Matthew Paull v Moruya Bowling and Recreation Club Ltd
[2019] FWC 8575
•19 DECEMBER 2019
| [2019] FWC 8575 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Matthew Paull
v
Moruya Bowling and Recreation Club Ltd
(U2019/7453)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN | SYDNEY, 19 DECEMBER 2019 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.
[1] On 8 July 2019 Mr Paull made an application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for a remedy, alleging that he had been unfairly dismissed from his employment with Moruya Bowling and Recreation Club Ltd. Mr Paull seeks reinstatement or in the alternative, compensation.
[2] The application was heard in Moruya on 30 October 2019. Mr Paull appeared and gave evidence on his own behalf. Mr M Ushakoff of Clubs NSW appeared for the Club and led evidence from Mr G Dempster (General Manager) and Mr M Bell (Assistant Manager).
Background
[3] Mr Paull commenced employment with the Club in May 2014 performing greenkeeping duties until he was dismissed on 1 July 2019. Prior to being a full time employee of the Club, Mr Paull had been engaged as a greenkeeping contractor from 2009.
[4] It is common ground that Mr Paull had an ongoing wage dispute with the Club. Mr Paull indicated to the Club that he had spoken with ‘Fair Work’ and believed that he had been underpaid. Further, he believed his role should be classified as Maintenance and Horticulture Management (MHM) Level 2 under the Registered and Licensed Clubs Award 2010 (the Award).
[5] The Club eventually decided that Mr Paull’s role should be classified as MHM Level 1 and agreed to back pay the shortfall from the period his employment commenced. On 22 March 2019, Mr Dempster wrote to Mr Paull confirming his role as Head Greenkeeper and providing him with an employment agreement setting out the terms and conditions of his ongoing employment which were referable to the Award. Mr Dempster also advised that an amount of $24,268.75 was payable to Mr Paull for back payment of wages and meal allowance and provided the calculations in coming to the amount.
[6] Earlier in November 2018 Mr Paull also made a claim to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) for unpaid superannuation for the period between 1 October 2009 and 30 June 2014.
[7] The ATO undertook an audit and determined in March 2019 that Mr Paull operated as a contractor during the period in question and was not entitled to superannuation contributions for that period.
[8] Mr Paull continued to assert that he should be classified as MHM Level 2 under the Award and that he had not been paid his award entitlements. He also believed that he lost his claim for unpaid superannuation because the ATO had determined that he was a contractor based on misinformation from Mr Dempster that all equipment used and stored in the greenkeepers’ shed belonged to Mr Paull.
[9] It was against this background of growing tensions between Mr Paull and the Club that events unfolded which led to the termination of Mr Paull’s employment.
[10] On 4 June 2019, a day on which Mr Paull did not attend work, it was found that the greenkeepers’ shed had new padlocks installed. Having been unable to gain access to the shed, the greenkeeper (employed on a casual basis) reported the issue to Mr Bell and was eventually directed to remove the padlocks by using bolt cutters.
[11] On 5 June 2019, Mr Paull reported to the Police an alleged ‘break and enter’ to the shed by Mr Bell. The Police attended the Club to investigate. After inquiries were made, Mr Paull was told by the Police that it was inappropriate for him to place his own locks on the shed as it was the Club’s property. No further action was taken by the Police.
[12] On 6 June 2019, it was found that Mr Paull had again installed new padlocks on the greenkeepers’ shed. They were later removed by Mr Bell.
[13] On 7 June 2019, Mr Paull informed Mr Bell that he was ‘on strike’ due to being underpaid and because of unsafe work conditions. He wrote on the shed in chalk “Matthew Paull is on strike Unsafe worksite Do not enter”, and once again secured the shed with his own padlocks. Mr Paull continued to absent himself from his duties at the Club.
