Mr Christopher Collins v Lyndons Pty Ltd T/A Lyndons

[2014] FWC 5903

[2014] FWC 5903

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Mr Christopher Collins
v
Lyndons Pty Ltd T/A Lyndons
(U2014/1163)

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS BRISBANE, 1 SEPTEMBER 2014

Summary: unfair dismissal - cannabis use - positive drug result - lifestyle choice - irreconcilable with workplace health and safety obligations.

[1] This matter concerned an application by Mr Christopher Ryan Collins (“the Applicant”) made under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”). The Applicant seeks an unfair dismissal remedy in respect of his dismissal on 21 March 2014 by Lyndons Pty Ltd (trading as Lyndons) (“the Company”).

[2] Initially, the Applicant performed duties as a truck driver for the Company upon commencement of his employment, in March 2012. The Applicant, however, lost his licence subsequently (in or around January 2014). Rather than dismissing the Applicant at that time, the Company had a vacancy for a casual in the yard at the time and it reassigned him to that position (which involved driving a forklift, gantry crane and loader). I set out below (through the Applicant’s own evidence) the conditions under which the Applicant performed his duties.

[3] The Applicant claims that on or about 17 February 2014 he was advised that an organisation referred to as ADDA (which is formally known as the Australian Drug Detection Agency) would visit during a toolbox meeting in the next few weeks to discuss a new drug and alcohol policy that was to be implemented.

[4] About a week later a representative of ADDA visited the site and indicated that a new drug and alcohol policy would be implemented from 3 March 2014. The ADDA representative was said to have provided a copy of a document entitled, “Drug and Alcohol Policy Summary – Lyndons Pty Ltd”. The representative was said by the Applicant to have indicated that a full copy of the document could be obtained from his manager.

[5] The Applicant is of the view that the ADDA representative indicated to the employees that the Company’s focus was on rehabilitation of workers who returned a positive test. It was never communicated by the Company, so the Applicant claims, that a positive test would result in the termination of an employee’s employment. The Applicant contended this was the view of the wider set of employees who attended the briefing.

[6] Immediately following the briefing the Applicant approached his branch manager, Mr Derek Doyle, and advised him that he had been a cannabis user for many years and was attempting to “stop the habit”.

[7] The Applicant advised Mr Doyle, so the Applicant said, that he was an “addict” and going to treatment to assist in his recovery.

[8] The Applicant also stated, in his viva voce evidence (and in respect of claims made by Mr Doyle below) that he (the Applicant) told Mr Doyle that given the policy the Company was implementing that he (the Applicant) would be “f**ked” if he was drug tested at that time.

[9] The Applicant contends that he self reported in this manner because the policy briefing had indicated the Company was focused on rehabilitation and the policy summary he was provided indicated there would be no repercussions for any employee who disclosed their drug and alcohol usage.

[10] The Applicant contends that he was never able to source a complete copy of the policy even though he made enquiries through the Company’s representatives.

[11] The Applicant claims that on 19 March 2014 (about three weeks after this conversation) he was advised that he had to submit to a urine test for drug and alcohol screening.

[12] The Applicant tested positive.

[13] Following the positive test the Applicant was stood down and was informed that he was not required to attend work until confirmatory testing had been conducted.

[14] On 21 March 2014 Mr Doyle contacted the Applicant and informed him that he was to be terminated. The Applicant was later contacted by Mr Robert Lockhart (a senior manager of the Company) who also told him that his employment was terminated and that correspondence to this effect would be sent out along with the test results.

[15] The letter of termination, dated 21 March 2014, read relevantly as follows:

As you are aware we have a company policy on drug and alcohol. This policy provides that the company has a zero tolerance to illicit drugs and alcohol for employees while at work.

We confirm that you tested positive for an illicit substance on Wednesday 19th March and accordingly you are in breach of company policy.

A breach of the company policy means that we can terminate your employment effective immediately. The purpose of this letter is to give you notice that we rely on this breach of the company's policy to terminate your employment with the company with immediate effect.

We will make up your final pay and it will be deposited to your bank account today. Attached is a payslip for your final payment and a separation certificate.

