Mr Anthony Mora v QUBE Pty Ltd T/A QUBE Ports

[2014] FWC 1042

[2014] FWC 1042

The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 14 February 2014.

The document has been edited to correct a typographical error in Endnote 5.

Carolyn Jurott

Associate to Deputy President Asbury

Dated 17 February 2014

[2014] FWC 1042

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Anthony Mora
v
QUBE Pty Ltd T/A QUBE Ports
(U2012/16511)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY BRISBANE, 14 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for unfair dismissal remedy - arbitration - remedy.

Background

[1] On 13 September 2013, I released a decision finding that Mr Anthony Mora was unfairly dismissed by QUBE Pty Ltd T/A QUBE Ports (QUBE) 1. As neither party called evidence in relation to remedy, they were directed to advise, following the release of that decision, whether they wished to make further submissions and/or call evidence in relation to this matter.

[2] Further submissions and statements of evidence about the issue of remedy have been filed. Mr Mora provided two statements in relation to remedy. A statement was also provided by Mr Greg Nugent, Queensland State Manger of QUBE. The parties have indicated that they do not wish to cross-examine persons who provided statements. Those statements and the submissions have been taken into account to determine the issue of remedy.

[3] By virtue of s.390(1) of the Act the Fair Work Commission can order reinstatement or the payment of compensation to a person if the Commission is satisfied that the person is protected from unfair dismissal at the time of being dismissed, and has been unfairly dismissed. Further, s.390(2) provides that an order can only be made if the person has made an application under s.394. Section 390(3) provides that:

“390(3) The FWC must not order the payment of compensation to the person unless:

(a) the FWC is satisfied that reinstatement of the person is inappropriate; and

(b) the FWC considers an order for payment of compensation is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.”

[4] Reinstatement is the primary remedy, in circumstances where an employee demonstrates that he or she has been unfairly dismissed. 2

[5] It is not in dispute that Mr Mora was a person protected from unfair dismissal at the time he was dismissed. I have determined that Mr Mora was unfairly dismissed, and he has made an application under s.394 of the Act. Mr Mora should have a remedy for his unfair dismissal. Mr Mora seeks reinstatement and further orders to maintain the continuity of his service and to restore lost pay. In the alternative, Mr Mora seeks compensation for his unfair dismissal.

Is reinstatement inappropriate?

[6] It is necessary to first consider whether reinstatement is inappropriate. The approach to determining the appropriateness of reinstatement as a remedy can be summarised as follows:

● There must be sufficient trust to make the employment relationship viable and productive;
● An assertion by the employer that trust and confidence has been destroyed must be soundly and rationally based;
● A mistaken belief on the part of the employer that an employee has engaged in wrongdoing is likely to be short lived and does not indicate a loss of trust and confidence sufficient to make the restoration of the employment relationship inappropriate.
● Embarrassment and inconvenience associated with reinstating an employee that the employer believes has engaged in wrongdoing will not make reinstatement inappropriate where the dismissal was procedurally or substantively unfair. 3

[7] Where the employee has engaged in misconduct - particularly serious misconduct - such that there is a valid reason for dismissal, damage to the employment relationship is inevitable, although this is not necessarily determinative of the appropriateness of reinstatement. 4 The question of whether the relationship between an employer and an employee who has been unfairly dismissed can be restored must be considered in light of all of the circumstances, and not solely the views of the employer.5

[8] In the present case, QUBE submits that it has lost trust and confidence in Mr Mora, on the basis that the Commission found that he failed to adhere to a significant aspect of a safety procedure and that this affected the safety and welfare of other employees of QUBE, so that there was a valid reason for his dismissal. This submission is supported by the evidence of Mr Greg Nugent, State Manager of QUBE.

[9] Mr Nugent points to the fact that Mr Mora did not comply with QUBE’s Safe Work Method Statement by failing to maintain visual and verbal contact with a co-worker, resulting in an injury to a co-worker that could have been fatal. QUBE also points to the fact that Mr Mora continued to assert in his evidence to the Commission that he received a signal from the employee who was injured in the incident, and the Commission’s finding that this did not occur.