[14] On 18 June 2019 Mr Dempster wrote to Mr Paull. The letter reads:
“Matthew, you last attended work on the Friday 7th of June, where you announced to Matthew Bell that you were going on strike due to unsafe work conditions and alleged underpayment. You have not contacted me or the club in regard to your concerns, we do not know if you are taking annual leave or sick leave or just on strike. I have tried to ring you on the mobile number xxxx which is in your current file and Payroll personal information at 3.15pm on the 18th of June and also on number xxxx at 3.25 pm 18th June where I left an audio message. Please contact me on xxxx or xxxx to arrange a meeting to discuss your concerns with the Club by Thursday the 20th June 4pm, otherwise we will conclude that you have abandoned your employment and the club will take action accordingly. The prior 2 pay weeks since your announcement of going on strike, the Club has paid you sick leave as there were no instructions from you in regard to payment or time sheets. (telephone numbers redacted)
Sincerely
Grant Dempster
General Manager”
[15] On 21 June 2019 Mr Paull attended a meeting with Mr Dempster, Mr Bell and Ms Monaghan (Administration Officer). At the meeting Mr Paull was asked to explain his unauthorised absence and his actions in interfering with the greenkeepers’ shed. At the conclusion of the meeting, Mr Paull was informed that the Club was considering terminating his employment due to his conduct.
[16] On 28 June 2019 a further meeting was conducted at the Club where Mr Paull was advised that his employment was terminated. A termination letter dated 1 July 2019 was issued in the following terms:
“Dear Matthew
Termination of your employment
I am writing to you about the termination of your employment with reference to our meeting on Friday 21st June 2019 which was attended by you, General Manager Grant Dempster, Assistant Manager Mathew Bell and Administration Assistant Mary Monaghan.
During the meeting we discussed the events that took place between 4th June 2019 and 6th June 2019 when you changed the locks on the clubs greenkeepers shed for three (3) consecutive days, and called police claiming a Break and Enter when your locks were replaced by the club. You also took unauthorised leave for over 10 days when you declared you were on strike.
We consider that your actions constitute misconduct warranting termination of employment. Your termination is to take effect immediately and you will be paid in lieu of notice of termination period.
You will be paid your accrued entitlements, including Annual Leave, Leave Loading, ADO and pro-rata Long Service Leave.
Your sincerely
Grant Dempster
General Manager”
Mr Paull’s evidence and submissions
[17] In his written and oral evidence Mr Paull adverted to concerns that he said led to a strained relationship with the management of the Club. The first matter related to safety concerns which he claimed he had raised with the Club over the years; the other was with respect to underpayment of his award entitlements referred to above.
[18] Mr Paull said that he has been employed ‘on and off’ at the Club since the age of 18. He asserted that he was dismissed because he raised issues regarding safety and underpayment.
[19] In his oral evidence Mr Paull said that he had raised multiple safety concerns which were never addressed. Mr Paull contended that these concerns led to him going on strike.
[20] With respect to placing of padlocks on the shed, Mr Paull’s explanation was that it was unsafe for persons to have access to the shed because hazardous chemicals were not stored properly putting people in potential danger. Mr Paull suggested that a new greenkeeper, Mr Allpress, was not properly trained and therefore it was unsafe for him to use the equipment.
[21] In answer to questions put in cross examination, Mr Paull stated that:
• he placed a lock on the shed for everyone’s safety;
• it wasn’t his responsibility to provide induction to other staff; and
• he had pursued the safety concerns with Mr Dempster and the Club was therefore aware of the issues, but in doing so his relationship with management had become very difficult.
[22] He also agreed with the following propositions put during cross examination that:
• he did not raise his safety concerns with SafeWork;
• the equipment kept in the greenkeepers’ shed belonged to the Club;
• chemical storage has been in place since about 2011 without incident; and
• the safety concerns did not personally affect him.
The Club’s evidence and submissions
[23] The Club contended that Mr Paull’s dismissal was not unfair and the reasons for his dismissal were ‘sound, defensible and well-founded’.
[24] The Club relied on two reasons for dismissing Mr Paull’s employment:
1. His unauthorised leave from 6 or 7 June for a period of over ten days; and
2. His conduct between 4 and 6 June 2019 by interfering and sabotaging the Club property.
[25] It was submitted that Mr Paull’s absence from work without reasonable cause for more than ten days constituted a failure by him to follow a lawful and reasonable direction and was inconsistent with the continuation of the contract of employment As such there was a valid reason for the termination of Mr Paull’s employment.
