Michael Guenther v Masterglass and Aluminium Pty Ltd T/A MasterGlass

[2016] FWC 7717

[2016] FWC 7717

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Michael Guenther
v
Masterglass & Aluminium Pty Ltd T/A MasterGlass
(U2016/9684)

COMMISSIONER RYAN MELBOURNE, 24 OCTOBER 2016

Application for relief from unfair dismissal – valid reason for dismissal – application dismissed.

[1] Mr Guenther commenced employment with Masterglass & Aluminium Pty Ltd T/A MasterGlass (MasterGlass) as a full time commercial Estimator in June 2011 and after 6 months his position was changed to Sales/Estimator. As a Sales/Estimator Mr Guenther’s role was involved in the sourcing, tendering and quoting for commercial window fabrication contracts with commercial builders. Mr Guenther was dismissed from his employment with MasterGlass on 8 July 2016. At the time of his dismissal Mr Guenther was earning a remuneration package which was well below the high income threshold provided for in the Regulations. The application in this matter was filed with the Commission on 22 July 2016.

[2] For the purposes of s.396 of the Act the Commission determines that:

(a) The application in this matter was made within the period required by s.394(2)(a);
(b) Mr Guenther was protected from unfair dismissal in that his remuneration was below the high income threshold;
(c) The Small Business Fair Dismissal Code does not apply to the application as MasterGlass employs more than 15 employees;
(d) The dismissal of Mr Guenther was not a case of genuine redundancy as Mr Guenther was dismissed for alleged serious misconduct.

[3] The application was heard by the Commission on 12 October 2016. Each of Mr Guenther and MasterGlass represented themselves, with MasterGlass being represented by Mr James Gillies, the Managing Director and effective owner of MasterGlass. Neither Mr Guenther nor Mr Gillies gave oral evidence to the Commission. Each was content to rely on the witness statements and submissions filed with the Commission in accordance with directions issued by the Commission. Each of Mr Guenther and Mr Gillies made oral submissions to the Commission in support of the material they had filed and in answer to matters raised by the other side.

Did MasterGlass have a valid reason for the dismissal of Mr Guenther?

[4] The letter of termination given to Mr Guenther on 8 July 2016 gave the reason for dismissal as follows:

“Due to your unacceptable behaviour and attitude on a multiple occasions with your work colleague and as verbally advised yesterday 07/07/2016, consider this letter as confirmation for your dismissal and termination of of your employment with MasterGlass & Aluminium P/L.”

[5] MasterGlass, in its Form F3 identified the “unacceptable behaviour and attitude” of Mr Guenther as follows:

“As stated on termination letter sent to Michael Guenther, he was dismissed and terminated from his employment due to unacceptable behaviour and attitude towards a work colleague. This may sound simple on the termination letter as there was no much details provided. But to be more specific and detailed on this "unacceptable behaviour, on the afternoon of 7th July 2016 Michael Guenther was out of control yelling and swearing to his female work colleague with those foul languages that I witnessed myself which led to his dismissal and termination of employment.”

[6] The material filed by both Mr Guenther and MasterGlass added much more detail to the conduct of Mr Guenther which led to his dismissal.

[7] Mr Guenther’s witness statement described events on 7 July 2016 as follows:

“11. On Thursday, 7 July 2016, after receiving feedback via email from a builder on a project we were working on, I passed this email and verbal advice onto a co-worker, Michelle, whose role it was to prepare drawings and create production information. She did not react well to this feedback, criticising me for passing it to her. The argument became heated quickly, and as I returned to my office and sat down in an attempt to avoid further confrontation, she followed to my doorway, continuing to raise her voice to which I responded the same. It escalated for a brief moment into a load verbal argument involving some swearing by both of us before being interrupted by another fellow co-worker, Vicki Walker, who suggested we cease arguing immediately. We both did this, with Michelle returning to her desk and we continued working. This type of exchange was very out of character for me, due to the immense workload and pressure at the time, and at no stage did I intimidate, stand over or threaten my co- worker in any way.”

