Julie Wilson v Rum Holdings Pty Ltd ATF Bond Family Trust T/A Dampier Mermaid Hotel and Motel
[2021] FWC 1709
•29 MARCH 2021
| [2021] FWC 1709 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.365—General protections
Julie Wilson
v
Rum Holdings Pty Ltd ATF Bond Family Trust T/A Dampier Mermaid Hotel and Motel
(C2020/7441)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MANSINI | MELBOURNE, 29 MARCH 2021 |
Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal.
[1] This decision concerns an application lodged by Ms Julie Wilson under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act), alleging contraventions of the Act associated with her alleged dismissal by the entity trading as Dampier Mermaid Hotel and Motel (Respondent).
[2] I have determined that the Applicant was dismissed from her employment and that the application was filed within the statutory timeframe for filing. The reasons for this decision follow, arranged as:
Statutory context | [3] - [7] |
The respective contentions | [8] - [9] |
The evidence | [10] - [28] |
Corrections to the Respondent’s evidence | [29] |
Was the Applicant dismissed? | [30] - [40] |
Was the claim filed late? | [41] - [47] |
Conclusion | [48] - [50] |
Statutory context
[3] Section 365 of the Act provides that a person who has been dismissed may apply to the Commission for the Commission to deal with the dispute.
[4] Section 386 of the Act provides that a person has been dismissed if the person’s employment has been terminated at the employer’s initiative or the person has resigned but was forced to do so because of conduct, or a course of conduct, engaged in by the employer.
[5] The expression ‘termination at the initiative of the employer’is a reference to a termination that is brought about by an employer and which is not agreed to by the employee. 1
[6] A termination is at the employer’s initiative when:
• the employer’s action ‘directly and consequentially’ results in the termination of employment; and
• had the employer not taken this action, the employee would have remained employed. 2
[7] There must be action by the employer that either intends to bring the relationship to an end or has that probable result. 3 The question of whether the act of an employer results ‘directly or consequentially’ in the termination of employment is an important consideration but it is not the only consideration.4 It is important to examine all of the circumstances including the conduct of the employer and the employee.5
The respective contentions
[8] The Respondent’s primary contention was that the Applicant’s employment ended by way of voluntary resignation which was verbally given and accepted on 11 September 2020. It submitted that the Applicant was therefore not dismissed within the meaning of s.386 of the Act and, as such, the Commission does not have jurisdiction to deal with the dispute. In the alternative, if the Applicant resigned but was forced to resign, that this was verbally notified on 11 September 2020 and the claim was therefore filed outside the statutory timeframe.
[9] The Applicant submitted that she did not resign and her employment ended, at the Respondent’s initiative, by email of 13 September 2020. She contended that the claim was therefore filed within the statutory timeframe.
The evidence
[10] The evidence is not contentious except where indicated.
[11] In June 2019, the Applicant was employed as Front Office Manager of the Respondent’s Dampier Mermaid Hotel and Motel. 6 The Hotel Manager is a Mr Nicholas (Nick) Bond, son and employee of the owner and sole director, Mr Keith Bond.7
[12] The Applicant was alleged to have threatened to resign on numerous occasions during the course of her employment, as a means of manipulation. 8 The Applicant said this was not correct but did not deny having contemplated resignation.9
[13] However it was not contentious that, on 2 September 2020, the Applicant had given notice of her resignation, by telephoning Mr Keith Bond and then handing a resignation letter to Mr Nick Bond. 10 The following day, there was a discussion between the Applicant and Mr Nick Bond in which it was agreed that there would be no resignation and the employment relationship would continue.11 In the Applicant’s words, her issues were discussed and it was resolved that her resignation was not required.12 For his part, Mr Nick Bond said that he encouraged the Applicant to stay because it costs a lot of money to train someone up, to advertise and replace the role.13
[14] On 7 September 2020 and until 11 September 2020, the Applicant attended for work as normal.
