Leigh Pritchard v Hertz Australia Pty Limited
[2014] FWC 666
•28 JANUARY 2014
[2014] FWC 666 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009 s.394—Unfair dismissal
v
Hertz Australia Pty Limited
(U2013/10970)
and
Geofferey Cooreyv
Hertz Australia Pty Limited
(U2013/10971)
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER | SYDNEY, 28 JANUARY 2014 |
Applications for unfair dismissal remedy.
[1] Ms Leigh Pritchard and Mr Geofferey Coorey (the applicants) filed applications in June 2013 each seeking an unfair dismissal remedy for the termination of their employment by Hertz Australia Pty Ltd (the respondent, Hertz) earlier that month. Both applications were referred to me for determination and were dealt with together.
[2] Hearings were conducted in Sydney on 7, 8 November and 20 December 2013. The applicants were represented by Mr M Green and the respondent by Mr S Meehan. The applicants gave evidence on their own behalf. Evidence was also given on their behalf by Ms Dale Prior (Office Manager) and Mr Stephen Somboli (Manager). Evidence was given on behalf of the respondent by Mr Thomas Grove (the respondent’s Airport Manager, Sydney Airport) and Ms Alicia Lucchesi (Senior Human Resources Business Partner).
[3] The respondent is a vehicle rental company. The applicants worked for the respondent as Customer Service Representatives (CSRs) at Sydney Airport. Ms Pritchard had been employed by the respondent since on or about 11 July 2007. Mr Coorey commenced employment with the respondent on or about 14 November 2011. He had previously been employed by Hertz from about March 2007 to October 2009.
[4] CSRs deal directly with the respondent’s customers. Their job is to open the vehicle rental, sell the customer any additional products and provide any additional advice to the customers. CSRs report to Customer Service Supervisors (CSSs) or Location Supervisors/Managers who work alongside, mentor, coach and support the CSRs at the respondent’s car rental counters. 1
[5] Ms Pritchard’s employment was terminated summarily on 17 June 2013 for engaging in fraudulent activities and falsifying records for personal gain. In particular she was found to have completed customer surveys to improve her ‘NPS’ (customer survey feedback survey) scores positively. 2 Mr Coorey’s employment was also terminated summarily, on 11 June 2013, on the same grounds.
[6] Hertz has had an employee incentive scheme in place for many years. CSRs are rewarded for selling ancillary products, such as GPS navigation. Incentive payments under the scheme can be worth well over $1,000 to an employee per month. 3 To receive benefits under the scheme, employees must reach specific thresholds for each product.
[7] In February 2013 the respondent introduced a new system that linked the incentive scheme to an employee’s customer service performance. Customer service is measured through feedback provided by customers on customer service feedback surveys (‘NPS Surveys’). The results of NPS Surveys directly affect how much an employee receives in bonuses. Before February 2013, the respondent still monitored each employee’s customer service ratings; however, those ratings were not linked to the employee’s remuneration. 4
[8] The NPS Survey is comprised of approximately 10 main questions and multiple subsequent questions depending on the responses given by the customer. The survey includes a question relating to customer service which requires the customer to give the customer service representative who served them a number rating on matters such as courtesy and the speed of service. For some questions the rating scale is 1-9, where 9 is exceptional. For others, the rating scale is 1-5, where 5 is exceptional. Customers are also asked to input certain other details, such as the make and model of the vehicle rented. 5
[9] Each month an employee’s NPS rating is calculated as an average, after all NPS Surveys relating to them are collated. The employee’s NPS rating acts as an accelerator or decelerator on their incentive entitlements. For example, if their rating is only 60% they receive no additional bonus. However if their rating is higher than 75% they receive up to 15% additional bonus, based on the sales they achieved that month. If their rating is below 60% they have a 15% reduction from the sales achieved for that month. 6
[10] If employees have 10 surveys where they have received scores below the required threshold level, they are subject to performance management in relation to their customer service, which can lead to the termination of employment. 7
