Larry Brown v K & S Freighters Pty Ltd

[2010] FWA 1424

[2010] FWA 1424

FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA

DECISION

Workplace Relations Act 1996
s.643—Termination of employment

Larry Brown
v
K & S Freighters Pty Ltd
(U2009/4450)

COMMISSIONER SPENCER BRISBANE, 30 MARCH 2010

Termination of employment - arbitration.

Introduction

[1] This decision relates to the application of Mr Larry Brown (“the Applicant”) filed pursuant to s.643(1)(a) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (“the Act”) in relation to the termination of his employment with K & S Freighters Pty Ltd, (“the Respondent”) that he contends was harsh, unjust and unreasonable.

[2] The matter was heard before the Commission as currently constituted. Written directions were issued which required the exchange of submissions and witness evidence.

[3] Whilst not all of the submissions, evidence and materials are referred to in this determination, all of such have been considered in the decision.

Relevant Legislation

“s.643 Application to Commission to deal with termination under this Subdivision

(1) Subject to subsections (5), (6), (8) and (10), an employee whose employment has been terminated by the employer may apply to the Commission for relief in respect of the termination of that employment:

(a) on the ground that the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable;…”

“652 Arbitration

(3) In determining, for the purposes of the arbitration, whether a termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the Commission must have regard to:

(a) whether there was a valid reason for the termination related to the employee’s capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees); and

(b) whether the employee was notified of that reason; and

(c) whether the employee was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the employee; and

(d) if the termination related to unsatisfactory performance by the employee—whether the employee had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the termination; and

(e) the degree to which the size of the employer’s undertaking, establishment or service would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the termination; and

(f) the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the undertaking, establishment or service would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the termination; and

(g) any other matters that the Commission considers relevant.”

Background

[4] The Applicant was employed as a trucker driver from 19 March 2008 at the Coopers Plains Depot of the Respondent.

[5] His employment was terminated for failure to report an accident where damage was caused to a Company vehicle and for failure to follow safe operating procedures in relation to load restraint.

[6] The Respondent stated that the Applicant had not secured his chin strap on his hardhat whilst loading a truck. The Applicant stated that at the time of his engagement he was not provided with any Personal Protective Equipment and despite further requests had not been provided with a chin strap.

[7] The termination of employment letter stated as follows:

“Dear Larry

RE: Termination Failure to follow Safe Operating Procedures

I write to confirm details of our discussion today regarding your employment as a driver with K&S Freighters based at Coopers Plains Qld.

As you are aware we have investigated an incident where your hard hat was not secured.

In addition to this you failed to report and [sic] accident where damage was caused to the Company.

At the conclusion of this investigation it has been determined that you failed to follow safe operating procedures in relation to load restraint.

The consequence of this failure places your health and safety at serious risk of injury.

You have previously been counselled in relation to this matter and advised of the Company’s expectations. You have also received training in relation to our requirements.

The Company will not tolerate this type of ongoing behaviour, therefore it is with regret your services are terminated effective immediately as serious wilful misconduct.

All outstanding entitlement will be forwarded to you via your nominated bank account.

Regards

Bob Miller

Operations Manager

K&S Freighters”

[8] The Respondent stated that they were very concerned about safety and had regular tool box meetings with its employees, (with the Applicant in attendance) to reiterate safety policies. The Respondent had experienced a series of recent significant safety incidents and had been taking appropriate measures to ensure employees adhered to their safety policies. The Applicant had been advised about non-compliance and was aware of the consequences of such, in the tool box meetings, by the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and via an Employer Communication document on the recent accidents.

The Applicant’s Submissions

[9] The Applicant submitted that there was no valid reason for his dismissal and that he was not warned about unsatisfactory performance prior to his termination, nor was he given an opportunity to respond to the allegations that he failed to wear the correct Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) on two occasions, and that he did not report damage to the company vehicle.

[10] The Applicant stated that his termination of employment was unfair, as he was unable to comply with the safety procedure, as he did not have a chin strap and when he was provided with one he had grown accustomed to not to wearing one. He also stated that the Standard Operating Procedures with regard to, when to wear a hard hat or a wide-brimmed sun protection hat were overlapping and hence confusing. He stated that for some time after his engagement he did not have a chin strap, despite requesting one.