[15] Early on the morning of 11 September 2020, the Applicant was at work and had commenced her duties when Mr Keith Bond arrived at the office. A discussion between the two ensued regarding an external matter (an external complaint the Applicant had made about a regular customer of the Respondent – which the Applicant insisted was a “private matter” as it related to an incident that occurred outside the workplace and was being handled externally). Relevant to this proceeding, the evidence of this discussion was:
a) The Applicant alleged that Mr Keith Bond told her to drop the external complaint involving the customer, and behaved in a manner which caused her to feel threatened and intimidated. She said he stopped and said “You drop the fucking complaint” as he banged his fist on the reception desk, before exiting. 14 She understood him to say that, if she refused to drop the matter, he would “reinstate” her resignation of 2 September 2020. She said that she was in “floods of tears”.15
b) Mr Keith Bond strongly denied behaving inappropriately or in an intimidating matter. He said there was no arguing or yelling. 16 He accepted that he was “very concerned” about the external matter involving the customer and that he told the Applicant why – “I said this is going to cause world war three in the bar; is it worth it? The girl was doing her job.. they’re an old family and it’s a very small community. They’re part of the football club and everything else. Jules, to her credit, stuck to her guns. She said, no, this is what I’m doing and in the end we agreed to disagree and that was it.”17 He denied telling the Applicant to withdraw the complaint.18 His evidence was that, at the conclusion of this discussion, he pointed his finger on the front reception desk and directed the Applicant as follows:
“And next time you are going to resign, let me know because I am the one that pays the bills here. Last time I had to cancel my holiday because I thought Nick would be by himself.” 19
c) Mr Keith Bond accepted that he had also said to the Applicant “you’re lucky I don’t reinstate it (the 2 September 2020 resignation) because you’ve cost me a lot of money..” but this was in the context of their discussion about her earlier attempt to resign, not the customer issue which he said was a totally different issue that the Applicant had twisted around. 20
d) CCTV footage of the Applicant and Mr Keith Bond’s discussion (of around 3 minutes’ duration) was shown at the hearing. The Applicant can not be seen in the footage but it is accepted that she was sitting in the back office, out of view. 21 Mr Keith Bond is seen to approach a doorway and remains outside of the back office room (where the Applicant was), speaking and using hand gestures. He continues speaking as he exits and stops at the reception desk where his finger makes contact with the front counter a number of times, as he continues speaking, before leaving view. There is no audio of this exchange.
[16] After Mr Keith Bond left the office on the morning of 11 September 2020, Mr Nick Bond came to the office and had a discussion with the Applicant. She was upset, he gave her a hug. Their accounts differ somewhat in terms of what was said:
a) Mr Nick Bond’s account is that, as soon as he walked in the door the Applicant said “That’s it, I’m resigning, I’m over it”, to which he replied “OK OK you do what you have to do”. 22 He gave her a hug and “consoled” her.23 The Applicant accepted that she said “I’m over it”, whilst Mr Nick Bond was giving her a hug to console her, but denied saying that she was resigning.24
b) Mr Nick Bond explained in evidence that he was not going to try and change her mind this time because he “was done with her (the Applicant)”, 25 referring to this being the second resignation in just over a week and the uncertainty this created. He felt he was “walking on egg shells” following the resignation of 2 September 2020 and almost expected that the Applicant was going to resign.26 He told the Commission that, after the 2 September 2020 resignation, he had resolved that if she resigned again he would accept it because “you don’t try and keep someone who keeps trying to resign on you, do you”.27
c) Mr Nick Bond also said that they agreed the Applicant would work the remainder of her shift that day. 28 The Applicant denied this and said she advised that she would be leaving at 11.30am for a doctor’s appointment due to her stress levels.29
[17] After this discussion with Mr Nick Bond, the Applicant then went about her work.