[11] An employee’s NPS rating can also affect the team component under the incentive scheme. 8
[12] In January and March 2013, Mr Grove sent a memo to the customer service representatives in his team about the changes to the incentive scheme. He also held individual discussions with those staff members in his team who were poor customer service performers. He emphasised the impact that customer service ratings would have on them, both in terms of their remuneration and the potential for performance management. 9
[13] According to Mr Grove’s evidence, in his team of 40 staff, around 563 customer surveys are completed each month (out of a total of around 10,000 rentals). On average, Mr Coorey and Ms Prichard had around 13 and 19 customer surveys completed with respect to them each month. 10
[14] The respondent has two main means of prompting or requesting customers to complete an NPS Survey. Under the first method, all customers are sent a generic e-mail once a rental is closed which encourages them to complete an NPS Survey and provides a direct hyperlink to the online survey site. The e-mail is sent to the address details provided by the customer when they first book their rental. The customer uses the hyperlink in the e-mail access the online survey. 11
[15] The second way a customer is prompted or requested to complete an NPS Survey is when the customer receives a receipt upon returning a rental vehicle. This receipt has a prompt to do the NPS Survey, and includes the web address of the online site to access the surveys. If the customer uses the prompt on this receipt, they are required to enter an access code and their rental agreement number at the first screen in order to access the NPS Survey. The access code is generic to each Hertz location; however the rental agreement number is unique to each customer’s rental. This means that it links the NPS Survey to a particular customer. The receipt does not have specific details about the car make or model. It contains the rental agreement number, the access code, and a breakdown of the costs for the particular rental. 12
[16] CSRs may also hand to customers at the beginning of the rental a slip containing a prompt to the website to complete the customer service survey, which records the access code. The CSR, prior to handing the slip to a customer, has to write their name and the rental agreement number on the slip. 13 However this is not a practice that was engaged in by either of the applicants.14
[17] Each NPS Survey is directly linked to the CSR who rented the vehicle to the particular customer. This link occurs through the rental agreement number and code. The survey itself does not record the relevant employee’s name. Customers who complete a survey receive a $25 discount voucher. 15 This is sent to the email address used to make the reservation.16
[18] Soon after the introduction of the new incentive system, the respondent’s Corporate HQ in the U.S. alerted local management in Australia to anomalies in NPS Surveys that were completed in relation to Sydney Airport. Nine surveys had all been completed from one common IP address over a short period of time. 17 (An IP address is a numerical label assigned to each device participating in a computer network and can be used to identify the geographic location of the device.)
[19] An investigation conducted by Mr Grove revealed that all nine surveys were linked to one particular employee (‘Mr A’). Moreover all the surveys had been completed while Mr A was on a break from his shift. All the surveys were from the same address -- an Internet station at the international terminal at Sydney Airport. Mr Grove then contacted each of the relevant customers, all of whom denied completing the surveys. 18
[20] During the course of this investigation, Mr Grove decided that he should also investigate his team more broadly. He was concerned that there was a more widespread problem. This concern was reinforced by some apparent anomalies that he had noticed in the NPS rating scores for his team since February 2013 when the incentive scheme was first linked to the NPS Surveys. Historically, employees in his team did not regularly exceed the customer service threshold, and many employees received poor customer service ratings. When the new system was introduced, his bottom five customer service performers were suddenly his top five performers. 19
[21] Mr Grove investigated all of the employees in his team. 20 His preliminary assessment identified four employees - Mr A, ‘Mr H’ and the applicants - who had what he considered a number of questionable NPS surveys relating to them.