[10] I accept QUBE’s submission and the evidence of Mr Nugent on this matter. In circumstances where the safety breach was found to be a valid reason for dismissal, and where Mr Mora and other employees of QUBE knew that the maintenance of visual and verbal contact at all times when they are working in the safe area is a significant aspect of the Safe Work Method Statement, reinstatement would not be appropriate. Further, Mr Mora made a significant contribution to the incident and to the injury sustained by his co-worker.

[11] Further, Mr Mora repeatedly failed to provide a reasonable response to QUBE during its investigation of the incident, when questioned about who gave him a signal. Although no finding of dishonesty on the part of Mr Mora was made by the Commission, it is the case that he maintained that he had received a signal from the co-worker, in circumstances where on balance, I was unable to be satisfied that this was the case, given that Mr Mora had lost sight of that co-worker.

[12] It is also relevant that the finding that Mr Mora was unfairly dismissed was based on the failure of QUBE to consider some mitigating circumstances, and not the lack of a valid reason for the dismissal.

[13] For these reasons, I am satisfied that reinstatement is inappropriate. I also consider that on the basis that Mr Mora’s dismissal was unfair, an order for compensation is appropriate.

Legislation

[14] Section 392 of the Act provides as follows in relation to the remedy of compensation:

“392 Remedy—compensation

Compensation

(1) An order for the payment of compensation to a person must be an order that the person’s employer at the time of the dismissal pay compensation to the person in lieu of reinstatement.

Criteria for deciding amounts

(2) In determining an amount for the purposes of an order under subsection (1), the FWC must take into account all the circumstances of the case including:

(a) the effect of the order on the viability of the employer’s enterprise; and

(b) the length of the person’s service with the employer; and

(c) the remuneration that the person would have received, or would have been likely to receive, if the person had not been dismissed; and

(d) the efforts of the person (if any) to mitigate the loss suffered by the person because of the dismissal; and

(e) the amount of any remuneration earned by the person from employment or other work during the period between the dismissal and the making of the order for compensation; and

(f) the amount of any income reasonably likely to be so earned by the person during the period between the making of the order for compensation and the actual compensation; and

(g) any other matter that the FWC considers relevant.

Misconduct reduces amount

(3) If the FWC is satisfied that misconduct of a person contributed to the employer’s decision to dismiss the person, the FWC must reduce the amount it would otherwise order under subsection (1) by an appropriate amount on account of the misconduct.

Shock, distress etc. disregarded

(4) The amount ordered by the FWC to be paid to a person under subsection (1) must not include a component by way of compensation for shock, distress or humiliation, or other analogous hurt, caused to the person by the manner of the person’s dismissal.

Compensation cap

(5) The amount ordered by the FWC to be paid to a person under subsection (1) must not exceed the lesser of:

(a) the amount worked out under subsection (6); and

(b) half the amount of the high income threshold immediately before the dismissal.

(6) The amount is the total of the following amounts:

(a) the total amount of remuneration:

(i) received by the person; or

(ii) to which the person was entitled;

(whichever is higher) for any period of employment with the employer during the 26 weeks immediately before the dismissal; and

(b) if the employee was on leave without pay or without full pay while so employed during any part of that period—the amount of remuneration taken to have been received by the employee for the period of leave in accordance with the regulations.”

Evidence and submissions in relation to compensation

Impact of an order for compensation on viability of QUBE

[15] Mr Nugent gives evidence of a significant downturn in work since March 2013, but directs this evidence to the impact if Mr Mora was reinstated and “on the books”, rather than stating that an order for compensation would negatively impact QUBE’s viability. The submissions on behalf of QUBE in relation to this matter are directed at the reduction in income received by GWEs as a result of the downturn, rather than any negative impact on QUBE’s viability if an order for compensation was made.

Length of Mr Mora’s service with QUBE and time he would have remained employed

[16] Mr Mora commenced employment with QUBE in December 2008 and was summarily dismissed on 27 November 2012. At the point he was dismissed, Mr Mora had been employed by QUBE for a period of some four years. Mr Mora had received a previous warning, but this was not relied on in the decision to dismiss him. Further, Mr Mora contested that warning and provided evidence calling into question its validity.

[17] Mr Mora states that he planned to stay working with QUBE for many years. QUBE did not place any evidence before the Commission to suggest that but for the dismissal Mr Mora would not have remained in employment. However, QUBE did place evidence before the Commission to the effect that there has been a significant reduction in the hours of GWEs at its operation in Brisbane such that by October 2013 they were working on average only 48 hours in that month, compared to an average of 105 per month in the 2012-2013 financial year.