[8] Mr Gillies’ witness statement described the same events differently as follows:

“11. The Applicant witness statement for Item 11 was partially correct. However, the employee (Michelle) who was involved in the incident lodged a complaint to Boronia Police Station on her own accord as per attached copy of statement and witnessed by another co-employee who was present at the time of incident on 07 July 2016.
NOTE: As the Applicant stated that his behavior was “out of character”, this is incorrect as an altercation also occurred a week prior with the same employee.”

12. Contrary to the Applicant witness statement for Item 12, Michael was in a such rage and adjusting the events for his own convenience. He was out of control yelling and swearing to his female work colleague (Michelle) with foul languages that I heard myself which led to his dismissal and termination of employment.”

[9] The conduct of Mr Guenther on 7 July 2016 occurred in the context of his conduct towards the same employee a week earlier. Mr Gillies in answer to questions from the Commission described that earlier incident as follows:

PN507. ….it was discussed the week prior, that he had the same altercation with her but I wasn't there. But I only heard from other members in the office that did hear it and to say that there was no verbal warning or anything like - or a written warning. Michael and I spoke about the altercation that he with Michelle only a week prior.

PN510. THE COMMISSIONER: What did you say?

PN511. MR GILLIES: Well, I said "You can't speak to people like that, Michael".

PN513. MR GILLIES: You can't speak - you can't be raising your voice and call people - using those words in the office, it's just wrong. You can't be doing it. I let him explain the actual circumstance in which the argument or the substance come from. That girl didn't show up to work for two days after that incident. It's put down as other items, but she didn't show up for two days, she was affected by it. So there was a discussion with somebody who I felt needed to have the discussion about where that line is that you speak about.

[10] The actual language used by Mr Guenther was described by Michelle, the employee who was subjected to it, in her statement to the police made on 8 July 2016 as follows:

“Incident Report

MASTERGLASS & ALUMINIUM

I was verbally assaulted and bullied by my ex colleague Michael Guenther in two occasions at Masterglass Office at 14121 Power road Bayswater. First time was Last Week Wednesday 29tn of June 2016 when I was asking him about details on his quotation, I need to know details how the job was priced because I am doing the shop drawings for that project he's asked me back why I need the document and said he's already told me that It will be a Centre glazed framing which was contradicting the quote he submitted to the builder. I said "l need the document to justify my drawings" and his response was this "I am not f…..g explaining this to you just draw it, get on with it, get on with it", I immediately informed our boss Jamie Gillies of what happened. The following day I took a carer's leave due to my son's sickness so I just left it with Jaime.

Second Time was Yesterday 7tn of July. Due to the ambiguity of the detail of the framing My Boss Jaime Gillies instructed me to email the builder to acknowledge the frame type system, I copy furnished all people involved including him Michael Guenther at 1:17 pm. Just before 4:00pm approximately 3:50pm, he came into my room and said "l don't know what you are trying to achieve here, it's already in this file and email cc'd to you that is centre glazed, the company will look silly because of you asking too many times", I replied "I have to do my job and follow the boss's instruction and there's no harm asking the builder If you have problems with that talk to the boss" and he went off his rocket and said "Shut the f..k up bitch! You f…..g bitch! F..k off, Shut the f..k up". I still maintained my composure act professionally and just told him you are the rudest person I have ever work with, the boss doesn't speak to me like that what makes you think that you have the right to assault people like that, the boss came and said "That is enough", and left him with the boss. I was totally devastated hearing cruel words from him just because I was doing my job. I was shaking and traumatised. So I took off at 4'.10 pm and went home to my husband. I was shaking for a few hours due to anger and mistreatment by my ex colleague Michael Guenther has caused me, My Husband calmed me down but still did not settle and lost sleep because of it.”

[11] The Commission has sanitised the above statement as it is not necessary for the purposes of this decision to have the words in full.

[12] The statement of Michelle to the police only has Mr Guenther using abusive language but Mr Guenther, in answer to questions from the Commission identified that the objectionable language was used by both.

“PN636. THE COMMISSIONER: So the language that's in the first paragraph in the third last line. Did you use that language?