[22] In or around 6 May 2013, the allegations in relation to Mr A were put to him. He admitted to falsifying the customer service records. His employment was then terminated. 21 On 6 June 2013, the allegations against Mr H were put to him and he resigned immediately.22
[23] According to Mr Grove’s evidence, there were approximately 25 NPS Surveys relating to Mr Coorey that had been completed between 1 February 2013 and 31 May 2013 that he was concerned about, containing what he regarded as anomalies. This was out of a total of 47 surveys in all. 23 Mr Grove considered a survey as potentially anomalous if ‘the information didn’t ring true from the rental agreement to the survey completion.’24
[24] Mr Grove was concerned that after the introduction of the revised incentive scheme, Mr Coorey’s results steadily increased so that he was above the relevant thresholds. For example, in January 2013, prior to the introduction of the new system, Mr Coorey’s score was 57 .1%. His rating suddenly increased in February 2013 to 80% and in March 85.7%. In April 2013, it dropped sharply to 54.5%. On 10 May 2013, Mr Grove had an informal discussion with Mr Coorey about his NPS ratings for April. In May his rating increased to 66 .7%. 25
[25] Mr Grove proceeded to try and call all of the customers linked to the surveys about which he had a concern to confirm whether or not they had personally completed an NPS Survey. His evidence is that he was only able to contact five of these customers 26. His statement included details of the results of his investigation in relation to each of these completed surveys. In each case he spoke to the customer who had rented the vehicle. In each case the customer told him they had not completed the survey. In all these surveys a high customer service score was given to Mr Coorey. All of the surveys were completed while Mr Coorey was not rostered to work. In three cases the IP address could not be used to identify the location of the device that was used to submit the survey. In one it was Melbourne (while the customer lived in Brussels) and in the other there was a NSW address.27
[26] Mr Grove’s evidence is that before the respondent introduced the new incentive payment system he had identified Ms Pritchard as one of the employees who he thought might have some difficulties, because she had a history of poor customer service ratings. 28 He met with Ms Pritchard on a number of occasions between January and May 2013 to discuss her poor customer service results and provide her with some strategies that she could use to improve her results. In January Ms Pritchard had negative customer service results. However in February 2013 her NPS rating increased to 60%, and in March it reached 68.4%. According to Mr Grove, prior to the introduction of the changed incentive scheme, Ms Pritchard had been one of his bottom four employees and her rating had never exceeded 55%. Her results dropped in April 2013 to 31.8%. He met with her twice in May and told her that her performance was unacceptable and that she had to improve. In May, Ms Pritchard’s score increased to 78 .6%.29
[27] There were around 25 NPS Surveys that Mr Grove had identified in relation to Ms Pritchard which he considered looked suspicious (out of a total of 81 surveys completed). He proceeded to try and call the customers linked to the relevant surveys. He was able to contact 10 of these customers. Three said they had filled out the survey. Seven said they had not. 30 One of these surveys was later found not to relate to Ms Pritchard.31
[28] Ms Pritchard was either not rostered to work at the times the surveys were completed or was on a break. All of the surveys gave high ratings for customer service (8 or 9 on a scale 1-9). The IP addresses were all located in New South Wales, even though five out of six customers were from inter-state or overseas. Two of the surveys were filled out from the same IP address.
[29] Mr Grove wrote to the applicants on 2 June 2013 requesting that they meet with him and Ms Lucchesi the next day ‘to discuss allegations of misconduct surrounding a possible breach of the company’s Code of Conduct and Policy, in particular falsification of reports and/or records and fraudulent activity.’ They were each told that the meeting would be an opportunity for the respondent to discuss initial investigation findings and to provide them with an opportunity to respond to the information presented. No specific mention was made of any allegation that they had fraudulently filled out customer surveys. 32 The letters were hand delivered to the applicants.33
[30] The meeting with Mr Coorey was rearranged for 7 June 2013. Mr Corey brought Mr Somboli as his support person. Ms Lucchesi asked questions during the meeting, while Mr Coorey took notes 34.
