Leeann Mandic v Bupa Care Services Pty Ltd
[2011] FWA 849
•23 FEBRUARY 2011
[2011] FWA 849 |
|
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Leeann Mandic
v
Bupa Care Services Pty Ltd
(U2010/12790)
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT O’CALLAGHAN | ADELAIDE, 23 FEBRUARY 2011 |
Termination of employment - valid reason - reasonable employee action - assault - remedy.
[1] On 28 September 2010 Ms Mandic lodged an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the FW Act), through which she sought relief with respect to the termination of her employment with Bupa Care Services Ltd (Bupa).
[2] The application was not resolved through the conciliation process and was referred to me for arbitration. It was the subject of hearings on 23 and 31 January 2011. At these hearings Mr Saies, of counsel represented Ms Mandic and Mr Lazaravich, of counsel represented Bupa. Both parties have provided written submissions which I have taken into account. In writing this decision I have not disclosed some names which are incidental to the matters in dispute as I do not consider this to be necessary or appropriate in these circumstances.
[3] I have summarised the background to the application in the following terms.
[4] Bupa operate a large number of aged care facilities. Ms Mandic worked as a personal carer at the Campbelltown facility since 1995. She worked as a weekly hire part-time employee for an average of 73 hours each fortnight. She also worked for at least one other employer for a similar number of hours.
[5] Ms Mandic was implicated in at least one incident which involved an elderly resident in July 2010. The circumstances of this incident are in dispute as is the extent of any disciplinary action taken against Ms Mandic.
[6] Ms Mandic was also involved in a further incident in August 2010. Bupa management were alerted to this incident by a complaint from a relative of a resident to the effect that Ms Mandic had raised her voice to another elderly resident in an inappropriate manner. Ms Mandic was suspended with pay pending an investigation. The circumstances of the suspension and the advice provided to Ms Mandic about the complaint are disputed.
[7] Ms Mandic was subsequently invited to meet with Bupa management on 8 September 2010. Whilst a meeting occurred on this date and Ms Mandic attended with her lawyer, the conduct of the meeting and the extent to which it was primarily directed at investigating a further, and different resident complaint are matters which are in dispute.
[8] A further meeting was held on 10 September 2010. Again, Ms Mandic attended with her lawyer. At this meeting, Ms Mandic advised that the incident had occurred after an elderly resident had grasped her by the breasts as she was putting him in a wheelchair and, when she removed his hands, he proceeded to hit her. Ms Mandic asserted that she sustained scratches to her breasts, loosened and chipped teeth, and facial bruising. Also, at this 10 September 2010 meeting Bupa management advised Ms Mandic that no further action would be taken against her with respect to the separate complaint discussed with her on 8 September 2010.
[9] After considering the information available to it, Bupa management decided to terminate Ms Mandic’s employment. Advice confirming this termination of employment was provided by telephone and subsequently confirmed to her by letter on 15 September 2010. This advice stated:
“Further to my letter dated 8 September 2010, your disciplinary interview held on 10 September 2010 and my telephone call of earlier today, I write to confirm the outcome.
The disciplinary interview was chaired by me and Cath McDonald (Operations Manager). You attended and were accompanied at the meeting by your Solicitor, George.
The meeting was convened to address your conduct on the morning of 28 August 2010. Specifically, we discussed the following allegations which were made against you.
Verbal abuse of a resident
Unprofessional Conduct
For completeness, we note that a further allegation of rough handling was made against you. However, after investigation this allegation and talking to you, we decided this allegation had no merit.
You were advised prior to your interview that this conduct may, if proven, result in the termination of your employment.
You were given an opportunity to respond to each of these allegations during the interview. During the interview you denied the allegations raised against you. You stated that you did not verbally abuse the resident; rather, you stated that the resident had grabbed your breast and you replied to him “do not grab my breast”. You further stated that you reported this incident at the time.
I do not believe you were honest in your account of the events or your responses to the allegations of verbal abuse.
Following your responses and management’s consideration of the same, we believe the incident did occur as reported by the witness. This aggressive behaviour and attitude represents a risk to our resident’s health, safety and wellbeing and cannot be tolerated by the company. We take allegations of verbal abuse against our elderly residents very seriously, and we make no apologies for this. We have a duty of care to our residents and your conduct has undermined this.
