Kerry Galanopoulos v Australian Handrails Pty Ltd T/A NJM Group

[2018] FWC 3569

[2018] FWC 3569

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Kerry Galanopoulos
v
Australian Handrails Pty Ltd T/A NJM Group
(U2017/13904)

COMMISSIONER MCKINNON MELBOURNE, 19 JUNE 2018

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy - Small Business Fair Dismissal Code – whether harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

Introduction

[1] Kerry Galanopoulos was employed by Australian Handrails Pty Ltd (NJM Group) as a clerical worker on 31 May 2016 until her employment was terminated on 21 December 2017.

[2] On 27 December 2017, Ms Galanopoulos applied to the Commission for a remedy for unfair dismissal under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).She says the dismissal was unfair because there was no valid reason, no procedural fairness and the dismissal was harsh in effect on her financially.

[3] On 1 March 2018, NJM Group filed its response to the application. It says the dismissal was not unfair and that despite Ms Galanopoulos being given ongoing instruction, training and numerous warnings, she did not meet the minimum standards of her role.

[4] Conciliation on 7 March 2018 did not result in settlement of the matter. After taking into account the views of the parties, the matter was listed for hearing on 10 May 2018 in Melbourne. Both parties were represented (Ms Galanopoulos with permission).

Preliminary matters

[5] The application was filed within 21 days of the dismissal.

[6] Section 382 provides that a person is protected from unfair dismissal if, at the relevant time:

•  They have completed at least the minimum employment period; and

•  They are either covered by a modern award, employed under an enterprise agreement that applies to them or earn an annual income of less than the “high income threshold”.

[7] The parties agree that Ms Galanopoulos was employed for at least the minimum employment period and at the time of dismissal, the Clerks – Private Sector Award 2010 1 (Award) applied to her employment. Ms Galanopoulos is protected from unfair dismissal.

[8] Under section 385, a person has been unfairly dismissed if the Commission is satisfied they have been dismissed; the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable; and if relevant, the dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code or not a case of genuine redundancy. 2

[9] There is no dispute that Ms Galanopoulos was dismissed.

[10] It is not relevant to consider whether the dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy as no issue of redundancy arose in the matter.

[11] It is necessary to consider whether the dismissal of Ms Galanopoulos was consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code (the Code), because it is uncontested that at the time of dismissal, NJM Group was a small business employer with nine employees. 3

[12] If the dismissal was not consistent with the Code, it will also be necessary to consider whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

The evidence

[13] Ms Galanopoulos was employed to undertake duties including internal sales, answering enquiries, doing bookings and occasional deliveries and pickups. Before she was employed by NJM Group through Workskil Australia, a job search agency, it took her two years to find a job. 4

[14] Mr Marasco is the Director of NJM Group. He says that when Ms Galanopoulos was employed, he assigned Darren Grech, Sales Manager, and Michelle Veenings, Senior Salesperson, to provide her with on the job training to learn the company’s products, processes and systems. Ms Veenings assisted Ms Galanopoulos in her role on an ongoing basis, although she was not available to give evidence at the hearing. 5

[15] Mr Marasco says throughout her employment, he was concerned about Ms Galanopoulos’s performance including in relation to developing adequate product knowledge, lack of accuracy and competency in MYOB, Word, and Excel. Mr Marasco estimated that Ms Veenings spent on average 25% of her time helping Ms Galanopoulos and overseeing her daily work, with additional help from other staff. 6 This took Ms Veenings away from her own work and caused her stress. Mr Grech also says he assisted Ms Galanopoulos on a regular basis and provided on the job mentoring and training.7

[16] External training in Microsoft Word and Excel was arranged for Ms Galanopoulos from 21 March to 18 April 2017 as well as MYOB Account Right Software training on 22 March 2017. 8

[17] Mr Marasco says despite ongoing support and additional training, Ms Galanopoulos’s skills did not improve to an acceptable level and he began to personally spend time with her on a daily basis to provide advice and guidance, including on sales best practice, process and procedure, product knowledge, understanding customer requirements, providing correct and accurate information to internal staff and customers, and starting and completing tasks in a timely manner. 9 Mr Grech agreed with this evidence10, which was disputed by Ms Galanopoulos. She says Mr Marasco was busy and did not have time to help her. I do not accept that Mr Marasco spent much time training or mentoring Ms Galanopoulos. In my view, he largely delegated this function to Mr Grech and Ms Veenings.

