Day v Drake Trailers Pty Ltd

[2015] FWC 2644

[2015] FWC 2644 [Note: An appeal pursuant to s.604 (C2015/3784) was lodged against this decision - refer to Full Bench decision dated 25 June 2015 [[2015] FWCFB 3997] for result of appeal.]

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Steven Day
v
Drake Trailers Pty Ltd
(U2014/13602)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOOLEY MELBOURNE, 17 APRIL 2015

Application for relief from unfair dismissal.

[1] Mr Steven Day alleged the termination of his employment by Drake Trailers Pty Ltd was unfair. Drake Trailers objected to the application because it alleged the dismissal was a case of a genuine redundancy.

[2] At a telephone conference on 14 April 2015 a number of interlocutory issues were raised.

Did Mr David Miller or anyone in the same position as him require permission to appear?

[3] At the conclusion of the submissions on whether Mr David Miller required permission to appear, I advised that I was satisfied that Mr Miller as an employee of Ai Group and did not require permission to appear before the Fair Work Commission. I advised that I would publish my reasons. These are my reasons.

Does Mr Miller or any other legal practitioner employed by the Australian Industry Group and who also performs legal work for Ai Group Legal Pty Ltd require permission to appear for Drake Trailers Pty Ltd, a member of the Ai Group?

[4] It is not contested the Ai Group is the sole shareholder of an incorporated legal practice Ai Group Legal Pty Ltd. It is not disputed that Mr Miller is a director of Ai Group Legal.

[5] It was Mr Miller’s sworn evidence that he was employed by Ai Group in Brisbane as its National Manager - Workplace Legal Services. In August 2007 Ai Group established an incorporated legal practice.

[6] Mr Miller is a legal practitioner director of Ai Group Legal and holds an unrestricted practicing certificate. It was his evidence that he had never been employed by Ai Group Legal.

[7] In cross examination, Mr Miller stated that he did not run a legal practice and he did not receive any fees of a legal practice. 1 It was his evidence that Ai Group Legal represents the clients.2 It was his evidence that he manages the practice.3 He accepted that at times he appeared as a representative of the firm.4

[8] It was his evidence that Ai Group Legal did not have any employees. 5

[9] When the documents from the Queensland Law Society were put to Mr Miller he said they were misinformed and the persons listed were never employed by Ai Group Legal. 6 It was put to him that when a person completes the Queensland Law Society questionnaire they have to “declare everything to the best of your knowledge and ability”. It was Mr Miller’s evidence that he had not completed a questionnaire about Ai Group Legal.

[10] It was Mr Miller’s evidence that he had written to the Queensland Law Society informing them of the error and that he has never been employed by Ai Group Legal. 7

[11] It was put to Mr Miller that he misrepresented what and who he is to the Commission. Mr Miller denied this allegation and said he makes it clear in what capacity he is acting at any particular time. 8

[12] Mr Day gave evidence that a notice of representative commencing to act was filed by Mr David Miller for the Australian Industry Group.

[13] Mr Day gave evidence that the Queensland Law Society advised him that Mr Miller was employed by Ai Group Legal. On 8 December 2014, Mr Day was provided with further information by the Queensland Law Society about the names of solicitors currently employed by Ai Group Legal. Mr Miller’s name was not on that list.

[14] Mr Day relied upon a document downloaded from the Ai Group’s website which states that “Ai Group Legal Pty Ltd is a separate incorporated legal practice.......Employees of Ai Group Legal are strictly limited. That document describes Ai Group Legal as being headed by “industrial law specialist David Miller”.

[15] To support his contention that Mr Miller was employed by Ai Group Legal, Mr Day relied upon a letter sent on 15 July 2015 which showed that Mr Miller, as Director of Ai Group Legal, represented Drake Trailers a in safety prosecution matter in the Industrial Magistrate’s Court.

[16] Mr Day also relied on a settlement offer made by Drake Trailers in a letter signed by Mr Miller under the auspices of the Ai Group in which Mr Day was advised that if he was awarded a lesser amount than that offered by Drake Trailers, it would rely upon the offer in an application for costs. This letter was marked without prejudice save as to costs but no objection was taken to its tender.

[17] Mr Day further relied upon a response to an inquiry to the Queensland Law Society which advised that generally a legal practitioner cannot charge professional fees if employed in a non legal practice. That email advised that an example or scenario should be provided to enable a more specific response.

