Mitrevski; Department of Family and Community Services

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2001] AATA 772

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )  N2000/1517
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION          )
           Re      Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services
  Applicant
           And    Robert (Bob) Mitrevski
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr R P Handley, Deputy President

Date10 September 2001
PlaceSydney

Decision      The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a new decision imposing a rate reduction amount of 24 per cent on the Newstart Allowance paid to Mr Mitrevski for a period of 26 weeks in respect of breaches of the activity test on 28 September 1999 and 19 January 2000.
  ..............................................
  Deputy President
   Mr R P Handley
CATCHWORDS
SOCIAL SECURITY – whether Applicant left employment voluntarily in breach of activity test – whether voluntary act was reasonable – whether Applicant failed to comply with terms of Newstart Activity Agreement in failing to attend job search interview – whether failure to attend interview was reasonable and within his control

Social Security Act 1991- ss 593(1)(b)(i), 593(1)(f), 593(2A), 601(4), 626(1), 626(1A), 644AA, 644AE

Secretary, Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs v Ferguson (1997) 147 ALR 295
Walsh v Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (1998) 51 ALD 690

REASONS FOR DECISION

This is an application by the Secretary of the Department of Family and Community Services (the Department") for a review of a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal ("the SSAT") made on 21 August 2000 to set aside a decision of a delegate of the Secretary of the Department and an authorised review officer and send the matter back to the Chief Executive Officer of Centrelink with a direction that no activity test breach rate reduction period is applicable.
At the hearing on 1 June 2001, the Department was represented by Bernard Slattery of Centrelink; Mr Mitrevski represented himself. This hearing was adjourned until 3 August 2001, principally to enable Mr Mitrevski to arrange for a witness to give evidence. However, Mr Mitrevski failed to attend on that day. The evidence before the Tribunal comprised the documents produced pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ("the T Documents") together with the documents tendered by the Department. Mr Mitrevski gave oral evidence. Brian Taylor and Noel Muir gave evidence by conference telephone.
Background
Mr Mitrevski, who was born on 16 September 1969 and is aged 31, commenced employment with Mascot Engineering on 24 April 1999. He last worked for Mascot Engineering on 27 September 1999 (T8). On 16 October 1999, he lodged a claim for Newstart Allowance (T6) and, on 16 December 1999, entered into a Newstart Activity Agreement with Zorka Baraba of IPC Employment which detailed various agreed activities including attending job search interviews (T10).
On 19 January 2000, Ms Baraba notified Centrelink's office at Bankstown that Mr Mitrevski had failed to attend a job search activity interview on that day. On 27 January 2000, a Centrelink Officer cancelled payment of Newstart allowance to Mr Mitrevski from 27 January 2000, alleging this was the third activity test breach in the last two years (T16). On 5 May 2000, this decision was reviewed by an authorised review officer who varied the decision on the basis of her finding that Mr Mitrevski had only breached the activity test twice in the previous two years and, therefore, a 24 per cent reduction in the rate of Newstart allowance payable would apply for a period of 26 weeks from 27 September 1999 to 26 March 2000 (T23).
On 21 August 2000, the SSAT set aside this decision on the ground that it was satisfied that Mr Mitrevski did not fail to take reasonable steps to comply with the terms of his Newstart Activity Agreement as his reasons for non-compliance were not within his control and not foreseeable. The SSAT therefore concluded that no activity test breach reduction period should be applied (T2). On 28 September 2000, the Department lodged an application for a review by this Tribunal (T1).
The applicable sections of the Social Security Act 1991 ("the Act") are discussed below.
Mr Mitrevski's Evidence
Mr Mitrevski said he was employed by Mascot Engineering from April to September 1999 as a forklift driver and storeman. This included putting together orders and loading and unloading trucks. He said it was a good job. In the last month, he started taking days off work because he was having "girlfriend troubles". He acknowledged that this was not reasonable.
The last day he worked for Mascot Engineering was Monday 27 September 1999. When he got home from work, he found that the house had been broken into and various things stolen. The glass panel in the front door was broken and one of the hinges was damaged. The thieves stole various electronic goods including 2 videos, stereos and a cordless phone as well as CDs. They also damaged an upstairs sliding screen door.
Mr Mitrevski lives in the house with his father, who is now aged 61, and his brother. His father is unemployed having been made redundant in 1994 – just two weeks ago he received a compensation cheque for an injury to his arm when he worked as a carpenter. His brother works as a Sales Manager.
After the break in, they contacted the police and their insurance company. A representative of the insurance company came the next day. Mr Mitrevski thought the police eventually came the following day. He wanted to be present when the insurance representative and the police came because his father has limited English literacy skills and Mr Mitrevski had the technical details of the goods which had been stolen. His father could not have provided these details although Mr Mitrevski acknowledged he could have prepared a list. However, Mr Mitrevski said, he was stressed out.