[26] The Club argued that the matters raised by Mr Paull did not in any way provide a reasonable excuse for absenting himself from work.
[27] As to the alleged safety concerns, they were not supported by any credible evidence and indeed were not raised by Mr Paull until a very late stage of his employment. Specifically, these concerns had not caused Mr Paull to cease performing work in the past and posed no risk to his ongoing employment and safety. It was submitted that Mr Paull had other options he could have properly pursued in relation to the alleged safety issues as opposed to unreasonably ceasing work. In particular, he could have made a report to SafeWork NSW or activated the dispute resolution provisions of the Award.
[28] The Club argued that Mr Paull’s conduct in obstructing access to the Club’s greenkeepers’ shed and equipment also constitute a valid reason for the dismissal. Mr Paull, by his action in reporting to the Police his own sabotage of the Club’s shed as a ‘break and enter’ by Club Personnel, displayed clear dishonesty. This action, which was not denied by Mr Paull, was destructive to the trust and confidence that an employer must have in its employees and was a breach of the duty of good faith and fidelity an employee owes to their employer.
[29] The Club maintained that Mr Paull had been afforded procedural fairness. He was notified of the reasons for his dismissal and was given an opportunity to respond on 21 and 28 June 2019. He was advised prior to the meetings that he could have a support person present but did not avail himself of the opportunity or make such a request.
[30] It was submitted that in all the circumstances the Commission should be satisfied that the Club had a valid reason to terminate Mr Paull’s employment and that it had followed a thorough process in effecting the dismissal.
Mr Dempster
[31] Mr Dempster provided a witness statement and gave short oral evidence. His statement outlined Mr Paull’s employment history, alluded to performance and conduct issues, and addressed the allegations made by Mr Paull in relation to safety and underpayment.
[32] The employment history of Mr Paull presented by Mr Dempster included the following:
1. Smoking on the greens on 18 May 2019, resulting in a written warning.
2. Failure to complete rosters as required to do so. Mr Dempster intermittently reminded Mr Paull of this requirement including issuing a memorandum on 21 September 2018 instructing him to complete the rosters. Mr Paull was inconsistent in the preparation of rosters and at the end of his employment quite simply failed to complete any rosters.
3. Taking leave without following proper procedures. Mr Dempster issued a written memorandum on 20 November 2018 instructing Mr Paull to request leave by filling out a leave request form. Mr Paull continued to take leave without authorisation.
4. Failure to complete timesheets as directed.
5. Housing his personal equipment (a whipper snipper) at the repair shop where it was serviced at the Club’s expense.
6. Abusive behaviour towards other staff which resulted in the resignation of two greenkeepers. Mr Dempster met with Mr Paull on 8 March 2019 to discuss this and the other issues.
[33] Mr Dempster said that in around June 2018, Mr Paull sent an email to the Board stating that he believed he was being underpaid and that his role should be classified as MHM Level 2 under the Award.
[34] The Club considered the matter, took advice and decided that Mr Paull should be classified as MHM Level 1 and paid accordingly, including a back payment.
[35] Mr Dempster said that Mr Paull agreed that the backpay would be finalised after his claim with the ATO had been resolved.
[36] After being informed by the ATO of the outcome of the superannuation claim, Mr Dempster wrote to Mr Paull on 22 March 2019 providing calculations of the back payment. Mr Paull told him that before he responded he wished to consult his accountant to check the calculations, however he did not respond to Mr Dempster.
[37] Mr Dempster was on annual leave during the period when Mr Paull installed padlocks on the shed. Mr Bell reported to him by phone as to what had occurred.
[38] At the meeting on 21 June 2019, Mr Dempster discussed with Mr Paull the events on 4-6 June 2019 regarding the installation of padlocks, the report to Police and his unauthorised absence from work. One of Mr Paull’s explanations for his actions was based on safety concerns around the employment of Mr Allpress. Mr Dempster stated that these safety issues were unfounded as Mr Allpress had the requisite qualifications and experience to perform his duties in a safe manner. Mr Allpress had not expressed any concern about the tasks that he had been assigned.
