Marie-Christine Oliver v Queensland Rail Limited T/A Queensland Rail
[2013] FWC 2583
•17 MAY 2013
[2013] FWC 2583 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy
Marie-Christine Oliver
v
Queensland Rail Limited T/A Queensland Rail
(U2012/16485)
COMMISSIONER SIMPSON | BRISBANE, 17 MAY 2013 |
Unfair dismissal - Jurisdictional objection - s.382 (b) whether a Modern Award covers the applicant - Role managerial in nature - Objection made out - Application dismissed.
[1] This matter concerns an application for unfair dismissal remedy filed by Marie-Christine Oliver (the Applicant) against Queensland Rail Limited T/A Queensland Rail (the Respondent). The application was filed on 7 December 2012. A conciliation conference was conducted on 9 January which was unsuccessful.
[2] The Respondent filed a Form F3 response to the Application objecting on the basis that the applicant was not covered by a modern award or enterprise agreement and her annual rate of earnings exceeded the high income threshold, (the s.382 (b) objection). The Respondent raised a further jurisdictional objection on the grounds of genuine redundancy.
[3] I determined that on the balance of convenience it was appropriate to deal with the s.382 (b) objection in the first instance and a Jurisdictional Hearing was held on Tuesday 30 April 2013 to deal with that objection. The Applicant was represented by John Merrill of Counsel instructed by Mr Stevenson of Australian Workplace Lawyers and the Respondent was represented by Mr Wells from Allens Lawyers.
[4] Each side produced one witness, the Applicant providing a statement 1 for her own case, and Mr Mark Jason Northage, Acting Senior Manager, General Counsel providing a statement2 for the Respondent. No cross examination was required by either party of the respective witnesses. It was clarified that certain parts of the statement of Mr Northage were not relied upon for the purposes of the jurisdictional objection regarding award coverage.3 The Respondent provided an outline of submissions, 4as did the Applicant5 and the Respondent provided submissions in reply.6
[5] Section 382 of the Act reads as follows:
“382 When a person is protected from unfair dismissal
A person is protected from unfair dismissal at a time if, at that time:
(a) the person is an employee who has completed a period of employment with his or her employer of at least the minimum employment period; and
(b) one or more of the following apply:
(i) a modern award covers the person;
(ii) an enterprise agreement applies to the person in relation to the employment;
(iii) the sum of the person’s annual rate of earnings, and such other amounts (if any) worked out in relation to the person in accordance with the regulations, is less than the high income threshold.”
[6] There is no dispute that the applicant's annual earnings exceeded the high income threshold and that there is no enterprise agreement that applied to the applicant in relation to her employment. Therefore the nature of the s.382 (b) objection was confined to the sole issue of whether the Applicant was covered by a modern award at the time of her dismissal.
CONSIDERATION
[7] It is submitted for the Applicant that she was covered by the Rail Industry Award 2010 (“the Award”). The opening paragraph in the coverage clause of the award says as follows;
4. Coverage
[Varied by PR994538]
4.1 This industry award covers employers throughout Australia who are Rail Transport Operators and their employees in the classifications listed in clause 14.1 to the exclusion of any other modern award.
[8] There was no dispute that the employer is a rail transport operator and that the award covers many of its employees. On that basis the issue comes down to whether the Applicant was covered by a classification in the award.
[9] The Applicant referred to clause 14 Classifications and minimum wage rates, and also Schedule A - Classification Definitions of the Award. The relevant parts of those provisions are set out below. I have only reproduced Levels 8 and 9 of the Clerical, Administrative and Professional Classifications at Schedule A for the purposes of this decision.
Part 4 - Minimum Wages and Related Matters
14. Classifications and minimum wage rates
[Varied by PR994538, PR997896, PR509046, PR522877]
14.1 Adult employees
(a) The classification definitions of employees are set out in Schedule A—Classification Definitions.