I have fundamentally lost trust and confidence in your ability to perform your role, and believe that your position is untenable.
I have therefore decided that your employment should be terminated on the basis of your verbal abuse and also your untruthfulness in responding to the allegations. Let me assure you that I have not taken this decision lightly. I have given a great deal of consideration to this matter and to the responses you have given me. However, I believe dismissal with payment in lieu of notice is appropriate in the circumstances.
Your employment will be terminated with effect from today’s date.
You will be paid in lieu of five weeks’ notice, in accordance with legislation and the relevant industrial instrument under which you have been employed, and payment for all accrued leave entitlements will be made in the next scheduled pay run.
If you have any further queries please contact myself or the Human Resources Department on 02 8247 3000.
Yours sincerely,
Zoe Hubball
General Manager” 1
The submissions
[10] Ms Mandic seeks reinstatement and the restoration of lost wages. She asserts that the termination of her employment was substantively and procedurally unfair. Ms Mandic asserts that she was assaulted by an elderly resident whose behaviour represented a proper basis for her calls that he should stop this behaviour. Ms Mandic advises that she sought support from the responsible registered nurse to report this matter but that this support was denied. She asserts that she suffered various injuries from the incident and subsequently sought medical treatment for these injuries.
[11] Ms Mandic asserts that the termination of employment process was flawed in that her initial input into the matter and the advice that she was stood down was made through a telephone discussion which occurred while she was in a doctors waiting area such that she could not properly participate. Further, that the formal disciplinary process was flawed in that she was not able to properly explain her version of events. Ms Mandic asserts that she was not provided with the basis for the employer conclusion that she had not been honest, or engaged in unprofessional conduct in the form of verbal abuse.
[12] The Bupa position is that the incident which led to the termination of Ms Mandic’s employment followed a verbal counselling about her actions in raising her voice to elderly residents one month previously. Bupa does not concede that the elderly resident was capable or did, in fact, assault Ms Mandic but argues that, in any event, Ms Mandic’s response was disproportionately aggressive for a person employed to deal with elderly patients suffering from dementia and other conditions.
[13] Bupa assert that it had instituted a thorough and fair investigation process which included opportunities for input from Ms Mandic.
The Evidence
[14] Whilst I have considered all of the material before me, I have set out below a broad summary of the evidence provided in this matter.
[15] Ms Mandic’s evidence went to her employment history, the incident involving elderly residents in July 2010 and the 28 August 2010 incident including her subsequent medical treatment and the investigation and disciplinary process.
[16] Ms Hubball, the Bupa Campbelltown General Manager gave evidence about her involvement with Ms Mandic since Ms Hubball commenced with Bupa in May 2010. This evidence went to the July 2010 incident, but more particularly to Ms Hubball’s awareness of the 28 August 2010 incident and her subsequent initiation of, and involvement in the investigation process. Ms Hubball’s evidence also went to explain resident care plans and, particularly, her involvement in the plan relative to the resident involved in the incident with Ms Mandic.
[17] The person who made the complaint to Ms Hubball gave evidence that she heard, but did not see, Ms Mandic tell a resident that she was taking him to lunch and then subsequently heard Ms Mandic repeatedly and loudly yell words to the effect of “Do not hit me!, You are assaulting me!, I am a woman and you cannot assault me!” This witness’ evidence was that the commotion upset her mother and she subsequently sent an e-mail complaint about the incident to Ms Hubball. In the circumstances of this matter, I have not found it necessary to disclose the name of this witness.
[18] Mr Baines is a personal carer at the Bupa Centre. His evidence was that, on 28 August 2010, he walked past Ms Mandic and an elderly resident and Ms Mandic told him that she had been assaulted and hit on the chest and arm. Mr Baines advised Ms Mandic to report the incident.
Findings
[19] I am satisfied that none of the initial matters set out in s.396 are applicable to Ms Mandic’s application.
[20] Section 387 requires that I have regard to specified factors in reaching a conclusion about the merits of Ms Mandic’s application.
[21] Before doing so, I have set out my conclusions about the disputed events relative to the termination of Ms Mandic’s employment.
[22] I have concluded that, on 30 July 2010, Ms Hubball had a discussion with Ms Mandic following concerns raised by at least two residents about her behaviour. Ms Hubball’s file note 2 records this discussion which I consider to be best described as an informal counselling. In this discussion Ms Hubball instructed Ms Mandic not to work in that particular part of the facility for a time, and Ms Mandic agreed to lower her voice and think before she spoke. The discussion was not a formal warning and did not specify consequences associated with repetition of the behaviour.