PN637. MR GUENTHER: Correct, yes I did. Can I just point out that on both incidents there was language going both ways. I just didn't feel it was verbal assault so I didn't report it to the police, that's all.

PN638. THE COMMISSIONER: Yes. Did you use the language that's described in the second paragraph?

PN639. MR GUENTHER: Once again yes, there was very similar language going both ways between myself and Michelle, so - which Vicky that's attending here did witness and asked the both of us to cease. So I completely agree with Michelle's statement there but I once again don't feel that justifies gross misconduct. In my five and half years history there my language had to be very acceptable dealing with the builders, dealing with the public, which it generally was. So if those are the only two examples in five and a half years where I've used a word like that, I'm quite happy with that.

and

PN654. THE COMMISSIONER: Is it appropriate language in any workplace?

PN655. MR GUENTHER: To be honest I prefer - no, I'd agreed it's not, I'd prefer it's not but after listening to that sort of language common in the workplace for five and a half years it's slipping out a couple of times myself, yes. I don't feel it's a major, I didn't stand out as being one that used language compared to most in the workplace. In my job I couldn't use that language as I was dealing with commercial buildings, commercial estimators, contract managers, that language is not accepted. You're right, it's probably going a little bit too far but as I pointed out the language did go both ways, I just didn't go and make a police report about it as I didn't feel it was verbal assault as Michelle seems to have read from that. There was nothing personal in the attack, there was nothing - it was purely a work related as you can see with the language that slipped in.”

[13] Mr Gillies admitted that inappropriate language was used in the office.

“PN483. THE COMMISSIONER: Part of the case advanced by Mr Guenther is that language - inappropriate language is used in the office.

PN484. MR GILLIES: Around women?

PN485. THE COMMISSIONER: Well - - -

PN486. MR GILLIES: Excessively. You know, we are a small business - - -

PN487. THE COMMISSIONER: So is this an exercise where the language used by Mr Guenther was excessive?

PN488. MR GILLIES: I would think so, sir, yes.

PN489. THE COMMISSIONER: So if had have used less aggressive or less excessive language it would have been tolerated?

PN490. MR GILLIES: That could be grounds for saying yes. It's okay to have a dispute, I get that, they're sometimes healthy. But the choice of words was inappropriate.

PN491. THE COMMISSIONER: Are any of the words used, used by other people in the office, even if they're used without aggression?

PN492. MR GILLIES: That's a really tough question.

PN493. THE COMMISSIONER: It's a good question though.

PN494. MR GILLIES: It's a great question but - is the F bomb dropped? Yes, it's dropped.

PN495. THE COMMISSIONER: Fine.

PN496. MR GILLIES: It is dropped, yes.

PN497. THE COMMISSIONER: That's tolerated as long - if it's not aggressive?

PN498. MR GILLIES: In jest, Commissioner. I think there's a time when you can use it.”

[14] In the context of this matter Mr Guenther admits using the language attributed to him but contends that Michelle also used inappropriate language. Mr Guenther was warned not to use inappropriate language only a week before his dismissal yet the language he admits using on 7 July 2016 is much more abusive than the language he used a week earlier and for which he had been warned not to use. The fact that Mr Guenther, after having been warned not to, used even more abusive language to the same employee is significant.

[15] MasterGlass must satisfy the Commission that it had a valid reason for the dismissal of Mr Guenther. In its context in s.387(a), the adjective "valid" should be given the meaning of sound, defensible or well founded. A reason which is capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced could never be a valid reason for the purposes of s.387(a). 1

[16] In the context of the present matter a reason for the dismissal of Mr Guenther based upon the language he used a week after having been warned not to use such language gives rise to a valid reason for his dismissal.

[17] I note that MasterGlass relied on the conduct of Mr Guenther in attending the workplace on 8 July 2016 and in using an android device to access the MasterGlass cloud data storage system as giving rise to a valid reason for dismissal because, it was alleged, Mr Guenther stole intellectual property from MasterGlass when he accessed the data base.

[18] On 8 July 2016 Mr Gillies attended the Boronia Police Station and made a formal complaint against Mr Guenther in which he accused Mr Guenther of theft of intellectual property of MasterGlass.