[16] The separation certificate indicated that the Applicant had been dismissed for reasons of misconduct.

[17] The Applicant asked if he could come in and retest the following week but this was rejected as an alternative proposition by the Company, so the Applicant claimed.

[18] The ADDA urine drug test report indicated that the Applicant’s result for Δ9-THC testing was 35 ug\L, with the cut-off being 15ug\L.

[19] The Applicant also contended, at least through his original application, that he had made enquiries and discovered that if he had been tested some 48 hours later his test result would have been beneath the cut-off.

[20] Why the Applicant held this belief and for what reason his Δ9-THC levels would have been in such a rate of decline at and around the time of the testing (which came three weeks after Mr Doyle’s warnings) were not explored expressly in the hearing. Of course, on its face, the Applicant’s claim is perhaps suggestive (though I can say little more) of continuing recent usage.

[21] The Applicant contends that he was not “under the influence” of any drug at the time of the testing. He claimed further that although there were “trace” amounts of Δ9-THC in his system this did not disqualify him from performing work on grounds of safety.

[22] In effect, therefore, the Applicant contends as follows:

● He was never provided a full copy of the drug and alcohol policy despite his requests;

● He was not provided an opportunity to respond to the allegation that he was “under the influence of drugs or alcohol”;

● He had been stood down and required to access his accruals;

● He had been unfairly targeted for testing for reason that he had self-reported to his manager (on the presumption that the Company’s drug and alcohol policy was focused on rehabilitation);

● He was not given a warning or otherwise counselled prior to the event even though he had self-reported to his manager; and

● He was not paid any notice upon termination.

[23] The Company contended that various of the claims by the Applicant as set out above were erroneous.

[24] The Company contends that the Applicant at no time sought a copy of the full policy, at least through the agency of the manager at the time, Mr Derek Doyle. Mr Doyle’s evidence was that the document at all times was available for review by staff upon request, in hardcopy form or in electronic form (as it was stored on Mr Doyle’s computer).

[25] The Company argues that it advised employees of the availability of the policy, and that this had been expressly mentioned in the policy briefing material (as noted in the ADDA summary of the Policy at paragraph 1).

[26] Mr Doyle contends that on 17 February 2014 he conducted a toolbox meeting and advised the yard staff and drivers of the implementation of the drug and alcohol policy and the upcoming training in relation to the policy.

[27] On 27 February 2014 the Company conducted training relation to the policy and each employee was given two booklets at the end of the training, so Mr Doyle claimed. Mr Doyle provided copies (annexed to his statement) of the two booklets that he claims were distributed at the training session.

[28] At the conclusion of the training session Mr Doyle contended that the Applicant approached him and explained that he had been a user of cannabis over a 20 year period. Mr Doyle said the Applicant asked him if he could do a saliva test instead of a urinalysis test, as he believed a saliva test was less accurate and he would have a greater chance of passing a saliva test than he would through urinalysis.

[29] Mr Doyle confirmed that the testing regime was by urinalysis.

[30] Mr Doyle contended that the Applicant then asked him what would be the implications if he failed a drug test. Mr Doyle gave evidence that he said the Company had a zero tolerance to drugs in the workplace and this was especially so for somebody such as the Applicant who was employed to drive trucks and operate heavy equipment within the yard.

[31] Mr Doyle claimed that he informed the Applicant that it was the law that you can’t operate trucks and machinery whilst under the influence of cannabis and the Company would not be a party to putting someone who was unsafe into a truck, a loader or forklift.

[32] Mr Doyle said that he also informed the Applicant that once an employee tested positive for a drug test the employee would be stood down for a day or two whilst the confirmatory testing was undertaken. But once the confirmatory testing supported the initial testing the company would then proceed to take action against the employee concerned.

[33] Mr Doyle claimed that Mr Collins proceeded to ask him what would be the implications to him if he failed a drug test. Mr Doyle said that he would take disciplinary action against him as he would any employee, and that this may result in the termination of his employment.