[18] Mr Nick Bond then spoke with his father, the owner, who asked him how many more times he was going to put up with this “nonsense”. 30 After discussing it, Mr Nick Bond recalled concluding "Well, if she rings me by the end of the day saying that she doesn't want to resign then we'll - hopefully that happens”.31
[19] Mr Nick Bond also said that he spoke with Ms Kaitlyn Leatham (an employee of the Respondent) and told her she was needed in the office full time as of the following day. 32 Ms Leatham’s evidence was that, on the morning of 11 September 2020, she received a call from Mr Nick Bond to say that the Applicant had resigned and she would be working full time in the office.33
[20] At around 12.00pm on 11 September 2020, the Applicant left work early because she had a doctor’s appointment. 34
[21] At 2.49pm on 11 September 2020, Mr Nick Bond sent a message to the Applicant which said:
Mr Nick Bond: Julie I hope you are alright. I’m here to talk if you want. I had a yelling match with Anthony just before. Over a couple thing’s. Thinking he’s obove everyone again. He’s being very quite now doing kegs out the back. 35 (sic)
[22] At 3.00pm on 11 September 2020, the Applicant sent a message to Mr Nick Bond which attached a medical certificate that confirmed she had attended the practice that day. 36 It certified her as “unfit for work” for the period 14 to 22 September 2020.37 It was read at 4.40pm that day. Mr Nick Bond said that he felt “shocked” and “a bit annoyed” when he received it, because the Applicant had just resigned to his face, but said that he was busy at work and “didn’t have time to mull it over” and instead just sent a quick text to see if she was alright.38 On the evening of 11 September 2020, the Applicant and Mr Nick Bond had an exchange, their messages as follows:
Applicant: Thank you for defending me today it meant a lot to me
Mr Nick Bond: I know. Bloody hard going around here. I know my dad better than anyone. Love him but fuck. Hard work
Applicant: Yep
(their exchange continued on 12 September 2020 with no reference to the events of 11 September 2020). 39
[23] On 12 September 2020, the Respondent placed an advertisement for the Applicant’s role on seek.com. 40 Mr Nick Bond said he needed to fill the Applicant’s role immediately.41 Ms Leatham worked in the office that day.42
[24] Also on 12 September 2020, Mr Nick Bond prepared and signed a letter dated “Sat 14th September 2020”. 43 The letter: purported to accept the Applicant’s resignation letter of 2 September 2020; stated that the resignation was approved and per the Applicant’s request her final day of work would be 18 September 2020; acknowledged receipt of a medical certificate declaring the Applicant unfit for work from 14 to 22 September 2020; stated that the Applicant’s final pay would be put together over the coming week. Mr Nick Bond said he drafted the letter using a template he found on the internet. He said that he thought this was the right thing to do given the Applicant is “quite particular”.44 The Respondent’s evidence about when this letter was sent to the Applicant was as follows:
a) Initially, in his written evidence and in his oral evidence at the hearing, Mr Nick Bond said that he sent a blank email and forgot to attach the acceptance letter on 12 September 2020 and so he resent it on the morning of 13 September 2020 at around 6.30am. 45
b) Then, at the Commission’s request, the following records were produced: 46
• At or around 5.31pm on 12 September 2020, a screen shot of a message from the Applicant to Mr Nick Bond saying “there was no attachment to your email”;
• Email from info@dampiermermaid to the Applicant’s gmail with the acceptance letter attached as a pdf file (forwarded from a scanner, file named “20200912172704510.pdf”), sent at 7.33pm on 12 September 2020;
• Email from info@dampiermermaid to the Applicant’s gmail with the acceptance letter attached as a pdf file (file named “julie resignation acceptance.pdf”), sent at 8.35am on 12 September 2020.
[25] On 14 September 2020, the Applicant filed an application for unfair dismissal in which she stated her dismissal took effect on 13 September 2020. The Applicant accepted that, prior to filing that claim, at no stage had she contacted the Respondent directly to challenge the conclusion that they had accepted her resignation. She said this was because she felt stressed and “under duress” and was not well and had no choice than to accept it. 47
[26] On 16 September 2020, Mr Nick Bond telephoned the Applicant to ask her what she was doing filing the unfair dismissal claim in the Commission. He said he did so because he was “blown away” by the claim, and felt he was pretty close to her. 48
[27] On 21 September 2020, a payment was processed to the Applicant recorded as being for the period 7 to 20 September 2020 (the same amount as her ordinary fortnightly wages in the periods immediately prior to the employment coming to an end). 49 Mr Keith Bond’s evidence was that she was paid one weeks’ stress leave for the period covered by her medical certificate (from 14 September 2020) and this was not disputed.50
[28] On 4 October 2020, after the parties had participated in a conciliation conference before the Commission, the Applicant withdrew her unfair dismissal claim and caused this claim to be lodged with the Commission. 51
Corrections to the Respondent’s evidence
[29] The following evidence was sought to be “corrected” by the Respondent:
a) Mr Nick Bond filed a signed written statement to the Commission in which he claimed to be the Hotel Manager and his father was the “sole director”. At the hearing, Mr Nick Bond gave evidence that he is one of the directors of the Respondent. 52 Mr Keith Bond confirmed in evidence that his son was not a director (although he had been, a “fair while ago”).53
b) Mr Nick Bond gave written and oral evidence that his email to the Applicant of 12 September 2020 was “blank” with no letter attached. After the conclusion of his evidence and that of the Applicant, a copy of an email of 12 September 2020 was filed which appeared to show that the letter was attached.