On the morning of Tuesday 28 September 1999, Mr Mitrevski went to work and told Mr Muir, the Works Manager, he needed a few days off because his house had been broken into. Mr Muir said he should speak to Mr Taylor, the Managing Director, but he was not there. On that day, after the insurance representative had visited the house, his father fixed the front door, replacing the broken glass and repairing the hinge. However, they had to get someone in to repair the upstairs sliding screen door.
Mr Mitrevski said he went back to Mascot Engineering on the Thursday or Friday of that week when he discovered he had not been paid. About the next Monday or Tuesday (4 or 5 October), he went in but Mr Taylor was still either busy or not in. He finally saw Mr Taylor about the Thursday or Friday of that week (7 or 8 October), who said he did not know what Mr Mitrevski was doing. Mr Mitrevski said he indicated that he did want his job back but apparently Mr Taylor was not receptive and, ultimately, Mr Mitrevski told him to "stuff his job".
Mr Mitrevski said he complained to the NSW Department of Industrial Relations when he did not get paid his full entitlements. He agreed that he did receive further payments from Mascot Engineering on 6 and 13 October 1999. He said the reference to a payment he had received from an industrial tribunal was to about $2,000 he received after he was made redundant by the Water Board in 1995.
With regard to his Newstart Activity agreement, Mr Mitrevski agreed that he had signed the Agreement with Zorka Baraba of IPC Employment on 16 December 1999. Mr Mitrevski next went into IPC's office on Wednesday 12 January 2000. He was there for 30 minutes to one hour, during which time he looked at jobs advertised in the newspapers. With about 3 other people, he had a brief meeting with Ms Baraba. When she asked him what sort of job he wanted, he told her to check out his resume, a copy of which she already had, which would make it clear what sort of job he wanted. After a brief discussion, when Mr Mitrevski told her he had various "tickets", she told him to go home and that he did not need to go there again. He questioned this because he thought it might lead to trouble with his Social Security payments, having experienced a similar problem before. However, she confirmed this advice, something which was witnessed by the 3 or so other people present. He met one of these people at a computer course about three weeks ago and this man, whose name Mr Mitrevski cannot remember although he lives close to Mr Mitrevski, gave Mr Mitrevski a lift home. Mr Mitrevski said he would try and contact this man so that he could give evidence as to what occurred at this meeting with Ms Baraba.
Mr Mitrevski denied there had been any conflict with Ms Baraba although he told the Tribunal that she was very young – about 21 - and inexperienced for this sort of position. Mr Mitrevski said that on the basis of Ms Baraba's advice, he did not attend IPC for a job search interview on Wednesday 19 January 2000. He did, however, attend the Bankstown office of Centrelink on Tuesday 18 January 2000, where he was interviewed by a "dark skinned lady" who asked him what he was doing to try and find work.
In answer to a question, Mr Mitrevski said his perfect job would be another government job. He said he was not prepared to do the minimum "scum" job but would consider other non-government work such as that with Mascot Engineering. He would prefer a government job because he would "never get shafted" and there was the possibility of training. However, he was prepared to take a job at award wages.
Brian Taylor's evidence
Brian Taylor, the Managing Director of Mascot Engineering, gave evidence by conference telephone. Mr Taylor said that Noel Muir is the Works Manager of Mascot Engineering and dealt with Mr Mitrevski on a day to day basis while he was employed there.
Mr Taylor confirmed that, in his view, Mr Mitrevski had left their employment of his own accord. Mr Taylor's view was also confirmed by the contents of his letter to the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business dated 17 January 2000 (A1). Mr Taylor said he spoke to Mr Mitrevski on Thursday 30 September 1999 in his office when Mr Mitrevski queried the non-payment of his wages. Mr Taylor said that according to the M.E.A.I. Award under which Mr Mitrevski was employed, an employee has 14 days to clarify why he was absent from work. This was the reason for non-payment of Mr Mitrevski's wages on 30 September – the fact that Mr Mitrevski had been absent from work without notification. Mr Taylor said he did not sack Mr Mitrevski.
Mr Taylor was referred to copies of Mascot Engineering's weekly payroll (A1). He confirmed that the balance of Mr Mitrevski's wages had been paid on 6 October 1999 and his annual leave entitlement on 13 October 1999. Mr Taylor said he did not see Mr Mitrevski again on any occasion after 30 September 1999, and that on 30 September Mr Mitrevski did not challenge the circumstances of his leaving.
Noel Muir's Evidence
Noel Muir, the Works Manager of Mascot Engineering, also gave evidence by conference telephone. Mr Muir said that he was chasing up Mr Mitrevski all the time to get him to do his work. He said Mr Mitrevski was always using his mobile phone at work. Mr Muir said Mr Mitrevski had left work voluntarily. Had he returned to work, he would have continued to be employed.
Mr Muir remembered Mr Mitrevski telling him that he had to go home early because his house had been broken into. Mr Muir thought this incident had occurred sometime before Mr Mitrevski left Mascot Engineering. Over the period before Mr Mitrevski left, he had given many excuses as to why he could not come to work.
Submissions
The Department
Mr Slattery, for the Department, said the SSAT decision under review was unsatisfactory because it was confused. It omitted to refer to s 628 of the Act, one of the key sections in this matter. Mr Slattery said the amount of money involved in the reduction in the rate of Newstart Allowance paid to Mr Mitrevski was between $800 and $900.