[31] Mr Coorey stated at the beginning of the meeting that he was ‘not guilty’. He indicated that he was willing to submit his computer for analysis to show that his IP address did not match any of those on the surveys, though he did not have the computer in the meeting (even though he had been asked to bring it with him to the meeting.) 35
[32] Mr Coorey denied during the meeting that he had ever completed a customer service survey or asked anyone else to complete one on his behalf. 36
[33] The respondent’s evidence is that Ms Lucchesi showed copies of the relevant surveys (with the personal details of the customers ‘redacted’) to Mr Coorey, but he refused to look at them. 37 Mr Coorey said that unless the respondent had specific IP addresses linking him to the surveys there was no evidence to prove the allegations against him.38 Mr Coorey said that anyone could have completed the surveys from picking up one of the receipts that a customer receives when they pick up a vehicle.39
[34] Mr Coorey’s evidence is that he was happy to take the surveys and call the customers himself. However Ms Lucchesi said he was not to take company documents. 40 During his oral evidence he said he was unable to look at the documents in the meeting.41
[35] Following the meeting Mr Coorey was stood down without pay. He was advised by Ms Lucchesi that there would be a further meeting, and Mr Coorey could provide any further information or evidence he wished to present in response to the allegations. 42
[36] Following the meeting with Mr Coorey, Mr Grove investigated the possibility that the surveys could have been completed using the receipts Mr Coorey mentioned. He concluded that it was not possible for a third party to complete a survey using the receipt as no information was provided on the receipt about the car make and model (information that must be entered into a survey.) He also considered it highly unlikely that receipts would be left in a car following a rental, as receipts are given to customers after they have returned their rental vehicle. 43
[37] Mr Coorey, Ms Lucchesi, Mr Somboli and Mr Grove had a further meeting on 11 June 2013. Ms Lucchesi again put the allegations to Mr Coorey, outlining that they included five instances of falsifying NPS Surveys, and summarised Mr Coorey’s responses to the allegations. She asked Mr Coorey whether he had anything to add to what he put previously. Mr Coorey confirmed his responses from 7 June 2013 and stated that he had nothing further to add. 44 Ms Lucchesi told Mr Coorey that the respondent did not accept that the receipts theory was a plausible explanation as it was not possible for someone to complete an NPS Survey with only the information contained on the receipt. She told him that respondent had concluded that Mr Coorey had completed the surveys himself. Mr Somboli said that anyone could have completed the surveys, including someone with a grudge. Ms Lucchesi then advised Mr Coorey of the respondent’s decision to terminate his employment for gross misconduct for falsifying company records, and gave him a letter of termination. Mr Grove took minutes of the meeting.45
[38] During his cross examination, Mr Coorey said that any member of Hertz staff or any member of the public with access to a rental agreement could fill out the survey. 46 He said that a customer who had picked up a rental agreement left in the car by the previous renter might believe it was their own agreement and submit a survey thinking it was in respect of their own rental but using the wrong agreement.47 He also suggested a general member of the public might fill out a survey, as documents ‘are often discarded in the car park or in the airport trash bins.’48
[39] Mr Coorey also suggested that a staff member might walk up to a logged on computer, put in a rental agreement number, do a search by customer name and bring up the relevant details. 49 He also suggested a staff member might access hard copies of rental agreements left sitting behind the customer service desk.50 However he had difficulty providing a reason why another staff member would have filled out one of the surveys beyond proffering the suggestion: ‘maybe they were trying to make everybody look good. I don’t know.’51 In re-examination he expanded on this by saying:
‘I think I was saying that maybe they were trying to increase everybody’s score so it didn’t look like they were creating surveys for themself alone, and, you know, therefore it looked like the whole team was benefiting rather than just one person doing it for themself, so they were, like, spreading it out amongst the group’ 52
[40] On 5 June 2013, Ms Pritchard sent an email to Mr Grove advising him that she would not be returning to work until 13 June 2013. She told him that she had passed on Mr Grove’s letter to her lawyer. She added ‘I am shocked at these accusations and will endeavour to clear this up. I am sure he will be asking what are these that you claim I have done (sic). I would appreciate that you forward to me in writing what they are and I can forward this on to him.’ 53 Mr Grove wrote back to Ms Pritchard that the allegations were that she had breached the respondent’s ‘Standards of Behaviour and Code of Conduct through the months of February, March, April & May 2013 by manipulating the NPS/Staff Courtesy scores.’54 On 6 June 20013, Ms Pritchard wrote to Mr Grove that she had met with her lawyer and he had told her that she needed copies of the allegations, IP addresses and time and dates of the allegations.