Remuneration Mr Mora would have received if not for the dismissal

[18] There is conflicting evidence about the total amount of remuneration Mr Mora would have received or would likely have received, had he remained in employment. Mr Mora was employed on the basis that he was a Guaranteed Worker. Mr Mora tendered individual tax returns showing that he earned $80,072.00 from QUBE in the 2012 financial year and $39,315.00 in the period from 1 July 2012 until his termination in November 2012. Mr Mora maintains that his earnings from 1 July 2013, up to the date of his dismissal, indicate that he might have earned $95,000.00 in the 2013 financial year, if he had continued in employment. Mr Mora also points to losses in respect of his superannuation contributions, of between $3,346.00 and $4,500.00 based on 8% of the income he would have earned had he remained in employment.

[19] Mr Nugent states that between 1 July 2012 and 30 November 2012, GWEs worked on average 109 hours per month. That volume of worked dropped off after November 2012 so that GWEs worked on average 102 hours per month. Mr Nugent further states that since 1 July 2013 there has been a further significant decline, so that in the period to 30 September 2012 GWEs worked on average 68.33 hours per month. Extrapolating that for October 2013 would mean that GWEs would only be required to work 48 hours in that month.

[20] According to Mr Nugent, on the basis of those figures, in the period from 28 November 2012 when Mr Mora was dismissed, and 11 October 2013 when QUBE finalised its submissions in relation to remedy, the average GWE was paid $48,831.74 in wages, and an additional amount of $24,801 in moorings payments, totalling $68,632.74. Extrapolating these figures, Mr Nugent disputed that Mr Mora would have been paid $95,000.00 in the 2012-2013 financial year, and maintained that if Mr Mora received the average GWE wages and mooring payments in that period, he would have been paid $85,075.00. Superannuation payments based on an average GWEs wage for the period from 27 November 2012 to 11 October 2013 would have been $3,944.86.

[21] Mr Nugent also said that Mr Mora’s assertion that he would have made $95,000 for the 2013-2014 financial year, was optimistic and did not take into account a down turn that commenced in March 2013 and will continue for the next 8 months, affecting average wages and moorings payments to GWEs in that period. It is estimated, on the basis of current data, that GWEs will be paid approximately $39,404.02 in the 2013 - 2014 financial year.

[22] QUBE submits that the total amount payable to an average GWE over the period from December 2012 until the submissions and evidence in relation to compensation were filed with the Commission, is $78,809.89 including average wages and mooring payments for GWEs and superannuation on both amounts.

[23] Mr Mora, in his statement in reply, asserted that he was not an “average GWE” whose income would have dropped to the levels nominated by Mr Nugent. Mr Mora was engaged as a forklift operator and crane operator on clinker vessels for over half of the shifts he worked for QUBE in the period from 1 July to 25 November 2013. Mr Mora further asserted that unlike the “average GWE” he made himself available for every shift and did not book himself off. In addition, Mr Mora volunteered for mooring jobs which are allocated from a list of volunteers.

[24] According to Mr Mora, the average mooring payments referred to by Mr Nugent would be higher, because they are spread across fewer GWEs as some do not volunteer to perform this work. Mr Mora also pointed to wage increases under the QUBE Ports and MUA Enterprise Agreement 2011 of 4.15 % from 1 July 2013 and 4.18 % from 1 July 2014, and contended that the amounts set out in Mr Nugent’s statements did not reflect these increases. Superannuation contributions which Mr Mora would have received are also impacted by the wage increases.

Efforts by Mr Mora to mitigate loss suffered because of dismissal

[25] In relation to mitigation, Mr Mora states that since his dismissal, he has applied for over 50 positions, in part-time, casual and full-time capacities. The majority of these applications have been made on-line. The positions Mr Mora has applied for include forklift operator, clerk, machine operator, store person, truck driver, baggage handler, tow truck driver and stevedore. Some of the positions Mr Mora has applied for have been located outside Brisbane and Mr Mora has been willing to move in order to secure permanent employment. In June 2013, Mr Mora registered with a recruitment company and worked shifts in the 2013 - 3014 financial year as a forklift driver and machine operator, earning $2,000.00 in that period.

