Luke Graymore v Blackwood Ridge Nursery T/A Blackwood Ridge Cafe
[2017] FWC 6008
•16 NOVEMBER 2017
[2017] FWC 6008
The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 16 November 2017.
The document has been amended to correct a typographical error in the preamble.
Alexa Kuzyk
Associate to Commissioner Gregory
Dated 23 November 2017
| [2017] FWC 6008 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Luke Graymore
v
Blackwood Ridge Nursery T/A Blackwood Ridge Cafe
(U2017/5800)
| COMMISSIONER GREGORY | MELBOURNE, 16 NOVEMBER 2017 |
Application for relief from unfair dismissal – termination of employment – jurisdictional objection – Small Business Fair Dismissal Code.
Introduction
Mr Luke Graymore (“the Applicant”) was first employed by Blackwood Ridge Nursery T/A Blackwood Ridge Cafe (“the Respondent”) in January 2016. The business comprises a plant nursery and cafe/larder and Mr Graymore worked as an apprentice chef in the cafe. However, he was dismissed from his employment in May of this year on grounds of serious misconduct. He subsequently made application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“the Act”) claiming he was unfairly dismissed. This decision deals with that application.
Mr Graymore appeared on his own behalf. Mr James Pethybridge, one of the part owners of the business, appeared on behalf the Respondent.
The Issue to be Determined
Section 385 of the Act states as follows:
“385 What is an unfair dismissal
A person has been unfairly dismissed if the FWC is satisfied that:
(a) the person has been dismissed; and
(b) the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable; and
(c) the dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code; and
(d) the dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy.”[1]
Section 388 of the Act continues to indicate that the Minister may declare a Small Business Fair Dismissal Code, and the dismissal of an employee is consistent with the Code if immediately before the time of dismissal the employer was a small business employer, and complied with the Code in relation to the dismissal. Section 23 of the Act defines a small business employer as an employer employing fewer than 15 employees at the time of the dismissal.
The Code established under s.388 states, in part:
“Summary Dismissal
It is fair for an employer to dismiss an employee without notice or warning when the employer believes on reasonable grounds that the employee’s conduct is sufficiently serious to justify immediate dismissal. Serious misconduct includes theft, fraud, violence and serious breaches of occupational health and safety procedures. For a dismissal to be deemed fair it is sufficient, though not essential, that an allegation of theft, fraud or violence be reported to the police. Of course, the employer must have reasonable grounds for making the report.”[2]
It is acknowledged by the parties that the Respondent is a small business employer in terms of the definition in s.23 of the Act. The Commission is accordingly required to determine whether Mr Graymore’s summary dismissal on grounds of serious misconduct was carried out in a manner consistent with the Code. If so, then he has not been unfairly dismissed. However, if his dismissal has not been carried out in a manner consistent with the Code then the Commission is required to determine whether he has been unfairly dismissed.
The Submissions and Evidence
Mr Luke Graymore’s submissions and evidence
Mr Graymore submits that the Respondent has indicated in its materials that three separate events justified his dismissal on grounds of serious misconduct. Firstly, he was involved in a verbal altercation with a waitress, Ms Isabelle Dupre, in the kitchen at the cafe on Saturday, 20 May 2017, which was significant enough to be overheard by customers in the cafe. Secondly, he was involved in a further altercation later on the same afternoon with Mr Pethybridge, one of the business owners, in which he held a glass to his face in a threatening manner. The third incident involved the content of a text message Mr Graymore sent to Ms Dupre, which she then forwarded to Mr Pethybridge.
Mr Graymore takes issue with each of these allegations. He submits, firstly, that his recollection is that the alleged altercation with Ms Dupre took place one week earlier than the date claimed by the Respondent, and in fact occurred on 13 May 2017. He also takes issue with the Respondent’s description of what happened. He submits that he was annoyed after some desserts he had prepared, and was placing in the fridge, toppled over and fell on the floor. He admits to using some inappropriate or “colourful language” at the time, but was angry at himself, and his comments were not directed at anyone else. Ms Dupre and Mr Pethybridge were present when the incident occurred, but he was not aware of any customers being in the cafe at the time, as he believed the incident occurred before the normal Saturday morning opening time of 11 a.m.
