lo Pty Ltd v. Hooper 59 SA IR 342
Briginshaw v. Briginshaw (1938) 60 CIR 336
DAVID JOHN FORMAN
WOOLWORTHS (SA) PTY LTD
NO. SI 135 OF 1994
Before: WALKER, JR.
Place: ADELAIDE
Date: 17 NOVEMBER 1994
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
SYDNEY DISTRICT REGISTRY NO. SI 135 OF 1994
BETWEEN
DAVID JOHN GORMAN
Applicant
AND
WOOLWORTHS (SA) PTY LIMITED
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT
17 November 1994 WALKER JR
David John Gorman commenced employment with the Respondent on the 20 November 1989, first as a casual employee, then from about July 1990 on a permanent, part-time basis. He was regarded by his employer as a good worker. Mr Knibbs the Assistant Manager gave evidence that,
“I had nothing at all to complain about David’s’ work. He was competent at what he did...”
He was classified as a shop assistant and at the time of his termination was in charge of the frozen food section.
On Saturday, 30 April 1994 the Applicant was summarily dismissed. The reasons for his termination are set out in the report of Mr Knibbs dated 30 April 1994 and signed at 12.30 pm on that day, as follows:-
Dumping stock without recording on a shrinkage sheet as per Company Policy. Disposing of stock not out of date and disposing of saleable stock.”
SHRINKAGE AND COMPANY POLICY
As the Applicant was in charge of the frozen food section he was required, as part of his duties to dispose of goods that had become contaminated as a result of damage to packaging or had become defrosted as a result of a freezer breakdown or had been left out of the freezer. It appears the Company had a policy of selling certain goods that had been damaged or defrosted at a reduced price and this would be at the discretion of the person carrying out shrinkage.
When undertaking shrinkage the person responsible is required to record the items on a form entitled “weekly shrinkage record”, which has provision for the department name and week commencing date, a column for the date, description of the item, the quantity, the old sale price and new sale price.. If the item is dumped, a “d” is recorded in the new sale price column.
The Companies Policy with regard to the completion of shrinkage sheets is set out in the Woolworths staff handbook at page 16, in the following terms,
“The Shrinkage sheets must be checked and signed daily by the Store Manager”.
About a week and a half before the termination the Applicant was approached by Ms Dianne Zubrinich, the impact manager. She told the applicant that she had received a phone call from Adelaide, complaining that the shrinkage was too high and could she talk to those responsible so that is may be reduced in future. Evidence was also given by the Applicant that Ms Zubrinich and the Assistant Manager Mr Knibbs had lost their bonus because of the excessive amount of shrinkage in the perishable section of the store. Ms Zubrinich’s job was to control the gross profit for the store and therefore was responsible for shrinkage throughout the store generally.
The shrinkage sheets that were completed by the Applicant would be left in the general office in a box and were collected on a weekly basis, normally on the Monday morning. They were not checked on a more regular basis. The Applicant was not aware that the sheets were to be checked on a more regular basis and in fact the sheets are headed “weekly shrinkage record”. He admitted that when he joined Woolworths he had been shown the staff handbook but the practice of daily checking and signing of the shrinkage sheets was not the practice of Management and staff during his employment. When giving her evidence Ms Zubrinich, the impact manager in charge of shrinkage said in reply to a question as to whether the sheets are kept on a weekly basis,
“Yes, sometimes if a staff member doesn’t hand it in - sometimes we get them to week after but it is very rare they are handed in that week.”
Ms Zubrinich stated further that the Store Manager did not sign the shrinkage sheets himself, she said she would, but then changed her mind. When shown exhibit R1, consisting of a number of shrinkage sheets, Ms Zubrinich admitted that she had not signed the sheets and that in fact no one signed the sheets. She admitted that she was aware that this was against Company Policy but that as far as she was concerned it was not a , “big issue.”
Saturday 30 April
Mr Gorman commenced work at about 7 am on Saturday morning. Ms Zubrinich in her evidence said that she had instructed him,
“to make sure that his stock room was tidy which was asked by me to do by Steve Knibbs to make sure his stock room was tidy before Danny got back on Monday and Danny was the Store Manager who was on holidays.”