[18] Ms Galanopoulos says she did not see much of Mr Grech at the beginning of her employment although he helped her a bit after the first 6 months. She says Ms Veenings was the one who helped her “a lot” in the office at the beginning and when she needed it, which she indicated was “all the time” – “all day, always helping. We had to start double checking everything.” 11 She says another employee, “Bonnie” also helped a lot with computers because Ms Galanopoulos did not have IT or computer knowledge.

[19] Michael D’Amico, Onsite Team Leader, gave evidence about errors he said were made by Ms Galanopoulos for site installation bookings, including providing wrong product details, site contact details, addresses and installation details, as well as wrong information over the phone and very poor product knowledge. He said the errors wasted his time and meant that sometimes he installed the wrong equipment which then had to be reworked. He said he often had to go through Ms Veenings to make sense of site work requirements provided by Ms Galanopoulos. 12 He said had issues with jobs booked by Ms Galanopoulos “one or twice a week”.

[20] Ms Galanopoulos agrees that she made mistakes at work and that there were problems, which she usually asked Ms Vennings to help with. She gave examples included sending wrong information, writing things down incorrectly and getting wrong information from clients. Initially she said mistakes did not happen often (“two or three in a whole 12 months”), but she subsequently acknowledged that Mr D’Amico ringing her to say she had given him the wrong item or address “did happen a fair bit”. She explained “it happens”. By September 2017, she says she knew all the product codes off by heart, could work on her own and her sales report reflected her performance.

[21] Mr Marasco says he made clear to Ms Galanopoulos that her performance needed to improve to an acceptable level otherwise she ran the risk of warnings and potentially termination of employment. He says she was always saying she would improve, but it didn’t stop the issues. He says warnings were given to her as follows:

1 September 2016: Verbal warning as had not yet developed basic product knowledge after substantial day to day on the job training, product material, and guidance and advice from all staff.

11 November 2016: Verbal warning as use of MYOB to create simple quotes and invoices had not reached an acceptable level.

02 February 2017: Verbal warning due to quotes and invoices containing incorrect information on an ongoing basis.

09 March 2017: Verbal warning due to continually providing onsite staff with incorrect information resulting in loss of time and rework onsite.

03 May 2017: Verbal warning due to continually providing inaccurate information for customer site visits. Advised NJM Group cannot continue losing time onsite because incorrect information is being provided to staff attending onsite and if it continues, her job is at risk.

05 July 2017: Verbal warning as quality of sales conversation during calls from customers had not reached an acceptable level after 12 months. Advised if performance did not improve it may lead to termination of employment.

22 August 2017: Verbal warning for continually advising workshop staff of incorrect product specifications for items that need to be delivered or made.

07 September 2017: Verbal warning as had not yet developed sufficient product knowledge after ongoing on the job training and product material. Advised that product knowledge needed to improve to keep the job.

8 September 2017: Written warning for driving company car without full driver’s license and breaching company policy.

19 October 2017: Verbal warning for not following up quotes with customers, jeopardizing sales opportunities.

23 October 2017: Written warning for not meeting minimum requirements of the role. 13

[22] Ms Galanopoulos disputes that any written warnings were given. 14 Mr Grech says he was present when written warnings were issued to Ms Galanopoulos by Mr Marasco and that she was told if her performance did not improve, it would result in termination.15 I found this evidence unpersuasive. Revealingly, Mr Marasco said in cross examination:

“Giving out a written warning is not a great thing. It’s a horrible thing. I think it demoralises a human being.”