[23] I have made a number of findings with respect to the incident on 28 August 2010 which ultimately led to the termination of Ms Mandic’s employment.
[24] I have concluded that, on her own evidence, the person who made the complaint to Ms Hubball did not see the incident, but only heard it.
[25] I have concluded that the elderly resident did grasp Ms Mandic’s breasts and that his actions caused her to call out that he was assaulting her. This is consistent with Mr Baine’s recollection of Ms Mandic’s observations to him 3. It is also consistent with the patient records from Ms Mandic’s doctor4. On the evidence before me, there is no other plausible reason why Ms Mandic would suddenly call out in this way.
[26] Ms Mandic asserts that when she removed the elderly resident’s hands from her breasts, he continued to hit her about the chest and face, causing bruising, and cracking and loosening her teeth. In the circumstances of this matter it is not necessary that I make findings in this respect as this goes to a worker’s compensation claim made by Ms Mandic which has been disputed.
[27] I have concluded that Ms Mandic’s protestations that she was being assaulted were uttered in a louder than normal tone which reflected the nature of the resident’s conduct.
[28] Bupa maintains resident care plans for residents to ensure that staff actions are appropriately matched to resident care needs. I am satisfied that on 7 June 2010 Ms Hubball made a handwritten notation on the plan applicable to the resident who assaulted Ms Mandic, to the effect that male staff should attend to that resident but, where this was not possible, two female nurses should be in the room. This plan also notes that the resident “attempts to kiss and/or touch the female staff inappropriately” 5. I have concluded that Ms Mandic did not follow this plan when she moved the resident into a wheelchair on 28 August 2010 to take him to lunch. However, there is no evidence before me that establishes that a failure to follow the plan in this respect was regarded by Bupa as particularly significant.
[29] Following the incident, I have concluded that Ms Mandic did attempt to seek the assistance of the duty Registered Nurse to report the resident’s behaviour and was told to “forget it”. This is clear from Ms Mandic’s evidence. I have noted that a statement was made out by the Registered Nurse involved, refuting Ms Mandic’s evidence but that this person was not called to give evidence and in these respects I have chosen to adopt Ms Mandic’s version of events.
[30] I have concluded that Ms Mandic understood that she needed the endorsement of this Registered Nurse or a senior person to make a formal complaint. This is clear from her evidence and, whilst Ms Hubball disagreed with this, information which explained the advice given to staff about the Bupa complaint process did not disprove Ms Mandic’s position.
[31] In terms of the investigation process, I have concluded that Ms Hubball telephoned Ms Mandic on 31 August 2010 to advise her that she was stood down on pay pending an investigation into the matter. On the evidence before me I have concluded that this telephone discussion occurred whilst Ms Mandic was in a doctor’s waiting room and that Ms Mandic was restricted in her capacity to discuss the matter.
[32] The incident which led to the termination of Ms Mandic’s employment was to be the subject of an interview on 8 September 2010. While Ms Mandic attended this meeting with her lawyer, the meeting purpose was changed such that it addressed another complaint in which Ms Mandic was involved. I note that the allegations in the second matter were not made out and did not form a basis for the termination of Ms Mandic’s employment.
[33] The 28 August 2010 incident was further discussed with Ms Mandic, her lawyer and Bupa management on 10 September 2010. I have concluded that the notes of this meeting 6 set out a summary of the matters discussed. More particularly, I have concluded that the somewhat indirect and vague responses attributed to Ms Mandic in these notes are consistent with Ms Mandic’s evidence and demonstrated her inability to properly answer questions.
[34] I have concluded that, following discussions with the Bupa human resource management personnel throughout the investigation process, Ms Hubball made the decision to terminate Ms Mandic’s employment after this meeting.
[35] I have considered the factors set out in s.387 in this context. This section states:
“387 Criteria for considering harshness etc.
In considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, FWA must take into account:
(a) whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person’s capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees); and
(b) whether the person was notified of that reason; and
(c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person; and
(d) any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal; and
(e) if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person—whether the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal; and
(f) the degree to which the size of the employer’s enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and
(g) the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and
(h) any other matters that FWA considers relevant.”