[26] Mr Mora also asserts that he has been unable to secure ongoing employment despite holding a forklift operator’s ticket, an MR truck licence and a ticket to operate an elevated work platform. Mr Mora is now 54 years of age and states that this has added to his difficulties in securing further employment.

[27] Mr Nugent states that it is not clear what if any effort Mr Mora has made to obtain work outside the stevedoring industry and that Mr Mora has not provided documentation to establish that he has applied for more than 50 positions. QUBE submits that a deduction should be made from any compensation awarded to Mr Mora on the basis of failure to mitigate the loss of his employment.

Remuneration earned by Mr Mora from employment or other work

[28] Mr Mora worked in other casual positions during the period he was employed by QUBE and continued to work in those positions after his dismissal. The earnings from this employment are relevant to the following matters I am required to consider in assessing compensation:

● the amount that Mr Mora would have earned had he remained in employment;

● attempts to mitigate loss suffered as a result of the dismissal; and

● what deduction should be made for remuneration earned during the period between the dismissal and the making of an order for compensation and the actual payment of compensation.

[29] In the period Mr Mora was employed by QUBE, he worked in these positions during times when he was not rostered to work at QUBE. According to Mr Mora’s tax returns for the 2012 financial year, Mr Mora received $3,509.00 from Australian Port Services (QLD) Pty Ltd and $2,372.00 from Melbourne Port Services Pty Ltd. In the 2013 financial year Mr Mora received $9,236.00 from Australian Port Services (QLD) Pty Ltd, $6,093.00 from Melbourne Port Services Pty Ltd and $8,592.00 from Southern Cross Port Services Pty Ltd. Mr Mora estimated that this represented an average of 1.17 jobs per week in the 2012 financial year and an average of 4.5 jobs per week in the 2013 financial year.

[30] Mr Mora also provided a break-down of his earnings from those companies before and after his dismissal by QUBE. This indicated that between 1 July and 27 November 2012, Mr Mora earned an average of $305.00 per week from this work. Between 27 November 2012 (the date of his dismissal) and 30 June 2013, Mr Mora earned an average of $575.00 per week from these positions, and from 1 July 2013 to September 2013 an average amount of $679.00. Mr Mora stated that his employment with these companies would never result in permanent work and while the amount of work fluctuates, it is unlikely that it will increase from current levels.

[31] QUBE submits that the total amounts earned by Mr Mora in the period following his dismissal should be discounted, including all amounts earned from the work for Australian Port Services (QLD) Pty Ltd, Melbourne Port Services Pty Ltd and Southern Cross Port Services Pty Ltd, resulting in a total deduction of $21,085.36, in addition to the amount of $2000.00 earned by Mr Mora working for the recruitment company.

Deduction for misconduct

[32] QUBE submits that there should also be a significant deduction for Mr Mora’s misconduct on the basis that the Commission found that he breached a Safe Work Method Statement and knew that he should not have done so. This would be consistent with the majority decision of a Full Bench of the Commission in Lawrence v Coal and Allied Mining Serves Pty Ltd T/A Mt Thorley Operations/Warkworth 6which held that a deduction in circumstances where a dismissed employee had breached a rational and reasonable safety rule, would vindicate the employer’s safety rules and send a message to other employees about the consequences of such a breach. In that case a deduction of 30% was considered to be appropriate.

[33] QUBE submits that in the present case, a deduction of 75% would be appropriate, to emphasise the breach of policy to Mr Mora and the broader workforce.

Conclusions

Remuneration that would have been received - s.392(2)(c)

[34] There may be cases where an employee who is dismissed for serious misconduct, establishes that he or she did not engage in serious misconduct and that but for the erroneous view of the employer about the matter, employment would have continued for an indefinite period. This is not such a case. Mr Mora committed a safety breach and made a significant contribution to a serious injury to another employee. Mr Mora also failed to provide a reasonable response in relation to whether he received a signal to QUBE during the investigation of the incident.

[35] Regardless of Mr Mora’s desire to remain in employment for a long period, QUBE was entitled to take disciplinary action against Mr Mora, such as issuing him with a final warning for his misconduct. Had a warning been issued, Mr Mora would have been exposed to dismissal if he engaged in a further breach of QUBE’s policies and procedures.