[23] I prefer the evidence of Ms Galanopoulos in this regard. I am not satisfied that she was ever given written warnings.

[24] As to the verbal warnings, Ms Galanopoulos accepted that issues were raised frequently in the office about standards of work, although she considered these to be issues raised generally with office staff rather than with her individually. She gave examples including of Mr Marasco yelling “You are all incompetent” down the hallway. She says “he was going to terminate all of us, not me personally”. She does not remember ever being warned directly and denies being warned about using the company car without a drivers’ licence, although accepts she should not have done so.

[25] It is clear that concerns were regularly raised with Ms Galanopoulos about her work, but not generally in what could fairly be characterised as warnings. For example, Mr Marasco gave evidence of saying to Ms Galanopoulos “Have you been following up with shopping centres?” and her answering “no”, with nothing more to the exchange than that.

[26] The detailed list of verbal warnings provided by Mr Marasco, in reliance on information provided by Mr Grech, suggests that contemporaneous notes were kept throughout the employment period. Mr Grech says he kept these notes in his work diary, but did not produce a copy of relevant entries at the hearing. I accept this evidence but with the observation that his objectivity in giving evidence appeared tainted by his loyalty to NJM Group.

[27] For example, Mr Grech was asked about a “sales summary” report 16 from what was said to be the company’s MYOB file. Mr Grech repeatedly refused to acknowledge the document, denying it was “from the Company MYOB file”. The document had all the appearance of being extracted from such a file and in my view that is the logical explanation. However, Mr Grech seems to have considered the document improperly held by Ms Galanopoulos after her dismissal, in breach of a “confidentiality agreement” never produced to the Commission. Perhaps it was, but that does not mean the document did not exist or its source could not be identified.

[28] On balance, I am satisfied that Mr Grech kept records of discussions with, or concerns related to, Ms Galanopoulos and that verbal warnings were given to Ms Galanopoulos on 3 May 2017, 5 July 2017 and 7 September 2017. I am not otherwise satisfied that verbal warnings were given to Ms Galanopoulos.

[29] Ms Galanopoulos required surgery in November 2017 and sought four weeks leave which was approved by NJM Group. She returned to work on 11 December 2017 but on 12 December 2017 was told she required further surgery, which she arranged with her health professionals for 8 and 9 January 2018. She then sent a Calendar request for leave to Mr Marasco for those days. 17

[30] Ms Galanopoulos says Mr Marasco called after receiving the Calendar request and they had a conversation as follows:

MARASCO: “What’s this on the Calendar Invite?”

GALANOPOULOS: “I need further surgery.”

MARASCO: “What is wrong with you now?”

GALANOPOULOS: “They found something in my back like a cyst or something growing and it has to come out.”

MARASCO: “Oh all right.”  18

[31] After the conversation, Ms Galanopoulos added a further medical appointment to the Calendar for the following day, 13 December 2017. She was then asked to change the time to accommodate covering the phones having regard to Ms Veening’s finish time. Mr Marasco accepted the change in the Calendar.  19

[32] On 15 December 2017, Mr Marasco says a further verbal warning was given to Ms Galanopoulos that her overall performance was still unacceptable and if there was no improvement, her employment would be terminated. 20 Ms Galanopoulos denied being given any warnings at all. When her employment was terminated the following week, she says she was “in shock”.21 I am not satisfied on the evidence that Ms Galanopoulos was warned her employment was at risk on 15 December 2017.

[33] On 18 or 19 December 2017, Mr Marasco says he interviewed “Nicole” and offered her a job in sales at NJM Group, starting in late January 2018. He says Nicole did not replace Ms Galanopoulos, but the timing and nature of each role is too coincidental and I find it more probable that she did. Significantly, Mr Marasco says that NJM Group was still looking for “additional staff” and that he was looking for “good, competent people”. It can be inferred that he considered Ms Galanopoulos not to fall in that category.