Valid Reason
[36] Whilst I note that Northrop J’s observations in Sevechandron v Petersen Plastics Pty Ltd were made in the context of a different legislative regime, which did not include all of the factors now specified in s.387, I have nevertheless adopted the principles set out below.
“In its context in s.170DE(1), the adjective “valid” should be given the meaning of sound, defensible or well founded. A reason which is capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced could never be a valid reason for the purposes of s.170DE(1). At the same time the reasons must be valid in the context of the employee’s capacity or conduct or based upon the operational requirements of the employer’s business. Further, in considering whether a reason is valid, it must be remembered that the requirement applies in the practical sphere of the relationship between an employer and an employee where each has rights and privileges and duties and obligations conferred and imposed on them. The provisions must “be applied in a practical, commonsense way to ensure that the employer and employee are treated fairly”.
[37] In effect, Ms Mandic was dismissed for verbal abuse of a resident and untruthfulness in responding to the allegations.
[38] I am satisfied that the elderly resident grasped Ms Mandic’s breasts and that this prompted her to protest to him. I do not consider that this has been established as verbal abuse but regard it as a perfectly normal response to inappropriate conduct. . Bupa’s assertions that Ms Mandic should have been able to adequately cope with such a situation have not been demonstrated to me such that Ms Mandic’s behaviour was unreasonable in those circumstances or formed a valid reason for the termination of her employment.
[39] As I have already indicated, it is not necessary that I make any findings with respect to injuries Ms Mandic asserts were inflicted on her. The event that led to the termination of her employment related to Ms Mandic’s protestations of assault and, on the evidence before me, the allegations of untruthfulness in this respect have not been established and are based on supposition on the part of Bupa. It may be that the resident involved in this incident was so frail that he could not have hit Ms Mandic in the manner in which she described but my conclusion that the resident’s assault Ms Mandic is consistent with the caution contained in the patient plan. Certainly, Bupa has not provided evidence that proves that the elderly resident was incapable of assaulting Ms Mandic.
[40] Ms Mandic’s failure to follow this plan was not relied upon by Bupa, and, on the material before me, I am unable to conclude that Ms Mandic’s actions in this regard warranted termination of employment.
[41] Further, whilst the informal counselling in July 2010 acknowledged the need for Ms Mandic to lower her voice and think before she spoke, in the circumstances of a personal physical assault, Ms Mandic’s actions were perfectly understandable.
[42] Accordingly, I do not consider that there was a valid reason for the termination of Ms Mandic’s employment. The incident may have formed the basis for an investigation or disciplinary action relative to whether Ms Mandic should have put herself in that situation at all, or whether she should have been able to deal with the situation in a different manner, but I am unable to conclude that it warranted termination of employment, or that Bupa had a defensible basis upon which to conclude that Ms Mandic’s account of the situation was not honest with respect to the assault.
Notification of the reason
[43] I am satisfied that Ms Mandic was notified of the reason for the termination of her employment by telephone, and then by letter of 15 September 2010.
Opportunity to respond
[44] I do not consider that Ms Mandic was given an opportunity to properly respond to the allegations against her through the telephone discussion with Ms Hubball on 31 August 2010. However, she was provided with such an opportunity on 10 September 2010.
Unreasonable refusal to allow a support person
[45] Ms Mandic brought her lawyer to the meeting on 10 September 2010. There was no unreasonable refusal of a support person in this instance.
Size of the employer’s enterprise-impact of procedures
[46] I have noted that Bupa is a very large employer and expect that accordingly it would have procedures to deal with situations such as this.
Absence of dedicated Human Resource Management personnel
[47] The evidence of Ms Hubball indicated that human resource management expertise was available to her and that she closely followed this advice.
Other matters considered relevant
[48] As I have already noted, I do not consider that Ms Mandic’s disputed worker’s compensation claim relative to her employment with Bupa is relevant to these proceedings. In this context I am not satisfied that these matters go to issues of Ms Mandic’s credibility.
[49] I have noted that a number of references to reportable allegations of misconduct involving Ms Mandic were made in this matter. With the exception of the incident discussed with Ms Mandic on 8 September 2010 where Bupa concluded that no further action should be taken against her, details of other matters have not been provided such that I could take these into account at all.