[36] There is also a basis to consider other contingencies which may have meant that Mr Mora’s employment would not have continued for a lengthy period. For example, given the reduction in hours available to GWEs at QUBE, Mr Mora may have decided to seek more stable employment elsewhere.

[37] Accordingly, I have determined that Mr Mora would likely have remained in employment for at least a period of twelve months after the date of his dismissal and I have based the assessment of compensation on the 12 month period from 27 November 2012 when Mr Mora was dismissed.

[38] In the 2012 financial year, Mr Mora earned $80,072.00 from his employment with QUBE, and received superannuation contributions of $6,441.62. From 1 July 2012 until his dismissal Mr Mora earned an amount of $39,315 and received superannuation contributions of $3,095.29.

[39] I accept that there has been an overall reduction in work for GWEs such that it is probable that Mr Mora would have been impacted had he remained in employment. I also accept that Mr Mora would not have been impacted to the extent that the “average” GWE was impacted, on the basis of his skills and the type of work he was predominantly performing.

[40] However, QUBE did not put evidence before me about what the “average” hours and earnings for a GWE were in the period prior to Mr Mora’s dismissal, to enable an assessment to be made about whether Mr Mora was earning above or below the average.

[41] On Mr Mora’s figures, at the point he was dismissed, his monthly income was $7,863 based on his assertion that he earned $39,315 in the five months prior to his dismissal. Had Mr Mora’s income remained constant for the 12 months following his dismissal his remuneration for that period would have been $94,356.00.

[42] On the figures provided by QUBE, the average earnings for a GWE was $43,831.74 for the period between Mr Mora’s dismissal on 27 November 2012 and mid October 2013. QUBE also asserts that in the period from mid September to mid October 2013 the average earnings for GWEs were approximately $2,843.50. Extrapolating QUBE’s figure to 27 November 2013 - 12 months after Mr Mora’s dismissal - average earnings for GWEs between 27 November 2012 and 27 November 2013 would have been approximately $48,102.9.

[43] In the circumstances where there is conflicting evidence and neither Mr Mora nor Mr Nugent were cross-examined, I am of the view that it is appropriate to split the difference between the competing contentions. Accordingly I have determined that the amount of remuneration that Mr Mora would have earned had he remained in employment in twelve month period following his dismissal is $71,229.45.

Amount of remuneration earned after dismissal - s.392(2)(e) and (f)

[44] In the period after his dismissal, Mr Mora earned an amount of $2000.00 from employment with a recruitment company. That amount was earned in the period from June 2013. Mr Mora also earned amount of $21,085.36 from casual employment with companies he worked for during the period he worked for QUBE. There was nothing to prevent Mr Mora from engaging in this casual work and there is no evidence that QUBE had any issue with him doing so or that it impacted in any way on his employment with QUBE. Mr Mora’s uncontested evidence is that he made himself available to work for QUBE and took all shifts that he was offered. His casual work was performed outside of the hours he worked for QUBE.

[45] On the basis of the figures provided by Mr Mora, the income he has earned from this casual work exceeds what he earned from that work prior to his dismissal, by an amount of approximately $300 per week. I do not accept the submission of QUBE to the effect that the full amount earned from the casual work should be deducted from an award of compensation. To accept that submission would be to penalise Mr Mora for working for other employers to supplement his income while employed by QUBE in circumstances where that outside work did not breach any policy of QUBE or otherwise impact on Mr Mora working for QUBE.

[46] It is also the case that if Mr Mora had remained in employment, he would in all probability have supplemented the reduction in his hours which QUBE maintains would have occurred, by increasing his casual work for the other companies so that his income from those companies would have increased in any event.

[47] On the other hand, to allow no deduction for that income would be to ignore the evidence that Mr Mora has increased his hours of work with those companies to replace the income lost as a result of his dismissal. I have determined that a deduction from the compensation awarded to Mr Mora should be made on the basis of a proportion of the amount in excess of what Mr Mora would have earned had he remained in employment for the 12 month period after his dismissal.

[48] Accordingly $7,800.00 will be deducted from the award of compensation, on the basis that it represents 50% of the excess amount earned by Mr Mora in the twelve months following his dismissal. The amount of $2,000.00 earned by Mr Mora from the recruitment company will also be deducted. After these deductions have been made, the amount of $71,229.45 is reduced to $61,429.45.