The Applicant gave evidence that during the course of the morning he had discovered an amount of stock that had been left out of the freezer. it was left in a gap according to the Applicant:-
“There is a gap between the pole, one of the main girders in the storeroom and the fridge. it was between there, behind the eggs...”
When asked by his Counsel if the gap was a large area the Applicant replied that it was not:-
It’s big enough for someone to get through.”
When cross examined by the Respondents Counsel, the Applicant agreed that the gap was about three metres long and about thirty centimetres wide. Under cross examination the Applicant agreed that the area was not large enough for a trolley, but in examination in chief he did not suggest that it was on a trolley. His evidence was that stock had been left out of the freezer a couple of time before.
“It had happened a couple of times, not to me, but has happened a couple of times while I was working on the dairy section. People would need things - because the fridge and freezer are both shared with other departments, and so if they needed something they wouldn’t necessarily put our stock back in. They would just grab their stuff and run.”
During the morning the Applicant gave evidence that he took two trips to the bins to dispose of goods, at 9.30 and about 12.00 noon. He was due to knock off at 12.30 pm.
Counsel from the Respondent suggested that the applicant had attended the bin again at 10.15 however the Applicant remained unmoved as to his original evidence. When Ms Zubrinich was cross examined as to the time she saw the applicant go to the bin she became evasive. The cross examination is set out below:-
MR BOURNE: Can you tell me as close as you can what time it would have been when you first saw him?...
MS ZUBRINICH: I saw him and after - it would have been only about five or 10 minutes at the most. At the most.
MR BOURNE: That was at about the time he and Raylene Harris took their tee break, was it not?...
MS ZUBRINICH: I don’t know what time they took their tea break.
MR BOURNE: Well, if I put it to you that they took a tea break at about 9.30, it was just after that that Raylene Harris mentioned to you that she had had a tea break and David had had one too?...
MS ZUBRINICH: ...I don’t know what time it was.
MR BOURNE: It was at that stage that you thought you would go and check it out later?...
MS ZUBRINICH: It was when I saw David wheeling this other trolley of stock that I thought I’d go and check it out.
MR BOURNE: Would that have been at about 10.30?
MS ZUBRINICH: No idea what time it was. I know it was in the morning.
At some time on Saturday morning Ms Zubrinich observed the Applicant wheeling a trolley of stock out the back gate towards the bins. When asked by Counsel in evidence in chief as to what she had thought he was doing she said:-
“I thought to myself because I’d said to him about his stock room, I thought, I bet he’s found stock in their that’s been out of date and he’s getting rid of the stock because he hasn’t cleared it out before its use-by date and that so I thought I’ll go and check that later on.”
Later on during the morning Ms Zubrinich went out to the bins and discovered that the Applicant had dumped one box of Pampas short crust pastry, six McCain pork dinners, 11 McCain lamb dinners, one box of Gibbs deep filled beef pies, six I & J beef burgers, 3 Birds Eye hamburgers and seven McCain spaghetti bolognaise. She observed that the items were still frozen and that their use by dates were for 1995/94.
She then went inside and got the trolley boy to jump into the bin and pull out all of the stock. She then summonsed Raylene Harris so she could record the items on a sheet of paper. The items were then placed back into the bin and Ms Zubrinich approached Mr Andrew Price, the grocery manager to go out to the bins (Mr Price was not called as a witness).
Returning inside Ms Zubrinich telephoned Steve Knibbs, the Store Manager and told him what she had found. Mr Knibbs instructed Ms Zubrinich to page Ms Sue Smith of the security section in Adelaide. Ms Smith gave instructions to stake out the bin. Ms Zubrinich then rang Steve Knibbs and asked him to come into work to carry out the stake out. On his arrival Ms Zubrinich took him out to the bins to show him what she had found. While Mr Knibbs was inspecting the stock Ms Zubrinich gave evidence that she discovered further dumped stock in the little bin, she said:-
“When I looked into the little bin I said to Steve: no, Steve, he’s put something in this bin now.”
When cross-examined Ms Zubrinich contradicted her evidence in Chief. Mr Bourne put it to Ms Zubrinich that when the Applicant was dismissed he was only showed a list of seven items that had been recorded from the large bin. Ms Zubrinich agreed:
“Because we didn’t know the other gear was in the bin.... we found the other stock after he had left.”