[34] The Applicant, according to Mr Doyle, questioned him as to whether the Company would undertake to rehabilitate him if he failed a drug test. Mr Doyle replied, according to his evidence, that that would be a very difficult course of action for reason that the Applicant would have to be stood down until he passed a new drug test and that the Company would have no work for him during this period and that the Company could not be expected to hold his position open until such time as he could pass a drug test. The Applicant could not recall if this had been said to him, but he did not reject that the statement was said at all.

[35] Mr Doyle claimed that the Applicant indicated to him that he had attempted to give up drugs in the past but this had proven very difficult. The Applicant himself indicated he was attempting to “slow down” and “stop” his consumption of cannabis.

[36] Mr Doyle said that the Applicant had concluded the conversation with him turning away and stating that he (the Applicant) was “f***ed”.

[37] On 19 March 2014, about three weeks later, a drug test was conducted at the Company site. The Applicant tested positive, as mentioned above.

[38] Mr Doyle claims that following the testing and receipt of the confirmatory results, the Applicant telephoned him on 21 March 2014. In that conversation Mr Doyle claims that he informed the Applicant that the Company was going to take disciplinary action against him and this would in all likelihood result in the termination of his employment. In the course of that conversation Mr Doyle claimed the Applicant asked if the matter could be sorted out expeditiously for reasons that he and his wife were travelling to Fiji on a pre-booked holiday the following Monday.

[39] Mr Doyle also claimed that he had been advised by the yard supervisor that the Applicant was an ineffective employee. Upon being so advised, Mr Doyle claims that he had a conversation with the Applicant on 10 February 2014 in which he outlined the concerns with his performance in the yard. Mr Doyle warned the Applicant that if there was no improvement his performance he would be dismissed.

[40] Mr Doyle also referred to two incidents in which the Applicant had been involved incidents, being a collision and a turnover of a vehicle. But little could be adduced as to who was at fault or whether the Applicant’s cannabis use had been a factor.

Conflict in evidence: findings

[41] There is some disparity in the evidence of the Applicant and Mr Doyle as to the terms of their discussion on 27 February 2014.

[42] Mr Doyle’s reconstruction of the conversation of 27 February 2014, in which the Applicant approached him following the staff training session and indicated that he had been a drug user of more than 20 years, provided a compelling narrative. That is, Mr Doyle clearly recalled the Applicant asking a series of sequenced questions about his predicament in the context of the introduction of the drug testing regime. The exasperated or pessimistic ‘summation’ said to be made by the Applicant accommodates the wider narrative.

[43] Having heard the evidence in this regard, I have no doubt that the Applicant conveyed the information to Mr Doyle that Mr Doyle claims. I add to this that Mr Doyle did not seek to embellish the conversation and made it clear that he indicated to the Applicant the Company had a “zero tolerance” towards drugs in the workplace (despite that policy position being inconsistent with the Company’s drug and alcohol policy itself). Mr Doyle generally struck me as a candid witness, and was prepared to concede without hesitation some inaccuracies in the phrasing of his written evidence, even when to his disadvantage. He responded to questioning with care; distinguishing in an unfeigned way between those matters where he had a clear recollection and those where he did not. Conversely, the Applicant’s reconstruction of the conversation was marred by his uncertain recollections:

Yes, and you didn't ask Derrick what would happen if you failed that drug test?

---I can't remember. I'm sorry.

You see, I put it to you that Derrick said to you that if you failed the drug test you couldn't expect him to hold your position open for you?---I can't remember that. Sorry.

I put it to you that Derrick said to you that there would be no real work for you to do because you couldn't drive the loader or the forklifts if you failed the drug test, and so therefore he couldn't hold the position open?---I'm sorry, I can't.

All right. You've been using cannabis for about 20 years?---Yes.

Were you using it back in November 2013 - sorry, I mean September 2013?---I can't recall. I don't know. I was in the process of slowing down and stopping. I had been going to some drug and alcohol counselling.

You in September 2013 had an accident, didn't you?---I can't recall.

You rolled the DONKEY forklift?---Okay, yes I do recall that accident. 1

The Company’s drug and alcohol policies

[44] The Company’s drug and alcohol policy states its purpose in generic terms, such as “maintaining a work environment and workplace in which the safety and optimal performance of work is not adversely affected by the use of alcohol or other drugs.”