[50] Finally, I have noted that the Bupa Campbelltown facility is an aged care facility and that its desire to ensure that staff behaviour does not disturb or upset residents is clearly appropriate. However, this objective must be weighed against the requirement for staff to be given what is referred to in the FW Act as a “fair go all round”.
Conclusion
[51] In summary terms, I am satisfied that the process adopted by Bupa was fair. I am not satisfied that Bupa have made out a valid reason for the termination of Ms Mandic’s employment in this situation in terms of establishing that she verbally abused the resident or was untruthful relative to that conduct. To the extent that Ms Mandic did disturb other residents, I am satisfied that her reaction to the actions of the resident she was trying to put into a wheelchair were both understandable and not so extreme that they warranted termination of employment.
[52] Accordingly, I consider that the termination of Ms Mandic’s employment was harsh in that it lacked a proper foundation and it was unreasonable to the extent that it relied on unsubstantiated assumptions about the capacity for an assault against Ms Mandic.
[53] For these reasons, I find that Ms Mandic was unfairly dismissed.
Remedy
[54] I have decided to relist this matter to allow more consideration of the appropriate remedy. In blunt terms, the submissions dealing with remedy are seriously deficient. To assist the parties I have summarised issues which may become relevant in these proceedings.
[55] Division 4 of Part 3-2 establishes remedies which may be granted consequent upon my finding that Ms Mandic was unfairly dismissed.
[56] Section 381 of the FW Act sets out the objects of this Part of the FW Act and relevantly states:
“381 Object of this Part
(1) The object of this Part is:
....
(c) to provide remedies if a dismissal is found to be unfair, with an emphasis on reinstatement.”
[57] Section 390 requires that reinstatement be initially considered and that no order for compensation be made unless Fair Work Australia is satisfied that reinstatement is inappropriate and an order for compensation is appropriate.
[58] Ms Mandic seeks reinstatement. Her evidence in this respect was contradictory. On the one hand she stated:
“....
My trust in management’s accountability has been tarnished beyond repair. I question how it is possible for 2 people with such a low standard of ethics, have been able to make it to where they have, in an industry such as nursing, which my definition is the work of caring for the sick or injured.
Since being assaulted at Bupa I have been under enormous stress. It has impacted heavily on my entire life, and of the lives of my friends and family. I was assaulted at work and then denied what should be my basic rights as an Australia citizen.
If there had been rules put in place back when it was first discovered that the resident poses a risk to carers, then all of this would have been avoided. Instead of management taking accountability they have attempted to make me look responsible.
I have been nothing but loyal and hard working when it comes to my work as a carer. It frustrates me that management are not only willing but able to treat employees in way (sic) that they have treated me, just to avoid adhering to standard policies and procedures put in place by the standards. I love my work, but in the past months my thoughts and life have been consumed by what has happened.” 7
[59] On the other hand, Ms Mandic’ gave evidence 8 that:
“...... In your witness statement, you said on the final page that your trust in management's accountability has been tarnished beyond repair?---That's correct.
You were referring there to Zoe Hubball and Cath McDonald?---I was referring to how the interview went, how I wasn't allowed to answer and tell my side of the story. I wasn't treated fairly in that interview process and I was just thinking, well, why would management do that to you? If you were a valued employee, why would you do that to someone?
So the question was, you were talking about Cath McDonald and Zoe Hubball?
---That's correct, yes.
You questioned how it's possible for two people with such a low standard of ethics to be able to make it where they have in an industry such as nursing?
---That's correct.
Zoe Hubball is someone that you would report directly to if you were working back at Bupa?---That's correct. I hold nothing against Zoe.
In this particular though, you're not ?---That was at the time. Yes, at that time that that was made, you think, you know - the thing is, I've done nothing wrong and I've had reports, like I said, with the - it's made it brought forward now, and made it look like I've abused staff. Things have been falsified and made look like I'm a bad person. That's what I was referring to. How could people do that? You know, once I was supposed to have had a disciplinary hearing. Well, now it's gone from a disciplinary hearing to I've been counselled. You know, why would people do that? Why would you do that? I've never been counselled. I've never had a disciplinary hearing. I've done nothing wrong. I won the award at Bupa
**** LEEANN MANDIC XXN MR LAZAREVICH
I might interrupt you?---No, that's - I can't understand it.
My question is only that you would be reporting to Zoe Hubball if you ?