[11] The Applicant stated that he had sought a chin strap after attending a tool box meeting in March 2009 at which the wearing of PPE was reinforced. He said he did not receive a chin strap until 13 May 2009.

[12] The Respondent’s evidence was that there was no reason to believe that the Applicant would not have been issued with a chin strap. The Applicant stated that Mr Miller’s (Operations Manager) evidence was that the Respondent had ordered 15 chin straps on 16 June 2008 and another 15 chin straps on 23 July 2008. He stated that these orders for chin straps supported his suggestion that he had not been issued with a chin strap, as there was none available, at the time of his commencement.

[13] The Applicant argued that the Respondent’s Safe Operating Procedure, 29 – “Working in Hot Conditions” was in conflict with the Respondent’s ‘Top of Trailer Policy” and it was ambiguous as to whether a hard hat or wide brimmed hat should be worn.

[14] The Applicant’s evidence was that he had “never observed a single sole wearing a hard hat with chin strap whilst working on a trailer deck in the Postle Street depot/yard”.

[15] He also stated that in the K & S Freighters SOP ‘Working on Trailer Decks’ (that Mr Miller supplied as Attachment D5) does not list a chin strap as part of PPE. The Applicant stated that this was because a trailer deck is not more than 2 metres from the ground. Whereas he said the Safe Operating Procedure (SOP) “Working from Heights”, applied when employees were required to work at a distance greater than 2 metres from the ground.

[16] The Applicant conceded (in his response to Mr Joel Browne’s witness statement) that he had damaged the company vehicle, but he stated that the description by Mr Browne that the front bar on the truck had been out to 40 degrees was ‘an exaggeration.” The Applicant stated that he had explained to Mr Browne on the day the damage to the vehicle occurred and how it occurred. He further stated that Mr Browne spoke to Mr Ben Andric “Mesh and Bar Operations Administrator” regarding the incident. The Applicant’s evidence was that at no time while Mr Browne was at the site did he recommend that he complete a damage report then or in the 2 days prior to dismissal.

[17] The Applicant stated that the termination of his employment occurred as follows:

“On the morning of 29 May 2009 I started work at my usual time of 6.00 am. John Wagstaff (fleet controller) told me I was not driving today and to make myself busy in the depot yard. Later in the morning I was summoned to Bob Miller’s office (Mr Miller is the Queensland Operations Manager). Present were Bob Miller, Wayne Woolacott and Joel Brown. Mr Miller said my employment is being terminated because I did not report the dent I put in the front bumper of my Prime Mover, I said “I did report it”, Joel Brown asked me who I reported it to? I said “You Joel”. He dismissed this. Bob then said “it costs $3000 for a new bumper, will you pay for it?” I said “yes” (I felt that it wouldn’t make any difference to the out come [sic] of the meeting). He also dismissed this.

Bob Miller told me my employment was also being terminated because I failed to wear a chin strap at a customers site, as per their Safe Operating Procedures. I explained that in my whole working life I have never before been required to wear a chin strap and due to the fact I had only very recently been issued with one it was a simple oversight. He dismissed this.

Bob Miller handed me a letter of termination, effective immediately as wilful misconduct (summary dismissal) dated 28 May 2009. This date is one day prior to the actual termination meeting.

The letter also says I have previously been counselled in relation to this matter, this is not the case. While I have been with K&S I have never before this ever been had any warnings or counseling [sic].”

[18] The Applicant submitted that there was no valid reason for his dismissal and that he had not been afforded procedural fairness, in that he had not been appropriately warned on these issues or allowed to respond. In addition he stated the termination letter pre-dated the dismissal meeting.

The Respondent’s Submissions

[19] The Respondent provided documentary evidence that the Applicant had signed confirming his attendance at a number of toolbox meetings with other drivers on the safety issues in question. On 10 February 2009 he attended a tool box meeting where the “Top of Trailer Policy” was discussed; and he confirmed, by signature, his attendance at this meeting. The Top of Trailer Policy (in part) states:

“It is the policy of K&S Freighters Pty Ltd (ACN 007 544 390) and the K&S group of companies (collectively K&S) to achieve an exemplary safe standard of practice in the loading, unloading and transporting of goods and services which will comply with the duty of care under the current Commonwealth, State and Territory Acts and Regulations.