[34] On 19 December 2017, Ms Galanopoulos had a further medical appointment which led to her booking in a CT scan for 3 January 2018. On 20 December 2017 she had a further check up where she was advised that work was affecting her recovery and she should rest. She advised Ms Veenings that she would not be in the following two days (21 and 22 December 2017) with the result that she would not be in for the rest of the year as NJM was closing down for Christmas on 22 December 2017. Ms Galanopoulos told Ms Veenings she would bring in a medical certificate in the New Year. Ms Veenings suggested she text Mr Marasco. 22

[35] Ms Galanopoulos did text Mr Marasco later that night, at 9.08pm on 20 December 2017. She says Mr Marasco responded “No problem get better” at 9.39pm. 23

[36] By that time, according to Mr Marasco, he was focused on “wrapping up” the year ahead of Christmas and could not see Ms Galanopoulos continuing in her employment. Instead, he says he advised Mr Grech to let her know her employment was terminated due to poor performance, with payment of her entitlements to be arranged.

[37] It is agreed that Mr Grech called Ms Galanopoulos as instructed on the morning of 21 December 2017. Mr Grech says he did so, and that he told her the dismissal was due to poor work performance. Ms Galanopoulos says he said “Nicholas has informed me that this is your last day at NJM” and that no reason was given. It is agreed that arrangements were then made for her to return her key and pick up her letter of termination and final pay. 24

[38] The letter of termination does not identify any reason for dismissal and also says “if we require your services in the new year we will be in touch”. Mr Marasco says he decided not to include a reason in the letter, because there had already been so many warnings. 25 I am not satisfied that any reason for dismissal was given. In this respect, I prefer the evidence of Ms Galanopoulos, which is consistent with the available written material.

Was the dismissal consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code?

[39] The Code applies to small business employers with less than 15 employees. 26 A person is not unfairly dismissed if the dismissal is consistent with the Code and immediately before dismissal or at the time notice of the dismissal is given, whichever is earlier, the employer is a small business employer.27

[40] The Code provides as follows:

Commencement

The Small Business Fair Dismissal Code comes into operation on 1 July 2009.

Summary dismissal

It is fair for an employer to dismiss an employee without notice or warning when the employer believes on reasonable grounds that the employee's conduct is sufficiently serious to justify immediate dismissal. Serious misconduct includes theft, fraud, violence and serious breaches of occupational health and safety procedures. For a dismissal to be deemed fair it is sufficient, though not essential, that an allegation of theft, fraud or violence be reported to the police. Of course, the employer must have reasonable grounds for making the report.

Other dismissal

In other cases, the small business employer must give the employee a reason why he or she is at risk of being dismissed. The reason must be a valid reason based on the employee's conduct or capacity to do the job.

The employee must be warned verbally or preferably in writing, that he or she risks being dismissed if there is no improvement.

The small business employer must provide the employee with an opportunity to respond to the warning and give the employee a reasonable chance to rectify the problem, having regard to the employee's response. Rectifying the problem might involve the employer providing additional training and ensuring the employee knows the employer's job expectations.

Procedural matters

In discussions with an employee in circumstances where dismissal is possible, the employee can have another person present to assist. However, the other person cannot be a lawyer acting in a professional capacity.

A small business employer will be required to provide evidence of compliance with the Code if the employee makes a claim for unfair dismissal to Fair Work Australia, including evidence that a warning has been given (except in cases of summary dismissal). Evidence may include a completed checklist, copies of written warning(s), a statement of termination or signed witness statements.

[41] In this matter, there is no suggestion that the dismissal was on the grounds of serious misconduct. The Code applies as it relates to ‘Other dismissal’. 28

[42] In order to demonstrate compliance with the “Other dismissal” section of the Code, an employer must establish that:

1. the employee was given a reason why they were at risk of being dismissed;

2. the reason given was a valid reason based on their conduct or capacity to do the job;

3. the employee was warned at least verbally that they were at risk of being dismissed if there was no improvement; and

4. the employee was given an opportunity to respond to the warning;

5. the employee was given a reasonable chance to rectify the problem, having regard to the employee’s response; and

6. if they wished, the employee was able to have another person present to assist them in discussions where dismissal was possible.