(b) A full-time adult employee must be paid a minimum weekly rate as set out below:
[14.1(b) varied by PR997896, PR509046, PR522877 ppc 01Jul12]
Clerical, Administration and Professional (C.A.P.) | Minimum Weekly Rate | Annual Salary Equivalent | |
Level 1 | Rail Worker (C.A.P.) | 639.40 | 33,355 |
Level 2 | Rail Worker (C.A.P.) | 692.60 | 36,131 |
Level 3 | Rail Worker (C.A.P.) | 719.30 | 37,523 |
Level 4 | Rail Worker (C.A.P.) | 751.20 | 39,188 |
Level 5 | Rail Worker (C.A.P.) | 815.00 | 42,516 |
Level 6 | Rail Worker (C.A.P.) | 873.50 | 45,568 |
Level 7 | Rail Worker (C.A.P.) | 926.70 | 48,343 |
Level 8 | Rail Worker (C.A.P.) | 1043.80 | 54,452 |
Level 9 | Rail Worker (C.A.P.) | 1251.30 | 65,276 |
Schedule A—Classification Definitions
[Sched A varied by PR997896, PR509046, PR522877 ppc 01Jul12]
Clerical, Administrative and Professional Classifications
Preamble
Employees at each level may be required to have the competencies for the level or levels below their level. When required, employees at each level will undertake lower level duties as well as performing tasks incidental to work at their level. The employer will ensure employees undertake duties which are within the limits of the employee’s skills, competence and training.
Level | Tasks and Functions | Minimum Weekly Rate $ |
8 | The employee would be supervising the day-to-day activities of others and managing their rosters and relief. | 1043.80 |
• They may be delivering training to others. | ||
9 | The employee will provide guidance and direction to staff supervising others. The employee will have high level specialised skills. | 1251.30 |
[10] The primary submission made for the Applicant was that the applicant's position aligned with the Award description of duties for a Level 8 - Clerical, Administrative and Professional, or alternatively level 9. 7
[11] The Respondent’s submission is based on two key points, firstly that the role was essentially a managerial role, and secondly, to the extent that the Applicant might argue the role was a technical legal role and not a managerial role, it was not intended for modern awards generally and the Rail Industry Award 2010 in particular to cover lawyers such as the Applicant.
[12] The Applicant was employed in the position of Senior Legal Counsel Property and Projects, Legal and Governance, Legal with the Respondent. 8 Schedule 1 of the Applicants employment contract sets out that as at the time of commencement of employment in January 2011 the Applicant’s contract of employment provided a notional base salary of $165,411, and $21,090 in employer superannuation contributions. Total fixed remuneration amounted to $186,501 with an additional $24,812 available as maximum performance payment or a potential total employee reward of $211,313. As at the time of termination the notional based salary had been adjusted to $171,697 and total fixed remuneration of $192,588. This compared with a minimum rate of $54,452 for a level 8 under the Award, or $65,276 for a level 9.
[13] Clause 2.1 of the Applicants employment contract provided that the Applicant must perform the duties set out in the position description at Schedule 2. 9 It was common ground that there was no position description included in the contract of employment at the time it was executed in October 2010 or at commencement of employment in January 2011 but that a position description was later developed for the position of Senior Legal Counsel between the Applicant, other senior legal counsel employed by the Respondent, and Mr Tristan Barnes the General Manager of Legal in March 2011. 10 11 12
Principal Purpose Test
[14] To determine whether or not the Rail Industry Award 2010 applied to the Applicant it is necessary to determine the principal purpose for which the Applicant was employed by the Respondent. The decision of the Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in Carpenter v Corona Manufacturing 13 said as follows:
“In our view, in determining whether or not a particular award applies to identified employment, more is required than a mere quantitative assessment of the time spent in carrying out the duties. An examination must be made of the nature of the work and the circumstances in which the employee is employed to do the work with a view to ascertaining the principal purpose for which the employee is employed. In this case, such an examination demonstrates that the principal purpose for which the appellant was employed was that of a manager. As such, he was not “employed in the process, trade, business or occupation of ... soliciting orders, obtaining sales leads or appointments or otherwise promoting sales for articles, wares, merchandise or materials” and was not, therefore covered by the Award.”
[15] The nub of the Applicants case on this point was that the Applicant was not recruited to manage others, but to provide high level legal advice to the Respondent, to manage the provision of legal advice by members of her team to the Respondent and to maintain and oversee the maintenance and development of legal precedents. It was said for the Applicant “..her role was not purely a management role..” 14
[16] In contrast the Respondent argues the description of tasks and functions at level 8 could equally apply to a partner in a private law firm as examples of their roles or functions, however the functions at level 8 need to be considered in the context of the principle purpose of level 8 which the Respondent said was supervising the day to day activities of others and managing their rosters and relief, akin to a shift supervisor role, not a senior management role. 15
Position Description, Structure of Legal Section and Duties
[17] The Applicant referred to the Position Description and it was conceded her role involved supervision and management of a team of lawyers, 16 17 however it was argued that the language under the heading “Purpose” also talked about leading the property and projects team, and that a substantial amount of the work that she performed was to provide legal advice.18 The Respondent also referred to parts of the position description. 19 I have underlined certain some parts of the position description, the relevant parts of which are set out below:
“PURPOSE
Lead and manage the Projects and Property team to provide high quality, timely and effective legal advice relating to major commercial and contractual issues, major projects, regulatory issues and Queensland Rail’s business activities generally to ensure that they are conducted within the limits prescribed by law and that Queensland Rail’s rights are fully protected.
RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Participate as a member of the Legal management team to provide commercially focussed advice on legal, commercial and contractual issues in a dynamic and changing integrated passenger and rail infrastructure environment through the effective strategy formulation, customer, business partner and stakeholder engagement, financial and commercial excellence and people leadership.
2. Lead and manage the Projects and Property team in providing strategic, timely and appropriate legal advice across Queensland Rail regarding commercial and contractual transaction and Queensland Rail’s business activities generally.
3. Oversee the Projects and Property team in drafting complex commercial agreements to ensure they are accurate, meet prescribed standards and protect the interests of Queensland Rail.
4. Liaise and build relationships across the enterprise to ensure that the Commercial and Contracts team are engaged at the appropriate stage of commercial or contractual negotiations in order to provide maximum value to Queensland Rail.
5. Work as part of a commercially focussed multi-disciplinary legal team to ensure consistent, high quality legal advice is delivered across the business and encourage knowledge transfer.
6. Oversee the continual review and development of precedents and legal compliance systems and process to ensure that best practice contracting methodologies and templates are utilised.
7. Provide legal advice to the Legal GM to ensure that senior management is informed at key stages of major projects or transactions.
8. Achieve the Queensland Rail’s business targets, objectives, performance measures, safety responsibilities and continually seeking to implement business performance improvement initiatives.”
“KEY SELECTION CRITERIA:
1. High level of skill in drafting complex legal agreements.
2. High level of skill in the management of a commercial legal function.
3. High level of skill in directing a senior, professional legal team in advising on complex transactions and negotiations.
4. Knowledge of relevant laws as they relate to Queensland Rail’s business generally.
5. Well developed leadership capability in a large and complex organisation, focused on building a customer focussed, performance-based culture.
6. High level of influencing, interpersonal, consultation, relationship building and negotiation skills that build and sustain productive relationships and partnerships.
7. Knowledge of and willingness to commit to and work within Queensland Rail’s Values and Behaviours.”
[18] The Respondent said that the reasons it did not dispute evidence regarding the technical legal aspects of the work performed by the Applicant is that such work can be performed by someone with no management responsibility, but can equally be someone who has such responsibility. The real question is the context of the performance of the role. 20
[19] At the time of termination the structure of the Respondents legal section included the Applicant as Senior Legal Counsel Property and Projects who reported to the General Manager Legal (Mark Northage acting at the time) who reported to the General Counsel/Company Secretary. 21
[20] The Applicant said that when she started she had two lawyers reporting to her who held the position of Legal Counsel Property, and Lawyer Property respectively. 22 The Applicant said she was given permission to recruit an additional team member to hold the position of Legal Counsel Projects which was done in September 2011.23
[21] The Applicant said that at the end of 2011 Tristan Barns then General Manager, Legal Services recognised her workload did not afford sufficient time for the management of major projects and that the Applicant should refocus on resolution of business as usual issues affecting these projects and the general operation and management of the network. 24
[22] The Applicant set out a list of duties she was dealing with arising out of the running of the network as Business as Usual. 25 At the time of her termination the Applicant said she had three lawyers reporting to her and estimated that 5% of her time was spent managing their work, 90% on legal advice work and 5% precedent development. 26
[23] The Applicant agreed that at the time of her termination and from approximately July 2012 she reported to Mark Northage as Acting General Manager Legal. 27 The Applicant also pointed out her role was not at the top of the reporting structure of Legal.28
[24] The Applicant in her statement gave an overview of the nature of the work she performed in her role, including changes to the role during her employment. 29 By mid 2011 she saw her role primarily consisted of;
“(a) providing timely and quality legal advice on property and construction issues;
b) delivering strategic legal advice to senior management including the executive leadership team on all aspects of legal governance and compliance in the delivery of programs of works, projects, related property, funding issues and associated accreditation issues;
(c) delivering strategic legal advice in relation to QR’s management of its relationship with the State of Queensland and other external stakeholders;
(d) leading and development of a Precedents Management Framework and leading the delivery of a complete suite of precedents for all areas of specialisation within the legal team;
(e) providing strategic legal advice on any property design, construction and accreditation issues associated with any proposed connection to the QR network by third parties, typically mining companies..” 30
[25] The Applicant explained a substantial part of her role initially included providing legal advice in the delivery of projects including the Moreton Bay Rail Link, Darra to Springfield Stages 1 and 2, Ferny Grove Redevelopment, Cross River Rail and other station upgrades. 31
[26] In late 2011 a decision was taken to separate some work in connection with major projects from the Applicant due to workload and to make some use of external legal advisors to service major projects. 32 It was later agreed that responsibility for major projects would be shifted to Mr Northage.