…

In particular, to ensure the safe loading and transportation of goods and services, K&S will ensure:-

…

Where employees have no alternative but to get onto a loaded trailer, the company requires the following actions to be taken:-

…

A chin strap and helmet must be worn at all times in addition to the normal protective equipment.” (emphasis added)

[20] The Respondent’s Safe Operating Procedure for Working on Trailer Decks also states:

“When it is not possible to conduct the task from the ground and access to the trailer cannot be avoided employees are required to use all equipment available that will assist with full protection. This could include safety harnesses and lanyards, … A helmet fitted with a chin strap must always be worn if working on a loaded trailer.” (emphasis added)

[21] The Respondent also released a flyer to employees that stated “Don’t Be Number 5”. The document referred to five recent cases where K & S Drivers were critically injured, when they fell from trailers. It stated:

“DON’T BE NUMBER 5

150 truck drivers a year in Victoria alone suffer a serious injury due to falling from trucks/trailers

The risk of death or injury due to a fall from a trailer exists:

Case 1 Vic Driver Aug 2008 – K&S Driver fell from trailer resulting in critical injuries. Critical

Case 2 Qld Driver Dec 2008 – K&S Driver retrieving hooked up strap, fell from trailer resulting in fracture and major laceration. Serious

Case 3 SA Driver Dec 2008 – K&S Driver jumped from trailer resulting in serious injuries to his foot Serious

Case 4 Qld Contractor Jan 2009 – Contractor on K&S owned site was retrieving hooked up strap, fell from trailer resulting in critical condition Critical

Case 5 DON’T LET THIS BE YOU

TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR SAFETY

…

DON’T

• Climb onto loaded trailer without helmet & chin strap

…”

[22] In further evidence of continually emphasising these safety policies with drivers, on 11 May 2009, Joel Brown sent an email to Managers stating:

“PPE compliance with drivers needs to be revisited ASAP. While I was out at Mesh and Bar today, I noticed K&S driver Larry in the loading bay with out his hard hat on, his replay [sic] to me was” I did the induction two weeks ago I forgot” Please make sure all drivers understand the customers PPE requirements. Remember Safety is everyone’s responsibility”.

[23] Again at the meeting on 13 May 2009, employees including the Applicant, were again advised to be vigilant about their safety and beware of the consequences of not complying with safety requirements.

[24] The Respondent stated that there were continuing issues of non-compliance by the Applicant with regard to not wearing his PPE despite the ongoing repetition of the Respondent’s requirements. The evidence of Mr Joel Browne, Operations Manager was that on 11 May 2009 (as stated), he observed Mr Brown not wearing a hard hat at the Mesh and bar site. The Applicant stated that he had forgotten to wear it.

[25] On 26 May 2009, the Applicant was again observed not wearing his chin strap whilst on top of a trailer. The Respondent stated that this was the second time within two weeks that the Applicant had not complied with safety instructions. Further to this, it was observed that the Applicant had not reported damage to the company vehicle.

[26] The Respondent stated that there was a valid reason for the Applicant’s dismissal on the basis that he failed to comply with lawful directions on two occasions to wear PPE. In addition, the Respondent stated that the Applicant had failed on two occasions to report motor vehicle accidents in breach of the company policy.

Considerations

[27] The evidence is clear that the Respondent was very concerned about safety and had undertaken a concerted plan of following up on their safety policies with their employees.

[28] The Respondent had experienced four recent serious safety incidents where employees had fallen from trailers, and had been critically injured. These incidents had been documented on a flyer to employees entitled “Don’t be Number 5”. The Respondent had communicated that “150 truck drivers a year in Victoria alone suffer serious injury due to falling from trucks/trailers. The document stated “Don’t climb onto loaded trailers without helmet and chin strap.”