[18] Mr Day also relied upon a response to an email sent to the chambers of the President of the Commission which asked “whether a legal practitioner, who is running his or her own legal practice (or employed by this legal practice) and at the same time is employed by one of the registered employer’s organisations in the meaning of the FW Act 2009 (Cth) will automatically receive the right for legal representation of the client without seeking the Commission’s permission.” An associate replied “if an individual is a legal practitioner they will be required to make an application for the right to legally represent a client within the Commission. The decision to approve a legal practitioner to legally represent a party will be made by the relevant Member who is allocated the matter.”

Consideration

[19] In the submissions filed by Mr Day, he accepted that if a lawyer or paid agent is an employee of an organisation of which the party is a member, permission to appear is not necessary. However in his oral submissions he submitted that all legal practitioners need to seek permission to appear. 9 He then said that a lawyer who simultaneously holds a practising certificate and is employed by a legal practice and employed by an employer organisation must seek permission to appear.10

[20] He submitted that it was the intention of Parliament to restrict legal representation. He submitted in effect that the establishment of Ai Group Legal was a device to avoid the intention of Parliament. 11

[21] I accept that Parliament has taken view that people would generally represent themselves in unfair dismissal matters and that lawyers require permission to appear. A lawyer is defined as a person admitted to legal practice. A lawyer who does not hold a practicing certificate would still need permission. However, Parliament has made it clear that this does not apply if the lawyer is an employee or officer of an organisation.

[22] Mr Day submits that Mr Miller is an employee of Ai Group Legal. He relies primarily on the documents provided by the Queensland Law Society and the information on the AI Groups website that Ai Group Legal has employees. It also relies upon the letter of offer sent to Mr Day.

[23] Mr Miller has given sworn evidence that he is not an employee of Ai Group Legal. He has given sworn evidence that the emails provided by the Queensland Law Society are not an accurate reflection of the arrangement between Ai Group Legal and the legal practitioners listed. Mr Miller does not deny that he acts for clients of Ai Group Legal in matters as a legal practitioner and director of Ai Group Legal.

[24] Mr Miller does not resile from the fact that he acts in different capacities. It is clear on the evidence before me that Mr Miller in his correspondence makes it clear in which capacity he is acting at any time.

[25] It is clear on the correspondence in relation to the WorkSafe prosecution that Mr Miller was acting as a director of Ai Group Legal. His signature appears above that signature block. The letter of offer made to Mr Day is on the letterhead of Ai Group and Mr Miller signed that letter in his capacity as National Manager of Ai Group. Mr Day refers to this as a calderbank offer though the term is not used in the correspondence. The letter is nothing out of the ordinary, and simply put Mr Day on notice, that if he did not accept the offer of settlement then in certain circumstances, Drake Trailers would rely upon it in any costs application. What costs Drake Trailers may be able to claim in this matter will be determined if a costs application is successful. The letter does not support the submission that Ai Group Legal or Mr Miller or Ai Group are charging Drake Trailers for their services in this matter. Nor is it evidence that Mr Miller is employed by Ai Group Legal.

[26] Mr Miller is a legal practitioner well aware of the consequences of giving false evidence on affirmation. I accept his evidence that he is an employee of Ai Group and not Ai Group Legal. I do not accept the emails sent by the Queensland Law Society are conclusive evidence that Mr Miller or the other persons named are employees of Ai Group Legal. There is no evidence that Mr Miller or any of the named persons verified the information provided to the Queensland Law Society that would enable me to doubt Mr Miller’s evidence.

[27] I accept Mr Miller’s evidence that he is not employed by Ai Group Legal and is an employee of Ai Group. In this matter, he is acting for Drake Trailers in that capacity and he does not require permission of the Commission to do so.

[28] In those circumstances it is not necessary for me to decide if Mr Miller would require permission to appear if he were employed by both Ai Group and Ai Group Legal.

Notice to Produce

[29] On 5 January 2015, Mr Day filed an application for the production of documents. On 7 January 2015, the parties were directed to file material in support of their respective contentions.

[30] On 7 January 2015, Mr Day was advised that I was not prepared to issue the order prior to Drake Trailers filing its material. He was told that if this was not satisfactory he could request a mention on the matter. On 7 January 2015, a letter was sent to Mr Day confirming that I had declined to issue the order at that time and that he could make a further application after Drake Trailers had complied with the directions. Mr Day did not request a mention.