Mr Graymore acknowledges that Ms Dupre raised the incident with him later on that day and became quite emotional about it during their discussions. He said she told him that his actions and behaviour were inappropriate, but he was surprised at this reaction, given his comments were not directed at her. However, he later apologised to her, both in a text message and in person. He also said Mr Pethybridge was in the kitchen at the time, but did not appear to think it was necessary to speak with Ms Dupre, or check on whether she was all right.
In regard to the second incident, Mr Graymore claims that he has no recollection of the confrontation Mr Pethybridge makes reference to. In particular, he denies ever holding a glass to his face in a threatening manner. He also notes no independent witness evidence has been provided, despite the fact Ms Dupre was working in the cafe at the time, and would presumably have been aware of what occurred. However, Mr Graymore does recall having a discussion with Mr Pethybridge that afternoon about the “waiters leaving stuff in the glasses”[3] when cleaning up the tables, because he was annoyed this made the task of washing the glasses more difficult.
The final incident involved a text message Mr Graymore sent to Ms Dupre, which she then forwarded to Mr Pethybridge. It contained some offensive and abusive language and was critical of the business and Mr Pethybridge. However, Mr Graymore submits it was a private message and never intended to be seen by anyone, other than Ms Dupre. He was friendly with her outside of work and had sent the text to her in this context. It was never his intention it be viewed by anyone else, and this had only happened because it was forwarded on by Ms Dupre. In his submission he could not be held responsible for this occurring.
Mr Graymore also said he had been under pressure at work for some months, and Mr Pethybridge appeared to be continually looking for flaws in his work, and blaming him when equipment in the cafe was broken. He believed Mr Pethybridge was endeavouring to pressure him to resign. In his submission the circumstances now being relied on as justification for his dismissal were relatively insignificant, and this was emphasised by the fact that work in the cafe continued as normal on that day. Mr Graymore also worked on the following day as well, and was not notified of his dismissal until three days later during one of his regular days off. He also rejects any suggestion his behaviour had put the safety or welfare of any of the employees at risk, which was again demonstrated by the fact that he worked in the cafe on the following day.
Mr Graymore submits, in conclusion, that there was no valid reason for his dismissal, and he was not provided with any reason when told his employment had been terminated. He simply received an email on 23 May 2017 which stated, “Please be advised your employment with Blackwood Ridge has been terminated on (21/05/2017) effective immediately.”[4] In addition, he was not provided with any opportunity to respond to the reasons for his termination, and only became aware of those reasons when set out in the Respondent’s materials submitted in response to his unfair dismissal claim. He indicated, in conclusion, that he now seeks financial compensation as a consequence of his unfair dismissal, but was not seeking to be reinstated as he did not believe it would be possible for him to return to work in the cafe, given the allegations made about him by the Respondent.
The Respondent’s submissions and evidence
The Respondent submits Mr Graymore was terminated on grounds of serious misconduct in accordance with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code. He was notified of his termination by email on 23 May 2017, and his last day at work was 21 May 2017. The email indicated, in part, “We consider that your actions constitute serious misconduct warranting summary dismissal and in the circumstances your continued employment during a period of notice would be unreasonable.”[5] It submits this concerned a series of incidents, involving abusive language directed toward another staff member, threatening behaviour toward his employer, the offensive content of a text message sent to another staff member, and the failure to meet the requirements of his apprenticeship training contract. It also submits he was warned in September last year about adherence to the apprenticeship code of conduct, and was again warned in January this year about his language in the workplace.
Mr James Pethybridge
Mr Pethybridge is one of the owners of the Respondent’s business and works as the Chef/Restaurant Manager in the cafe. He states there were a series of incidents on Saturday, 20 May 2017, which ultimately culminated in Mr Graymore’s summary dismissal. Firstly, at approximately 11.25 a.m., there was an incident involving Mr Graymore and another staff member, Ms Isabelle Dupre, who works as a waitress in the cafe. It occurred after Mr Graymore was placing desserts in the fridge but, in doing so, dropped some on the floor. He then used some offensive language, which appeared to be directed at Ms Dupre to the extent that she became so upset she broke down in tears. Mr Pethybridge said he subsequently checked with Ms Dupre to see if she was all right before directing Mr Graymore to take his lunch break. The situation was made worse by the fact that the language used was overheard by customers in the cafe at the time.