[43] On the material before me, I am satisfied that Ms Galanopoulos was given three verbal warnings prior to her dismissal. The first in May 2017 was for continually providing inaccurate information for customer site visits. The second in July 2017 was about the quality of her sales conversations. The third in September 2017 was about the need for improvement in her product knowledge. Each of these warnings went to her capacity to do the job. However, no reason was given for her dismissal and as a result, I am not satisfied that the warnings were sufficiently connected to her dismissal. I am also not satisfied that NJM Group clearly communicated to Ms Galanopoulos that she was at risk of being dismissed if her performance did not improve. It follows that I am not satisfied her dismissal was consistent with the Code.

Was the dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable?

[44] I turn now to consider whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

[45] The phrase ‘harsh, unjust or unreasonable’ was explained in Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd 29 as follows:

“....It may be that the termination is harsh but not unjust or unreasonable, unjust but not harsh or unreasonable, or unreasonable but not harsh or unjust. In many cases the concepts will overlap. Thus, the one termination of employment may be unjust because the employee was not guilty of the misconduct on which the employer acted, may be unreasonable because it was decided upon inferences which could not reasonably have been drawn from the material before the employer, and may be harsh in its consequences for the personal and economic situation of the employee or because it is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct in respect of which the employer acted.”

Was there a valid reason for the dismissal related to the Applicant’s capacity or conduct?

[46] I am satisfied that Ms Galanopoulos was prone to error in her work and frequently required close supervision, including having her work “double checked” and regularly asking for assistance from one or more other staff. It was reasonable for NJM Group to expect Ms Galanopoulos to complete her work accurately and without error. With adequate training and experience, it was also reasonable to expect that she would gain product knowledge sufficient to undertake the sales function, given her previous sales experience which appears to have been one of the reasons she was employed. 30

[47] In a small business, I accept that her failure to achieve competency in her role over time placed significant strain on the work capacity of others by diverting them away from their own work. I am also satisfied that the frequency of errors made by Ms Galanopoulos increased the time and cost to the business of the jobs she was responsible for booking. 31 It was a valid reason for dismissal relating to Ms Galanopoulos’ capacity to do her job. This factor weighs against a finding of unfair dismissal.

Was the Applicant notified of the reason for dismissal and given an opportunity to respond?

[48] No reason was given to Ms Galanopoulos for her dismissal. This factor weighs in favour of a finding of unfair dismissal. However, balanced against it is my finding that there were occasions when aspects of her performance were raised with her and she was given an opportunity to respond. I accept the evidence of Mr Marasco that Ms Galanopoulos would respond when issues were raised with her, but only for a time, after which she would ‘go back to her old ways’. To the extent that Ms Galanopoulos was given an opportunity to respond to concerns about her performance, it weighs against a finding of unfair dismissal.

Was the Applicant allowed to have a support person to assist with discussions relating to the dismissal?

[49] There was no discussion relating to the dismissal in this case and no unreasonable refusal to allow Ms Galanopoulos to have a support person to assist in those discussions. This factor is neutral in my consideration.

Was the Applicant warned about unsatisfactory performance?

[50] To the extent that the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance, I note my earlier findings that Ms Galanopoulos was verbally warned on three occasions about discrete aspects of her performance. This factor weighs against a finding of unfair dismissal.

The size of the employer’s business and access to dedicated human resources management specialists or expertise

[51] As a small business employer, NJM Group has limited expertise or experience in human resources and workplace relations. There is no evidence that it had access to, or sought, external assistance in connection with the dismissal, but nor is there any evidence as to why it could not have been, or was not, sought. The size of the business and its lack of human resources expertise in my view was a significant contributing factor to what can only be described as a procedurally unfair dismissal. This factor weighs against a finding of unfair dismissal.