[31] The parties filed their material in accordance with the directions.

[32] On 20 February 2015, Mr Day filed another application for production of documents. As that matter was to be heard in the next Queensland roster, on 24 February 2015, the request was referred to the member who would be allocated the matter. On 25 February 2015, Commissioner Spencer set the matter down for telephone conciliation/directions on 27 February 2015. On 25 February 2015, Mr Day sent an email asking what matters would be dealt with at the conciliation/directions conference. On the same day, Mr Day filed an application for orders for certain persons to attend to give evidence. On 26 February 2015, Commissioner Spencer advised that parties that matter was listed for conciliation/directions to see if the matter could be resolved. If required any other matter relevant to the hearing would be dealt with.

[33] On 26 February 2015, Mr Day requested an adjournment on medical grounds. The conference was cancelled and Commissioner Spencer directed Drake Trailers to file any objection to the orders sought by 2 March 2015 and asked Mr Day to advise as to his ability to proceed by 3 March 2015. Commissioner Spencer advised that she would then relist the matter for a conciliation/directions conference.

[34] On 27 February 2015, Ms Maria Day wrote to the Commission raising questions about the procedure adopted by Commissioner Spencer. At the request of Mr Day, the matter was adjourned until after 1 April 2015. Commissioner Spencer responded to Ms Day’s email of 27 February 2015 and she vacated the directions issued to Drake Trailers.

The approach to the granting of orders

[35] Commissioner Jones 12 set out the principles to be followed by the Commission in deciding whether to issue a notice to produce and I adopt the approach outlined in that decision.

[36] There was no real dispute between the parties about the applicable law in this area.

The orders sought

[37] On 14 April 2015, Mr Day filed an amended application for Drake Trailers to produce the following documents:

1. Drake Trailers Pty Ltd’s Profit and Loss Statements for 2013 and 2014 financial years.

1(a) Drake Trailers Pty Ltd’s business plans and financial recordsshowing the company’s losses in sales and production for 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.

1(b) Drake Trailers Pty Ltd’s revenue for 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.

1(c) Drake Trailers Pty Ltd’s expenses of salary/wages for 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.

1(d) Drake Trailers Pty Ltd’s number of permanent employees (excluding casual employees and contractors) as to 30 June 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 financial years.

1(e) The numbers, names and positions of the employees relocated from Drake Trailers Pty Ltd in Brisbane to Western Australia’s company office or employed at the Western Australia’s company office in 2013 and 2014.

1(f) The Respondent’s Notice under section 530 of the Act dated 2012, 2013 or 2014, which should be provided to the Chief Executive Office of the Commonwealth Service Delivery Agency (Centrelink) specifying:

a) the reasons for the dismissals;
b) the number and categories of employees likely to be affected; and
c) the time when, or the period over which, the employer intends to carry out the dismissals.

2. All records in relation to the human resource needs of Drake Trailers Pty Ltd in the mechanical draftsman, design and engineering department, the factory workshop, the sales department, the production department for the period from 1 January 2013 to 21 November 2014 (which includes 5 weeks’ notice period after the Applicant’s termination) including:

a) all records of staff loss, including dates and details of redundancies, resignations and dismissals of permanent and casual employees and contractors;
b) all records of new employment, including dates and details of hiring new permanent and casual employees and contractors.

2(a) Drake Trailers Pty Ltd’s assessment in the redundancy selection process with reference to skills, experience, training and performance of the draftspersons.

2(b) The numbers of years of employment, the relevant qualifications and annual salary of the following draftspersons at the date of the Applicant’s redundancy, i.e. 16 October 2014: Johana Gaveran, Brock Nason, Troy Korhecz, John Bandierra, Eion Wilson, Paul Comacchio.

2(c) All records concerning the Applicant, including but not limited to the following records: employment file in its entirety, annual performance review and training documents.

3. All records of any communication between Drake Trailers Pty Ltd’s representatives and the Australian Industry Group which occurred prior to the termination of the Applicant’s employment in relation to the Applicant’s dismissal on 16 October 2014.

Mr Day’s submissions

[38] Mr Day filed submissions in support of his application. He submitted that evidence was being adduced at the hearing by Drake Trailers that in the preceding 12-18 months there had been a downturn in work, profits had declined by about 39% from 2013-2014 and 32 factory staff had been made redundant. It was submitted that there was no documentary material filed to support this evidence.