c) Mr Nick Bond told the Commission that there was no CCTV camera in the office where the Applicant was sitting during the discussion with Mr Keith Bond of 11 September 2020 (“no, there is nothing” 54) but the Respondent’s representative subsequently acknowledged there was in fact such a camera and advised that Mr Nick Bond had mistakenly thought this camera was not working at the time of the incident and this was an “honest mistaken view”.55
d) Mr Nick Bond said at the hearing that, in preparing his written statements, he had relied on his recollection of the dates of payrises given to the Applicant but had not checked the actual records. 56 After his evidence had concluded, payslips were filed to “correct” this.57
Was the Applicant dismissed?
[30] The evidence filed in this matter, and given at the hearing, was replete with vitriol, unflattering character assessments of other witnesses and allegations that did not go to matters directly in issue in these proceedings. To the extent that such evidence was intended to go to the credit of the witnesses, I decline to make findings based on such evidence and instead rely on my own direct observations of witness conduct and credibility.
[31] By way some initial observations:
• There were a range of errors and inconsistencies in the evidence of Mr Nick Bond which ultimately cast doubt over the accuracy of much of his evidence. Those inconsistencies and errors went to matters of critical importance and also extended to less important and uncontentious matters. I conclude that Mr Nick Bond was an unreliable witness, with a poor recollection. At best, his filed statements and oral evidence at the hearing lacked the necessary care.
• The Applicant was considered particular in her work. In these proceedings, she was at times defensive and distracted by interpersonal issues but certainly particular in both her filed and oral evidence.
• As indicated in the consideration that follows, where a matter came down to a strong contest between the Applicant’s recollection and that of Mr Nick Bond, I prefer the Applicant’s account.
• Mr Keith Bond indicated that he had heard Mr Nick Bond’s evidence, in contravention of the Commission’s order to remain outside the virtual hearing room. Whilst this was quickly sought to be explained, it cast some doubt over the integrity of the corroborative evidence. 58
[32] On the evidence before the Commission, it is plain that the relationship between the Applicant and the owner, his son (the manager) and her other colleagues was strained at the best of times and had deteriorated prior to her ultimate departure. I accept that the Applicant was increasingly unhappy in her role and had at least contemplated resignation in the past – indeed, just nine days prior to the events of 11 September 2020 she had resigned. On her own account, her formal written resignation of 2 September 2020 was followed by a discussion about her issues and resulted in an outcome to her satisfaction, such that she stayed on. It is apparent that this behaviour was frustrating for her employer, and indeed it would seem to the colleagues around her.
[33] On Mr Keith Bond’s own evidence, the discussion he had with the Applicant on 11 September 2020 was robust. The CCTV footage (absent audio) does not establish whether this was aggressive, threatening or intimidating. The CCTV footage does show that it was a finger, and not a fist, that connected with the desk (which the Applicant might have heard but could not have seen from her location in the back office). In his own words the remarks made at that moment confirmed his dissatisfaction and were an exertion of his authority. The Applicant was clearly upset by the exchange, consistent with her recollection and that of Mr Nick Bond who admitted to consoling her shortly thereafter. I accept that the Applicant’s words, in saying “I’m over it”, indicated that she may have been contemplating another resignation. Mr Nick Bond, having been on egg shells for the past week, was expecting as much.
[34] But, on all of the facts and evidence before the Commission, I do not consider that there was a resignation by the Applicant on 11 September 2020.
