Gabriel (George) Bucsai v Bardavcol Pty Ltd
[2020] FWC 4601
•2 SEPTEMBER 2020
| [2020] FWC 4601 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
Section 394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy
Gabriel (George) Bucsai
v
Bardavcol Pty Ltd
(U2020/5478)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT ANDERSON | ADELAIDE, 2 SEPTEMBER 2020 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy - whether genuine redundancy – salaried employee not award covered - failure to consult – operational requirements – redeployment – jurisdiction not invoked despite procedural unfairness – application dismissed
[1] On 22 April 2020 Gabriel (George) Buscai (Mr Buscai) lodged an application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the FW Act) in relation to the termination of his employment by Bardavcol Pty Ltd (Bardavcol) which took effect that day, 22 April 2020. Until his dismissal, Mr Buscai had been employed as a Senior Site Supervisor.
[2] Mr Buscai says that he was unfairly dismissed. He disputes that the dismissal was a genuine redundancy.
[3] Bardavcol raise a jurisdictional issue. It says that Mr Buscai’s dismissal was a genuine redundancy within the meaning of section 389 of the FW Act and, by virtue of section 385(d), the dismissal cannot be an unfair dismissal.
[4] Conciliation of the application was conducted on 4 June 2020 and again on 10 July 2020. The matter did not resolve.
[5] I issued directions on 19 June 2020. In advance of the hearing, and consistent with directions, I received witness statements and materials from both Mr Buscai and the employer.
[6] I heard the matter (by video conference) on 13 August 2020.
[7] Both parties were self-represented.
[8] I heard evidence from three persons:
• George Buscai (Applicant and former Senior Site Supervisor);
• Daniel Kranixfeld (Operations Manager); and
• Shane Prince (Construction Manager).
[9] Mr Buscai’s evidence was direct. While understandably his evidence included opinion and comment, his recall of events was generally reliable.
[10] Both Mr Kranixfeld and Mr Prince gave evidence with clarity on matters in their witnesses statements but were less clear on matters leading up to the decision making process on which they were questioned, but which were not included in their statements.
[11] There are some disputed facts, the principal of which are:
• whether Mr Buscai was told he was being made “redundant” at the dismissal meeting on 22 April 2020 (Mr Buscai says he was not told this; Mr Kranixfeld and Mr Prince say he was); and
• whether Mr Buscai was offered a support person at this meeting (he says he was not).
[12] The jurisdictional issue does not turn on these factual differences. On these two issues I generally prefer Mr Buscai’s evidence where there is conflict. However, for reasons that follow, in circumstances where Mr Buscai was blindsided by his dismissal, it is possible that in the intensity of the moment neither recall is precise and that the disputed words used by Mr Kranixfeld (intending to convey a redundancy) were not as exact as he says but were not understood by Mr Buscai as the employer had intended.
[13] I determine this matter based on the provisions of the FW Act and the oral and written materials before me.
Facts
Bardavcol
[14] Bardavcol is an established South Australian civil construction and engineering company. Amongst its projects, it hold major contracts as head contractor for road construction with the Government of South Australia (Transport SA).
[15] Bardavcol currently holds other major civil construction contracts as head contractor for SA Water.
Gawler project
[16] One such road project contracted by Bardavcol for the South Australian government is the Gawler East Link Project (Gawler project) north of Adelaide, South Australia.
[17] The Gawler project was awarded by Transport SA in March 2018. It was contractually due for completion by January 2020. It was late. Bardavcol was exposed to liquidated damages of $10,000 per day for late completion.
[18] By April 2020 the project was nearing completion, with major works scheduled for completion in July 2020 and practical completion by August 2020.
[19] The complexity and scale of works on the Gawler project wound down from April 2020. Two of three site compounds were marked for demobilisation (which subsequently occurred on 5 May and 10 June respectively).
Mr Buscai’s employment
[20] Mr Buscai worked for Bardavcol for just over eighteen months. He had intended to work until retirement (another three years).
[21] Mr Buscai was recruited by Bardavcol in 2018 having had over thirty years’ experience in the civil construction industry. Immediately prior he had been employed for a decade by York Civil (before it went into liquidation).
[22] He commenced in a full time role on 19 September 2018 in the position of ‘Senior Site Supervisor’. 1 He remained in this position until made redundant on 22 April 2020. He entered an updated contract of employment in July 2019.2
[23] Neither of Mr Buscai’s contracts were specific to a particular project. Both contracts referred to a work obligation “on various project sites”.