Order 1

[39] In relation to order 1, Mr Day said that the documents are directly relevant to a matter in dispute namely whether there had been a change in the operational requirements of the business.

Order 2

[40] It was submitted that these documents will confirm that Drake Trailers did not adopt a fair and objective selection criteria in deciding who was made redundant and they did not have regard to the individual circumstances of each employee.

[41] It was submitted that the documents in Mr Day’s employment file and Drake Trailer’s assessment in the redundancy process are relevant to the Commission’s determination.

[42] It was submitted that documents are required to prove that Drake Trailers did not suffer any significant downturn in work or losses of profit.

[43] It was submitted that production of the documents is not onerous and they have been identified with reasonable particularity.

Order 3

[44] It was submitted that Drake Trailers may have received advice from Ai Group or its representatives in relation to Mr Day’s instant dismissal on 16 October 2014.

General Submissions

[45] It was submitted that the Commission should have issued the orders when first requested. It submitted that I have on two occasions refused to issue the orders and that this represents a denial of natural justice. It submitted that the orders should be issued without alteration.

Drake Trailer’s submissions

[46] Drake Trailers advised that they did not object to providing Mr Day with the profit and loss statements for the years ending June 2013 and June 2014.

[47] Drake Trailers submitted that they did not object to the production of documents in 2(c) which would be contained in Mr Day’s personnel file.

[48] It objected to the production of the other categories and submitted that Mr Day was engaged in a fishing expedition to determine if he had a case. 13

[49] It also objected on the grounds of relevance. It accepts that given Drake Trailers have relied on a change in the company’s circumstances over a period of 12 to 18 months and that financial documents for those periods are relevant. However it submitted that documents for any earlier periods are not relevant.

[50] It submitted that some of the documents sought are commercially confidential.

Order 1

[51] In relation to order 1(a) it does not object to providing profit and loss statement for 2013 and 14 but says any documents from the preceding years are not relevant to any matter in dispute between the parties.

[52] Mr Miller made similar submissions in relation to orders 1(b) and 1(c).

[53] In relation to order 1(d) he stated that Drake Trailers were willing to produce a payroll run for the end of each financial year 2011 to 2014 which indicates the number of employees it had. He submitted there was no one document which would show this.

[54] In relation to order 1(e) it submitted that this was an invasion of the employee’s privacy and it was not relevant to whether Mr Day’s position was redundant. It was said that this was fishing.

[55] In relation to order 1(f) it submitted that Drake Trailers did not make 15 or more employees redundant at any one time and therefore no such document exists.

[56] In relation to order 2 it was submitted that Mr Day is fishing and the order is not properly particularised. It was also submitted that it was oppressive and intrusive into the confidential information of employees.

[57] In relation to orders 2(a) and (b) it was accepted that records of new employees post termination would be relevant.

[58] In relation to the second order 2(a) he said there is no document.

[59] In relation to the second order 2(b) it was submitted that it is oppressive and of limited relevance. It was submitted that reasons why Mr Day was chosen rather than someone else is not relevant to issues of genuine redundancy.

[60] In relation to order (3) they say there are no documents.

Mr Day’s reply submissions

Order 1

[61] Ms Day said documents for the previous years may be relevant. She submitted that the company had been making a profit and its large expansion plans would affect that profit. It was said that if “they can show what profits that were being made beforehand, before they decided to use the profits and to invest them in other expansions may be relevant.” 14

[62] Ms Day submitted that the business plans were relevant because they may affect how much money they are making. 15

[63] Ms Day submitted that wages for 2011 and 2012 were relevant because wages are a large component of expenses and she queried why there are redundancies if they are expanding. 16

[64] Ms Day submitted that the number of new employees is relevant and how many employees it had in the past is relevant “to have a picture and try and build a case as to whether these people are getting fired or whether new ones are added on and the company has expanded.” It was also put that contractors were engaged. 17

[65] In relation to order 1(e), Ms Day submitted that it was relevant because Mr Day could have been redeployed.

Order 2

[66] Ms Day submitted that this will help them build a case. It will show if they hired people or if there were new contractors.

[67] In relation to order 2(a), Ms Day accepted that the documents could be redacted to protect privacy. In addition it was submitted there could be a confidentiality order.

[68] It was said that this is not an invasion of privacy and the documents may be relevant because other employees could have been chosen for redundancy before Mr Day. It would pinpoint the selection criteria used by the employer.