[19] During the hearing of this matter the Commission questioned both Mr Guenther and Mr Gillies about Mr Guenther’s conduct on the evening of 7 July 2016 and on morning of 8 July 2016.

[20] Nothing put to the Commission could satisfy the Commission on the balance of probabilities that Mr Guenther engaged in any theft of intellectual property of MasterGlass. Whilst Mr Guenther’s use of his personal android device to access the cloud storage system for MasterGlass was unwise, I accept that he did so in order to update his work files and not to steal intellectual property from MasterGlass. The conflicting positions between Mr Guenther and Mr Gillies as to when the dismissal was notified to Mr Guenther meant that Mr Guenther considered himself to still be employed by MasterGlass when he used his android device and when he attended the office on 8 July 2016.

[21] Mr Guenther’s honesty in admitting the use of abusive language supports his contention that he was unaware that he had been dismissed until he received the letter of 8 July 2016.

[22] To the extent that MasterGlass relies on the conduct of Mr Guenther using his android device to access the cloud database of MasterGlass to allege that Mr Guenther stole intellectual property of MasterGlass, that reason could not be a valid reason for dismissal. As a reason for dismissal it is very clearly not sound, nor is it defensible nor is it well founded.

[23] In all of the circumstances of the present matter MasterGlass had a valid reason for the dismissal of Mr Guenther in that he used extremely abusive language to a fellow employee a week after having been warned not to use such language towards the same employee.

The procedures followed in effecting the dismissal

[24] Section 387 of the Act requires the Commission to take into account a number of factors which all relate to the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal of Mr Guenther in considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. The relevant provisions of s.387 are as follows:

“(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;”

[25] The procedure followed by MasterGlass in effecting the dismissal of Mr Guenther reflected the view taken by MasterGlass that Mr Guenther’s conduct on 7 July 2016 constituted serious misconduct warranting summary dismissal.

[26] There is clear disagreement as to whether Mr Guenther was advised of his dismissal on 7 July 2016 or 8 July 2016 but at the very least it is clear he was advised no later than 8 July 2016.

[27] It is agreed by both Mr Guenther and Mr Gillies that a meeting occurred between them on 7 July 2016 immediately after the incident which led to Mr Guenther’s dismissal had occurred. However, each of Mr Guenther and Mr Gillies portray themself as acting rationally in that discussion and the other as acting irrationally in that discussion. It is doubtful whether, on either version of that meeting, that the meeting provided Mr Guenther with a proper opportunity to respond to the reason for his dismissal.

[28] The way in which events unfolded on 7 July 2016 it is clear that whilst Mr Guenther was not asked if he wanted a support person present at the meeting on 7 July 2016 he was not denied the opportunity to have a support person present if he had wanted one.

[29] The dismissal had nothing to do with the performance by Mr Guenther of his duties and everything to do with his conduct. The criteria in s.387(e) is not a relevant criteria in the current matter.

[30] As a relatively small business of 17 employees it is not surprising that MasterGlass does not have dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the enterprise. As the material filed and relied on by both parties clearly shows, Mr Gillies, runs the business of MasterGlass and it was his decision on 7 July 2016 to dismiss Mr Guenther.

Any other relevant matters

[31] Section 387(h) of the Act requires the Commission to take into account any other matters that the Commission considers relevant in considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

[32] There are several other matters that the Commission considers relevant in considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

[33] Firstly, the Commission considers it relevant that Mr Gillies relied on the summary dismissal provisions in the Master Glass & Aluminium Enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2015-2019 (the Agreement).

[34] It was the contention of MasterGlass that the employment of Mr Guenther with MasterGlass was covered by the terms of the Agreement and that MasterGlass relied on the terms of the Agreement to summarily dismiss Mr Guenther.

[35] The contention of MasterGlass that the employment of Mr Guenther with MasterGlass was covered by the terms of the Agreement must fail.