[24] However, as a matter of fact (apart from a short period of orientation) Mr Buscai worked exclusively on the Gawler project. He was recruited by Bardavcol for that purpose and at a time when it was assembling its workforce for commencing works on the Gawler project.
[25] Contractually, Mr Buscai reported to the Operations Manager (Mr Kranixfeld) though in day to day terms he reported to the Project Director and multiple project managers including Bardavcol’s Construction Manager (Mr Prince).
[26] Mr Buscai’s work as Senior Site Supervisor was that of being an on-site supervisor of supervisors. A project of the scale of the Gawler project had various component parts, each with their function, time-frames, workforce and supervisor. Mr Buscai’s role was to oversee the work of the various supervisors (around four to five) in each distinct part, and provide liaison and cohesion for the project as a communication link between supervisors and as a whole-of-project supervisor reporting to managers and head office.
[27] At relevant times Mr Buscai was paid a six figure sum plus a fully maintained company motor vehicle and mobile phone.
Decision to dismiss
[28] Bardavcol’s senior management conduct weekly resource meetings at which time project status, cost and resourcing is discussed.
[29] In separate resource meetings on around 10 April and 17 April 2020 status and resourcing of the Gawler project was discussed. Mr Prince reported that major works were nearing completion and that demobilisation of two compounds was scheduled. Mr Kranixfeld, together with Mr Prince, concluded that in light of works being scaled down labour force requirements on the project needed to be reduced.
[30] Between 10 and 17 April 2020 a view was formed by Mr Kranixfeld and Mr Prince that amongst the roles on the Gawler project that no longer needed to be performed was that of Senior Site Supervisor (Mr Buscai’s role). They formed this view on the basis that a number of site supervisors on the project would be taken off the project and moved to different projects.
[31] On 17 April 2020 the decision to cease Mr Buscai’s role on the Gawler project was made at the weekly resource meeting. 3 At that meeting Mr Kranixfeld supported by other managers (and supported by the Manging Director) formed the view that there was currently available no alternate redeployment option for Mr Buscai on other projects.
[32] At around the same time, a decision was made by Bardavcol to remove the Project Director. That decision was on account of overall problems associated with completion of the Gawler project and the cost of liquidated damages. 4
[33] Although decisions was made on 10 and 17 April 2020 to remove Mr Buscai’s role from the Gawler project and a further decision that no redeployment options were available to employ him elsewhere, Bardavcol did not discuss the matter with Mr Buscai at any time before 22 April 2020.
[34] On around the morning of 22 April 2020 Mr Kranixfeld secured the final go-ahead from the Managing Director to proceed with the redundancy. Mr Kranixfeld advised payroll that Mr Buscai’s redundancy payments would need to be made up. He decided he would communicate the redundancy in person to Mr Buscai later that day. He chose this date because it was the first convenient time when he and Mr Prince could attend together on site.
Mr Buscai’s dismissal
[35] Mr Buscai attended work as normal on 22 April 2020.
[36] Unknown to Mr Buscai, that morning the Project Director ceased employment.
[37] Following the Project Director leaving, Mr Kranixfeld, together with Mr Prince, approached Mr Buscai and asked him to attend a lunchtime meeting in a site office. I prefer Mr Buscai’s evidence that he was not offered the opportunity to bring a support person to this meeting. 5
[38] Fifteen minutes later the meeting was held (around 12.45pm).
[39] At the meeting the following exchange took place:
“Mr Kranixfeld: you know how this job is tracking
Mr Buscai: yes
Mr Kranixfeld: the decision has been made to let you go
Mr Buscai: why
Mr Kranixfeld: it’s a decision of the Managing Director and we have to abide by it
Mr Buscai: am I being made a scapegoat for the poor performance of the project?
Mr Kranixfeld: no, others are also going. How do you want to handle this?
Mr Buscai: what do you mean?
Mr Kranixfeld: do you want to resign?
Mr Buscai: I need some time to think about it
Mr Kranixfeld: ok but we need a decision today. You need to pack up and leave the site immediately. I will ring you later.”
[40] Mr Buscai was shocked. He did as directed; packed up and left the site (though took his company vehicle, laptop and phone which were later returned).