The “stake out” was bungled when the applicant returned to the bin to dispose of further stock and surprised Mr Knibbs and Ms Zubrinich before they could go into hiding. This was at about 12 noon and according to the Applicant he was completing his duties for the day:-
“Well I was getting ready to leave. I was starting to tie up loose ends, if your like. Starting to throw out additional stock that had to go, and just making sure my trolleys were tidy.”
He gave evidence that he was going to dispose of twelve Vienetta’s that had become frosted at the back of the freezer. he also agreed that he had stock on the trolley that was not to be disposed of and was to be returned to the store on the trolley.”
Mr Knibbs made no allegation or comment to the Applicant during the surprised meeting, concerning the disposal of saleable stock. The Applicant alleges that the only thing said to him by Mr Knibbs was:-
“Are you going to throw that stock out?”
And he then replied.
“No, not all of it.”
He also asked the applicant if he always brought the trolley out when disposing of stock. He said he did sometimes.
In cross examination Mr Knibbs admitted that most of the items on the trolley had been taken back into the Supermarket. he gave evidence as follows:-
MR BOURNE: “Did you ask him why he was doing that?”
MR KNIBBS: “No. I grabbed a Vienetta to see why he was going to throw them out.”
MR BOURNE: “Were some of the Vienetta’s that he had on the trolley at that stage thrown out?
MR KNIBBS: “Not those ones”
MR BOURNE: “Were any on the trolley thrown out?”
MR KNIBBS: “I cant’ - I don’t know.”
MR BOURNE: “Most of the items on the trolley were taken back into the Supermarket?”
MR KNIBBS: “Yes”
MR BOURNE: “he told you in fact, that was what he was going to do, did he not?”
MR KNIBBS: “He did, yes”
The applicant said that he then returned back inside and was about to enter up the shrinkage sheet when Ms Zubrinich told him to take his shrinkage board and go upstairs to Mr Knibbs office. In the office Mr Knibbs asked the applicant if he knew the correct procedure in relation to shrinkage sheets. The applicant replied that he did. Mr Knibbs then asked him why he was not following the correct procedure and accused him of throwing out saleable stock. The applicant answered that the stock was not saleable. The applicant consistently maintained that the goods disposed of had become defrosted and were not of saleable quality.
Mr Gorman, the Applicant impressed me as a witness and I have no reason to doubt his versions of the interview conducted by the store manager Mr Knibbs on the Saturday afternoon. His evidence of the proceedings is as follows:-
MR BOURNE: “What did he say?”
MR GORMAN: “He asked me if I know the correct procedure as relation to shrinkage sheets.”
MR BOURNE: “What did you say?”
MR GORMAN: “I said yes I do”
MR BOURNE: “What did he say?”
MR GORMAN: “And then he asked me why I hadn’t been following it and accused me of throwing out saleable stock.”
MR BOURNE: “Can you tell us exactly what words he used with respect to that? What did he say exactly about throwing out saleable stock?”
MR GORMAN: “He said - I can’t remember the exact words but he said that I’d thrown out saleable stock and it was against company policy and he had been on the phone to someone in Adelaide and he would have to sack me immediately and that I had endangered him and Diane’s bonuses by throwing out that allegedly saleable stock.
MR BOURNE: “First of all, Mr Knibbs asked you whether you knew the correct procedure for shrinkage and you said yes.”
MR GORMAN: “Yes.”
MR BOURNE: “Did you respond to that allegation?”
MR GORMAN: “Well, I told him that I had intended to write down on the shrinkage sheet at a later date the shrinkage involved.”
MR BOURNE: “What did he say in response to that?”
MR GORMAN: “He said that it didn’t matter. It was still a breach of Company Policy.”
MR BOURNE: “Did he make an allegation that you had thrown out saleable stock?”
MR GORMAN: “Yes.”
MR BOURNE: “Did he ask you for an explanation?”
MR GORMAN: “Yes, but to which I replied it wasn’t saleable.”
MR BOURNE: “What did he say to that?”
MR GORMAN: “Well he said he and Diane had a look at it and in their opinion it was.”