[39] Mr Dempster addressed the issue of the storage of chemicals. The chemicals had always been locked in a secure cupboard within a locked shed. At the relevant time only Mr Paull had a key to access the shed.
[40] Mr Paull expressed safety concerns with respect to people using machinery without his knowledge, authorisation and training, because it was his property according to what Mr Dempster told the ATO. In this regard, Mr Dempster said that “it was rubbish because it was the club’s property and all staff who used it had used it for years being Mr Glover and Mr Paull and Mr Paull had never raised this as an issue. Furthermore, all staff and volunteers are covered by the Club’s insurance policy.” Mr Dempster also denied that he had told the ATO the equipment in the shed belonged to Mr Paull and verified such by attaching to his witness statement the form he completed and provided to the ATO.
[41] As to Mr Paull’s concerns about asbestos plinths around the croquet green, Mr Dempster said that he became aware of this issue about 3 years ago and he had informed the greenkeepers and the Board. An instruction had been given to staff and volunteers as to how to manage this safely.
[42] As to his claim of underpayment, Mr Dempster said that the Club had been attempting to pay him since March 2019.
[43] Mr Dempster said that the Club considered Mr Paull’s explanations as to his conduct unreasonable, and gave no excuse for interfering with the club property, calling the Police and refusing to attend work.
[44] Mr Dempster said that at the end of the meeting on 21 June 2019 Mr Paull said he would leave his employment if he got a reasonable payout. Mr Dempster gave him a detailed break down of the underpayment and the meeting concluded for the Club to consider his response.
[45] On 25 June 2019, the Club paid Mr Paull the amount of $24,268.75 to rectify the underpayment.
[46] On 26 June 2019, Mr Paull attended the Club to ask for the cheque for his underpayment and was informed that it had already been paid. Mr Dempster told him to attend a meeting on 28 June so he could be informed of the Club’s decision regarding his ongoing employment. Mr Paull was told that he could bring a representative.
[47] At the meeting on 28 June 2019, Mr Paull was informed that his employment was terminated. He was offered the opportunity to resign but he declined.
[48] Mr Dempster also stated that Mr Paull had sent him threatening text messages after his dismissal which included YouTube links to songs ‘The club can’t handle me right now’ and ‘this means war.’
Mr Bell
[49] Mr Bell provided a witness statement and gave short oral evidence. He gave evidence that during the period between 28 May and 10 June 2019 he was the acting General Manager when Mr Dempster was on annual leave.
[50] It was Mr Bell’s evidence that Mr Paull refused to provide an induction to Mr Allpress as it was ‘above his pay grade’. Mr Allpress eventually had an induction with Mr Glover.
[51] Mr Bell said that on 4 June 2019 he was approached by Mr Allpress who told him that the keys he had did not work on the shed and he could not get in to access the equipment. He then went outside to the shed and saw that there were four new blue padlocks which did not belong to the Club. He then gave money to Mr Allpress to get new padlocks and boltcutters. Mr Allpress later removed the locks and gained access to the shed. It was also found that there was no running water in the shed. Mr Bell said that he took 15 minutes to find the water switch underneath the club and switch the water back on.
[52] Mr Bell said that in the morning the following day Mr Paull arrived at the Club and asked him who cut the padlocks off. Mr Bell said that the following exchange occurred:
Mr Paull: Who cut the padlocks off?
Mr Bell: I cut them off.
Mr Paull: Why did you do that?
Mr Bell: Because the padlocks don’t belong to the club and we needed to gain access so that Mark could start work.
Mr Paull: Grant told the ATO that the stuff in the shed belongs to me.
Mr Bell: That’s a conversation for you and Grant.
Mr Paull: You’ll be seeing the Police today.
[53] Mr Bell said that the Police attended the Club later that morning and he was told words to the effect: “A break and enter has been reported and it’s alleged that you have broken into the greenkeepers’ shed.” He then said to the Constable: “I’m the acting manager here at the moment and I cut the locks off because they don’t belong to the club and we couldn’t get entry to start work.”
[54] Mr Bell said that the police took his details and then went to speak to Mr Paull. Mr Paull later left the Club without informing him, and did not prepare the greens for the social bowls that were scheduled for that day.