[41] At 4.30pm that same day Mr Buscai telephoned Mr Kranixfeld. The following exchange took place:
“Mr Buscai: I will not be resigning
Mr Kranixfeld: Ok fine. We are making you redundant. We will send details of your redundancy entitlements.”
[42] Mr Kranixfeld then prepared and signed the letter of termination including details of the redundancy entitlements he had obtained that morning from the payroll officer. He sent an email to Mr Buscai ninety minutes later detailing his redundancy entitlements. 6
[43] Mr Buscai received by courier to his home address a letter of termination the following day (23 April), dated 22 April. It read: 7
“Dear George
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT
Further to our recent discussions, we confirm we are unable to provide continuing work for you at Bardavcol.
Accordingly, as of immediately your position will become redundant and your employment will be termination on Wednesday 22 April 2020.
We will be paying you in lieu of you serving your notice period.
Prior to departure, please liase (sic) with Daniel Kranixfeld and arrange return of all keys, fuel cards and company equipment in your possession including telephones and laptops.
If you have any further questions concerning this notice or related matters, please contact Daniel Kranixfeld or Robyn Murdey as appropriate.
We wish you well in your future endeavours.
Yours faithfully
Bardavcol Pty Ltd
Daniel Kranixfeld
Operations Manager”
[44] Mr Buscai also received a written breakdown of his termination payments, being three weeks in lieu of notice, four weeks redundancy pay, and other wages and accrued leave owed. 8
[45] Mr Buscai did not wait until he received the letter confirming his redundancy. He filed these proceedings at 9.54pm on the evening of 22 April 2020.
[46] Since being dismissed Mr Buscai has enquired about site supervision work in the civil construction industry but in light of economic conditions, his age and perceived damage to reputation and motivation he has not yet secured alternate work.
Consideration
[47] Mr Buscai was a person protected from unfair dismissal within the meaning of section 382 of the FW Act.
[48] He served the required minimum employment period (section 382(2)(a)).
[49] Whilst a salaried employee and paid a six figure sum, the value of his annual rate of earnings (incorporating relevant elements of his remuneration package) did not exceed the value of the high income threshold 9 at the date of dismissal (section 382(2)(b)(iii)).
[50] His employer was a “national system employer” within the meaning of section 14 of the FW Act.
[51] His application was filed within the required 21 days after dismissal.
[52] This matter concerns whether Mr Buscai’s dismissal was a genuine redundancy within the meaning of section 389 of the FW Act. There is no other basis on which Bardavcol assert the dismissal was for a valid reason. The matter concerns no allegation of performance issues or misconduct.
[53] Section 389 of the FW Act provides:
“389 Meaning of genuine redundancy
(1) A person’s dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy if:
(a) the person’s employer no longer required the person’s job to be performed by anyone because of changes in the operational requirements of the employer’s enterprise; and
(b) the employer has complied with any obligation in a modern award or enterprise agreement that applied to the employment to consult about the redundancy.
(2) A person’s dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy if it would have been reasonable in all the circumstances for the person to be redeployed within:
(a) the employer’s enterprise; or
(b) the enterprise of an associated entity of the employer.”
Consultation
[54] Bardavcol undertook no consultation with Mr Buscai in advance of its decision to dismiss. Nor did Bardavcol undertake consultation with Mr Buscai on its decision that no reasonable redeployment options existed.
[55] This failure was despite two clear opportunities to do so: firstly, between 10 and 17 April when it firmed up its decision to demobilise two project compounds, scale back the workforce on the Gawler project and remove two senior employees (the project director and Mr Buscai); and secondly, between 17 and 22 April 2020 or on 22 April 2020 itself when planning to communicate the dismissal.
[56] The only consultation that occurred was Bardavcol’s offer to accept a resignation as an alternative to dismissal; an offer Mr Buscai rejected. That limited option in no way opened the door to a meaningful discussion of either the merits of the redundancy nor the merits of the employer’s view on redeployment.
[57] The process was not one of consultation; it was one of ambush.
[58] However, the mandatory consultation requirement in section 389(1)(b) of the FW Act only applies where that obligation arises from “a modern award or enterprise agreement”.
[59] Mr Buscai was not employed under a modern award. As a salaried senior site supervisor paid a six figure sum his employment did not fall within the scope of a modern award. Neither his 2018 nor 2019 employment contracts make reference to a modern award. Nor did Mr Buscai contend otherwise at the hearing of this matter.
[60] Nor was Mr Buscai employed under the terms of an enterprise agreement. No contention was made to this effect. The Bardavcol Pty Ltd Enterprise Agreement 2016 Civil Construction and Maintenance Projects Enterprise Agreement expressly excludes persons engaged in “technical, supervisory, engineering or management capacity”. 10 Mr Buscai’s position was so excluded.
[61] Not being employed under a modern award or enterprise agreement, the obligation to consult under section 389(1)(b) did not apply in this matter.
[62] It follows that Bardavcol’s failure to consult Mr Buscai cannot be taken into account in deciding whether the employer is able to make out its jurisdictional objection under section 389.
Operational requirements
[63] The facts established by Bardavcol support the proposition that the Gawler project was, by April 2020, nearing completion of major works, and that two of three compounds were soon to be decommissioned. Whether the project was 90% completed by dollar value (as claimed by Mr Kranixfeld and Mr Prince) or by a lesser percentage (70%) by reference to works completed (as claimed by Mr Buscai), I am satisfied that the project was nearing completion. 11
[64] It was a necessary and rational operational decision to consequentially reduce the workforce on the project. That it was also considered necessary to reduce costs as soon as possible in light of delayed completion and risk of liquidated damages was also a rational business decision.
[65] Mr Buscai’s role as supervisor of supervisors on the project was appropriately the subject of redundancy on operational grounds for each of these reasons. With the reduction of major works and the movement of those who Mr Buscai supervised onto other projects, the meaningful work Mr Buscai had performed for the previous eighteen months on the project was no longer required. Further, as a well-paid salaried employee his removal from the project was material to the reduction in its costs.
[66] I accept the employer’s submission that the role of senior site supervisor on the Gawler project did not continue beyond Mr Buscai’s redundancy. Mr Buscai points to the fact that another senior site supervisor came onto the site in the days prior to his redundancy. 12 The employer’s evidence is that this supervisor was on the site at that time as a pavement supervisor not as a senior site supervisor and did not become the senior site supervisor. I accept this evidence.13 Mr Buscai was the only senior site supervisor on the project at the time of his dismissal. That position on the Gawler project was not continued beyond the redundancy.
[67] Mr Buscai submits, correctly, that he was not employed specifically on the Gawler project. Was his role as Senior Site Supervisor genuinely removed from the business as a whole? The evidence before me supports such a finding. Whilst some limited supervision continued on the Gawler project following the redundancy, and whilst other projects engaged supervisors (including senior site supervisors) the evidence clearly establishes that following Mr Buscai’s redundancy Bardavcol operated with one fewer Senior Site Supervisor across its operations. 14
[68] Mr Buscai further submits that the dismissal was not a genuine redundancy as the true reason was to make him a scapegoat for the project’s delays and financial exposure. In support of this submission he relies on five propositions:
• firstly, he says he was not told at the dismissal meeting that he was being made redundant;
• secondly, the project director left in the same decision making process and that very morning;
• thirdly, he instinctively raised his concern at being made a scapegoat at the dismissal meeting;
• fourthly, in the hours that followed Mr Buscai’s dismissal he says that he was told by two (unnamed) remaining employees, when they had asked why Mr Buscai had been dismissed, Mr Kranixfeld had told them “sometimes when the coach gets fired the quarter-back has to go too”; and
• fifthly, being offered the chance to resign is inconsistent with a genuine redundancy.
[69] I have closely examined this submission but conclude that the weight of evidence supports the alternate finding that Mr Buscai’s dismissal was a genuine redundancy and not a subterfuge for whole of project performance, cost or delays.
[70] Generally preferring Mr Buscai’s recall, I find that neither Mr Kranixfeld nor Mr Prince used the word “redundancy” at the dismissal meeting. They used the more ambiguous phrase “the decision has been made to let you go”. This phrase does not however exclude the fact of redundancy. It matters little that the word was not expressly used until the 4.30pm telephone conversation later that day. The objective facts support a finding that the reason for the dismissal communicated at 12.30pm was an operational redundancy of Mr Buscai’s position, and this was made express by day’s end and in the confirming letter of termination.
[71] That a different and more senior employee (the project director) left for broader reasons (project performance) does not mean that Mr Buscai’s position was not made redundant as part of a contemporaneous decision-making process about future workforce requirements on the Gawler project. Further, what Mr Buscai says Mr Kranixfeld said to other employees hours later (that his dismissal was linked to that of the project director) adds little. That evidence was second-hand hearsay referring to unnamed sources. That is not a reliable basis for making findings of fact. Even were I to accept this evidence, what was said to have been communicated does not alter the aforementioned conclusion. That different employees on a project holding different responsibilities leave on account of the status of the same project does not mean that the reasons for doing so are the same.
[72] As a general proposition, I agree with Mr Buscai that a salaried employee being offered a chance to resign may be more consistent with a dismissal for cause than a genuine redundancy. However, such a course it is not inconsistent with a genuine redundancy. It had previously occurred in Mr Prince’s experience. 15 Whilst a resignation may have a negative commercial (tax or Centrelink) consequence for a redundant employee, for some it may make the search for fresh employment less difficult. On balance, this consideration does not weigh so greatly as to displace the objective operational facts which point to a genuine redundancy.
[73] Bardavcol can be rightly criticised for not having made it clear in unambiguous terms at the dismissal meeting that Mr Buscai was being made redundant. The managers appear to have been more concerned about securing a smooth departure (resignation) than engaging in an open and transparent dialogue.
[74] This notwithstanding, Bardavcol no longer required Mr Buscai’s job as a supervisor of supervisors to be performed by anyone because of changes in operational requirements.
[75] Section 389(1)(a) is made out.
Redeployment
[76] Would it have been reasonable in all of the circumstances for Mr Buscai to be redeployed elsewhere within Bardavcol or an associated enterprise?
[77] This question is to be answered by an objective consideration of the facts, not by reference to the fact that Mr Buscai was not consulted on redeployment options.
[78] The evidence before me establishes the following:
• the position of a supervisor of supervisors generally exists only with respect to larger projects;
• three other projects were active as at April 2020 16. Five others were either in the design phase, practically complete, minor in nature or awaiting site possession;
• two projects expected to have commenced were delayed;
• three road projects that had been anticipated to be put to tender by Transport SA had not been released; and
• on account of the lull in projects, exacerbated by the uncertainty of COVID-19, the dollar value of total project work in hand when Mr Buscai was first employed compared to when he was made redundant had declined by 75%.
[79] At April 2020, the available alternate active projects did not have a vacancy for a Senior Site Supervisor. 17 Nor were positions of site supervisors vacant. Redeployment is not reasonable if it means that other employees occupying roles need to be removed from their established employment. Relevant to this issue is that certain of Mr Buscai’s ‘tickets’ (for example, first aid) to qualify him to return to site supervision (as distinct from being a supervisor of supervisors) had lapsed. While I accept Bardavcol’s position that re-establishing such credentials would have taken more than the few hours suggested by Mr Buscai, the fact that course retraining would have had to be scheduled over coming weeks was not in itself a reason to not consider redeployment to such positions.
[80] However, in view of the status of projects and lull in new projects, those positions did not exist.
[81] Mr Buscai submits that he could have been redeployed into tendering, tactical or explorative work on forthcoming or potential projects. While Mr Buscai’s long experience in the industry may be relevant to such work, there is no evidence that such positions were vacant or in demand at the time of redundancy. 18
[82] Mr Buscai also submits that he could have been engaged as a subcontracted site supervisor on a project to project basis and points to the fact that two site supervisors were subcontractors. Redeployment into a contracted role would still have had the effect of terminating the employment relationship. It would not have resulted in redeployment as an employee elsewhere in the business. In any event, there is no evidence that contracted positions as a site supervisor were vacant or in demand at the time of redundancy.
[83] That Mr Buscai was not given the opportunity to explore these options in a mature and transparent manner with Bardavcol was unfair to him. That denial of opportunity arose from the failure to consult. It does not however alter the objective facts that such options were not reasonably available in the circumstances of only a limited number of active projects at April 2020 and a lull in new or intended projects.
[84] It follows that it was not reasonable in all of the circumstances for Mr Buscai to be redeployed elsewhere within Bardavcol or an associated entity.
[85] Section 389(2) is made out.
Conclusion
[86] Mr Buscai’s dismissal was procedurally unfair. He was blindsided by the redundancy.
[87] Bardavcol’s failure to consult was an egregious breach of respect for a senior employee.
[88] Its failure to consult reflects poorly on Bardavcol’s redundancy practices towards its senior workforce. It cannot be explained by the fact that major civil construction contracts wax and wane nor the pressures of the COVID-19 pandemic. There are many industries where work is dependent on orders or contracts that are unpredictable or subject to competitive tendering. Moreover, Bardavcol is just one of hundreds of thousands of businesses gripped by the economic uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many employers in either of these circumstances are able to consult to at least to a basic degree when ending employment relationships with staff by reason of redundancy.
[89] The failure to consult was a product of a view amongst Bardavcol’s senior management that if the law did not require consultation with Mr Buscai then it would not consult when making him redundant. To the extent that this reflects a cultural attitude inside Bardavcol or the civil construction industry more widely, it is an approach that requires reflection and remediation. Such approaches may result in good people leaving companies or the industry with a sour taste and the industry sustaining reputational damage, not to mention the obvious cost and consequence of companies defending litigation such as this and hurt to the individual. Inviting litigation by failing to consult is a self-inflicted cost.
[90] In his closing address Mr Klovekorn advised the Commission that Bardavcol have learnt from this experience and intend to alter its approach when future redundancies arise. 19 Mr Kranixfeld acknowledged in his evidence that prior consultation about redeployment would have resulted in Mr Buscai’s redundancy proceeding more smoothly.20 That recognition is noted but of little comfort to Mr Buscai who was on the receiving end of an unfairly implemented redundancy.
[91] However, Mr Buscai’s application is required to be determined according to the provisions of the FW Act and the circumstances applying on 22 April 2020. The statutory definition of genuine redundancy only extends a consultation obligation to employees covered by an award or enterprise agreement. Mr Buscai was not so covered.
[92] In these circumstances the procedural unfairness 21 cannot be examined under broader section 387 considerations (such as harshness) if Bardavcol have made out the other elements of the statutory definition of genuine redundancy: genuine operational requirements and reasonable consideration of redeployment.
[93] I have found that the redundancy was founded on genuine operational requirements.
[94] I have also found that there were, at the time, no reasonable redeployment options in Bardavcol or an associated entity.
[95] In these circumstances, Bardavcol has satisfied the definition of genuine redundancy in section 389 of the FW Act. As a consequence, the statutory rule (section 385(d)) applies such that a genuine redundancy (within the meaning of the definition) cannot be an unfair dismissal.
[96] Notwithstanding the egregious failure to consult, the Commission has no jurisdiction to inquire further into the dismissal.
[97] In commencing this litigation, Mr Buscai has forced accountability and exposed a weakness in Bardavcol’s redundancy practices that requires remediation. He was not dismissed for a failure on his part and he is rightly concerned to protect his long and successful reputation in the industry.
[98] However, as Mr Buscai’s dismissal was not an unfair dismissal within the meaning of the FW Act, the application must be dismissed. An order22 to that effect is issued in conjunction with the publication of this decision.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
Mr G Bucsai, the Applicant on his own behalf, with Ms L Bucsai.
Mr H Klovekorn, for and on behalf of Bardavcol Pty Ltd.
Hearing details:
2020
Adelaide
13 August
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR722286>
1 Employment Contract 3 September 2018 A4 ‘Senior Site Supervisor’
2 Employment Contract 5 July 2019 A5 ‘Site Supervisor’
3 Audio transcript 13.8.20 Mr Kranixfeld 12.10pm
4 Audio transcript 13.8.20 Mr Prince 1.17pm
5 Audio transcript 13.8.20 Mr Buscai 12.36pm and 1.20pm
6 A7
7 A6 and R4
8 A8
9 $148,700
10 [2017] FWCA 2421 Enterprise Agreement preamble paragraph 1
11 R5; audio transcript 13.8.20 Mr Kranixfeld 12.48pm; Mr Prince 1.04 pm
12 Audio transcript 13.8.20 Mr Buscai 11.53am
13 Audio transcript 13.8.20 Mr Kranixfeld 12.22pm; Mr Prince 1.00pm to 1.03pm
14 Audio transcript 13.8.20 Mr Prince 1.15pm
15 Audio transcript 13.8.20 Mr Prince 1.10pm
16 R5 and Employer Submission 14 July 2020
17 Audio transcript 13.8.20 Mr Kranixfeld 12.32pm; Mr Prince 1.06pm
18 Audio transcript 13.8.20 Mr Prince 1.33pm
19 Audio transcript 13.8.20 2.00pm
20 Audio transcript 13.8.20 Mr Kranixfeld 12.28pm
21 For example, the lack of consultation or the failure to offer a support person in advance of the dismissal meeting
22 PR722380
0