[27] Mr Northage said for the Respondent that the Applicants role as a member of the Legal Services Team included management of Queensland Rail’s interests in major projects and the drafting of complex commercial agreements in the nature of design, construction and development agreements. He said from around March 2011 responsibility for certain very large “major” projects shifted to him in his role as Senior Legal Counsel, Contracts and Commercial, with particular responsibility for Rolling stock and Major Projects, which was a decision made by Tristan Barns. 33
[28] The Applicant says that her role in the management of the Respondents interests in major projects completely ceased because of this decision with the exception of involvement in the Darra to Springfield Stage 2 which the Applicant says she did as a favour for Mr Northage as he did not have experience in the delivery of construction and development projects. 34
[29] The Applicant went on to say Mr Northage’s responsibility was also extended by Tristan Barns to include management of any extension to the rail network, such as new lines or line duplications whilst she continued to manage work on existing assets, such as station upgrades and business as usual construction and other work relating to the operation or management of the rail network.
[30] Mr Northage had a different understanding of how responsibility for work was separated as between the Applicant and himself. He said that following the shift of major projects to him the Moreton Bay Rail Link (MBRL) formerly managed by the Applicant was transferred to him. He also had responsibility for New Generation Rolling Stock (NGR), and European Train Control Level 2 (ETCS L2). He said that at the time each of these projects had a total projected cost in excess of $1 billion and a dedicated self contained project office and staff responsible within Queensland Rail. 35
[31] Mr Northage said apart from these very large major projects, the Applicant remained responsible for all the remaining infrastructure, construction and station upgrade projects which, within the Legal Services team, were called BAU (business as usual) projects, the Darra to Springfield Stage 2 line extension costing in excess of three hundred million dollars, and others such as the Ferny Grove Station upgrade and duplication costing tens of millions of dollars. Mr Northage said the Applicant was also responsible for managing the team of lawyers that conducted property transactions, under the high level supervision of the General Manager, Legal Services. 36
[32] Mr Northage said many of the BAU projects were in an advanced state of execution and no longer required substantial legal input and other significant agreements were in various stages of completion and there was little if any, prospect of new construction and infrastructure projects of the size and complexity that would require the Applicant’s level of expertise or management. 37 Part of this evidence is no doubt directed at a separate jurisdictional objection concerning a claim that the Applicants role was made redundant but I determined not to deal with matter until dealing with the award coverage objection.
[33] The Applicant said advising in relation to the station upgrade program and other capital works constituted only a small part of her workload and role, as the vast majority of work concerning station upgrades was conducted by secondees. 38
[34] The Applicant said her advice was mostly limited to ensuring the correct procedural/contractual structure with the contractors and the State was in place and more strategic issues. She said from early 2012 she began to advice on contract management issues which was at first sporadic until June 2012 when it became apparent there were significant issues with the management of the Ferny Grove Project. She said this took about 10% of her time until she was removed from the project. Following this she said she only spent about 5% of her time dealing with project management issues. 39
[35] It appears from the Applicants argument that a changing in her role over the life of her employment is a relevant factor. I am inclined to the view that the changes that removed the major projects part of her role did not change the nature of the role to the extent that it would sway the question of award coverage one way or the other.
Reference to Industrial Instrument in Contract
[36] It was argued for the Applicant that the contract of employment contemplated the possibility of an industrial instrument applying to the Applicant through clause 5.2(d) of the contract which reads as follows:
“Your base salary includes compensation for all entitlements, benefits, or payments that might otherwise be due under any industrial instrument or law that may apply to your employment including, but not limited to, minimum wages, overtime, allowances, shift penalties and loadings (including annual leave loading)..”
[37] There is no evidence of what the parties intended by the inclusion of this wording in the employment contract. I do not find it persuasive of itself that the Rail Industry Award 2010 was intended to apply to the Applicant and regard it as a neutral issue.