[35] In so finding, I prefer the evidence of the Applicant that she did not resign and do not accept Mr Nick Bond’s account of their discussion on the morning of 11 September 2020. I do not consider the evidence of Mr Keith Bond and Ms Leatham (about what Mr Nick Bond told them on 11 September 2020) or of Mrs Raelene Leatham (about what the Applicant told her on 11 September 2020) to establish the truth of the matter. That Ms Leatham performed the role on or from the next day is not persuasive given the Applicant was not at work on the Saturday and then on sick leave.
[36] Indeed there are a range of factors not in dispute that lend against a finding that she resigned on and effective 11 September 2020. Specifically:
• The contract of employment which governed the employment relationship required written resignation, and a period of notice to be provided or expressly waived by the Respondent.
• Mr Keith Bond was the appropriate person to whom a notice of resignation was to be tendered. He reiterated this direction on the morning of 11 September 2020, prior to the alleged verbal resignation.
• The Applicant had reflected her understanding of the conditions of her employment and behaved consistently with the contract when she gave written notice on 2 September 2020 of her resignation (which was not accepted by the Respondent and was later withdrawn).
• After she left the workplace at around midday on 11 September 2020, the Applicant went to see a doctor and obtained a medical certificate which was provided to Mr Nick Bond, by 3.00pm that day. Both Mr Nick Bond and Mr Keith Bond understood this to be an application for personal leave and treated it as such.
• The letter dated 14 September 2020, purporting to accept the Applicant’s resignation, explicitly referred to the written resignation of 2 September 2020. There was no reference to the events of 11 September 2020.
[37] I found Mr Nick Bond was most frank in answer to my direct questions, when he revealed things had quickly gone “downhill” since the 2 September 2020 resignation and by 11 September 2020 he had been “on egg shells” and “was done with her”. He was “annoyed” (not confused or bewildered) when he received the medical certificate on 11 September 2020 – which is at odds with a clear unequivocal resignation to conclude at end of that days’ shift. By the content of the messages exchanged between the Applicant and Mr Bond that day, when considered separately or together with Mr Nick Bond’s concession that the Applicant could have contacted him that day and he would not have accepted her resignation (which was consistent with past conduct), I do not consider the Applicant could have been taken to have effectively resigned.
[38] The critical act which brought the relationship to an end was the letter dated Saturday 14 September 2020, which purported to accept the Applicant’s written resignation of 2 September 2020. It is not disputed that the 2 September 2020 written resignation was not available to accept, as it had by that time been withdrawn. Nonetheless, that the Respondent intended to communicate that the employment relationship had come to an end was clear on the face of that letter.
[39] Mr Nick Bond made some honest concessions in response to questions of the Commission at the hearing, which support a finding that by the time of drafting the letter on 12 September 2020 the Respondent desired to terminate her employment. On the materials before me, I consider that it sought to do so in a way which might attach responsibility for the decision to the Applicant and perhaps avoid the consequences associated with effecting termination at its own initiative. That the Applicant did not seek to challenge this in direct discussion or communication with the Respondent and instead lodged claims with the Commission I consider to be indicative of the state of the relationship between the parties and does not change my conclusion.
[40] On all of the facts and evidence before the Commission, I conclude that the termination of the Applicant’s employment was ultimately at the Respondent’s initiative.
Was the application filed out of time?
[41] Section 366 requires that a general protections application involving dismissal be made within 21 days after the dismissal took effect, or within such further period as the Commission allows under s.366(2). Having found that the Applicant’s employment came to an end by the Respondent’s letter dated Saturday 14 September 2020, the question remains as to when the termination was effective.
[42] A dismissal does not take effect unless and until it is communicated to the employee who is being dismissed. 59 Where the communication of the dismissal is in writing, the communication must have been received by the employee in order for the termination to be effective.60 Where an employee is informed of their dismissal by email, the employee is usually regarded as knowing or having a reasonable opportunity to know of the dismissal when the email is received in the inbox of the employee’s usual email address.61
[43] A dismissal on notice takes effect upon the date of the expiration of the specified period of notice where this is clearly identifiable, or it may take effect upon the payment in lieu of notice. 62 In the case of a dismissal with a payment in lieu of notice, the dismissal needs to be communicated to the employee in such a way that the employee knows, or at least has a reasonable chance to find out, that he or she has been dismissed. There may also be an additional requirement that the payment in lieu of notice has actually been received by the employee.63
[44] Having regard to the findings above, the dismissal was communicated to the Applicant by the letter dated “Sat 14th September 2020” which purported to “accept” the Applicant’s resignation of 2 September 2020.