[45] The policy does not state that the Company maintains a zero tolerance approach to drugs and alcohol generally. Instead, the policy has an objective (see above) and preserves for itself a range of options for responding to positive tests (which include dismissal).

[46] The policy does not set out whether an employee, upon returning a non-negative result, will be stood down on pay or without pay or will be required to access their accruals.

[47] The policy permits the employer to require an individual to undergo drug and alcohol testing upon reasonable suspicion that they may be under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

[48] The policy does not state that any breach of the policy will result in dismissal. The drug and alcohol policy states, instead, as follows:

If an employee is found to have breached this policy, they may be subject to disciplinary action. The type and severity of the disciplinary action will depend upon the circumstances of the case and the seriousness of the breach. In serious cases, this may include termination of employment.

Examples of disciplinary action that may be taken include (but are not limited to):

1. performance counselling;

2. a formal warning;

3. suspension;

4. demotion;

5. termination of employment on notice;

6. summary termination of employment; and

7. referral to an employee assistance program (EAP) and/or some other referral source, for counselling, treatment or rehabilitation for drug or alcohol dependency.

[49] The drugs and alcohol policy summary, referred to above in the evidence of the Applicant, does not state that the Company maintains a zero tolerance approach to drug and alcohol usage. In any event, the notion is undefined. As far as the summary policy goes, it states that the drug and alcohol policy prohibits all employees, amongst others, of working or conducting company business under the influence of drugs or alcohol (and poses a range of disciplinary options for positive results in testing).

[50] The summary policy indicates that if an employee has a drug and/or alcohol problem he or she should seek help from their branch manager at an early stage and before the problem becomes the subject of disciplinary action. The summary policy says that an employee should do so without fear of reprisal.

[51] The summary policy indicates that at the Company’s sole discretion an employee may be permitted take unpaid leave to participate in a rehabilitation program.

[52] The summary policy also indicates that if the employee returned a positive result the company may at its sole discretion permit the employee to continue in their employment, subject to the requirement that they participate in a drug and alcohol rehabilitation program.

[53] The summary policy states that if employee fails to participate in such a program they may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.

Legislative provisions

[54] Section 387 of the Act provides as follows:

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.

Consideration

(a) whether there was a valid reason(s) for the dismissal

[55] The Applicant was employed in driving related duties, specifically in operating heavy vehicle equipment such as a forklift and a loader.

[56] The Company sought to maintain a safe workplace for employees and for the public (who move through the yard), and to achieve this it sought to minimise drug and alcohol usage in the workplace.

[57] The Applicant’s own evidence - given under cross examination - sets out the nature of the work environment:

All right. So Windsor's a fairly busy place, isn't it?---Yes, it can be busy. Yes.

Yes, and there are how many forklifts running around in that small area?---Two.

Two or three?---Two.

Two, and there's a loader?---Yes.

How many crane trucks coming in and out of that?---I think there's two crane trucks.

How many tippers?---I don't know, four maybe?

Yes, and then you've got 200-odd customers a day coming through?---Yes, on a busy day.

And they drive their trucks, their cars through there, their trucks and trailers through there to get loaded?---Yes, that's correct.

And then you've got an overhead crane?---Yes.

And you've got semis coming in?---Actually the semis are outside. They can't get in because of their height.

There's a block truck that comes in with blocks on it?---Yes, that's correct.

There's a truck that comes in - a semi comes in with cement?---Yes.

There are pallets being moved around all the time?---That's correct.

There's an overhead crane lifting steel?---Correct.

You've got people wander - walking around there all the time, haven't you?---Yes, at any one time. Yes, that could be the case.

And it would be fair to say that the company has a responsibility to make sure that everybody in that environment is kept safe?---Yes, that's correct.

And that you wouldn't want to be in a position if one of your fellow workers was doing something which put others at risk, would you?---No, I wouldn't. 2

[58] In March 2014, the Applicant tested positive for Δ9-THC in initial screening, and this was upheld by the confirmatory urinalysis.