---That's correct, yes, I would.
You would have to deal with her on a daily basis?---That's correct.
You would also have to have regular dealings with Cath McDonald?---Well, Cath McDonald doesn't work at our facility, does she?
You would also have to see other witnesses who have given evidence in this matter?---Well, that's correct. I don't hold any grudges about anyone. You know, if people want to give a statement and they think they're helping management to give a statement, you know, that's their choice but we're civil people. We all can get along. I hold no grudges against anyone.”
[60] Ms Hubball explained the Bupa position in the following terms:
“If Ms Mandic were to be reinstated, I believe there is a real risk that she would again address our elderly residents in a disrespectful and inappropriate manner. I believe that Ms Mandic has a “short fuse” and that it would be inevitable that she would find herself in a situation with a resident under her care where she would respond inappropriately. I also note that the response of staff since she has left has been to note a change in the workplace since she has left with a lighter atmosphere. They have reported that she can be difficult to work with, and can be controlling and hostile in her demeanour. I am also concerned about how she would treat staff who have given statements in this matter.” 9
[61] Further, I have noted Ms Mandic’s evidence that she worked at the Bupa Campbelltown facility for approximately 73 hours each fortnight and at another residential care facility for 72 hours each fortnight. This means that Ms Mandic averaged 72.5 hours work each week.
[62] In response, Ms Hubball’s position was that she was not aware of this level of work and she considered it to be excessive. Her evidence 10 was:
“MR LAZAREVICH: Do you have any concerns as an employer over an employee working as a minimum two 38-hour weeks effectively?---Yes, I would. I would have concerns about the safety of the person working outside and also the safety of the residents that they are looking after. I think it would be very difficult to look after people if you've worked that many hours per day and to actually have a rest day and recuperate and come back to work fresh.”
[63] Additionally I have noted Ms Mandic’s behaviour as a witness which indicates potential difficulties in effecting a successful return to work at the Bupa Campbelltown facility but that there is no evidence about alternative work venues.
[64] In the event that I conclude that reinstatement is not appropriate, Section 392 relevantly states:
“392 Remedy—compensation
....
Criteria for deciding amounts
(2) In determining an amount for the purposes of an order under subsection (1), FWA must take into account all the circumstances of the case including:
(a) the effect of the order on the viability of the employer’s enterprise; and
(b) the length of the person’s service with the employer; and
(c) the remuneration that the person would have received, or would have been likely to receive, if the person had not been dismissed; and
(d) the efforts of the person (if any) to mitigate the loss suffered by the person because of the dismissal; and
(e) the amount of any remuneration earned by the person from employment or other work during the period between the dismissal and the making of the order for compensation; and
(f) the amount of any income reasonably likely to be so earned by the person during the period between the making of the order for compensation and the actual compensation; and
(g) any other matter that FWA considers relevant.”
[65] The evidence before me is that from the termination of her employment to 18 January 2011 Ms Mandic has received interim worker’s compensation payments totalling some $9000. I understand that if her worker’s compensation claim is rejected she may be required to repay all or some of this amount. Ms Mandic asserts that her normal wages for this time would have amounted to $11,109. 11 The parties have not addressed the most appropriate means of recognising these provisional workers compensation payments.
[66] Further, there is minimal information before me with respect to the efforts made by Ms Mandic to obtain alternative employment. I note that there was no indication in the hearing that she has not maintained her second job since September 2010. However, since that hearing I have become aware of what appears to be a further unfair dismissal claim made by Ms Mandic against another employer.
[67] Consequently, I will relist this application for a further hearing to deal specifically with the issue of remedy. If, in the meantime the parties reach an agreement in this respect, this further hearing will be cancelled.
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
Mr Saies counsel for the Applicant.
Mr Lazarevich counsel for the Respondent.
Hearing details:
2011.
Adelaide:
January 21 and 31.
1 Exhibit B4 ‘ZH14’
2 Exhibit B4 ‘ZH3’
3 Exhibit B3
4 Exhibit M1 (attach 2)
5 Exhibit B1
6 Exhibit B4 ‘ZH13’
7 Exhibit M1
8 Transcript of Proceedings 21 January 2011 (PN840 - PN850)
9 Exhibit B4 (para 25)
10 Transcript of Proceedings 21 January 2011 (PN1231)
11 Exhibit M2
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, PR506606>
0
0