[45] The evidence about when the letter was sent and received is confused. The letter itself, signed by Mr Nick Bond, was incorrectly dated “Sat 14th September 2020” given that Saturday was 12 (not 14) September 2020. The Respondent’s filed and oral evidence was, initially, that Mr Nick Bond attempted to send it to the Applicant, by email on Saturday 12 September 2020 but mistakenly forgot to attach the letter. This is consistent with the Applicant’s evidence, and message in evidence of same date, that an email was sent to her but there was nothing attached. Ultimately, a record was produced by the Respondent which appears to show that the letter was attached to the 12 September 2020 email but I do not consider this forensically established. The times on these records were not adequately explained and do not rest easily with the balance of the evidence of Mr Nick Bond and the Applicant. The Applicant was consistent in her evidence that she did not receive the letter by email until 13 September 2020 and I accept this to be true.
[46] Even if the Commission were to accept that the letter was in fact attached to the otherwise blank email of 12 September 2020, it plainly communicates an intention that the employment would come to an end effective on and from 18 September 2020. This was not a case of payment in lieu of notice, as it is not contentious that the Applicant was paid sick leave and, according to the payslip, was paid on 21 September 2020 for the period 14 to 18 September 2020.
[47] Accordingly, I find that the employment relationship came to an end effective 18 September 2020. The application in this matter was filed on 4 October 2020 which is within the statutory timeframe for filing.
Conclusion
[48] For the above reasons, I find that the Applicant was dismissed within the meaning of s.386 of the Act and is therefore a person who has been dismissed for the purposes of s.365 of the Act. The application was filed within the statutory timeframe.
[49] As I have found that the application was not out of time, there is no need for the Commission to be satisfied that there are “exceptional circumstances” pursuant to s.366(2) in order for the application to proceed.
[50] Accordingly, the jurisdictional objection is dismissed and the application will now proceed to conference before the Commission.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
J. Wilson for herself.
P. Goddard for the Respondent.
Hearing details:
2021.
Melbourne (By Video).
7 and 18 January.
Final written submissions:
Applicant: 8 February 2021.
Respondent: 22 February 2021.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR728196>
1 Khayam v Navitas English Pty Ltd t/a Navitas English[2017] FWCFB 5162 at [75], see also Mohazab v Dick Smith Electronics Pty Ltd (No 2) [1995] IRCA 645.
2 Mohazab v Dick Smith Electronics Pty Ltd (No 2) [1995] IRCA 645.
3 Barkla v G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd[2011] FWAFB 3769 at [24]; citing O'Meara v Stanley Works Pty Ltd, PR973462 at [23].
4 Pawel v Advanced Precast Pty Ltd (unreported, AIRCFB, Polites SDP, Watson SDP and Gay C, 12 May 2000) Print S5904.
5 O’Meara v Stanley Works Pty Ltd (2006)58 AILR 100 [23];citing Pawel v Advanced Precast Pty Ltd (unreported, AIRCFB, Polites SDP, Watson SDP and Gay C, 12 May 2000) Print S5904; Mohazab v Dick Smith Electronics Pty Ltd (No 2) (1995) 62 IR 200; ABB Engineering Construction Pty Ltd v Doumit, (unreported, AIRCFB, Munro J, Duncan DP, Merriman C, 9 December 1996) Print N6999.
6 Contract of employment signed in June 2019 and attached to the Application filed 4 October 2020; Statement of Ms Julie Wilson signed 14 December 2020 at page 2.
7 Statement of Mr Nick Bond signed 2 December 2020 at 3 and 5; Statement of Mr Keith Bond signed 2 December 2020 at 3.
8 Second Statement of Ms Kaitlyn Leatham signed 4 January 2021 at 4 to 7; Ms Kaitlyn Leatham’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN817-818, 872; Second Statement of Mr Nick Bond at 4 to 6; Mr Robert Powell’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN915-916.