CAP structure and Lawyer as Professional
[38] It was said for the Applicant that a lawyer can be generally described as a professional. 40 41 The Applicant relies on a decision of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission Full Bench during Award Modernisation of 19 December 2008 [2008] AIRCFB 1000 in the context of the making of the Rail Industry Award 201042to argue the Full Bench considered the Award could extend to the Applicants role;
“[277] We have adopted the classification structure sought by the RSCC for the clerical, administrative and professional stream. It contains basic generic descriptors able to accommodate the many and varied roles in the several sectors of the rail industry. RSCC has accepted that the five levels it originally proposed should be extended to the nine levels we proposed in the exposure draft. We have not included a clause that employees paid over a level 9 rate “will not be award covered”. Such a provision should be in the exclusion clause and an opportunity given to all interested parties to address it. We note in this respect that rail awards have traditionally covered senior officers and we assume many of these could be considered senior managers. Many will be excluded from this award as they will be considered high income earners in the new system..”
[39] The Clerical, Administrative and Professional Classifications are necessarily generic in nature and cover a wide category of employees. The Respondent referred to the Award Modernisation Full Bench decision [2009] AIRCFB 945 and paragraph 128 of that decision concerning the making of the Legal Services Award 2010 to make its second argument that modern awards were never intended to cover lawyers such as the Applicant. That decision said as follows:
“[128] There were other ancillary matters to which we have also given our attention. Turning to the first matter, we have decided to include law graduates but not solicitors admitted to practice. Consistent with our earlier views we have not found widespread coverage of solicitors but there is of law graduates. Those seeking coverage appear concerned about wage rates and hours of work. Wage rates will be influenced by our decision in relation to coverage of law graduates and the NES deals with maximum weekly hours of work and provides for additional hours provided they are reasonable..”
[40] It was accepted by both parties that the Legal Services Award 2010 covers administrative staff through to law graduates and paralegals but not admitted solicitors or barristers. 43 The Respondent also referred to the Award Modernisation Full Bench decision concerning termination of modernisable instruments [2010] FWAFB 9916 and specifically paragraph 55 to further bolster its case that modern awards do not cover lawyers. That decision included the following:
“[55] The ASU made similar submissions in relation to the Victorian Legal Professional, Clerical and Administrative Employees Award 2004 (Victorian Legal Award), a federal award, and the Salaried Lawyers Award, a South Australian State award. The AIRC decided not to include classifications for qualified lawyers in the Legal Services Award 2010. It follows that the modern award system does not presently provide for them. Consistent with our general approach, we consider that the ASU’s submissions do not provide a proper basis for not terminating the two instruments in question..”
[41] In response the Applicant said she was admitted to practice as a solicitor in England and Wales but not in Queensland. 44 It was argued therefore that as she was not required by the Respondent to be admitted to practice as a legal practitioner in Queensland under the Legal Profession Act 2007, or to hold a practicing certificate issued by the Queensland Law Society or the Queensland Bar Association, 45 she did not meet the description of lawyer excluded in the context of the AIRC and FWA Full Bench approach during award modernisation.46
[42] In effect the Applicants argument was that the approach of the respective AIRC and FWA Full Benches has been to draw the line for the purposes of modern award coverage, not at the level of skill and experience of a lawyer, but whether they have been admitted to practice or not. 47 In response the Respondent argues that the AIRC and FWA through the award modernisation process drew the line in terms of regulation of the legal profession at law graduates because they are paid at a level similar to clerks and it was determined warranted award protection. 48
Conclusion
[43] I have considered the evidence and submissions and am satisfied that the Applicant’s role was a management role of such seniority that it was not intended to be covered by the Award.
[44] The scale of the projects she had carriage of, and the extent of her responsibility for the work associated with them (regardless of whether it was before major projects were handed to Mr Northage, or after when her main focus was the business as usual project work) was such that it made her principal purpose management and not technical and/or legal.
[45] The accountability requirements attaching to the Applicants role were that of a senior manager. The combination of the seniority of her role within the organisation as described in the position description with regard to the purpose, responsibilities and key selection criteria all point to a role with wide discretion and management responsibility.
[46] The Applicant’s role included the performance of strategic management functions and she was recruited for that purpose and not primarily for her technical skills as a lawyer. While the evidence demonstrates the Applicant did spend a significant proportion of her time using those technical skills that does not alter the fact that the breadth of her responsibilities went beyond that contemplated by level 8 or level 9 of the Award.