Mr Slattery said there are two principal issues in this matter. First, did Mr Mitrevski breach the activity test for Mascot Engineering voluntarily? Mr Slattery referred to s 628 of the Act which provides for the application of an activity test breach rate reduction period where a person leaves his or her employment voluntarily and the Secretary is not satisfied the person's voluntary act was reasonable.
The second issue is whether Mr Mitrevski failed to comply with the terms of his Newstart Activity Agreement, and thereby breached the "activity test", by reason of his failure to attend a job search interview on Wednesday 19 January 2000. Where a person fails to take reasonable steps to comply with an agreement s 626(1) of the Act provides that Newstart Allowance is not payable to the person.
With regard to the first issue, and whether Mr Mitrevski left his employment voluntarily, Mr Slattery referred to Mr Taylor's and Mr Muir's evidence which he said was consistent with the documentary evidence. Mr Slattery submitted that there was no evidence that Mr Mitrevski was dismissed. Mr Mitrevski had agreed that his attendance at work towards the end of his period of employment was not good. Mr Slattery contended that after Mr Mitrevski's house had been broken into, his father could have secured the house and dealt with the insurance representative and the police. Clearly, it was Mr Mitrevski's preference to deal with these matters himself but Mr Slattery could not understand why this required that he take 3 days off work.
Mr Slattery said Mr Mitrevski left his employment with Mascot Engineering of his own accord without any good reason. Given Mr Mitrevski's attendance pattern, Mascot Engineering were considerate employers. They did not say he was sacked and although, Mr Slattery acknowledged, Mr Mitrevski did not say he was leaving, he did leave by failing to attend for work. He abandoned his employment and this was not reasonable in the circumstances. Thus, s 628 of the Act applied.
With respect to the second issue, namely whether Mr Mitrevski failed to comply with the terms of his Newstart Activity Agreement by reasons of his failure to attend the IPC Employment job search interview on Wednesday 19 January 2000, Mr Slattery submitted that the SSAT had misread the evidence. Firstly, there was no requirement that IPC notify Mr Mitrevski of the interview arranged for 19 January 2000. Rather, the second term of the schedule to Mr Mitrevski's Newstart Activity Agreement (T10) required that Mr Mitrevski attend IPC Employment weekly on Wednesdays from 10am to 12pm to participate in a job search interview.
Secondly, the SSAT mistakenly thought Mr Mitrevski had attended IPC Employment on 18 January 2000. It was clear from the evidence that Mr Mitrevski in fact attended Centrelink's Bankstown office on that day and not IPC Employment's office (T24, A2 and A3).
Mr Slattery referred the Tribunal to the requirement that a person take reasonable steps to comply with the terms of their Newstart Activity Agreement, and the explanation of reasonable in s 593(2A) of the Act. With regard to whether Mr Mitrevski's failure to comply with his Agreement by not attending IPC Employment on 19 January 2000 was within Mr Mitrevski's control, Mr Slattery suggested this was a matter of Mr Mitrevski's frame of mind at the time of the interview on 12 January 2000. Mr Slattery noted that, at the hearing, Mr Mitrevski has shown difficulty in both listening and taking direction.
Mr Slattery referred to Zorka Baraba's account of what occurred on 12 January 2000 (T17), which indicated Mr Mitrevski had been both critical of IPC Employment and involved in a dispute with another jobseeker. There was nothing to suggest that IPC Employment had either told Mr Mitrevski that he need have not further dealings with them, or that he did not have to attend on 19 January 2000. There was no evidence to suggest that Mr Mitrevski sought to clarify his obligation after the interview on 12 January 2000 and it was certainly within his control to attend for interview on 19 January 2000.
Mr Slattery submitted that Zorka Baraba's notification to Centrelink of a possible breach by Mr Mitrevski for non-attendance on 19 January 2000 was reasonable and that the Department's decision to impose a breach was correct. Mr Slattery noted that if the Tribunal found that Mr Mitrevski left his previous employment voluntarily, a breach for non-attendance on 19 January 2000 constituted a second activity test breach.
Mr Mitrevski
With regard to the first issue, whether he left his employment with Mascot Engineering voluntarily, Mr Mitrevski said Mr Taylor's and Mr Muir's evidence was incorrect as to when they saw him after 27 September 1999. Mr Mitrevski emphasised that Mr Muir had told him on 28 September 1999, when he asked for a few days off work following his house being broken into, that he would have to see Mr Taylor about this. When Mr Mitrevski eventually saw Mr Taylor, Mr Taylor did not say that he was sacked. He had said that Mr Mitrevski "had left".
Mr Mitrevski disputed that he had "just left". He had not said "I'm leaving" and had indicated that he wanted his job back.
With regard to the second issue, Mr Mitrevski said he had not attended for an interview at IPC Employment on 19 January 2000 because, on 12 January 2000, Zorka Baraba told him to go home and that he need not go there again.
Consideration of Law and Evidence
The Tribunal agrees with the Department's submission that there are two principal issues to be determined in this case. The first issue is whether Mr Mitrevski breached the "activity test" by leaving his employment with Mascot Engineering voluntarily. Section 628 of the Act states:
If:
(a) a person's unemployment is due, either directly or indirectly, to a voluntary act of the person (the voluntary act ); and
(b) the Secretary is not satisfied that the person's voluntary act was reasonable;
then:
(c) if the voluntary act is the person's first or second activity test breach in the 2 years immediately before the day after the voluntary act—an activity test breach rate reduction period applies to the person; or
(d) if the voluntary act is the person's third or subsequent activity test breach in the 2 years immediately before the day after the voluntary act—an activity test non-payment period applies to the person.