[29] The requirements of working on and around trailers and wearing a helmet and chin strap had been reiterated to employees at a number of tool box meetings, at which the Applicant had signed in recognition of his attendance, at the sessions on these topics. The safety requirements and Respondent’s policies were clear. The direction to wear such equipment was explained and no confusion could be drawn in how the Standard Operating Procedures would operate. The Respondent addressed the necessary risks associated with working on and around and the loading of trailers, and how employees were to wear helmets and chin straps. The Applicant had never raised any ambiguity with the procedures or the direction he had been provided. His evidence on the alleged confusion between the procedures was not persuasive.

[30] The Applicant had breached the procedure twice within two weeks after having the matter addressed with him. Whilst the discussions were not the subject of written warnings, the Applicant had completed the PPE training in March 2008, as per the certificate. He had attended the tool box meetings in recent weeks; as evidenced in the K & S Toolbox Meeting Minutes that specifically documented his presence and the necessity of strict compliance with safety requirements. At the toolbox meeting on 10 February 2009 – the “Don’t be number 5” safety campaign was addressed and the SOP of ‘Top of Trailer Policy’ had been reviewed, with reference to wearing relevant PPE. On 29 April 2009, the toolbox meeting addressed:

“Accessing trailer discussed. All employees required to wear hard hat and chin strap top of trailer – if no fall protection call supervisor to advise…” and “All drivers to report damaged equipment immediately to supervisor.”

Again at the tool box meeting on 13 May 2009, (as documented, with the Applicant in attendance) drivers were reminded not be complacent about safety.

[31] The Respondent’s ‘Top of Trailer’ policy in part stated:

“Where employees have no alternative but to get onto a loaded trailer, the company requires the following actions to be taken:-

…

A chin strap and helmet must be worn at all times in addition to the normal protective equipment.”

[32] The procedure states that failure to adhere to the policy may result in disciplinary action or dismissal.

[33] The Respondent’s SOP “Working on Trailer Decks” stated “A helmet fitted with a chin strap must always be worn if working on a loaded trailer.”

Section 652(3)

[34] In determining whether the termination of the Applicant’s employment was harsh, unjust or unreasonable it is necessary to have regard to the following criteria pursuant to s.652(3):

(a) Whether there was a valid reason for the termination related to the employee’s capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees)

[35] There was a valid reason for the dismissal; the necessity for strict compliance with safety directions had been sufficiently addressed with the Applicant. The instruction and the requirement to wear a helmet and chin strap was clear. The Applicant failed to comply. He also had failed to report damage to company equipment as instructed. He acknowledged he was responsible for the damage to the truck, but not to the level as described by the manager. The Respondent stated he had failed to report two motor vehicle accidents.

[36] These two requirements were inherent responsibilities of his truck driver duties. He was aware of the necessity to meet these obligations. They were not onerous. The failure to wear the secured chin strap placed the Applicant at serious risk in working on and around trailers. The wearing of a wide brimmed sun hat in this working situation did not protect him from risk if he fell or equipment fell on him. The risks in the work and the requirements to wear the heard hat and chin strap had been consistently addressed with him against the background of recent accidents, and the potential for disciplinary actions or dismissal for non-compliance.

(b) Whether the employee was notified of the reason

[37] The Respondent stated that the safety breaches had been conveyed to the Applicant. The Applicant argued that they had not been adequately addressed with him. However, it is evident on the material that the Applicant was aware of the required compliance and the consequences of failure to adhere via tool box meetings on the Respondent’s procedures and policies.

(c) Whether the employee was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the employee; and

(d) If the termination related to unsatisfactory performance by the employee – whether the employee had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the termination

[38] The Applicant had been advised of the necessary compliance, his failure to adhere to the procedures and the reasons for the termination. The Respondent’s evidence was that the Applicant was given an appropriate opportunity to respond to the issues on 29 May 2009 and was offered the option of having another person to be present to assist him. The Applicant stated that the dismissal letter predated the meeting and the matter had already been determined.