[59] The Applicant conceded that he “had been a cannabis user for some years and was trying to stop the habit [and] that [he] was an addict and was going to treatment to assist in [his] recovery.” The period of use was approximately 20 years according to Mr Doyle's recollection of the conversation with the Applicant.

[60] The Applicant told Mr Doyle that as he had been a user for 20 years he would fail a drug test “if it came up”.

[61] Mr Doyle gave evidence that the Applicant had indicated that he had sought employment in his current role because of his concern with drug testing regimes in other industries:

So he said what to you then exactly?---The indication was that he had tried to quit on a - on several occasions or a few occasions over those 20 years. I do recall him saying that. I also recall him mentioning that he takes a - and it's only just coming to memory now, I'm sorry. But that he took a position like this - he could work in the mines, but he takes a position like this so he doesn't go - have to go through the screening testing, so, and have a position like this while still having that. 3

[62] The Applicant had been informed three weeks prior to the drug screening test that if he returned a positive result he may be dismissed.

[63] Mr Doyle held that he could not otherwise manage the risk of allowing the Applicant to operate forklifts and loaders in the yard, which is a busy place at all times and which allows for public access.

[64] There was no indicative period of time over which the rehabilitation process (which was left undescribed in the Applicant’s evidence) was said to be completed, and thus no period of time known to the employer over which it would be required to maintain the Applicant's position. All that was known was that the Applicant was a chronic user and had found giving up the drug very difficult. The Applicant brought nothing by way of his evidence as to reformed personal practices. The Applicant did give evidence that in 2013 (a time prior to the above events and before his conversation with Mr Doyle) he had received counselling. Clearly, this had been to no avail.

[65] If the Company accorded an opportunity to the Applicant to enter rehabilitation as a chronic user it would face the same uncertainties in relation to the period of time for which it would need to maintain the Applicant’s position (as a forklift and loader driver).

[66] Mr Doyle’s evidence, which I believed to have been given truthfully, was that the Applicant had stated to him that he [the Applicant] held a pessimistic view of his circumstances in light of self-claimed addiction. I say more on this below.

[67] In my view, the Company was well positioned on the evidence before it to insist that its safety obligations entitled it to manage its risks by dismissing the Applicant (who was employed to drive trucks, loaders and forklifts) from its employment. The Applicant presented an untenable risk to himself, his fellow workers, and the public.

[68] The circumstances of this matter, when taken together, provide a reasonable, defensible and sound basis for the Company’s decision-making, and are sufficient when viewed on an objective basis to establish that the Company had a valid reason for the dismissal of the Applicant (Rode v Burwood Mitsubishi (AIRCFB, Dec 451/99 M Print R4471)).

(b) whether the person was notified of that reason

[69] The Applicant was informed of the reason for his dismissal at the same time as the dismissal decision was communicated to him. That is, the Applicant was not notified of the reason for the dismissal in advance of the decision to dismiss him having been made by his employer. That said, the Applicant was well aware that should he test positive he would may be dismissed from his employment, given his position as a driver. Reasonably, this is why the Applicant claimed that he was “f**ked”.

(c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person

[70] The Applicant was given no opportunity to respond to the reason for his dismissal. I will return to this below.

(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

[71] No opportunity was provided to the Applicant by the Company for the purpose of any discussions, thus no circumstances arose in which the Company refused to allow the Applicant to have a support person present to assist him.

(e) if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person—whether the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal

[72] Mr Doyle gave evidence that he had counselled the Applicant about unsatisfactory performance issues prior to the Applicant’s dismissal, and remained dissatisfied with the Applicant’s performance of his duties in the yard at the time of the dismissal. But these matters do not appear to have had any salience in relation to the ultimate decision by the Company to dismiss the Applicant.

(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

[73] The Company is not a small business, let alone for purposes of s.23 of the Act. It employs some 150 employees throughout Queensland.

(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

[74] The Company had no human resource management expertise at its disposal. The decision was undertaken by persons with no expertise. Mr Doyle, himself, was uncomfortable with the process by which the Applicant was dismissed.

(h) any other matters that the FWC considers relevant.