MR BOURNE: “Did they ask you where you had got the saleable stock?”
MR GORMAN: “No”
MR BOURNE: “Did they ask you when?”
MR GORMAN: “No I volunteered the information.”
MR BOURNE: “Did they say anything in response to it?”
MR GORMAN: “They said that it was in their opinion it was frozen and quite saleable.”
MR BOURNE: “Did they specify what stock it was that you had thrown out which was saleable?”
MR BOURNE: Did they offer you the opportunity of going and inspecting, in their presence, the stock?”
MR GORMAN: “No they didn’t.”
MR BOURNE: “Or in the presence of any other person?”
MR GORMAN: “No.”
MR BOURNE: “Did they offer you the opportunity of having any person come forward by way of witness for yourself or to accompany you whilst you were being interviewed?”
MR GORMAN: “No.”
MR BOURNE: “After Mr Knibbs said that the stock was saleable and you denied it, was there any further discussion about whether you were right or wrong or whether they were right or wrong about that?”
MR GORMAN: “I said they were wrong and they said they were right and they sacked me.”
MR BOURNE: “Did Mr Knibbs say that he had been on the phone to Adelaide?”
MR GORMAN; “Yes.”
MR BOURNE: “Did he expressly say that you were given a minutes notice?”
MR GORMAN: “Yes.”
MR BOURNE: “I assume that you would agree that it would be a serious breach of Company Policy to deliberately throw out stock which you knew to be saleable and in good condition?”
MR GORMAN: “Yes”
MR BOURNE: “Is that something you have ever done?”
MR GORMAN: “No.”
From the evidence given by Ms Dianne Zubrinich it is obvious that the Applicant’s fate had been sealed when she had made the first phone call to the Sue Smith, the security officer in Adelaide earlier on Saturday morning. It was also obvious that she had informed Ms Smith that she suspected the Applicant was going to steal the stock later that day. Ms Smith had advised her to stake out the bins and in evidence she said, of the conversation with Ms Smith:-
“She said to me that we already had David because he had nothing written on his shrinkage board and it was against Company Policy to not record shrinkage and we had him for misconduct anyway.”
From the evidence given by Ms Zubrinich and Mr Knibbs it is also obvious that the decision to dismiss the Applicant was made by Ms Sue Smith at the end of a telephone in Adelaide. Ms Smith was not called by the Respondent to give evidence.
The evidence in general given by Ms Zubrinich and Mr Knibbs was evasive and at times contradictory, both these witnesses were attempting to cover up as much as possible for their amateurish behaviour concerning the Applicants termination. It appears they have both since been promoted to other branches out of the Port Perie area. Mr Price the stores grocery manager who was an alleged witness, qualified by Ms Zubrinich during her discovery of the frozen stock in the bin and was not called by the Respondent. Ms Raylene Harris gave evidence that she had observed the first seven items listed on a sheet of paper in the bin and had recorded them for Ms Zubrinich. She alleged that she had felt the items and they felt hard. It is of interest to note that the items Ms Harris felt were all in fact still in their original packages. It is common knowledge that these types of frozen dinners are fairly well protected by plastic or aluminium foil and a cardboard package. Even when they are not frozen it is difficult to determine what state they are in by touch. The reality is that the Applicant maintains they were left out of the freezer and in his opinion they had become spoiled. Of course it would have been a simple matter for the Respondent to cut one open in front of a group of assembled witnesses if proof would have been required.
REASON FOR TERMINATION
Mr Knibbs set out the reasons for termination on his report of 30 April 1994, as:-
“Serious breach of Company Policy for not recording shrinkage, disposing of saleable stock, creating loss for the Company. Total dollar value of stock dumped as per attached $388.55.”
The Companies Policy of recording shrinkage is set out in the Woolworths handbook at page 16, in the following terms:-
“The shrinkage sheets must be checked and signed daily by the Store Manager.”
There is an implication therefore that anyone undertaking shrinkage should do it on a daily basis. The sheets for recording shrinkage however, are confusingly named, “weekly shrinkage record”.
Ms Dianne Zubrinich was the person directly in charge of shrinkage, her position was that of “Impact Manager” and it was her main concern to minimise the amount of shrinkage. When asked if there was a company policy that shrinkage sheets are to be signed by the Store Manager Ms Zubrinich replied:-
“Yes there is one.”