This Tribunal must determine whether the termination of Mr Mitrevski's employment with Mascot Engineering was due either directly or indirectly, to his voluntary act, and, if so, whether that voluntary act was reasonable.
The Tribunal finds, relying on Mr Mitrevski's evidence, that Mr Mitrevski's house was broken into on or about Monday 27 September 1999, and that on the morning of Tuesday 28 September, he went to work and asked Mr Muir, the Works Manager, for a few days off. Mr Muir told him to see Mr Taylor, the Managing Director, who was not available at that time. Mr Mitrevski then absented himself from his employment until Thursday 30 September when he went to enquire why his wages had not been paid into his bank account.
Mr Mitrevski's evidence was that he did not see Mr Taylor on this occasion but rather about a week later. Mr Taylor's evidence was that he saw Mr Mitrevski on Thursday 30 September when Mr Mitrevski enquired about his wages. Mr Taylor's evidence was that he did not sack Mr Mitrevski; Mr Mitrevski left of his own accord. Mr Mitrevski's evidence was that when he spoke with Mr Taylor, he indicated he wanted his job back but Mr Taylor was unreceptive and so he told him to "stuff the job". The Tribunal finds the background to Mr Mitrevski's taking the time off work after the break-in was one of Mr Mitrevski having taken other days off work because, in his words, he was having "girlfriend troubles". Mr Muir also referred to his having to chase up Mr Mitrevski to do his work because he was always using his mobile phone.