Mr Pethybridge said that the language was completely inappropriate, and Mr Graymore’s reaction, and his attempts to play down the significance of what occurred, indicated that he failed to understand the significance of his behaviour, and how it impacted on others in the workplace
Mr Pethybridge said that later on the same day, at around 3 p.m., Mr Graymore approached him and held an empty glass in his face in a threatening and violent manner, while stating “I’m fucking sick of this place.”[6] He again considered his behaviour on this occasion to be unreasonably aggressive and inappropriate, and part of a general pattern of deteriorating behaviour which was becoming a threat to both the business and other staff members. He also considered that he now needed to resolve what had become a very difficult situation.
Later on the same day Ms Dupre told Mr Pethybridge about a text message sent to her by Mr Graymore. The text had apparently been sent after she had asked him about the Mother’s Day function at the cafe on the previous Sunday. Mr Pethybridge then asked Ms Dupre to forward the message to him. It contained a number of offensive expletives and was particularly critical of Mr Pethybridge, describing him at one point as “a fucking piece of shit” and stating that he was acting “like a fucking asshole.”[7] It was also critical of the business, and the way in which the food had been presented on Mother’s Day, concluding that it “Looked like shit.”[8]
Mr Pethybridge concluded by stating, “Following the serious incidents of the day I decided to allow Luke to finish his weekly shift on the following day (Sunday 21st). I also decided not to talk to Luke about the situation in an attempt not to escalate his apparent aggressive behaviour and following his shift, and once he had left the business premises I would enact his summary dismissal for serious misconduct in accordance with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code Checklist.”[9]
Mr Pethybridge said the business had sought to follow the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code and did not believe it was required to provide Mr Graymore with reasons for his termination, given that it involved summary dismissal. He also indicated in cross examination that he did not believe there was any point in engaging in further discussions with Mr Graymore about his attitude and behaviour, as he appeared to have become disinterested and unresponsive. He also indicated that he believed his volatile behaviour was becoming increasingly disruptive to both the staff and the business.
He said he then discussed the situation with the other part owner of the business, Mr Daniel Sullivan, and it was initially decided to allow Mr Graymore to complete his roster for that week to avoid any possibility of antagonising him further. After then giving further consideration to all of the circumstances it was decided to terminate Mr Graymore’s employment by way of summary dismissal, and he was informed of that decision on the day prior to him returning to work after his normal days off on Tuesday and Wednesday.
Mr Daniel Sullivan
Mr Daniel Sullivan is also a part owner of the Respondent’s business, and is the Nursery Manager. On 20 May 2017 he was working in the front counter of the Nursery at around 11.30 a.m. when he was approached by two customers, who told him they had been dining in the cafe and had witnessed an altercation between a chef and a waitress in the kitchen area. They indicated that the incident had caused the waitress to start crying and she appeared visibly shaken by what had occurred. They asked that the matter be referred to the Manager of the cafe.
Mr Sullivan said Mr Pethybridge subsequently told him what had happened, indicating that Mr Graymore had “used some vile language”[10] toward the other staff member for no apparent reason. He also told him about the context of a text message which Mr Graymore had sent to the other staff member. He said he was very concerned about Mr Graymore’s deteriorating pattern of behaviour, and was increasingly concerned about leaving him alone in the kitchen with other staff.
Ms Isabelle Dupre
Ms Isabelle Dupre was working in the kitchen at the cafe drying dishes at around 11.15 a.m. on Saturday, 20 May 2017 when Mr Graymore dropped some desserts he was putting into the fridge. He then made some offensive and abusive comments, and when she told him that he shouldn’t use such language he responded by indicating it had nothing to do with her. Ms Dupre said she became very upset by his actions and broke down in tears. Mr Pethybridge subsequently enquired as to how she was, and whether she was able to continue working for the remainder of her shift.
She then told Mr Pethybridge about a text message Mr Graymore had sent to her after she had asked about the Mother’s Day lunch on the previous Sunday. The text also contained abusive and offensive language, and was particularly critical of Mr Pethybridge and the business. She forwarded the message to Mr Pethybridge after he asked her to do so.
The Respondent submits, in conclusion, that the language used by Mr Graymore in the incident in the kitchen on 20 May 2017 was completely inappropriate, and had upset other staff and customers. It also submits his behaviour on that day was part of a general pattern of deteriorating behaviour, which was becoming increasingly difficult to deal with. The text message he sent to Ms Dupre reinforced these concerns, and highlighted the increasingly negative view he appeared to have developed towards his Manager and the business generally.