Other relevant matters

[52] NJM Group gave Ms Galanopoulos the opportunity for employment in circumstances where she had not worked for two years. It invested many months in assisting her to become a competent employee.

[53] It is hard to ignore the coincidence of events leading to the dismissal. Ms Galanopoulos had exhausted her sick leave entitlements and required additional leave to attend to her medical condition. Her exchange with Mr Marasco recounted at paragraph [27] above suggests that her frequent absence from work was somewhat of a frustration for him although on the state of the evidence I can put it no higher than that. He took the opportunity to find a replacement salesperson in “Nicole” approximately one week later - two or three days prior to the dismissal, by which time I consider the decision to dismiss Ms Galanopoulos had been made.

[54] The attempt to ‘backdate’ the effective date of dismissal to 20 December 2017 in my view was intended to overcome any later allegation that the dismissal was unlawful because it occurred during temporary absence for medical reasons. If so, it did not have the desired effect. The dismissal took effect when it was communicated to Ms Galanopoulos on 21 December 2017. 32 The contrivance does not reflect well on NJM Group.

Conclusion

[55] Having considered each of the matters specified in section 387, on balance I consider that the dismissal of Ms Galanopoulos was unreasonable because no reason for the dismissal was given to her and it was procedurally unfair. The dismissal had immediate effect, notwithstanding that payment in lieu of notice was subsequently provided. I am satisfied that the dismissal was unfair.

Remedy

[56] Reinstatement is the primary remedy available under the Act. I am satisfied that reinstatement would be inappropriate in this case having regard to my finding that there was a valid reason for dismissal and because reinstatement is unlikely to result in a sustainable outcome for either party.

[57] In all the circumstances, I consider that compensation is appropriate.

Compensation

[58] Section 392(2) of the Act deals with how compensation is to be assessed in connection with an unfair dismissal. The established methodology is elaborated on in Bowden v Ottrey Homes Cobram and District Retirement Villages Inc (Bowden). 33

Remuneration Ms Galanopoulos would have received, or would have been likely to receive, if she had not been dismissed (s.392(2)(c))

[59] In my view, had it not been for the dismissal, Ms Galanopoulos would only have remained in employment with NJM Group for a further six weeks taking into account the concerns it held about her performance generally and the Christmas period.

[60] Ms Galanopoulos’s average weekly earnings were $744.00 gross per week. On that basis, I find that Ms Galanopoulos would have earned $4464.00 gross plus superannuation in the 6 week period after her dismissal.

Remuneration earned (s.392(2)(e)) and income reasonably likely to be earned (s.392(2)(f))

[61] Ms Galanopoulos was paid two weeks’ notice of termination or $1488.00 gross. This amount will be deduced from her total compensation amount, reflecting the position Ms Galanopoulos would have been but for the termination of her employment.

Length of service (s.392(2)(b))

[62] Ms Galanopoulos had approximately 19 months’ service with NJM Group. This factor does not warrant an adjustment in the amount of compensation in this case.

Mitigation efforts (s.392(2)(d))

[63] Ms Galanopoulos was offered a part-time receptionist job at a Wellness Centre in Brunswick after completing a one week trial. She declined the role as she wanted full time work. While her preference for full time work is understandable, it also meant the refusal of an opportunity for employment that would have helped mitigate her loss at least in the short term. It is appropriate that the amount of compensation be reduced by $915.84 (assuming two days of work for three weeks: 40% x $763.20 (Level 1 of the Hair and Beauty Industry Award 2010) x 3).

[64] Ms Galanopoulos gave evidence that she had registered with Centrelink and with an employment agency and that other than at the Wellness Centre, she had been asking around for work without success. I am satisfied that she made reasonable efforts to mitigate her loss in the six week period after her dismissal. No further adjustment of compensation is made.