Consideration

[69] It is accepted that the employer in cases of a genuine redundancy must bring sufficient evidence to the Commission to support a finding that there has been changes in the operational requirements of the business which mean that the employer no longer wants the redundant employee’s job done by anyone. I also accept that the information that supports or negates such a finding is usually in the possession of the employer.

[70] In this case it has been said that there has been downturn in work over the last 12-18 months and the company’s annual profits have declined.

[71] Mr Day is entitled to test this evidence and he is entitled to have access to the documents on which this evidence is based.

Order 1

[72] Drake Trailers have agreed that the profit and loss statements for the period ending June 2013 and June 2014 are relevant.

[73] Mr Day wants records going back to 2011. I do not accept that such records may be relevant to a matter in dispute. However I do consider that an assessment of whether there has been a decline in profits requires more than the profit and loss statements for financial years ending in June 2013 and 2014. I am not prepared to require Drake Trailers to produce its financial records for the years sought if what is sought is more than the profit and loss statements.

[74] I would be prepared to issue an order that Drake Trailers provide the profit and loss statements for the years ending June 2012, 2013 and 2014.

[75] I do not accept that the business plans for the years sought are relevant. Whatever plans the business put in place to either expand or contract are not relevant to the matters to be determined. Those plans are a matter for the business; it is not the role of the Commission to question whether those plans are a sensible allocation of the company’s resources. Those are decisions the company is entitled to make without interference from the Commission.

[76] I do accept that documents which show if there has been a down turn in production are relevant. Drake Trailers had given evidence that there has been a downturn in work over the previous 12-18 months. It should produce the documents that support that evidence. Again for the reasons set out above I consider that to enable Mr Day to test this evidence, the documents for the period ending June 2012, 2013 and 2014 should be produced.

[77] The profit and loss statements will disclose revenue and wages paid for the relevant periods. I will not order any additional documents be produced.

Order 1(d)

[78] Drake say there is no such document but it is willing to produce a payroll run for the end of each financial year 2011 to 2014 which indicates the number of employees it had.

Order 1(e)

[79] I do not consider these documents to be relevant. In relation to redeployment, the issue is not whether there were redeployment opportunities prior to the decision being made to make Mr Day’s position redundant. The question the Commission will need to determine is whether there were, once a decision had been made, positions to which Mr Day could have been redeployed. I consider that documents which show any positions to which Mr Day could have been redeployed with Drake Trailers or any associated entities would be relevant.

Order 1(f)

[80] Evidence is given that Drake Trailers has made redundant 34 staff. Documents which identify when these positions were made redundant and the nature of the positions would be relevant. However there is no evidence that 15 or more employees were made redundant at the one time and therefore no such document exists.

Order 2

[81] This order seeks all records in relation to the human resources needs in certain departments. I agree with the submission that this is not properly particularised.

[82] If the order sought the records in 2(a) for the period 1 January 2013 to 21 November 2014 and 2(b) for the period 1 July 2014 to 30 November 2014 with the names of staff members redacted, to protect the privacy of individuals, I would make such an order.

Order 2(a)

[83] I accept the proposition that selection criteria are not relevant to the question of whether there has been a genuine redundancy. If Drake Trailers is able to convince the Commission that there were changes in operational requirements that caused Mr Day’s position to be made redundant but is found not to have consulted or if Mr Day could have been redeployed, the reasons Mr Day was selected are irrelevant.

[84] UES (Int’l) Pty Ltd v Harvey 18 is authority for the principle that the selection criteria is not relevant if the genuine redundancy fails to be established because of lack of consultation or redeployment. However it is not authority for the proposition that the reasons for a person’s selection are irrelevant in all circumstances.

[85] If Drake Trailers is not able to convince the Commission that there were changes in operational requirements that caused Mr Day’s position to be made redundant, then the question of whether Mr Day was selected unfairly is relevant to the considerations of whether the dismissal was unfair.

[86] I will order Drake Trailers produce documents in category 2(a) but limit them to the period of time that Drake Trailers was making the assessment that led to Mr Day’s selection.

Order 2(b)

[87] For the reasons outlined above, if Drake Trailers is not able to convince the Commission that there were changes in operational requirements that caused Mr Day’s position to be made redundant then these documents are relevant to the issue of the fairness of the selection. This document can be redacted to remove the names of the employees.