[55] On 6 June 2019, Mr Bell was told that there were more unauthorised padlocks put on the shed and that Mr Paull had not attended for work.
[56] On 7 June 2019, he arrived work at about 7.45 am and Mr Paull shouted out to Mr Bell: “I’m now on strike due to being underpaid and unsafe work conditions.” He was not informed of the alleged safety issues before Mr Paull left the premises.
[57] Mr Bell said that later on the same day he inspected the shed with Mr Strahan, one of the Club directors, for possible safety issues. They could not identify any safety concerns apart from a lot of equipment not being properly stored away, which Mr Bell said was Mr Paull’s responsibility.
[58] Mr Bell said that at the meeting on 21 June 2019 it was agreed that both parties would record the meeting and he recorded the meeting on his phone. Mr Bell said that the safety issues brought up by Mr Paull had not been raised before.
[59] As to the underpayment issue, Mr Bell believed the Club had done the right thing by arranging to resolve the matter with Mr Paull. He did not see any reason for Mr Paull to go on strike and interfere with club property and then report him to the Police.
Consideration
Protection from Unfair Dismissal
[60] There is no dispute and I am satisfied that Mr Paull is a person protected from unfair dismissal by virtue of s.382 of the Act.
[61] I will turn to whether the dismissal of Mr Paull was unfair within the meaning of the Act.
Was the dismissal unfair?
[62] A dismissal is unfair if the Commission is satisfied on the evidence before it that the circumstances set out at s.385 of the Act existed. Section 385 provides the following:
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.
Note: For the definition of consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code: see section 388.
[63] There is no issue that Mr Paull was dismissed and that subsection (c) and (d) do not apply.
[64] Accordingly, I now need to consider whether Mr Paull’s dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable within the meaning of the Act.
Was the dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable?
[65] The criteria the Commission must take into account when assessing whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable are set out at s.387 of the Act:
387 Criteria for considering harshness etc.
In considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the FWC must take into account:
(a) whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person’s capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees); and
(b) whether the person was notified of that reason; and
(c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person; and
(d) any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal; and
(e) if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person—whether the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal; and
(f) the degree to which the size of the employer’s enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and
(g) the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and
(h) any other matters that the FWC considers relevant.
[66] The ambit of the conduct which may fall within the phrase ‘harsh, unjust or unreasonable’ was explained in Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd1as follows:
‘... It may be that the termination is harsh but not unjust or unreasonable, unjust but not harsh or unreasonable, or unreasonable but not harsh or unjust. In many cases the concepts will overlap. Thus, the one termination of employment may be unjust because the employee was not guilty of the misconduct on which the employer acted, may be unreasonable because it was decided upon inferences which could not reasonably have been drawn from the material before the employer, and may be harsh in its consequences for the personal and economic situation of the employee or because it is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct in respect of which the employer acted.’
[67] I am required to consider each of these criteria in reaching my conclusion2, which I now do.
Valid reason - s.387(a)
[68] In order to be a valid reason, the reason for the dismissal should be “sound, defensible or well founded” 3 and should not be “capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced.”4 However, the Commission will not stand in the shoes of the employer and determine what the Commission would do if it was in the position of the employer.5
[69] Where a dismissal relates to an employee’s conduct, the Commission must be satisfied that the conduct occurred and justified termination.6
[70] In this case, Mr Paull was dismissed for reasons set out in the termination letter, namely the events took place between 4 and 6 June 2019 and his unauthorised leave for over 10 days.
[71] There is no contest as to the events leading to Mr Paull’s dismissal. The Club’s reasons for dismissing Mr Paull were in my view valid reasons for his dismissal. None of the matters raised by Mr Paull provided a reasonable basis for his actions. In particular, reporting to the Police his own sabotage of the Club’s shed as a ‘break and enter’ by Club employees displayed clear dishonesty. Also, there were a number of options available to Mr Paull to pursue if his safety concerns were genuine, such as a report to SafeWork NSW. He did not do so, and when asked, he could not explain why he had not done so. Mr Paull’s actions, which were admitted, were clearly destructive to the trust and confidence that an employer must have in its employees, and was a breach of the duty of good faith and fidelity an employee owes to their employer.