Other matters (s.392(2)(g))

[65] In this case, I do not consider it appropriate to discount the amount of compensation further for "contingencies", taking into account the short period over which I have found it is likely that Ms Galanopoulos would have remained in employment and the circumstances known at the time of hearing. 34 

Misconduct (s.392(3))

[66] It is not apparent that misconduct was relevant to the dismissal. No further adjustment of compensation is made on this basis.

Shock, Distress (s.392(4))

[67] The amount of compensation does not include a component for shock, humiliation or distress.

Compensation cap (s.392(5)&(6))

[68] The calculation of gross compensation is as follows:

(a) $4464.00 (anticipated gross earnings in 6 week period after dismissal)

(b) Less $1488.00 (notice of termination)

(c) Less $915.84 (relating to mitigation)

(d) Subtotal = $2060.16 gross.

[69] The amount of $2060.16 gross is less than the compensation cap of 26 weeks’ pay and no further adjustment of the amount is necessary.

Viability (s.392(2)(a))

[70] There is no evidence that an order requiring NJM Group to pay Ms Galanopoulos compensation of the above amount will impact on the viability of its enterprise and no adjustment of the amount of compensation is made on this basis.

Instalments (s.393)

[71] Likewise, no application was made by NJM Group to pay any compensation awarded by instalments and no order will be made to that effect.

Conclusion on remedy

[72] In my view, the compensation figure arrived at in this case does not yield an amount that is clearly excessive or clearly inadequate.

[73] For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that a remedy of compensation in the sum of $2060.16 gross plus superannuation in favour of Ms Galanopoulos is appropriate in the circumstances of this case. An order [PR608218] will issue to that effect.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

G Dircks for the Applicant

N Smith for Australian Handrails Pty Ltd

Hearing details:

2018.

Melbourne:

May 10.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR608217>

 1   MA000002

 2   Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s.385

 3   Form F3 filed on 1 March 2018; Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s.388

 4   Exhibit 1, Statement of Kerry Galanopoulos

 5   Exhibit 3, Statement of Nicholas Marasco

 6   Exhibit 3, Statement of Nicholas Marasco

 7   Exhibit 10, Statement of Darren Grech

 8   Exhibit 3, Statement of Nicholas Marasco; Exhibit 10, Statement of Darren Grech

 9   Exhibit 3, Statement of Nicholas Marasco

 10   Exhibit 10, Statement of Darren Grech

 11   Audio recording of hearing on 10 May 2018

 12   Exhibit 9, Statement of Michael D’Amico

 13   Exhibit 3, Statement of Nicholas Marasco

 14   Audio recording of hearing on 10 May 2018

 15   Exhibit 10, Statement of Darren Grech

 16   Exhibit 1, Statement of Kerry Galanopoulos at Attachment KG2

 17   Exhibit 1, Statement of Kerry Galanopoulos

 18   Exhibit 1, Statement of Kerry Galanopoulos

 19   Exhibit 1, Statement of Kerry Galanopoulos

 20   Exhibit 3, Statement of Nicholas Marasco

 21   Exhibit 1, Statement of Kerry Galanopoulos; Audio recording of hearing on May 2018

 22   Exhibit 1, Statement of Kerry Galanopoulos

 23   Exhibit 1, Statement of Kerry Galanopoulos

 24   Exhibit 1, Statement of Kerry Galanopoulos

 25   Audio recording of hearing on 10 May 2018

 26   Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s.23

 27   Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s.385; s.388

 28   Ryman v Thrash Pty Ltd t/a Wisharts Automotive Services[2015] FWCFB 5264

 29 [1995] HCA 24; (1995) 185 CLR 410 at 465

 30   Audio recording of hearing on 10 May 2018

 31   Exhibit 9

 32   Stevanovski v Linfox Transport [2001] AIRC 388; PR903594

 33   [2013] FWCFB 431

 34   Ellawala v Australian Postal Corporation Print S5109 at [36]