[41] During her cross-examination, Ms Pritchard was asked why she wanted to see IP addresses, given that she had not at this stage been told that she was accused of falsely filling out the online customer service survey. 55 Ms Pritchard, inter alia, said:
‘they’re saying that that I have possibly manipulated the NPS surveys, and prior to that we had other people who had actually been caught doing it, so it was - I just needed to know, “Well, okay. If you’re saying that, prove to me that I’ve done it.” I haven’t done it.’ 56
[42] Ms Pritchard’s meeting was rescheduled for 13 June 2013. Ms Pritchard was accompanied by her support person, Ms Prior. Ms Lucchesi outlined the allegations against Ms Pritchard, who denied that she had ever completed a customer service survey or asked anyone else to complete one on her behalf. 57 The respondent outlined its evidence against Ms Pritchard. She responded that anyone could have completed the surveys.
[43] Ms Pritchard said that she was not interested in receiving incentives and that she was not chasing bonuses. 58 She said that anyone could have picked up information from a vehicle, for example a receipt or a rental agreement that had been left behind and complete the survey using that information.59 The respondent agreed to look into the rental agreements.60
[44] Following the meeting, Mr Grove looked into the suggestion that rental agreements could have been used to fill out the surveys by the wrong person, but concluded that rental agreements could not be used to complete the surveys because they do not record the access code that needs to be inputted in order to gain access to the survey. Nor do the rental agreements contain any reference to the surveys. 61
[45] Ms Lucchesi, Ms Pritchard and Mr Grove had a further meeting on 17 June 2013. Ms Pritchard was given an opportunity to add anything further. Ms Lucchesi summarised the allegations against Ms Pritchard and told her that the respondent had looked into the rental agreements. She told Ms Pritchard that the respondent had concluded that the rental agreements could not be used to complete the surveys because they did not contain all information that was required to facilitate the completion of a survey. She also said that they were very rarely left in the vehicles, given that it was the respondent’s practice to remove all outstanding paperwork when a vehicle was returned and cleaned. Ms Lucchesi then advised Ms Pritchard that employment was terminated for serious misconduct and handed her the letter of termination. Mr Grove took minutes of the meeting. 62
[46] During her cross-examination, Ms Pritchard denied that she had engaged in the alleged misconduct. 63 She agreed that it was implausible that a member of the public who was not the customer could submit an NPS Survey using an instant return receipt given to a customer dropping off a vehicle who does not go to the service desk.64 However, she suggested that a customer might bring back a vehicle, attend the service desk to pick up ‘a full tax receipt’ and then leave the receipt in the car, because they would still be unpacking the car, or ‘getting all the family.’65 It would then be possible for the next renter, if the car was not cleaned thoroughly, to mistakenly pick up the documents and use those instead of their own rental copies in filling out the customer survey.66
[47] During his oral evidence, Mr Grove disagreed that customers could leave documents such as a rental agreement in a rental vehicle so that the next renter of that same vehicle might thereby obtain that document and in error complete a survey using the rental agreement that someone else had entered into. He said that any paper work left in vehicles by one customer would be removed by the cleaners prior to the being rented by another customer. 67
[48] Ms Pritchard agreed during her cross-examination that she had access to all the information necessary to complete the NPS Surveys. 68
[49] When asked during her cross-examination for a reason why a colleague would have gone in and falsely filled out a positive NPS Survey relating to her, she agreed it was ‘implausible’. 69 She did however - after some prompting - suggest that it would help improve the NPS score for the location.70
[50] In his oral evidence, Mr Grove expressed scepticism that a fellow employee might have submitted false favourable customer surveys ‘so that it appeared that everyone looked good.’ ‘...we average 563 approximately surveys a month and both the individuals in question, Mr Coorey specifically, he averaged in the period in question 13 surveys over a monthly period and the impact that his surveys have on the location score per survey is 0.6 per cent, and as an individual the impact it would have on his personal score was 8 per cent.’
Consideration
[51] Was the dismissal of the applicants by the respondent was harsh, unjust or unreasonable? In considering this question, I am required by s.387 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) to 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 the FWC considers relevant.’
Valid Reason
[52] The applicants were dismissed for serious misconduct, on the grounds that they fraudulently completed customer service surveys in order to boost their own customer service ratings. This was in a context where those ratings had the potential significantly to affect their remuneration. The ratings could also affect whether the applicants would be subject to performance management.
[53] Given the nature of allegations against the applicants, it is appropriate to apply the principles in Briginshaw v Briginshaw. 71 In Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd72Mason CJ, Brennan, Deane and Gaudron JJ stated:
‘The ordinary standard of proof required of a party who bears the onus in civil litigation in this country is proof on the balance of probabilities. That remains so even where the matter to be proved involves criminal conduct or fraud. On the other hand, the strength of the evidence necessary to establish a fact or facts on the balance of probabilities may vary according to the nature of what it is sought to prove. Thus, authoritative statements have often been made to the effect that clear proof is necessary “where so serious a matter as fraud is to be found” Statements to that effect should not, however, be understood as directed to the standard of proof. Rather, they should be understood as merely reflecting a conventional perception that members of our society do not ordinarily engage in fraudulent or criminal conduct and a judicial approach that a court should not lightly make a finding that, on the balance of probabilities, a party to civil litigation has been guilty of such conduct. As Dixon J. commented in Briginshaw v. Briginshaw:
“The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved ...”.’(references removed)
[54] The onus is on the respondent to establish on the balance of probabilities that the alleged misconduct occurred. I am satisfied that such conduct - given its inherent dishonesty -would constitute a valid reason for dismissal.
[55] I found Mr Grove to be a careful and credible witness. I am satisfied that he tried to ring all the customers for whom an NPS Survey had been completed, where the applicants had been the relevant CSRs, and which he considered to be potentially anomalous. He was only able to contact five of the customers relating to Mr Coorey. None of those customers reported having completed an NPS Survey. In relation to Ms Pritchard he was able to contact nine customers, six of whom indicated that they had not completed the survey. While it is possible (though unlikely) that one or two customers might have forgotten that they had filled out a survey, given the numbers, it is safe to conclude that there were a significant number of NPS Surveys submitted online, which related to vehicle rentals where the applicants were the relevant CSRs, which gave the applicants very positive customer service ratings, and which were not completed by the customer.
[56] The question then arises as to who completed the surveys. There is no doubt that the applicants had a strong motive to fill out the surveys to boost their customer service ratings. A higher rating had the potential to improve their remuneration and a lower rating had the potential to make them liable for performance management. No one else had a significant motive for fraudulently filling out the surveys. I find it implausible that they were filled out by one or more of the applicants’ colleagues. The benefit to the team as a whole from improving the applicants’ scores would at best have been very marginal. Nor was there any evidence that any one of their colleagues had anything to gain by ‘setting up’ the applicants by making it appear that they had committed fraud. Members of the public had no motive for falsely filling out the surveys.
[57] There is no question that the applicants were able to fill out the surveys. This was conceded by Ms Pritchard. The applicants themselves suggested a number of ways that the surveys could have been completed by someone else ‘by mistake’. For example, it was suggested that someone might use an old rental agreement left in a vehicle. It is not inconceivable - though pretty unlikely given that the cars are cleaned between rentals - that something like this might occur from time to time. However no plausible scenario was presented whereby this could have accounted for the number of ‘incorrect’ surveys.
[58] The applicants placed a great deal of emphasis on the IP addresses of the devices used to fill out the surveys. Perhaps this was because it was IP address evidence that brought ‘Mr A’ unstuck. I observe however that it would not be difficult, over a period of months, to fill out the surveys from a variety of different locations and/or devices. In any case, the evidence of the IP addresses in relation to Ms Pritchard was that all the surveys had been completed from devices in New South Wales, even though five out of six customers were from inter-state or overseas. Two of the surveys from two different customers were filled out from the same IP address. With regard to Mr Coorey, three out of the five IP addresses did not provide a geographical location, one was in NSW and one in Melbourne (despite the customer living in Brussels). While the IP evidence by itself is at best suggestive, it is hardly helpful to the applicants.
[59] I am satisfied that the applicants are guilty of the alleged misconduct, and therefore that the respondent had a valid reason for their dismissal.
Notification of Reason
[60] I am satisfied that the applicants were notified of the reason that the respondent was considering terminating their employment, in the correspondence sent to them on 2 June 2013, and at their meetings with Mr Groves and Ms Lucchesi.
Opportunity to Respond
[61] The applicants were given an opportunity to respond to the allegations made against them in the meeting s they had with Mr Groves and Ms Lucchesi.
Support Person
[62] The applicants were able to be accompanied by support persons in the meetings they had with the respondent.
Size of the Employer etc
[63] The procedures adopted by the respondent were consistent with what should reasonably be expected of an organisation of its size possessing access to specialist human resources expertise.
Other Matters
[64] I do not consider there are any other relevant matters.
Conclusion
[65] The dismissal of the applicants was neither harsh, unjust nor unreasonable. Their applications are dismissed.
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
M Green, for the applicant
S Meehan, for the respondent
Hearing details:
SYDNEY
2013
7, 8 November
20 December
1 Exhibit H2, paragraph 13
2 Letter of termination, Exhibit P1, attachment K
3 Exhibit H1, paragraph 13
4 Exhibit H1, paragraph 14
5 Exhibit H1, paragraphs 15-16
6 Exhibit H1, paragraph 17
7 Exhibit H1, paragraph 18
8 Exhibit H1, paragraphs 20-21
9 Exhibit H1, paragraph 19
10 Exhibit H1, paragraph 22, PN1103
11 Exhibit H1, paragraph 23
12 Exhibit H1, paragraph 24
13 Exhibit H1, paragraph 25
14 PN1128
15 Exhibit H1, paragraphs 26-27
16 PN1399
17 Exhibit H1, paragraph 31
18 Exhibit H1, paragraphs 33-35
19 Exhibit H1, paragraph 35
20 PN1281
21 Exhibit H1, paragraph 36
22 Exhibit H1, paragraph 38
23 Exhibit H1, paragraph 39
24 PN1164
25 Exhibit H1, paragraph 40
26 PN1174
27 Exhibit H1, paragraphs39-71, attachments TG-2 to TG-7
28 Exhibit H1, paragraph 72
29 Exhibit H1, paragraph 73
30 PN1198-1205
31 Exhibit H1, paragraph 77
32 Exhibit H1, attachment TG 15
33 Exhibit P1, paragraphs 5-6
34 Replicated at Exhibit H1, TG 19
35 Exhibit H1, paragraph 119
36 Exhibit H1, paragraph 124
37 Exhibit H1, paragraph 126
38 Exhibit H1, paragraph 128
39 Exhibit H1, paragraph 132
40 Exhibit P4, paragraph 34
41 PN912
42 Exhibit H1, paragraph 136
43 Exhibit H1, paragraph 140
44 Exhibit H1, paragraphs 143-4
45 Exhibit H1, paragraphs 143-148. The minutes were at attachment TG-21
46 PN835
47 PN843
48 PN852
49 PN862
50 PN865
51 PN873
52 PN978
53 Exhibit P1, attachment C
54 Exhibit P1, attachment D
55 PN212--232
56 PN232
57 Exhibit H1, paragraphs 152-155
58 Exhibit H1, paragraph 158
59 Exhibit H1, paragraph 159
60 Exhibit H1, paragraph 162
61 Exhibit H1, paragraph 172
62 Exhibit H1, paragraphs 174-179
63 PN255--264
64 PN319
65 PN338
66 PN853
67 PN1093
68 PN406
69 PN522--532
70 PN682
71 (1938) 60 CLR 336 at 362.
72 (1992) 67 ALJR 170
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, PR547206>
0
2
0