She was then asked if it was done on a daily basis she replied:-
“Yes.”
Then she was asked:-
“But does this ever happen?”
She answered:-
“Not always.”
She was then asked:-
“Ever?”
She replied:-
“Sometimes.”
And then she was asked:-
“Very frequently?”
She said,
“No.”
She later said that:-
“It’s not an issue. It’s whether they’re handed in at the end of the week’s more the issue.”
It is more than clear that there was no policy with regard to shrinkage being carried out at the Port Pirie branch of Woolworths. The Store Manager ignored his responsibility as set out in the handbook, the impact manager Ms Zubrinich was of the opinion that it was not an issue as long as she received the sheets at the end of the week, and there can be no doubt that the employees would have been led to believe that the recording of shrinkage on a daily basis was not an important issue as well.
I find it amazing therefore that the Applicant would be summarily dismissed for failure to have his shrinkage sheet completed when he was summonsed to Mr Knibbs office at midday, especially so when he explained that he had not yet finished work for the day and was about to complete the sheet when he was called to the office.
Especially disturbing is the allegation that the stock was not out of date and was in saleable condition. The Applicant consistently denied it was in a saleable condition and did not dispute that the use by date was still valid. He said the stock had been left out of the freezer and had become defrosted. He alone was aware that it had been left out and had made the decision to dispose of it even though it had not passed its use by date. The fact that the majority of the stock dumped, contained meat, adds to the Applicant’s credit concerning his decision to dispose of such items. Whether the items were frozen, partly frozen or somewhere in between cannot be an issue in this case. Mr Knibbs, Ms Zubrinich and Ms Harris cannot be regarded as experts as to the state of the items inside the packets.
Mr Gorman was not afforded the chance to prove his innocence. He was never shown the items.
A chance to prove his innocence was never given to the Applicant. There was never a proper investigation of the goods, there was no independent person or expert shown the items in question. In fact Mr Knibbs gave evidence that he only asked the Applicant one question before he was instructed to dismiss him on a minutes notice. In evidence in chief he stated that when he came into the office he asked the Applicant, “whether he understood how to use a shrinkage sheet?”, to which the Applicant replied he did. At that moment he was called to the phone, Sue Smith had rang him back from Adelaide and told him to, “give him a minutes notice.”
To add further to the farce Mr Knibbs alleges that the Applicant was shown a list of items that had been disposed of. This list contained only seven items, however, on his supposed contemporaneous “employees report” signed at 12.30 pm on 30 April 1994 the list contains a further six items that were discovered after the Applicant had been dismissed and left the premises.
The disturbing feature of this bungled affair was that the real reason Mr Gorman was terminated was that Ms Zubrinich had come to the conclusion that Mr Gorman must have been stealing the stock. This was evident from the phone call she made to Sue Smith the security officer in Adelaide. Smith’s advice was to stake out the bin.
Subsequent to the Applicant's dismissal the Applicant was interviewed by the Police. The Applicant co-operated fully with the police and gave a video recorded interview. He also allowed the police to search his home and vehicle. The police did not proceed with any charges made against the Applicant. Mr Gorman had to suffer the added indignity of a full police investigation and the embarrassment of being suspected of being a thief within his own town on the basis of the unsubstantiated suspicions of his superiors at the Port Pirie store.
In her summing up Ms Brown for the Respondent referred me to a decision of the Full Commission of the Industrial Commission of South Australia, PFOERTSH v. BALFOUR WAUCHOPE Pty Ltd (No. 388 of 1992.)
The Pfoertsh appeal concerned the termination of employment of an employee actually observed removing goods from the employers premises. The goods were later observed on the back of a utility. A week later the employer, after further enquires received a written statement from the driver of the utility admitting he had received the goods from the Appellant and on receiving this evidence the employer dismissed the employee. This case can readily be distinguished on the facts from the situation before this Court, however, it is relevant to consider the approach taken by the Full Commission when considering dismissals based on misconduct from that case. The Full Commission referred to BI LO P/L v Hooper 59 SA IR 342 and quoted the following passage at page 352:-
“An employee is entitled to both substantive and procedural fairness in respect of a dismissal. Substantive fairness will be satisfied if the grounds upon which dismissal occurs are fair grounds. Broadly speaking a dismissal will be procedurally fair if the manner or process of dismissal and the investigation leading up to the decision to dismiss is just.