[75] The Company drug and alcohol policy - either in its comprehensive form or in its summary statement - does not articulate a zero tolerance approach to a non-negative/positive drug test results nor does it mandate automatic dismissal upon a breach. The policy is couched in flexible terms to allow the Company to deal with situations it encounters on a case by case basis.

[76] I think, in the circumstances, knowing the Applicant had disclosed a chronic drug use problem, the Company ought to reasonably have given him an opportunity to set out in full how he intended to respond to his problems over time. Perhaps (as I have implied above) the period of rehabilitation in all likelihood may not have been able to have been accommodated by the Company, particularly noting the Applicant’s concession, as I have found it to be, that he believed himself to be “f***ed”.

[77] More so, the Applicant had self-reported (as he had been advised to), and expected concessions as a result, in how the Company dealt with him in future.

[78] In these respects, I consider the dismissal by the Company to have been harsh, to a degree. I think this is a view that even Mr Doyle, to some measure at least, reached at the end of his evidence, even though he added that nothing might have changed the outcome in any event. That is, Mr Doyle agreed that he might have managed the dismissal differently had he overseen the process, but the result would have been the same nonetheless.

[79] I add that the Company had not acted adversely against the Applicant for having revealed his drug problem. Instead, the Applicant was put on notice of the ramifications of testing positive and effectively had three weeks, as it came to be, to address his practices.

[80] It is uncertain what the Applicant sought from his employer by way of rehabilitation. Perhaps a period of unpaid leave might have assisted him. But the claims here were that the Company could not keep his job open for an indefinite period (given the prospects of rehabilitation were not certain in the context of a 20 year period of drug usage). The Applicant’s wider evidence suggested this was the case, as well.

[81] I add that the Applicant gave no evidence that he had taken any steps at all, after being warned by Mr Doyle of the ramifications of positive drug result (and the introduction of the testing regime itself).

[82] The Applicant made claim to the dismissal having affected his financial circumstances. It may be the case that the Applicant believed himself to economically disadvantaged by the dismissal decision. In this respect, however, for the six months following his dismissal he did manage to earn remuneration in excess of his earnings for the prior six months. His earnings more recently have been limited, however.

Conclusion

[83] Whilst I consider there to be elements of harshness in the Applicant’s dismissal, I do not think that on the evidence overall the Applicant would have been in some way saved from his fate by allowing more elaborate discussions or additional procedural fairness opportunities. The Applicant by his own confession was a chronic, long-term cannabis user, and gave no evidence of having taken control of his circumstances and reforming his practices. Even when he discussed his problems with Mr Doyle, his mind was focused upon evasion rather than non-use, as it had been at other times.

[84] The Applicant’s own apprehension of his circumstances in the context of a drug policy being introduced by his employer was pessimistic. He had been trying to “slow down” and “stop” taking drugs around September 2013. The Applicant tested positive in March the following year (some three weeks after he was advised of the introduction of the drug testing regime). His evidence was that:

I said I was always looking to give up drugs. 4

[85] This was a bleak statement self prognosis.

[86] In the end, the Applicant, who was not a long standing employee, as a vehicle operator presented an unmanageable workplace health and safety risk to his employer, and the Applicant’s dismissal was a reasonable and defensible course of action open to the Company in the circumstances.

[87] I add finally, and noting it was not pressed upon me, the Applicant did present as a person who was a victim, at least in so far as he was finding it genuinely very difficult to escape his long history of cannabis usage. In the end, however, the Applicant’s lifestyle choices (or the legacy thereof) could not be reconciled with his duties as a driver and the obligations upon his employer to provide a safe workplace.

[88] The application under s.394 of the Act, seeking an unfair dismissal remedy, is dismissed.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

Mr C. Pollard, of CTMA Workplace Consulting, for the Applicant

Mr R. Lockhart, of the Respondent

Hearing details:

Brisbane

2014

21 August

 1   Transcript of proceedings dated 21 August 2014, at PN 262-268.

 2   Transcript of proceedings dated 21 August 2014, at PN 326-342.

 3   Transcript of proceedings dated 21 August 2014, at PN 802.

 4   Transcript of proceedings dated 21 August 2014, at PN 397.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR554747>