It also rejects the claims by Mr Graymore that the incident involving Ms Dupre occurred on a different date and at a different time than he claimed. It also submits Mr Graymore had not previously raised any issues or problems about his employment, despite having every opportunity to do so. It also denies the business was conspiring to terminate his employment, or had encouraged him to resign. He was also paid all of the entitlements due to him at the time of his termination.
Consideration
The parties to these proceedings provided only brief submissions and limited evidence in support of their respective positions. However, they confirm, if nothing else, that their relationship had become increasingly strained. Mr Graymore was clearly unhappy in his role and the business was becoming increasingly frustrated and concerned about his behaviour. However, the Commission is now required to determine whether his summary dismissal on grounds of serious misconduct was carried out in a manner consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code. If it was, then he has not been unfairly dismissed. However, if the Commission finds his dismissal was not carried out in a manner consistent with the Code, then it is required to consider whether he has been unfairly dismissed.
Neither party made reference to what must be established in order to conclude that “serious misconduct” has occurred in the context of the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code. However, previous Commission decisions have given consideration to this requirement. In the Full Bench decision in JohnPinawin T/A RoseVi.Hair.Face.Body v Mr Edwin Domingo (‘Pinawin’) [11] the Commission came to the following conclusions:
“[29] We believe that the approach and observations in these two decisions are correct. There are two steps in the process of determining whether this aspect of the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code is satisfied. First, there needs to be a consideration whether, at the time of dismissal, the employer held a belief that the employee’s conduct was sufficiently serious to justify immediate dismissal. Secondly it is necessary to consider whether that belief was based on reasonable grounds. The second element incorporates the concept that the employer has carried out a reasonable investigation into the matter. It is not necessary to determine whether the employer was correct in the belief that it held.
[30] Acting reasonably does not require a single course of action. Different employers may approach the matter differently and form different conclusions, perhaps giving more benefit of any doubt, but still be acting reasonably. The legislation requires a consideration of whether the particular employer, in determining its course of action in relation to the employee at the time of dismissal, carried out a reasonable investigation, and reached a reasonable conclusion in all the circumstances. Those circumstances include the experience and resources of the small business employer concerned.”[12]
The decision was cited with approval by a Full Bench in Steri-Flow Filtration Systems (Aust) Pty Ltd v Erskine.[13] It concluded:
“[26] Section 396 of the FW Act requires the FWC to decide whether a dismissal was consistent with the Code before considering the merits of an unfair dismissal remedy application.”[14]
It continued at [29]:
“As we have indicated, the Code provides that it is fair for an employer to dismiss an employee without notice or warning when the employer believes on reasonable grounds that the employee’s conduct is sufficiently serious to justify immediate dismissal. In Pinawin a Full Bench of FWA held that this involves consideration of:
· whether the employer held a belief at the time of the dismissal that the employee’s conduct was sufficiently serious to justify immediate dismissal, and
· whether the belief was based on reasonable grounds, which incorporates the concept that the employer has carried out a reasonable investigation into the matter.”[15]
I have adopted this approach in determining this matter.
The Respondent submits Mr Graymore’s conduct and behaviour in the series of events that occurred on 20 May 2017 was sufficiently serious to justify his termination on grounds of serious misconduct. It also submits its belief was based on reasonable grounds, given the conduct involved. However, Mr Graymore submits the circumstances should be viewed in a different light, and do not provide grounds for his summary dismissal. The Commission is accordingly required to determine whether the various incidents, in combination, entitled the Respondent to believe, on reasonable grounds, that the conduct and behaviour was sufficiently serious to justify Mr Graymore’s summary dismissal.
The first incident involves the crude and offensive language used by Mr Graymore in the cafe in the presence of Ms Dupre and Mr Pethybridge. Mr Graymore initially submits that the incident occurred on a different day from that claimed by the Respondent, and prior to the cafe opening for business on that day. He also said his comments were not directed at Ms Dupre, but were uttered in frustration as a consequence of dropping some desserts he had prepared on the floor, while putting them in the fridge.
However, the evidence of each of the Respondent’s witnesses is that the incident occurred on 20 May, and took place after the cafe had opened for business that morning. It also submits that some customers in the cafe at the time later complained to Mr Sullivan, one of the business owners, about what they had witnessed.