[36] Mr Guenther’s consistent position throughout this matter was that he was unaware of the Agreement. As he made very clear:

“I've stated all along in responses to a lot of things referring to that, I have no idea what this EBA Agreement is. I'm vaguely familiar with what an EBA is but I've never been involved with one at MasterGlass, sighted or signed one.”  2

[37] An examination of the terms of the Agreement and of the application for approval of the Agreement shows very clearly that the Agreement was never intended to cover employees such as Mr Guenther. The Statutory Declaration of Mr Gillies made in support of the application for approval of the Agreement, Form F17, identified that not all employees were to be covered by the Agreement. The employees to be covered by the Agreement were identified in the Form F17 as being, “glaziers and aluminium fabrication and glazing”. The number of employees who were identified in the Form F17 as being covered by the Agreement was 7. This is far fewer than the 17 employees which were employed at MasterGlass at the time of the dismissal.

[38] It is reasonable to conclude that the Agreement did not cover Mr Guenther and therefore Mr Gillies was wrong to rely upon the terms of the Agreement in his dismissal of Mr Guenther.

[39] Secondly, it is relevant that Mr Gillies considered that the conduct of Mr Guenther on 7 July 2016 constituted serious misconduct warranting summary dismissal.

[40] Serious misconduct is defined in s.12 of the Act as having the meaning prescribed by the regulations. Serious misconduct is defined in the Fair Work Regulations at Reg 1.07 as follows:

“1.07 Meaning of serious misconduct

(1) For the definition of serious misconduct in section 12 of the Act, serious misconduct has its ordinary meaning.

(2) For subregulation (1), conduct that is serious misconduct includes both of the following:

(a) wilful or deliberate behaviour by an employee that is inconsistent with the continuation of the contract of employment;

(b) conduct that causes serious and imminent risk to:

(i) the health or safety of a person; or
(ii) the reputation, viability or profitability of the employer’s business.

(3) For subregulation (1), conduct that is serious misconduct includes each of the following:

(a) the employee, in the course of the employee’s employment, engaging in:

(i) theft; or
(ii) fraud; or
(iii) assault;

(b) the employee being intoxicated at work;

(c) the employee refusing to carry out a lawful and reasonable instruction that is consistent with the employee’s contract of employment.

(4) Subregulation (3) does not apply if the employee is able to show that, in the circumstances, the conduct engaged in by the employee was not conduct that made employment in the period of notice unreasonable.

(5) For paragraph (3)(b), an employee is taken to be intoxicated if the employee’s faculties are, by reason of the employee being under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug (except a drug administered by, or taken in accordance with the directions of, a person lawfully authorised to administer the drug), so impaired that the employee is unfit to be entrusted with the employee’s duties or with any duty that the employee may be called upon to perform.”

[41] As unsavoury as the conduct of Mr Guenther was when he verbally abused a fellow employee on 7 July 2016, it is difficult to conclude that Mr Guenther’s conduct amounted to serious misconduct such as to warrant summary dismissal.

[42] The warning given to Mr Guenther a week before 7 July 2016 certainly was not clear as to the consequences that would or might flow if there was a repetition of Mr Guenther verbally abusing a fellow worker. 3 As Mr Gillies conceded he never said to Mr Guenther that if there was a repeat of that conduct that Mr Guenther would be dismissed.4

[43] The warning given to Mr Guenther was given in the context that Mr Gillies accepted that some use of the “F” word was acceptable in the workplace.

[44] Whilst I am satisfied that the conduct of Mr Guenther created a valid reason for his dismissal it fell short of being conduct which was incompatible with a continuation of the employment relationship such as to warrant summary dismissal.

[45] Equally, whilst I am satisfied that the abusive language directed at a fellow employee caused her some distress I am not satisfied on the material before the Commission that
Mr Guenther’s conduct amounted to conduct that causes serious and imminent risk to the health or safety of that employee.

[46] Even if the conduct of Mr Guenther in verbally abusing a fellow employee amounted to an assault on that employee for the purposes of reg.1.07(3)(a)(iii) the material before the Commission including the case put by Mr Guenther would support a finding under reg.1.07(4) that, in the circumstances, the conduct engaged in by Mr Guenther was not conduct that made employment in the period of notice unreasonable.