In the Tribunal's view, the overall picture is one of Mr Mitrevski leaving this employment of his own accord. As was illustrated in his conduct at the Tribunal hearing, he is prone to bursts of anger, and Mr Mitrevski's own evidence was that he told Mr Taylor to "stuff his job". Having found that Mr Mitrevski's termination of employment was due to his voluntary act, the Tribunal must determine whether Mr Mitrevski's act was reasonable.
While Mr Mitrevski was obviously anxious after his house had been broken into, the Tribunal finds it hard to accept that three days absence from work was necessary. Mr Mitrevski's evidence was that his father who was unemployed at the time, had secured the house on the next day after the insurance representative had inspected the premises and, despite limited English literacy skills, would have been capable of dealing with the insurance representative and the police when they came to visit the scene. It would also have been possible for Mr Mitrevski to provide details of the goods stolen by way of a written list. His presence at the time of the visits was not essential especially after Tuesday 28 September 1999. Thus, in the Tribunal's view, Mr Mitrevski's voluntary act in leaving his employment was not reasonable.
The consequence of this is that since this was the first activity test breach in the 2 years immediately preceding, in accordance with s 628(c) of the Act, an activity test breach rate reduction period applied to Mr Mitrevski from 28 September 1999.
The second issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether Mr Mitrevski failed to comply with the terms of his Newstart Activity Agreement and thereby breached the "activity test", by reason of his failure to attend a job search interview with IPC Employment on Wednesday 19 January 2000.
In order to qualify for Newstart Allowance in respect of the relevant period, s 593(1)(b)(i) of the Act requires that Mr Mitrevski must have both satisfied the activity test and have taken reasonable steps to comply with the terms of his Newstart Activity Agreement: s 593(1)(f). Section 601(4) also states that a person satisfies the activity test if, throughout the period, the person is taking reasonable steps to comply with the terms of his/her Newstart Activity Agreement.
Section 593(2A) of the Act explains what is meant by "reasonable steps":
593(2A) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(f) or (2)(f), a person is taking reasonable steps to comply with the terms of a Newstart Activity Agreement unless the person has failed to comply with the terms of the agreement and:
(a) the main reason for failing to comply involved a matter that was within the person's control; or
(b) the circumstances that prevented the person from complying were reasonably foreseeable by the person.

A similar explanation of reasonable steps appears in s 601(b) of the Act.

The approach to be adopted in applying a similar provision to s 593(2A) in the Employment Services Act 1994 was discussed by Mansfield J in Secretary, Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs v Ferguson (1997) 147 ALR 295. A summary of that approach was given by Nicholson J in Walsh v Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (1998) 51 ALD 690 at 694:
in deciding whether a person is taking reasonable steps to comply with the terms of an agreement, decision-maker is bound to take into account the following factors:
(i) whether the person has failed to comply with the terms of the agreement.
(ii)whether, in the event of a failure to comply with the agreement the main reasons for failing to comply involved a matter within the person's control.
(iii)whether, in the event of a failure to comply with the agreement the main reason for failing to comply involved a matter that was not within the person's control, whether the circumstances that prevented the person from complying were reasonably foreseeable by the person.
(iv)whether, notwithstanding a failure to comply with the agreement which was either within the person's control or reasonably foreseeable by the person, the person can show that he is taking reasonable steps to comply with the terms of the agreement.
Applying this approach in the present case, first the Tribunal finds Mr Mitrevski failed to comply with the terms of his Newstart Activity Agreement (T16). The relevant term of the Agreement was:
WEEKLY WEDNESDAY 10am – 12pm.
Attend and fully participate in job search interviews with provider.
Mr Mitrevski did not attend IPC Employment for such an interview on Wednesday 19 January 2000 and was, therefore, in breach of his Agreement.
Second, the Tribunal notes Mr Mitrevski's explanation for not complying which is that on 12 January 2000 he was told by Zorka Baraba, his Case Manager at IPC Employment, that he should go home and need not attend again. This differs from the account given by Ms Baraba in her letter to Centrelink about the possible breach, faxed on 2 February 2000 (T17). Ms Baraba described a dispute with another jobseeker, and Mr Mitrevski speaking in a raised voice:
The client consistently speaks at a raised level without pauses…. The client persistently speaks of the same issues and does not appear to have active listening skills.