Length of service - s.392(2)(b)

[49] Mr Mora had some six years of service with QUBE. The duration of Mr Mora’s service is not of such length as to warrant special consideration in the calculation of compensation. Neither is Mr Mora’s length of service a matter that warrants a reduction in compensation.

Mitigation efforts - s.392(d)

[50] I am satisfied that Mr Mora has made reasonable efforts to mitigate the loss suffered as a result of his dismissal. Prior to his dismissal, and while employed by QUBE, Mr Mora also performed casual work for other companies in the maritime industry. After his dismissal, Mr Mora increased the amount of casual work he was performing for those companies while at the same time pursuing other employment opportunities.

Misconduct - s.392(3)

[51] Section 392(3) of the Act requires the Commission to reduce the amount of compensation it would otherwise order by an appropriate amount, on account of misconduct, if satisfied that the misconduct contributed to the employer’s decision to dismiss.

[52] QUBE contends that any amount of compensation that the Commission determines with respect to Mr Mora should be reduced as provided in s.392(3) and that the reduction should be 75% of the amount of compensation calculated in accordance with the criteria in s.392(2). In support of this contention, reference was made to the majority decision of a Full Bench of the Commission in Lawrence v Coal & Allied Mining Services Pty Ltd where a deduction was made from an amount ordered to restore lost pay, as a material sanction for the applicant’s conduct.

[53] I do not accept that the decision of the Full Bench in that case supports the proposition that a 75% deduction from the amount of compensation awarded to Mr Mora is justified. In Lawrence there was an order that the applicant be reinstated and continuity of employment maintained. The deduction in that case of three months wages from the amount ordered to restore lost remuneration, must be considered in the context of the totality of the remedy granted to the applicant.

[54] In this case I am satisfied that Mr Mora engaged in misconduct and that the misconduct contributed to the decision to dismiss him. That misconduct was found to be a valid reason for dismissal, and in those circumstances a deduction must be made. However, I am also of the view that Mr Mora has already suffered the penalty of loss of his ongoing employment and that it would not be appropriate to make a 75% deduction. Further, it would not be appropriate to make such a deduction, in circumstances where there were mitigating factors that made the dismissal unfair and which QUBE did not take into account in reaching its decision to dismiss Mr Mora.

[55] In the circumstances, I consider that a deduction of 50% for misconduct, should be made from the amount of $61,429.45, resulting in an amount of $30,714.72 gross. Superannuation contributions of 7% as claimed by Mr Mora, in the amount of $2,457.17 are to be paid in addition to that amount.

Compensation cap - s.392(5) and (6)

[56] It is not in dispute that in the 26 weeks prior to his dismissal Mr Mora received total remuneration from wages and moorings payments of $45,181.82. This amount is less than the compensation cap of $64.680.00 provided in s.392(5) of the Act. Accordingly, the maximum compensation to which Mr Mora is entitled is $45,181.82, and given that the amount I have determined is less than the maximum, no further deduction is required.

Effect of order on viability of QUBE’s business - s.392(a)

[57] There is no evidence upon which I could conclude that an order that QUBE pay the amount of compensation I have determined to Mr Mora would have any effect on the Company’s viability.

Other matters - s.392(g)

[58] I do not intend to make a deduction for contingencies. These have been factored in to the consideration of the remuneration that would have been received, or would likely have been received by Mr Mora had he not been dismissed.

Order

[59] An order that QUBE pay to Mr Mora the amount of $30,714.72, less taxation as required by law, in lieu of reinstatement, and a further amount of $2,457.17 into Mr Mora’s nominated superannuation fund within 14 days of the date of this decision will issue.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

 1   [2013] FWC 6971

 2   Hammond v Australian Red Cross Blood Service - Sydney [2011] FWA 1346.

 3   Perkins v Grace Worldwide (Aust) Pty Ltd (1997) IRCA (1997) 72 IR 186 at 191-192.

15 Perkins v Grace Worldwide (Aust) Pty Ltd (1997) IRCA 15

 4   Govett v Gomed Pty Ltd t/as Paramedic Services Victoria [2010] FWA 9100.

 5   Regional Express Holdings Ltd v Richards [2010] FWAFB 8753 at [26].

 6   [2010] FWAFB 10089 at [44].

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR547676>