[72] Having considered all the evidence and submissions before me, I am satisfied that there was a valid reason for Mr Paull’s dismissal.
Notification of the valid reason and opportunity to respond - s.387(b) and (c)
[73] Notification of a valid reason for termination must be given to an employee protected from unfair dismissal before the decision is made,7 in explicit terms8 and in plain and clear terms.9 In Crozier v Palazzo Corporation Pty Ltd10 a Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission dealing with similar provision of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 stated the following:
“[73] As a matter of logic procedural fairness would require that an employee be notified of a valid reason for their termination before any decision is taken to terminate their employment in order to provide them with an opportunity to respond to the reason identified. Section 170(3)(b) and (c) would have very little (if any) practical effect if it was sufficient to notify employees and give them an opportunity to respond after a decision had been taken to terminate their employment. Much like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.”11
[74] An employee protected from unfair dismissal must also be provided with an opportunity to respond to any reason for dismissal relating to the conduct or capacity of the person. Such requirement will be satisfied where the employee is aware of the precise nature of the employer’s concern about his or her conduct or performance and has a full opportunity to respond to this concern. 12 This criterion is to be applied in a common sense way to ensure the employee is treated fairly and should not be burdened with formality.13
[75] The requirement to notify of the reason, together with the requirement to provide an opportunity to respond to the reason, involves consideration of whether procedural fairness was afforded to Mr Paull before his dismissal was effected.
[76] On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that Mr Paull was notified of the reason for his dismissal and was given an opportunity to respond to the reason.
Unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow a support person - s.387(d)
[77] Where an employee protected from unfair dismissal has requested a support person be present to assist in discussions relating to the dismissal, the employer should not unreasonably refuse that person being present.
[78] There is no evidence that Mr Paull had been unreasonably refused to have a support person.
Warnings regarding unsatisfactory performance - s.387(e)
[79] A warning for the purposes of s.387(e) must clearly identify:
(a) the areas of deficiency in the employee’s performance;
(b) the assistance or training that might be provided;
(c) the standards required; and
(d) a reasonable timeframe within which the employee is required to meet such standards.14
[80] Mr Paull was not dismissed for unsatisfactory performance and this consideration is therefore neutral.
Impact of the size of the Respondent on procedures followed (s.387(f)), and the absence of dedicated human resources management specialist/expertise on procedures followed (s.387(g))
[81] I am satisfied that the size of the Club and its dedicated human resource expertise did not impact on the procedures followed by it in effecting the dismissal, and this consideration is neutral.
Other relevant matters - s.387(h)
[82] Section 387(h) of the Act provides the Commission with a broad scope to consider any other matters it considers relevant.
[83] I do not consider there are other relevant matters that have not already been considered.
Conclusion
[84] Having considered each of the matters specified in s.387 of the Act and for the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the dismissal of Mr Paull was not unfair. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
M Paull, on his own behalf.
M Ushakoff for Moruya Bowling and Recreation Club Ltd.
Hearing details:
2019.
Moruya:
October 30.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR715425>
1 (1995) 185 CLR 410 at 465 per McHugh and Gummow JJ.
2 Sayer v Melsteel[2011] FWAFB 7498.
3 Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 371, 373.
4 Ibid.
5 Walton v Mermaid Dry Cleaners Pty Ltd(1996) 142 ALR 681, 685.
6 Edwards v Justice Giudice [1999] FCA 1836, [7].
7 Chubb Security Australia Pty Ltd v Thomas Print S2679 at [41].
8 Crozier v Palazzo Corporation Pty Ltd (2000) 98 IR 137, 151.
9 Previsic v Australian Quarantine Inspection Services Print Q3730.
10 (2000) 98 IR 137.
11 Ibid at 151.
12 Gibson v Bosmac Pty Ltd (1995) 60 IR 1, 7.
13 RMIT v Asher (2010) 194 IR 1, 14-15.
14 McCarron v Commercial Facilities Management Pty Ltd t/a CFM Air Conditioning Pty Ltd [2013] FWC 3034, [32].
0
9
0