She stated that she requested the client leave for the day, as he was highly disruptive to the jobsearch meeting.

The Tribunal's experience of Mr Mitrevski at the hearing on 1 June 2001 was of many instances of his speaking in a raised voice, getting angry and swearing in an intimidating manner. He was reluctant to listen to Mr Slattery or the Tribunal and interrupted on a regular basis.
In the Tribunal's view, Ms Baraba's account of what happened on 12 January 2000 is consistent with Mr Mitrevski's manner as observed by the Tribunal. The most likely explanation for Mr Mitrevski's belief that he did not need to attend for a weekly interview on 19 January 2000 is that he did not listen to or misinterpreted what Ms Baraba said. In the Tribunal's view, it is unlikely that she would tell him that he did not need to come in again to IPC Employment in the future.
Was Mr Mitrevski's failure to listen to or misinterpreting of what Ms Baraba said a matter which within his control? To the extent that he could control his own actions, the answer should be 'yes'. However, even if this was not within his control, then applying the third limb of Nicholson J's exposition in Walsh (supra), these circumstances should have been reasonably foreseeable to Mr Mitrevski. In any case, he should have checked his understanding of what Ms Baraba said afterwards. For example, he could have phoned to check whether he was required to attend an interview on 19 January 2000. But he did not do so.
Lastly, notwithstanding the second and third limbs, did Mr Mitrevski show that he was taking reasonable steps to comply with the terms of the agreement? The Tribunal has no doubt that Mr Mitrevski wants to work. However, his evidence at the hearing and Ms Baraba's letter to Centrelink (T17) describing what occurred on 12 January 2000, suggest that he is not receptive to advice from others, tends not to listen, and is prone to be belligerent. He also appears to think poorly of private employers, preferring "government work" (T17), and is dismissive of what he referred to as minimum "scum" jobs at the hearing. Thus, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Mitrevski had not shown that he was taking reasonable steps to comply with the terms of his Agreement.
Consequently, in the Tribunal's view, Mr Mitrevski was not taking reasonable steps to comply with the terms of his Newstart Activity Agreement when he failed to attend for an interview on 19 January 2000. Therefore, the Department acted correctly in applying an activity test breach rate reduction period to Mr Mitrevski under s 626(1A) of the Act. Since failure to comply with his Agreement constituted Mr Mitrevski's second breach within 2 years, this gave rise to a 24% rate reduction for a period of 26 weeks, in accordance with ss 644AE and 644AA respectively.
The Tribunal notes that the SSAT (T2) mistakenly believed that Mr Mitrevski should have been notified of the interview with IPC Employment on 19 January 2000. The Newstart Activity Agreement, by requiring attendance for a jobsearch interview weekly on Wednesdays from 12pm to 2pm, did not necessitate further notification. Secondly, the interview which Mr Mitrevski attended on 18 January 2000 was with Centrelink at Bankstown and not IPC Employment.
The Tribunal therefore decides to set aside the decision of the SSAT made on 21 August 2000 and substitute a new decision imposing a rate reduction amount of 24 per cent on the Newstart Allowance paid to Mr Mitrevski for a period of 26 weeks.
I certify that the 54 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr R P Handley, Deputy President
Signed:         .....................................................................................
           Amelia Montague
           Associate
Dates of Hearing  1 June and 3 August 2001
Date of Decision  7 September 2001
Representative for the Applicant   Self-represented
Representative for the Respondent        Mr B Slattery, Dept of Family and Community Services

[2001] AATA 772

10 September 2001

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Social Security Law

Legal Concepts

Social Security Act 1991

Activity Test

Breach of Contract

Reasonable Steps

Unconscionable Conduct