(e) The degree to which the size of the employer’s undertaking establishment or service would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the termination; and

(f) The degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the undertaking establishment or service would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the termination

[39] The Respondent is a relatively large employer and has a dedicated National Human Resource Manager. Accordingly, I have taken into account the procedural deficiencies in the process: that the incidents were not reduced to written warnings; and that the termination letter has a prior date to the dismissal meeting. It is expected that the Respondent’s procedure could have dealt more proficiently with the issues with the Applicant, however, the procedural flaws do not negate the serious issues of non-compliance with the safety and reporting obligations that had been repeatedly addressed with the Applicant. The Respondent’s directions were clear and straightforward and delivered in an environment where the Respondent had continually stressed the safety obligations given the recent serious accidents to truck drivers in relation to these safety breaches.

(g) Any other matters that the Commission considers relevant

[40] The reasons for the dismissal, together with the Applicant’s evidence regarding the late provision of a chin strap have been considered. The requirement for compliance with the directions for wearing the safety equipment was essential to the Applicant’s safety. The Respondent had been clear regarding the necessity to follow these lawful directions. The obligations were known to the Applicant and were basic requirements of his duties.

[41] The Applicant failed to follow the directions and procedures despite a series of sessions advising him of his obligations. The mitigating circumstances advanced do not undermine the valid reason for the dismissal.

[42] The Applicant acknowledged the breaches through his response at the meeting. To redress the dismissal would prejudice the Respondent’s serious stand in relation to safety given the recent accidents for similar deficient practices. There was no evidence of the Applicant’s that verified any misunderstanding or contradiction of the policies, events or of the required procedures.

[43] The following passage of transcript indicated that the Applicant was non-compliant with the safety requirements:

What about when you're on the back of a trailer without a load?---Yes. Quite often.

Right. Do you agree that you need to wear a helmet and a chin strap then?---As I read the policy safe - - -

Yes, I'm just asking you first of all. How high is the trailer off the ground?---It's about 1.6 metres.

All right. And what's your evidence in relation to that then as to whether you're required to wear a helmet with a chin strap?---As I understand it a chin strap only needs to be worn if the trailer deck is over two metres in height or you're standing on a load on the trailer which is also over two metres in height.

What happens if you fall off a trailer of 1.6 metres in height wearing a safety helmet without your chin strap?---If you fall off the trailer, I've never - I am not aware of that happening to anybody that I know and it has never happened to me.

No, that wasn't the question?---It's also - - -

What's the risk if you fall off the trailer?---I think, I think there is a higher risk from not wearing correct sun protection.

All right. But the question is, Mr Brown, if you're a trailer 1.6 metres off the ground?---Yes, Commissioner.

And you've worn a helmet but you haven't got your safety - your chin strap on, is there any point in wearing that helmet?---Probably for minimal sun protection.

But what about in terms of protecting you from head injury from a fall?---A proper - if you have a hardhat that is fitted properly you should be able to bend over and the hardhat will stay on your head.

But what about if you fall off the trailer?---Well, your hardhat stays on if it is fitted correctly.

And just the last question, in Mr Miller's statement he refers to four serious accidents in recent months?---Mm.

Are you aware of those?---No I am not.

You didn't have any information, they weren't the subject of toolbox meetings?

---Yes, as I just mentioned to Mr Ironmonger here I did - it was brought up at one toolbox meeting that a memo was sent out and, yes, I sighted it. 1

[44] Whilst there was a valid reason for the decision, the procedural flaws as set out for a relatively large company with a dedicated National Human Resource Manager rendered the termination for serious wilful misconduct harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

Remedy

[45] Whilst the Applicant in this matter sought reinstatement, the Applicant’s evidence regarding the policies was evasive and demonstrated a poor attitude (to safety), that the employer could not be confident would be rectified if reinstated. His lack of constructive responses to the safety breaches and his desire to return to the employment to make it a better place for all employees, do not support reinstatement. Accordingly, compensation in accordance with Full Bench decision T. Sprigg v Paul’s Licensed Festival Supermarket 2has been considered.

[46] In considering the appropriate remedy, consideration has been given to the following legislative factors:

Section 654(2)(a) – The effect of the viability of the employer’s undertaking, establishment or service

[47] It is assessed that the Respondent operates a relatively large company that is well resourced and that a reasonable order for compensation would not impact significantly on the employer’s business.

Section 654(2)(b) – The length of the employee’s service with the employer

[48] The Applicant had 15 months’ service with the Respondent. Whilst it was anticipated that he had an ongoing expectation of continuing to work with the Respondent, his non-compliance and attitude to safety indicated that the on-going relationship would be short-lived.