Where the dismissal is based upon the alleged misconduct of the employee, the employer will satisfy the evidentiary onus which is cast upon it if it demonstrates that insofar as was within its power, before dismissing the employee, it conducted as full and extensive investigation into all of the relevant matters surrounding the alleged misconduct as was reasonable in the circumstances; it gave the employee every reasonable opportunity and sufficient time to answer all allegations and respond thereto; and that having done those things the employer honestly and genuinely believed and had reasonable grounds for believing on the information available at that time that the employee was guilty of the misconduct alleged; and that, taking into account any mitigating circumstances either associated with the misconduct or the employee’s work record, such misconduct justified dismissal. A failure to satisfactorily establish any of those matters will probably render the dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
In Mr Gorman’s case there was a glaring lack of both procedural and substantive fairness. In fact there was no procedure adopted by the Respondent at the point of termination. The Applicant was asked only one question and then terminated. It would also appear that this decision had been made prior to the discussion with the Applicant, by Ms Smith in Adelaide.
If the real reason for termination was the failure to complete the shrinkage sheet and for disposing of goods that had not passed their use by date, the Respondent, taking into account the Applicants length of employment and a good work record could not in all fairness justify summary dismissal.
The elements of procedural fairness to be afforded to an employee in Mr Gorman’s position were recently set out by Commissioner Turner in a decision handed down on the 22nd March 1994, in MONAGHAN v. MELBOURNE COURIERS PTY LTD. These elements are,
-a genuine investigation of the alleged misconduct, error or incident;
-follow up discussions about the allegations;
-the provision of an opportunity to explain the reasons for the alleged misconduct error or incident;
-the provision of an opportunity for the employee to be confronted with any disciplinary measures arising out of the discussions and before they come into effect; and
-the provision by the employer of relevant training opportunities and systems to help prevent reasonable employees from defaulting again over the same issues.
Mr Gorman was denied any real opportunity to defend himself. This requirement is set out in s 170DC of the Industrial Relations Act and was recently commented upon by Chief Justice Wilcox in NICOLSON v. HEAVEN & EARTH GALLERY PTY LTD in the following terms;
“Section 170DC carries into Australian labour law a fundamental component of the concept known to lawyers as “natural justice” or, more recently, “procedural fairness”. The relevant principle is that a person should not exercise legal power over another, to that person’s disadvantage and for a reason personal to him or her, without first affording the affected person an opportunity to present a case. The principle is well-established in public administrative law. It was accepted into international labour law when Article 7 was inserted in the Termination of Employment Convention. Section 170DC is directly modelled on Article 7. The principle is, I believe, well understood in the community. It represents part of what Australia’s call “a fair go”. In the context of s. 170DC, it is not to be treated lightly. The employee is to be given the opportunity to defend himself or herself “against the allegations made”; that is, the particular allegations of misconduct or poor performance that are putting the employee’s job at risk.”
From the evidence given by Ms Zubrinich and Mr Knibbs it is obvious that the real reason for the Applicants summary dismissal was the suspicion that the Applicant was stealing. This allegation was never put to the Applicant and it is therefore not necessary for me to address this issue however, in passing I might add that if this claim had been made then the onus of proof must inevitably shift to the higher onus as described in BRIGINSHAW v. BRIGINSHAW (1938) 60 CLR 336.
ORDERS
I declare that the termination of the employment of the Applicant, David John Gorman, on 30 April 1994, contravened Division 3 of Part VI A of the Industrial Relations Act 1988.
I order that David John Gorman be reinstated to the position in which he was employed immediately before his termination and that the employer pay to Mr Gorman the remuneration lost by him because of the termination.
BEFORE: R A Walker, Judicial Registrar
PLACE: Sydney
DATE: 17 November 1994
I certify that this and the preceding eighteen (18) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgement of Judicial Registrar Walker.
Associate : Jeynelle Moffat
____________________
Date : 15 December 1994
0