[47] Thirdly, I have taken into account the fact that Mr Guenther had been employed for 5 years and was considered to be an effective employee in his role.

[48] Fourthly, I have taken into account the fact that Mr Gillies tolerated the use of the “F” word in certain circumstances in the workplace.

[49] Fifthly, I have taken into account the fact that most of Mr Guenther’s work was performed away from the office and that the work he did necessarily meant that he had to interact with the office staff on a regular basis.

Conclusion

[50] Section 387 of the Act requires the Commission to take into account each of the criteria enumerated in that section when considering whether it is satisfied that the dismissal was or was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

[51] In the present matter the existence of a valid reason for the dismissal is a fact or which weighs in favour of a finding that the dismissal was neither harsh, unjust nor unreasonable.

[52] The procedures used to effect the dismissal support a finding that the dismissal was harsh.

[53] Some of the matters considered under s.387(h) support a finding that the dismissal was harsh but others support a finding that the dismissal was reasonable.

[54] No one factor can be considered in isolation from all other factors. All of the factors considered by the Commission under s.387 must be weighed against each other and the Commission must reach a conclusion.

[55] In the present matter the presence of a strong valid reason weighs very strongly in favour of a finding that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust nor unreasonable and all of the factors which weigh in favour of a finding that the dismissal was harsh are insufficient to tip the scales in favour of a finding that the dismissal was harsh.

[56] The Commission is satisfied that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

[57] The application in this matter is dismissed.

Further Observations

[58] Whilst these further observations do not form part of my decision I make them for the assistance of the parties.

[59] When Mr Guenther filed his witness statement on 16 September 2016 it contained the following statement:

“To date I have not been paid my last week’s wages, any accrued annual leave or payment in lieu of notice.”

[60] The written submissions of Mr Guenther also filed on 16 September 2016 expanded on this as follows:

“29. Exacerbating the impact of the termination of employment on Mr Guenther has been the Respondent’s continued withholding of his entitlements, including:

a) Payment in lieu of notice of four weeks’ salary;
b) Accrued annual leave of in excess of 200 hours; and
c) Ordinary wages for the period from 1 – 8 July 2016.”

[61] Mr Guenther addressed this issue during the hearing and advised the Commission that as at the hearing date wages and annual leave still had not been paid and that “Small Claims Court proceedings have just commenced”.

[62] During the hearing the Commission asked Mr Gillies about this and Mr Gillies conceded that he had chosen not to pay Mr Guenther either the wages owing or the annual leave accrued. 5

[63] Whilst at the time of the dismissal Mr Gillies considered that the conduct of
Mr Guenther amounted to serious misconduct warranting summary dismissal and for which no notice of dismissal need be given nor payment made in lieu of notice, the Commission alerted Mr Gillies to what would flow if the Commission was to determine that the conduct of
Mr Guenther did not amount to serious misconduct:

“PN315. THE COMMISSIONER: If I got to a position of deciding that the conduct of Mr Guenther warranted dismissal but not instant dismissal, then the logic of any decision like that would be it would effectively recreate an entitlement to payment in lieu of notice.

PN316. MR GILLIES: I understand.”

[64] Notwithstanding the conclusion reached by the Commission that Mr Guenther did not engage in the alleged stealing of the intellectual property of MasterGlass, it appears that
Mr Gillies is convinced that such theft occurred. Any allegation of theft is properly before the police and needs to be left with them.

[65] Mr Gillies’ actions in not paying Mr Guenther’s entitlements as a response to the allegation of theft is clearly misplaced. The two are not linked.

[66] Further, given the finding of the Commission that instant dismissal was not warranted, Mr Guenther has an entitlement to payment in lieu of notice.

[67] Both parties may save themselves from further court proceedings if they have regard to these observations.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Mr M. Guenther on his own behalf.

Mr J. Gillies on behalf of Masterglass & Aluminium Pty Ltd.

Hearing details:

2016.

Melbourne:

October 12.

 1   Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 371, 373.

 2   Transcript of proceedings at PN215.

 3   Ibid at PN510 – PN513.

 4   Ibid at PN520 PN521.

 5   Ibid at PN294 – PN307.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR586848>