Section 654(2)(c) – The remuneration that the employee would have been likely to receive, if the employee’s employment had not been terminated

[49] The Applicant had gained intermittent employment since July 2009. His employment ceased in May 2009. His dismissal was deemed to be serious misconduct by the Respondent and on the material before me, two weeks wages in lieu of notice was not paid. The matter was not one that would meet the definition of serious misconduct or summary dismissal. Therefore the wages in lieu of notice was payable.

Remedy

[50] In view of the remarks regarding ‘valid reason’, and that it seems unlikely, given the Applicant’s conduct, that the employment could have continued for in excess of six weeks.

[51] Having regard to the matters (as set out) in s.654(2) of the Act, in the circumstances, it is not appropriate to adopt the courses in s.654(3)(a) or (b), given that it is considered that reinstatement is inappropriate in all the circumstances, therefore an order requiring the employer in accordance with s.654(7) to pay the employee an amount in lieu of reinstatement is assessed. In this respect I have had regard to the matters in s.654(8), this being a mandatory step separate to the consideration given to the same matters for the prupsoes of s.654(1) and (2): as per the Full Bench Decision of Henderson v Department of Defence: 3

s.654 (8)(a) the effect of the order on the viability of the employer’s undertaking, establishment or service

[52] It is not anticipated that an order of the magnitude of six weeks (including wages in lieu of notice) would have an affect on the viability of the employer’s undertaking, establishment or service.

s.654 (8)(b) the length of the employee’s service with the employer

[53] The Applicant’s employment was for a period of 15 months. This is a reasonable but not significant period of employment and does not warrant an extension to the period of compensation .

s.654 (8)(c) the remuneration that the employee would have received, or would have been likely to receive, if the employee’s employment had not been terminated

[54] The Applicant’s continued employment in his duties was limited by his conduct, his non-compliance with safety policies and reporting.

[55] The Applicant’s employment is likely to have extended no more than a further six weeks given the Applicant’s attitude to return and “make it a better place for employees’” and the Applicant’s obstructionist view of the alleged ambiguity of the Respondent’s safety policies.

[56] The issue of contingencies depends on the circumstances of the particular case, and should be applied with respect to an ‘anticipated period of employment.’ In the current circumstances had the dismissal not occurred, the contributory actions of the Applicant’s non-compliance would have impacted upon the continuation of the employment contract between the parties. However, given the procedural flaws and also the relatively short period of employment, no deductions have been made.

s.654 (8)(d) the efforts of the employee (if any) to mitigate the loss suffered by the employee as a result of the termination

[57] The information regarding the Applicant’s specific earnings is not before me except that he gained intermittent work in July 2009.

[58] The Applicant sought further employment and was successful after a period of some six weeks after the dismissal, therefore no further discounts for contingencies have occurred.

s.654 (8)(e) any misconduct of the employee that contributed to the employer’s decision to terminate the employee’s employment

[59] The Applicant contributed in a significant way to the circumstances of the dismissal, due to his non-compliance.

s.654 (8)(f) any other matter that the Commission considers relevant

[60] I have considered the economic impact of the termination upon the Applicant’s circumstances and the nature of work he performs. I have also taken into account the matters discussed above in relation to s.652(3)(b), s.652(3)(c) and s.652(3)(e) of the Act.

Conclusion on remedy

[61] For the reasons set out, having regard to all the circumstances, the Respondent is ordered to pay the Applicant six weeks’ salary (subject to taxation) in lieu of reinstatement. An order to this effect will issue contemporaneously with this decision. I leave for the Respondent the calculation of the quantum in monetary terms. I Order Accordingly.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Mr B. Ironmonger, consultant

Hearing details:

Monday 26 October 2009, Brisbane

COMMISSIONER

 1   Transcript 26 October 2009, PN205-218.

 2 (1998) 88 IR 21 (Munro J, Duncan DP and Jones C) Print RO23.

 3   Giudice J, Williams SDP and Huxter C, Print S8591, 28 July 2000, at paras 20 and 23.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR994064>