9 Applicant’s closing submissions at 12; Applicant’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN120 and 122.
10 Statement of Ms Julie Wilson signed 14 December 2020 at pages 4 and 15; Applicant’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN124; Mr Nick Bond’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN448-449.
11 Mr Nick Bond’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN450.
12 Applicant’s General Protections Application filed 4 October 2020.
13 First Statement of Mr Nick Bond at 39; Mr Nick Bond’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN509.
14 Applicant’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN181-183.
15 Statement of Ms Julie Wilson signed 14 December 2020 at page 6; Applicant’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN180-183, 225, 226, 228.
16 Mr Keith Bond’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing PN714.
17 Mr Keith Bond’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN712.
18 Mr Keith Bond’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN713, 715, 750-753.
19 Statement of Mr Keith Bond at 40; Mr Keith Bond’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN698, 715.
20 Mr Keith Bond’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN710.
21 Applicant’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN146.
22 Statement of Mr Nick Bond at 57-59; Mr Nick Bond’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN512.
23 Mr Nick Bond’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN455, 512.
24 Applicant’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN164-167, 186.
25 First Statement of Mr Nick Bond at 60 - 61; Mr Nick Bond’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at at PN510.
26 Mr Nick Bond’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN509, 516.
27 Mr Nick Bond’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN510.
28 Mr Nick Bond’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN455, 457.
29 Statement of Ms Julie Wilson of 14 December 2020 at page 6.
30 Statement of Mr Keith Bond signed 2 December 2020 at 63.
31 Mr Nick Bond’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN457.
32 Statement of Mr Nick Bond signed 2 December 2020 at 64.
33 Statement of Ms Kaitlyn Leatham signed 16 December 2020 at 26.
34 Mr Nick Bond’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN456.
35 Attached to General Protections Application filed 4 October 2020.
36 Mr Nick Bond’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN456.
37 Attached to General Protections Application filed 4 October 2020.
38 Mr Nick Bond’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN519-520.
39 Attached to General Protections Application filed 4 October 2020; Screenshot filed by Respondent’s representative on 8 January 2021.
40 Statement of Mr Keith Bond signed 2 December 2020 at 44.
41 Statement of Mr Nick Bond signed 2 December 2020 at 66.
42 Ms Kaitlyn Leatham’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN889-892.
43 Attached to General Protections Application filed 4 October 2020.
44 Mr Nick Bond’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN527.
45 Statement of Mr Nick Bond signed 2 December 2020 at 70-72 and NB-01; Mr Nick Bond’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN527.
46 By email from the Respondent’s representative dated 8 January 2021.
47 Applicant’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN177, 221 and 239.
48 Mr Nick Bond’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN528.
49 Bundle of payslips produced by the Respondent’s representative by email dated 8 January 2021.
50 Statement of Mr Keith Bond signed 2 December 2020 at 45; Mr Keith Bond’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN719-720.
51 Statement of Mr Nick Bond signed 2 December 2020 at 90-91.
52 Mr Nick Bond’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN420.
53 Mr Keith Bond’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN783-784.
54 Transcript of Hearing at PN152-153 (submission made by Mr Nick Bond whilst the Applicant was in evidence).
55 By email from the Respondent’s representative dated 15 January 2021.
56 Mr Nick Bond’s evidence on Transcript of Hearing at PN536.
57 By email from the Respondent’s representative dated 8 January 2021.
58 Transcript of Hearing at PN45 and PN785-786.
59 Burns v Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia (Inc), Print T3496 (AIRCFB, Williams SDP, Acton SDP, Gregor C, 21 November 2000) at [24].
60 Mohammed Ayub v NSW Trains[2016] FWCFB 5500 at [17].
61 Mohammed Ayub v NSW Trains[2016] FWCFB 5500 (Ayub) at [50], see also s.14A of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth).
62 Mohammed Ayub v NSW Trains[2016] FWCFB 5500 at [49]; Mr Peter Mihajlovic v Lifeline Macarthur [2013] FWC 9804 at [4]-[7].
63 Ibid.
0
6
0