[47] The kind of management referred to at level 8 of the award, at least to the extent that it is described appears to be in the context of rosters and relief, and day to day supervision, but not the kind of management responsibility as described in the position description designed for the Applicant’s role. The third dot point at level 8 states: “The employee would be liaising with senior managers on complex matters and provide specialised reports on payroll or budgets..” I am satisfied that the Applicant was not just liaising with senior managers, she was one herself.
[48] The Applicants level of remuneration is also indicative of a management role not intended to be covered by level 8 or 9 of the Award as it was in the order of three times that set by the Award.
[49] As I have concluded that the Applicant was not award covered for the reasons set out above it is unnecessary for me to deal with the alternative argument of the Respondent concerning the exclusion of lawyers generally from award coverage. Accordingly, the jurisdiction objection has been successfully made out and the application for unfair dismissal remedy must be dismissed.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
Mr J Merrill for counsel for the Applicant instructed by Mr Stevenson of Australian Workplace Lawyers
Mr Wells Allens Lawyers for the Respondent
Hearing details:
Brisbane
30 April 2013
1 Exhibit 1 Statement of Marie-Christine Oliver
2 Exhibit 3 Statement of Mark Jason Northage
3 Transcript dated 30 April 2013 PN 28
4 Exhibit 4 Respondent’s Jurisdictional Objection Submission
5 Exhibit 2 Applicant’s Jurisdictional Objection Submission
6 Exhibit 5 Respondent’s Reply Submission
7 Transcript dated 30 April 2013 PN 58, PN100 and PN106
8 Exhibit 1 Statement of Marie-Christine Oliver attachment MO2
9 Exhibit 1 Statement of Marie-Christine Oliver attachment MO2 page 8
10 Transcript dated 30 April 2013 PN 72
11 Exhibit 1 Statement of Marie-Christine Oliver paragraph 8
12 Exhibit 3 Statement of Mark Jason Northage paragraph 8 attachment MN2
13 PR925731 Full Bench AIRC Carpenter v Corona Manufacturing
14 Transcript dated 30 April 2013 PN 137 and PN 150
15 Transcript dated 30 April 2013 PN186
16 Transcript dated 30 April 2013 PN 99
17 Exhibit 1 Statement of Marie-Christine Oliver paragraph 20 (k-m)
18 Transcript dated 30 April 2013 PN 137 and PN 99
19 Exhibit 3 Statement of Mark Jason Northage attachment MN2
20 Transcript dated 30 April 2013 PN 194
21 Exhibit 1 Statement of Marie-Christine Oliver paragraph 32
22 Exhibit 1 Statement of Marie-Christine Oliver paragraph 10
23 Exhibit 1 Statement of Marie-Christine Oliver paragraph 12
24 Exhibit 1 Statement of Marie-Christine Oliver paragraph 13
25 Exhibit 1 Statement of Marie-Christine Oliver paragraph 20
26 Exhibit 1 Statement of Marie-Christine Oliver paragraph 33
27 Exhibit 1 Statement of Marie-Christine Oliver paragraph 34
28 Transcript dated 30 April 2013 PN 96
29 Exhibit 1 Statement of Marie-Christine Oliver paragraphs 9 - 29
30 Exhibit 1 Statement of Marie-Christine Oliver paragraph 10
31 Exhibit 1 Statement of Marie-Christine Oliver paragraph 11
32 Exhibit 1 Statement of Marie-Christine Oliver paragraphs 13 and 14
33 Exhibit 3 Statement of Mark Jason Northage paragraph 25
34 Exhibit 1 Statement of Marie-Christine Oliver paragraph 18
35 Exhibit 3 Statement of Mark Jason Northage paragraph 26
36 Exhibit 3 Statement of Mark Jason Northage paragraph 27
37 Exhibit 3 Statement of Mark Jason Northage paragraph 29
38 Exhibit 1 Statement of Marie-Christine Oliver paragraph 38
39 Exhibit 1 Statement of Marie-Christine Oliver paragraph 38
40 Exhibit 2 Applicant’s Jurisdictional Objection Submission paragraph 18
41 Transcript dated 30 April 2013 PN 107
42 [2008] AIRCFB 1000 Award Modernisation
43 Transcript dated 30 April 2013 PN 156
44 Exhibit 1 Statement of Marie-Christine Oliver paragraph 5
45 Transcript dated 30 April 2013 PN 107
46 Transcript dated 30 April 2013 PN 160
47 Transcript dated 30 April 2013 PN 173 - 176
48 Transcript dated 30 April 2013 PN 202 - 203
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, PR536062>
0
0