I am satisfied, firstly, that the consistent evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses as to when the incident occurred is to be preferred. I am accordingly satisfied that it occurred on the morning of Saturday, 20 May 2017, sometime after 11.15 a.m., and after the cafe had opened for business on that day.
In terms of the significance of what occurred Mr Graymore admits to using some “choice language”[16] at the time, but submits it was not directed at anyone, and was uttered in frustration at his own behaviour. However, Ms Dupre’s evidence indicates that she believed that the language used, which included “you fucking cunt,”[17] was directed at her and caused her to become upset and tearful. Mr Pethybridge also thought the comments were directed at Ms Dupre.
I am prepared to accept, on balance, that Mr Graymore did utter the words in frustration at his own clumsiness, and that he was not necessarily directing his abuse at Ms Dupre. However, I also accept that she believed the comments were directed at her. However, this conclusion does not necessarily diminish the significance of what occurred. While I accept that the significance of language used will depend to an extent on the context, any employee in any workplace is entitled to expect that other employees will treat them with respect, and behave according to appropriate standards. Conversely, it is a reasonable expectation that they will not be subjected to behaviour or conduct that is inappropriate. I am not satisfied that the language used by Mr Graymore in this case met these expectations.
I have already indicated that context is important in terms of considering the nature of language used. I am also aware that previous Commission decisions have acknowledged that the use of robust and colourful language is commonplace in some industries and in some workplaces, and can be explained or justified on this basis. However, regardless of whether those conclusions are appropriate or not, the circumstances involved in the present matter provide no such justification or excuse, given that they concern a young female employee working in a small workplace in a quiet rural location. In addition, there is certainly no suggestion that the behaviour could be excused or explained in some way on the basis that such behaviour had been previously condoned.
There is also a suggestion, based on the evidence of Mr Sullivan, that the incident was witnessed by customers in the cafe, who considered it to be significant enough to ask that it be reported to the relevant Manager. On the one hand this serves to emphasise the inappropriateness of the behaviour. However, in fairness to Mr Graymore this is hearsay evidence and the Respondent did not seek to provide direct evidence from the customers involved. The significance of that evidence is diminished as a consequence.
However, I am satisfied, in conclusion, that the language used at the time in all the circumstances was entirely inappropriate, given that it was used within earshot of the employee’s Manager, and in the presence of a female waitress, who became visibly upset as a consequence. Mr Graymore indicated in his submissions that he was surprised at how she reacted. However, I am satisfied that her reaction was hardly surprising, given the nature of the language used and her belief that it was directed at her.
The second incident is alleged to have occurred later on the same day. Mr Pethybridge’s evidence is that Mr Graymore approached him in a threatening manner, with an empty glass in his hand, saying he was “fucking sick of this place.”[18] Mr Graymore denies this incident took place, but does recall complaining to Mr Pethybridge about the waiters leaving “stuff in the glasses”[19] when cleaning up, meaning that it was harder to then clean the glasses when washing up. There were apparently no independent witnesses to the alleged incident. The allegation by Mr Pethybridge about Mr Graymore acting in a violent and aggressive manner is again a serious one and sufficient, if established, to justify his summary dismissal. However, given that the evidence is conflicting, and there is no independent witness evidence, I am not satisfied that the Commission is necessarily able to make a definitive finding about what actually occurred, particularly given the significance of the allegation.
However, regardless of whether Mr Pethybridge was correct in believing that the actions were directed at him, I am satisfied that the evidence does suggest, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Graymore was again acting in an aggressive manner and using abusive language in expressing his complaints.
The final incident concerns the content of a text message sent to Ms Dupre by Mr Graymore. It again contains offensive and insulting language directed at both Mr Pethybridge and the business. It came to Mr Pethybridge’s attention because Ms Dupre told him about it and then forwarded a copy to him, when requested to do so. Mr Graymore defends his actions on the basis that the text was sent to Ms Dupre in the context of her being a friend outside of work. In his submission the content of the text was never intended to be viewed by anyone else, and this only occurred because it was forwarded to Mr Pethybridge by Ms Dupre. Mr Graymore submits, in turn, that he could not be held responsible for this occurring.
However, I am not satisfied that this necessarily provides an acceptable explanation for what occurred. Mr Graymore was quite clearly the author of the text message. It was critical in offensive terms of his Manager, who was also one of the part owners of the business. It was also critical in abusive terms of the business, and the service provided to its customers. As indicated, the text was sent to Ms Dupre. Mr Graymore states that she was a friend outside of work, and this is not contested. However, at the same time Ms Dupre was also a colleague at work, and her evidence indicates she was increasingly concerned about Mr Graymore’s behaviour and the effect it was having on her. This was likely why she decided to tell Mr Pethybridge about the text, and then forwarded it to him when asked to do so.
As indicated, I am satisfied that Mr Graymore’s actions cannot simply be justified on the basis of his friendship with Ms Dupre outside of work. Leaving aside the nature of their friendship Ms Dupre was also a colleague at work in a small workplace, and his actions and behaviour need to be considered in that context. In these circumstances it comes as no surprise that she decided to raise the content of the text with Mr Pethybridge in circumstances where she was already concerned about Mr Graymore’s behaviour. I am also satisfied that Mr Graymore ought reasonably to have anticipated that this might occur before sending the text in terms that were so openly critical of his Manager and the business .
I have already indicated as well that the context in which this occurred is obviously relevant. It did not occur in a big workplace, with many employees, where an exchange of this kind might perhaps be viewed as relatively innocuous banter between work colleagues, who are somewhat removed from the targets of their criticism and abuse. The circumstances in this matter are, of course, very different. They concern a small workplace in a stand-alone rural location, with only a handful of employees. In addition, the owners of the business are hands-on Managers working in close proximity with the other employees. It is inevitable in this situation that the consequences stemming from one employee behaving inappropriately are likely to be magnified in these close and confined circumstances.
In addition, each of the alleged incidents also has something else in common. In regard to the first incident Mr Graymore was surprised about how Ms Dupre reacted, and the fact that she appeared to consider his offensive language was directed at her. He was also surprised at how Mr Pethybridge viewed his actions and behaviour in the incident that occurred later that afternoon. He was also surprised that Ms Dupre decided to tell Mr Pethybridge about the text message he sent to her. I am satisfied, in response, that Mr Graymore’s response in each case to what occurred makes clear that he failed to understand the gravity of his behaviour, and how it was impacting on others in the workplace.
Conclusion
I am satisfied, in conclusion, that the Respondent did hold a belief, based on what occurred on 20 May 2017, that Mr Graymore’s conduct justified his immediate dismissal. However, the decision in Pinawin makes clear that this belief must also be based on reasonable grounds.
It would normally be expected that this would require that the circumstances be discussed with the employee in order to consider and have regard to their views and any explanation they wish to provide in response. However, this was a small workplace with limited resources. The business owners were concerned about Mr Graymore’s deteriorating pattern of behaviour and how it was impacting on others. They took a course of action that was designed to avoid antagonising him any further. I am satisfied, in conclusion, that their belief was based on reasonable grounds, and Mr Graymore’s termination was therefore consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code. It follows that he has not been unfairly dismissed. His application is accordingly dismissed.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
L Graymore on his own behalf.
J Pethybridge on behalf of the Respondent.
Hearing details:
2017.
Melbourne:
August 18.
[1] Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 385.
[2] Small Business Fair Dismissal Code.
[3] Transcript at PN26.
[4] “Termination email” from Mr James Pethybridge to Mr Luke Graymore, dated 23 May 2017, submitted by Applicant on 3 July 2017.
[5] Respondent’s submissions, received 7 July 2017, at 4a.
[6] Witness statement of Mr James Pethybridge, received 26 June 2017, at [3].
[7] Ibid at [6].
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid at [7].
[10] Witness statement of Mr Daniel Sullivan, received 26 June 2017.
[11] John Pinawin T/A RoseVi.Hair.Face.Body v Mr Edwin Domingo[2012] FWAFB 1359 (‘Pinawin’).
[12] Ibid at [29]-[30].
[13] [2013] FWCFB 1943.
[14] Steri-Flow Filtration Systems (Aust) Pty Ltd v Erskine[2013] FWCFB 1943 at [26].
[15] Ibid at [29].
[16] Applicant’s submissions, received 3 July 2017, at 4c.
[17] Witness statement of Ms Isabelle Dupre, received 7 July 2017.
[18] Witness statement of Mr James Pethybridge, received 26 June 2017, at [3].
[19] Transcript at PN26.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, PR597767>
0
1
0