Order 2(c)

[88] I am prepared to order Drake Trailers produce Mr Day’s file and any performance reviews and any training documents. The expression ‘all records concerning the Applicant’ is too broad and could include for example time and wages records etc. I would not issue the order as drafted.

Order 3

[89] I am not prepared to issue order 3. Drake Trailers has submitted that s.387(f) and (g) are neutral criteria. Advice received about the redundancies is not relevant to any issue before the Commission.

[90] I do not accept the submission that it would be a denial of natural justice to not issue the order as prepared by Mr Day. I initially refused to issue the order because at that the time the request was made it was not clear what were the issues in dispute between the parties. Mr Day did not request that his application be heard. Commissioner Spencer was going to hear from the parties before deciding to issue the orders. She was entitled to do so and this did not involve a denial of natural justice.

[91] A Commission member may, when presented with a notice to produce, be satisfied on the face of the material provided that the documents sought may be relevant and issue the order without hearing from the party. Even if the member issues the order, it can be objected to and then the parties are entitled to make submissions about the orders. This can lead to orders being set aside.

[92] However if the member is not satisfied on the face of the material before the Commission that the documents may be relevant, the Commission is entitled to make a preliminary decision not to issue the order and then provide the parties with an opportunity to put submissions as to why the orders should or should not be made. This cannot be said to be a denial of natural justice.

[93] Mr Day is directed to prepare an order consistent with my decision. The documents are to be produced to the Commission. If Drake Trailers has any objection to the inspection of any particular document or wants any confidentiality orders be issued, it should make those submissions at the time the documents are produced. I will give Drake Trailers two weeks from the date of the service of the order to produce the documents.

Orders to Attend

[94] Mr Day has sought orders that the following persons attend to give evidence:

• Mr John Drake



• Mr David Miller



• Mr Khali Lake



• Mr Jeff Hamanne



• Ms Sandra Carlsson



• Ms Collette Javet



• Mr Tom Lamont



• Mr Larry Davies

[95] As Messrs Drake, Lake, Miller and Hamanne had filed witness statements they are witnesses in the proceeding and are required to attend and be available for cross examination. No orders are therefore necessary for their attendance.

[96] Mr Miller is Drake Trailer’s representative. I do not consider it appropriate to order him to attend and give evidence.

[97] Ms Carlsson is the accountant and it is said she can give evidence about the actual losses suffered by the business. Mr Drake, the Managing Director and Mr Lake, the General Manager are giving evidence. Mr Day will have the relevant documents to cross examine these witnesses as to the financial reports of the company. I do not consider that Ms Carlsson will be able to provide any additional evidence relevant to the matters to be decided.

[98] Mr Lamont is alleged to have made a discriminatory comment about Mr Day. Even if Mr Lamont made the comment as alleged there is no submission made by Mr Day that would support a finding that the comment may be relevant to any issue in dispute. I will not issue an order for Mr Lamont to attend.

[99] Ms Javet is the payroll officer. There is a clear dispute about whether redundancy monies were transferred to Mr Day’s bank account prior to 16 October 2014. This is relevant to the issue of the consultation. I will order Ms Javet to attend.

[100] Mr Davies is the design engineer who will be able to comment on Mr Day’s duties and responsibilities. There is a dispute about whether Mr Day’s position is within the scope of an enterprise agreement. While Mr Davies’ opinion about that is irrelevant, there is a dispute about the scope of Mr Day’s duties. Mr Davies may give relevant evidence about this. I will order his attendance.

[101] Once a date for the hearing has been set, orders to attend consistent with my decision will be issued.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

M. Day and S. Day for the Applicant.

D. Miller for the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2015.

Melbourne, by telephone:

14 April.

<Price code C, PR563180>

 1   Transcript PN 59 and PN 117-120

 2   Ibid PN 60

 3   Ibid PN 68

 4   Ibid PN 69

 5   Ibid PN 70

 6   Ibid PN 75

 7   Ibid PN 103

 8   Ibid PN 130-131

 9   Ibid PN 274

 10   Ibid PN 278

 11   Ibid PN 280

 12   Australian Nursing Federation v Victorian Hospitals' Industrial Association [2011] FWA 8756

 13   Transcript PN 311

 14   Ibid PN 363

 15   Ibid PN 365

 16   Ibid PN 367

 17   Ibid PN 369

 18   [2012] FWAFB 5241

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer