Hunt v Halliburton Australia Pty Ltd - [2008] SAEOT 10

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TRIBUNAL
(District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division)
HUNT v HALLIBURTON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
[2008] SAEOT 10
Judgment of Her Honour Judge Cole, Member Mr D Shetliffe and Member Ms H Jasinski
25 July 2008
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
Allegation of discrimination against a contract worker on the ground of impairment - whether respondent acted in contravention of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 - claim not made out under Act.
Equal Opportunity Act 1984, referred to.

HUNT v HALLIBURTON AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
[2008] SAEOT 10
Introduction

On 8 September 2005, Andrew Hunt (“Mr Hunt”) made a complaint to the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity (“the Commissioner”), pursuant to the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (“the Act”), in relation to the conduct of Halliburton Australia Pty Ltd (“Halliburton”). The matter was not resolved by conciliation and on 15 August 2007, the Commissioner referred Mr Hunt’s complaint to this Tribunal pursuant to s 95(8). Subsequently, particulars of Mr Hunt’s complaint were provided to the Tribunal. These were further amended at trial. The general complaint in the Notice of Particulars is in the following terms:
That in August 2005 the respondent discriminated against the complainant by:
· denying him access to employment on the basis of a presumption of impairment contrary to section 66(a) & (c) of the Act.
· by not allowing him to work on the ground of impairment contrary to section 69(3)(b) of the Act.
· by subjecting him to detriment on the ground of impairment contrary to section 69(3)(d) of the Act.
At the hearing in the matter, Mr Durkin appeared as counsel for the complainant and Mr Bull appeared for the respondent. Mr Hunt was the only witness in the complainant’s case. Mr Santich, Mr Womacks, Mr Hede and Mr Wende gave evidence in the respondent’s case. All of the witnesses had difficulties with their recollection of the relevant events because of the considerable time between the events complained of and the hearing. The evidence was that throughout most of 2006, Mr Hunt did not pursue his complaint with the Commissioner, and was not responsive to correspondence in relation to it. Mr Hunt then revived his complaint in late 2006.
The Facts
Many of the facts relied upon by Mr Hunt were not in dispute.
Mr Hunt gave evidence that he was born on 8 March 1969. In relation to his employment history, his evidence was that after finishing school, he had a series of jobs with a number of employers. He could not recall all of them. Immediately prior to being engaged to undertake work for Halliburton, Mr Hunt worked for Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd at the Beverly Uranium Mine as a geophysical logger. He was working for Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd in 2003 when he dislocated his right shoulder. The injury required surgery followed by physiotherapy. Mr Hunt was off work as a result of the injury for twelve months. He then went through a work hardening process before resuming his duties as a geophysical logger with Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd. For a time after returning to work, Mr Hunt required, on average, one day off per fortnightly shift on account of his injury, however, by the time he resigned from Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd on 14 June 2005, Mr Hunt no longer needed to take days off relating to his injury.
Mr Hunt gave evidence that he decided to look for another job whilst working for Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd, solely because he wanted a change. He found an advertisement, he thinks on-line, for a position at Halliburton for a fracturing technologist. The advertisement was tendered as part of exhibit P1. It said, among other things:
Ideally the successful applicant will have tertiary qualifications in a Science based degree or similar experience.
Mr Hunt did not have tertiary qualifications, but he made enquiries by telephone which then led to him forwarding his resume to Halliburton. He was then contacted by email and asked to contact Mr Womacks. A meeting was arranged, which Mr Womacks was then unable to attend. A further meeting was then arranged between Mr Hunt and Mr Dunsby, of Halliburton, in late May or early June 2005. Mr Hunt gave evidence that, at that meeting, Mr Dunsby described the duties of the position to be filled. Mr Dunsby told Mr Hunt that he would have access to a laptop and to computer based training initially, and that later he would be sent to a training school overseas. Mr Hunt said that he told Mr Dunsby that he would not leave his employment with Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd for a salary of less than $60,000 per year. Mr Hunt said that he told Mr Dunsby that he had a shoulder injury. About a week after the interview, Mr Hunt was contacted by telephone and arrangements were made for him to have a medical examination and drug and alcohol screening tests. An “Occupational Medical Assessment” dated 6 June 2005 and signed by Dr Gavin Shepherd was tendered. The Occupational Medical Assessment form shows that Mr Hunt disclosed that he had undergone a shoulder reconstruction. A note by Dr Shepherd on the Occupational Medical Assessment form says:

Condition Potential Impact Recommendations

Neck + shoulder injury Exacerbation Suggest avoid role requiring substantial abnormal neck postures and avoid above shoulder height work.

In evidence, Mr Hunt said performing any lifting above shoulder height was definitely a problem for him.
Some time after the medical examinations, Mr Hunt had a telephone conversation with Mr Dunsby, in which Mr Dunsby indicated that Mr Hunt would be offered a position. Remuneration was not, however, discussed. It seems that Mr Hunt resigned from his employment with Heathgate Resources Pty Ltd after that conversation. Subsequently, Mr Hunt and Mr Dunsby had a further meeting in Adelaide, with Karen Karlsson, an employee of Halliburton, attending for part of the meeting from Perth by telephone. Mr Dunsby offered Mr Hunt a position at a salary of $63,000 per annum, or $335 per day. Mr Hunt gave evidence that Mr Dunsby told him that Mr Hunt would go to Moomba for a few trips and that a training school would be sorted out whilst he did that. Mr Dunsby said that Mr Hunt would be on a two weeks on, two weeks off roster. Mr Dunsby also said that Mr Hunt would have a three month trial period, which he would serve as an employee of Maxima Group Inc (“Maxima”). It seems that Maxima is a labour hire company which provides labour to Halliburton. Subsequently, Mr Hunt attended at the offices of Maxima, met with Mr Glen Wilkins and completed some paperwork. It was common ground that Mr Hunt was then a casual employee of Maxima for a trial period of three months, to perform services for Halliburton pursuant to an agreement between Halliburton and Maxima. It is clear from the emails from Ms Karlsson and Mr Dunsby, both of Halliburton, and Mr Wilkins of Maxima, that all of those people were aware of Mr Hunt’s shoulder injury when Mr Hunt was offered employment with Maxima. Mr Dunsby sent an email to Ms Karlsson on 14 June 2005 in which he said, of Mr Hunt:
He will have a job requiring no lifting. Mainly monitoring a computer for several hours per day.
Mr Hunt then collected overalls and other gear from Halliburton. Next, he was contacted by Mr Dunsby by telephone and told that plans had changed, and that he would now be sent to Sale, Victoria. There is a gas exploration field at Sale. Mr Hunt was flown to Melbourne on 23 June 2005. Pursuant to his instructions, he hired a car, drove to Sale and booked in at a particular motel. He had been told to report to Mr Matt Santich. Mr Santich held the position of service supervisor with Halliburton. Mr Hunt said that he “pretty much had to knock on doors” at the motel to find Mr Santich to report to him. Mr Santich told him to be out in the motel carpark by 6am, ready to go. The next morning Mr Hunt was taken to the gas field. He was instructed to stand behind a machine and watch how things are done. He was shown the fracturing van, from which observations are made and measurements taken, and the machines, 20 to 30 metres from the van, used for fracturing. He was provided with ear plugs, but no radio head set. Some of the other workers communicated via radio headsets. Mr Hunt seems to have felt aggrieved that he was not given a radio head set. In his evidence, Mr Santich said that radio headsets were only required for about one hour per day when a noisy operation was in progress. It is apparent from the evidence of Mr Wende, Services Co-ordinator for Halliburton, that the team working at Sale was comprised mostly of a frac crew from Queensland. The crew members drove daily to the field from the motel in Sale and worked approximately 12 hour days. At the end of each day they drove back to Sale and had a meal together. During his two week rotation at Sale, Mr Hunt repeatedly asked to be placed in the van, but was not. After two weeks in Sale, Mr Hunt had a break from 6 July to 1 August 2005.
Mr Santich gave evidence of the opinion he formed of Mr Hunt during this first rotation. Mr Santich said that he formed the opinion during the first rotation that Mr Hunt was not suitable for the position of fracturing technologist. Mr Santich did not believe that Mr Hunt possessed the requisite leadership qualities, verbal communication skills or the ability to work in a team. Mr Santich formed the view that Mr Hunt would not be able to engage in conversations with a client at an appropriate technical level. He did not believe that Mr Hunt had the ability to learn quickly enough. It was Mr Santich’s view that Mr Hunt needed to understand the operation of the machines outside very thoroughly before he could work in the van. Mr Santich noted that Mr Hunt did not understand that he needed to be trained outside before working in the van. Mr Santich said that in conversations about what Mr Hunt had learnt on the job, he found Mr Hunt “indifferent” and “fairly blank”. Mr Santich told Mr Wally Wende (Services Co-ordinator, employed by Halliburton) and Mr Dale Womacks (Principal Technical Professional employed by Halliburton) that he did not believe that Mr Hunt was suitable for the fracturing technologist position. Mr Peter Hede holds the position of Mechanic, Service Leader and Co-ordinator with Halliburton. He was the site supervisor at Sale during Mr Hunt’s rotation there. He gave evidence that he formed the impression of Mr Hunt that he did not display any leadership qualities, and that he was not particularly interested in the job. Mr Hede found Mr Hunt stand-offish, and observed that he did not seem to mix well with the on-site workers. Mr Wende, who worked both outside and inside at Sale, and who seems to have made the most sustained attempt to train Mr Hunt, formed the view that Mr Hunt was “a subject matter expert on nearly everything”. He observed that Mr Hunt “ostracised himself” from the rest of the group. Mr Wende did not think that Mr Hunt was suitable to work in that team.
Mr Hunt’s next rotation was in New South Wales. He was flown to Sydney on 1 August 2005 and travelled from there to the field. He was given a head set, but his evidence was that it did not work properly. He was supposed to be communicating from the field to the van about water levels, but no-one could hear him, because of the problem with his head set. He dealt with this by yelling his observations to another worker with a functioning head set. Mr Hunt gave evidence that he also did some labouring work at this site, some of it heavy lifting. He thought he performed satisfactorily.
On 2 August 2006, Mr Wende sent an email to Mr Womacks and Mr Ponsonby, with a copy to Mr Parsons. The relevant part of the email said:
Trying to get Andrew hunt [sic] up to speed on Bubbles shift to get Matt back to moomba [sic]. I do not hold much hope for that especially when the operation turns to Mohammad.
We may be able to try to train Andrew in Moomba as a QA person as part of his career path training. I have instructed Matt to give Andrew his “best shot” prior to making a decision on him. He may not take on a front line role yet but may play a part in moomba [sic].
It was explained in evidence that Mohammad was an exacting client.
On 8 August 2005, Mr Santich sent an email to Mr Wende, which read, in part:
Bubbles agrees with me that unfortunately Andrew is not suitable for the technologist job. Bubbles suggested he may be ok on the ground in Moomba if there is a position available.
“Bubbles” is Mr Peter Hede’s nickname.
Mr Santich sent a further email on 8 August 2005 to David Kubenk, with a copy to Mr Womacks and Mr Hede. The email reads, in part:
Andrew Hunt is not suitable for the technologist position.
Also on 8 August 2005, Mr Glenn Wilkin of Maxima sent an email to Ms Jenelle Taylor, a Human Resources Officer at Halliburton. The email read:
I had some concerns about placing Andrew Hunt with Halliburton (due to his medical results). I was assured by Graham Dunsby… that Andrew would not be doing any heavy physical work, and that he would be supervising from inside a frac van.
I spoke to Andrew last week and he said that he has “hardly been inside the van” as he has been out “lugging Iron with the rest of them.”
This is of concern to Maxima as this will greatly increase the risk of injury to this man.
Are you able to provide me with any information about this?
Ms Taylor responded to Mr Wilkin, on 8 August 2005:
I will investigate and get back to you shortly.
When we received the medical results Karen Karlsson contacted Graham Dunsby to ensure that the role would not involve lifting and he informed us that he [sic] would not. As Graham has since left Halliburton I will speak to Wally Wende and our Country Manager (Mark Parsons).
On 9 August, Ms Janelle Taylor sent an email to Mr Wende and Mr Parsons (copied to Ms Karlsson and Mr Mahncke) which said:
I refer to the email below from Maxima Tempskill in which Glenn Wilkins is very concerned that Andrew Hunt is lifting equipment in the field for Halliburton. The pre-employment medical that Andrew had in June states that he should not be lifting heavy equipment as he had a shoulder injury previously which resulted in shoulder reconstruction surgery.
On hiring Andrew, Graham Dunsby confirmed with Glenn Wilkins and Karen Karlsson that he would not be lifting equipment and would be viewing the field from the frac van.
Mr Wende replied to Ms Taylor on 9 August 2005, copied to Mr Parsons, Mr Hede and Mr Santich. The email from Ms Taylor was evidently attached. Mr Wende’s email said:
Jenelle
Thanks for the update – unfortunately no one has heard of this. Graham is no longe [sic] here.
Bubbles, Matt, - looks like after yesterday’s mail – options for this gentleman are limited.
Proceed with caution and – no heavy lifting please!!!!
As this is his case there is really no operation we have suitable for him other than frac tech.
Have him complete the hitch and we’ll sort it out on his return.
This was the first that Mr Santich had heard of Mr Hunt’s shoulder injury. Mr Santich spoke to Mr Hede about Mr Hunt’s shoulder injury.
Mr Hunt gave evidence that, on 10 August 2005, he had a conversation with Mr Santich in which Mr Santich asked about Mr Hunt’s shoulder. Mr Santich told Mr Hunt that there had been some concerns, and email “to-ing and fro-ing” about Mr Hunt’s shoulder. Mr Hunt told Mr Santich that his shoulder was not a problem. After that conversation, Mr Hunt noticed that his co-workers were preventing him from lifting anything. Mr Hunt did not know it, but the explanation for this was that Mr Santich had caused instructions to be given that Mr Hunt was not to undertake any heavy lifting.
Mr Hunt’s second rotation finished on 16 August 2005. Mr Hunt gave evidence that when he returned to Adelaide, he telephoned Ms Karlsson in Perth. That telephone call took place on 24 August 2005. Mr Hunt gave evidence that he asked Ms Karlsson what the concerns were. She told him that he was acting in a capacity other than the capacity for which he had been hired, and that he had been lifting things when he wasn’t supposed to. Mr Hunt said that she assured him that it would not have an impact on his job. However, among the emails tendered in evidence is an email from Ms Brennan, of Halliburton, to Mr Wilkin, of Maxima, dated 23 August 2005 which says:
Please be advised that Andrew Hunt’s services are no longer required – effective immediately.
Should you require any further information – please speak with Dale Womacks on [number provided].
Please confirm that you have read this communication.
There was no evidence which could explain how it was that one officer of Halliburton (Ms Brennan) had arranged for the termination of the arrangement with Maxima for Mr Hunt’s services, and another officer of Halliburton (Ms Karlsson) had the conversation Mr Hunt gave evidence of the day after. Presumably Ms Brennan did not communicate her actions to Ms Karlsson.
Mr Santich said in evidence that he was still of the view, after Mr Hunt’s second rotation, that Mr Hunt did not possess the requisite abilities for the position of fracturing technologist. On 25 August 2005, Mr Womacks telephoned Mr Hunt and told him that his employment was terminated. Mr Womacks told Mr Hunt that they needed someone with an engineering background, and that Mr Hunt was no longer required. Mr Hunt gave evidence that he sent a text message to Mr Santich saying:
They have sacked me, do you know why?
Mr Santich texted back:
Sincere apologies Andrew. They informed me last week, you did nothing wrong.
Mr Santich recalled exchanging text messages with Mr Hunt, though he did not recall the precise wording. His evidence was to the effect that he sought in his message to spare Mr Hunt’s feelings.
Mr Dale Womacks gave evidence that he made the decision to tell Maxima that Halliburton no longer required Mr Hunt’s services. He directed that the email be sent from Halliburton to Maxima, saying that Mr Hunt’s services were no longer required. Mr Womacks gave evidence that he made this decision based upon his conversations with Mr Santich, Mr Hede and Mr Wende about Mr Hunt’s performance at work. It was Mr Womacks’ evidence that, at the time that he made the decision to dispense with Mr Hunt’s services, he was not aware of Mr Hunt’s shoulder injury. He said that he did not become aware of it until about a year after Mr Hunt’s services were terminated. We accept Mr Womacks’ evidence on this point. We note that he was not copied into any of the emails in which Mr Hunt’s shoulder injury was discussed, and no-one gave evidence of discussing Mr Hunt’s shoulder injury with Mr Womacks verbally. Mr Womacks’ evidence was that his decision to dispense with Mr Hunt’s services was based on his understanding that Mr Hunt was not “picking up the ropes” which we take to mean that he was not learning the job. Mr Womacks also got the impression that Mr Hunt preferred to work outside, rather than in the frac van. This was clearly a misunderstanding on Mr Womacks’ part. Mr Womacks also said that he had formed the impression from his discussions with Mr Santich that Mr Hunt did not have an appropriate attitude to the work.
Subsequent to the termination of his employment with Maxima, Mr Hunt had a series of short term jobs and some periods of unemployment. About 3 to 4 months after the termination, Mr Hunt obtained full time employment on a lesser salary than the salary he expected to receive from Maxima and, ultimately, Halliburton.
The Act

The complainant, Mr Hunt, seeks to have the Tribunal make orders pursuant to s 96 of the Act. In order for the Tribunal to exercise its powers under s 96 of the Act, the complainant must establish that the respondent has acted in contravention of the Act.
In his Amended Particulars, the complainant relies upon s 66(a) and (c), s 69(3)(b), s 69(3)(d) and s 91(1) of the Act. Those sections provide as follows:
s 66 For the purposes of this Act, a person discriminates on the ground of impairment –
(a)if he or she treats another unfavourably because of the other’s impairment, or a past or presumed impairment;
…
(c)if he or she treats another unfavourably on the basis of a characteristic that appertains generally to persons who have such an impairment, or on the basis of a presumed characteristic that is generally imputed to persons who have such an impairment;
…
s 69(3)It is unlawful for the principal to discriminate against a contract worker on the ground of impairment -
…
(b)by not allowing the contract worker to work; or
…
(d)by subjecting the contract worker to any other detriment.
s 91(1)Subject to this section, a person is, for the purposes of this Act, vicariously liable for the acts or defaults of agents or employees while acting in the course of their agency or employment.
There is no doubt that Halliburton and Mr Hunt were principal and contract worker within the meaning of the Act.
Mr Bull, counsel for Halliburton, also relied upon s 6(2) of the Act:
s 6(2)For the purposes of this Act, a person acts on a particular ground referred to in this Act if the person in fact acts on a number of grounds, one of which is the ground so referred to, and that ground is a substantial reason for the act.
Alleged Breaches of the Act
It seems to us that the complainant alleges two breaches of the Act by the respondent in relation to its conduct towards him. Firstly, the complainant alleges that the respondent breached s 69(3)(b) by not allowing Mr Hunt to work on the ground of his physical impairment, namely the partial loss of function of his right shoulder. Secondly, the complainant alleges that the respondent breached s 69(3)(d) by subjecting Mr Hunt to a detriment by failing to find him another position within Halliburton for which he was suited when it became clear that he was not suited to be a fracturing technologist.
Alleged Breach of s 69(3)(b)
Mr Durkin asked the Tribunal to draw inferences from the emails, and from Mr Hunt’s experience in the field, in support of the allegation of a breach of s 69(3)(b). Mr Durkin pointed to the timing of the discovery by Mr Santich on 9 August 2005, upon receipt of an email, that Mr Hunt had a shoulder injury, the consequent refusal, at Mr Santich’s direction, of the workers in the field to allow Mr Hunt to help with heavy lifting, and the termination of Halliburton’s requirement for Mr Hunt’s services after that rotation. Mr Durkin relied on what he perceived as a change in tone of the emails subsequent to the information about Mr Hunt’s shoulder being made known to Mr Santich. It is easy to see, from Mr Hunt’s point of view, why he should have drawn those inferences. They are, however, contradicted by the evidence from Mr Womacks, which we accept. It was Mr Womacks’ evidence that he gave the direction that Mr Hunt’s services be terminated. His evidence was that he made the decision to do that on the basis of information about Mr Hunt’s performance and attitude, related to him by Mr Santich, Mr Hede and Mr Wende, some of which he misunderstood. Mr Womacks did not learn of Mr Hunt’s shoulder injury until about a year after he gave the direction that Mr Hunt’s services be dispensed with. In our opinion, this was a genuine case of miscommunication. The channels of authority within Halliburton, with respect to both the training and engagement of Mr Hunt, were far from clear.
We have considered the question of whether Mr Santich, Mr Hede and Mr Wende, in reporting unfavourably to Mr Womacks about Mr Hunt, were influenced by Mr Hunt’s shoulder injury. We do not think that they were. It was clear from the evidence that all three of them formed an unfavourable impression of Mr Hunt well before they learned of his shoulder injury. On all of the evidence, we are satisfied that Mr Hunt was not continued by Halliburton in the position of fracturing technologist because of the opinion formed by Mr Santich, Mr Hede and Mr Wende of his personality and attitude. We are satisfied that they genuinely formed the view that he was not capable of learning the job to a satisfactory standard within a reasonable time frame.
Mr Durkin complained of the quality of training of Mr Hunt. Mr Hunt, in his evidence, said that he asked Mr Santich to provide him with “learning materials” – presumably a DVD – that he could view on his laptop at Sale. Both Mr Hunt and Mr Santich said that Mr Hunt repeatedly asked to be allowed into the “frac van” rather than being out in the field. Mr Hunt saw the rejection of his requests as inadequacies in his training. We infer from Mr Santich’s evidence that he was unimpressed both by Mr Hunt’s reluctance to be trained in the manner determined by Mr Santich and Mr Wende, and also by Mr Hunt’s constant attempts to change the training methods to methods Mr Hunt deemed more appropriate. Either way, the difficulties over training do not amount to a breach of the Act. They are nothing to do with Mr Hunt’s shoulder injury.
Similarly, it would have been desirable if communication with Mr Hunt had been clearer at all times, particularly in relation to his progress in the field. We gather from the evidence in the respondent’s case, however, that a lack of clear communication was endemic to this particular arm of the respondent’s enterprise at the relevant time, and was not specific to Mr Hunt in any way. It certainly did not relate to his shoulder injury.
Considerable time was taken up, during the hearing, with questions about a questionnaire. There was an allegation in the pleadings that Mr Hunt had completed a questionnaire in an unsatisfactory way. There were also questions about contact between Mr Hunt and a customer of Halliburton. Clearly, the evidence shows that no such contact took place. The evidence also clearly shows that there was no questionnaire. Mr Durkin sought to have us infer that a concerted effort had been made by the officers of Halliburton to conceal the true reason for Mr Hunt’s services being dispensed with, which, Mr Durkin argued, was his shoulder injury. We do not think that such an inference can be drawn. Rather, it seems to us that the internal communication difficulties within this section of Halliburton in 2005 extended to communication with those charged with Halliburton’s representation in this matter.
Alleged Breach of s 69(3)(d)
The argument that Mr Hunt was subjected to a detriment because of his shoulder injury, in that Halliburton failed to find him another position for which he was suited, centered around the email from Mr Wende to Mr Womacks and Mr Ponsonby of 2 August 2005, in which Mr Wende said:
We may be able to train Andrew in Moomba as a QA person as part of his career path training. I have instructed Matt to give Andrew his “best shot” prior to making a decision on him. He may not take on a front line role yet but may play a part in Moomba [sic].
The complaint was that after the emails of 8 August 2005, there was no more mention of alternative roles within Halliburton that Mr Hunt could be trained in. Mr Wende wrote an email on 9 August 2005 in which he said:
Bubbles, Matt – looks like after yesterday’s mail – options for this gentleman are limited.
Proceed with caution and – no heavy lifting please!!!!
As this is his case there is really no operation we have suitable for him other than frac tech.
We are asked to draw the inference that, after the information about Mr Hunt’s shoulder injury became more generally known within Halliburton, an effort to find Mr Hunt an alternative position was abandoned, when it would have been pursued but for the shoulder injury. This inference, though open from the language of the e-mail, is contradicted by the only oral evidence on the point. In cross examination in relation to the email quoted above, Mr Wende commented that there was no position as a QA person available at the time. He also made it clear that his decision to recommend that Mr Hunt’s services be terminated were based upon his assessment of Mr Hunt’s personality, and had nothing to do with his shoulder injury. Mr Hede was questioned about the same email. His comment was that there were many people working for Halliburton who carried injuries. Mr Hede was also questioned about the comment in Mr Santich’s email of 8 August that he, Mr Hede, had said that Mr Hunt “may be ok on the ground in Moomba if there is a position available”. Mr Hede had made it clear in his evidence that he did not think that Mr Hunt was suitable to work with his crew – that is, the crew which undertook the first operation Mr Hunt was involved with. In relation to his suggestion that Mr Hunt may be suitable for Moomba, Mr Hede said, in evidence:
Of course, if someone is not suited to your own crew, you don’t want them around, so if you are going to try and get them to go anywhere else to get them off your hands you will, and that’s just human nature.
The inference we draw is that Mr Hede’s suggestion about Moomba was prompted by his desire to ensure Mr Hunt was not assigned to work with Mr Hede’s crew again, rather than any desire to have input into Mr Hunt’s career.
It was Mr Womacks who made the decision to dispense with Mr Hunt’s services. He did that after speaking with Mr Santich and Mr Wende. His evidence was that he formed the impression from Mr Wende that there was no other suitable position for Mr Hunt. He was questioned about the email he wrote on 9 August 2005, in which he said:
What will be done concerning Andrew Hunt? If no other positions for him, are we letting him go? We need to consider this in one way or another during his probation period.
In cross examination, Mr Womacks related his recollection of his thoughts at the time, saying:
… basically the whole attitude I was getting was that his suitability for the work just wasn’t there.
Having regard to all of the evidence, it seems to us that Mr Hede, Mr Wende and Mr Santich all formed the view that Mr Hunt’s attitude to work was unsuitable for a position at Halliburton. That was communicated to Mr Womacks, who arranged for his contract to be terminated on that basis. It is clear from his evidence that Mr Womacks did not consider himself to be under any obligation to try to find a new position for a casual contract worker who had not worked out in the position for which he was engaged. As Mr Womacks was unaware of Mr Hunt’s shoulder problem at the time that he decided to dispense with his services, that cannot have been a factor in his decision making process. Mr Hede, Mr Wende and Mr Santich were all clear that many people working for Halliburton in the field carried disabilities. There was no evidence that it would have been the usual practice to try to find an alternative position for a contract worker. In fact, Mr Womacks’ evidence was to the contrary. We are unable to find that Mr Hunt suffered a detriment within the meaning of s 69(3)(d) of the Act because of his shoulder injury, or in any manner that was contrary to that section.
Summary and Conclusion
Mr Hunt has not made out his claim under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984. The claim is dismissed.

Condition	Potential Impact	Recommendations
Neck + shoulder injury	Exacerbation	Suggest avoid role requiring substantial abnormal neck postures and avoid above shoulder height work.