Mr Francesco Gaglioti v Pilbara Mining Alliance Pty Ltd
[2014] FWC 6439
•17 SEPTEMBER 2014
| [2014] FWC 6439 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy
Mr Francesco Gaglioti
v
Pilbara Mining Alliance Pty Ltd
(U2014/19)
COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN | PERTH, 17 SEPTEMBER 2014 |
Unfair dismissal.
[1] This is an application by Mr Francesco Gaglioti (Mr Gaglioti or Applicant) seeking a remedy for alleged unfair dismissal from Pilbara Mining Alliance Pty Ltd (PMA or Employer).
[2] The application is made pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).
[3] At the hearing, the Applicant was represented by Mr S Heathcote of Counsel. The Applicant gave evidence on his own behalf.
[4] The Employer was represented by Mr T Caspersz of Counsel. Evidence for the Employer was given by:
- Mr R Wittorff, Maintenance Superintendent; and
- Mr V Scott, Maintenance Supervisor.
[5] At the conclusion of the hearing, I reserved my decision. This is my decision and reasons for decision.
RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
[6] There is now no dispute between the parties that Mr Gaglioti has properly made the application in accordance with s.382 of the FW Act. Accordingly, the relevant statutory framework for consideration is ss.385 and 387 of the FW Act.
[7] Section 385 of the FW Act sets out the meaning of unfair dismissal as follows:
“385 What is an unfair dismissal
A person has been unfairly dismissed if the FWC is satisfied that:
(a) the person has been dismissed; and
(b) the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable; and
(c) ...
(d) ...”
[8] The criteria for whether a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable can be found at s.387 of the FW Act and is as follows:
“387 Criteria for considering harshness etc.
In considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the FWC must take into account:
(a) whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person’s capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees); and
(b) whether the person was notified of that reason; and
(c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person; and
(d) any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal; and
(e) if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person—whether the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal; and
(f) the degree to which the size of the employer’s enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and
(g) the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and
(h) any other matters that the FWC considers relevant.”
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
[9] Mr Gaglioti commenced employment with PMA on 12 April 2012 as an automotive electrician. Mr Gaglioti was a member of a maintenance crew.
[10] Mr Gaglioti qualified as an automotive electrician in 1990 and has 23 years experience as an automotive electrician. He has approximately 6 years experience in the mining industry.
[11] The Applicant’s employment was terminated on 16 December 2013 and he was provided with 2 weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.
[12] Up to the Applicant’s termination of employment, he had not been warned or formally counselled about any aspect of his performance or conduct.
[13] The events leading to Mr Gaglioti’s termination of employment are as follows:
- the Applicant was the automotive electrician for A Crew on 27 November 2013;
- the Applicant, along with other members of the maintenance team, attended a pre-start meeting on 27 November 2013;
- servicing of a dump truck referred to as “DTO96” was one of the jobs that the maintenance team had to undertake on 27 November 2013. DTO96 was parked at the deadline which is approximately 150 metres from the workshop;
- at the pre-start meeting, at approximately 5:45 am, Mr Gaglioti was instructed to inspect and replace, if necessary, the isolator on DTO96;
- Mr Gaglioti’s supervisor gave him permission to clean his tool trolley before commencing his tasks for 27 November 2013;
- another employee, Mr Whittaker moved DTO96 from the deadline to the wash pad;
- Mr Gaglioti assisted Mr Whittaker in washing DTO96;
- Mr Whittaker relocated DTO96 from the wash pad to the apron of the workshop;
- DTO96 was moved from the apron into the workshop;
- in the workshop, the Applicant and other employees worked on DTO96;
- at approximately 9:30 am, the Applicant went to morning tea;
- the Applicant returned from morning tea at sometime between 10:00 am and 10:30 am;
- at approximately 12:00 noon, Mr Gaglioti was working on DTO96’s starter motor when he experienced an electrical flash;
- Mr Gaglioti complained to Mr Scott about Mr Whittaker’s failure to carry out isolation of DTO96 properly;
- at sometime between 12:30 pm and 1:00 pm, Mr Gaglioti inspected and removed the isolator from DTO96;
- on 27 November 2013, Mr Mackey, Maintenance Superintendent, requested Mr Gaglioti to attend a meeting with him and Mr Scott at 2:30 pm;
- at the meeting, Mr Mackey asked Mr Gaglioti why he had not changed the isolator on DTO96 while it was at the deadline;
- on 5 December 2013, the Employer sent to Mr Gaglioti correspondence entitled, “Allegations of Misconduct”. The specific allegation is that:
- attached to the correspondence were copies of: Safe Work Instruction; Isolation and Tagging procedure; the Employer’s Code of Conduct and Mr Gaglioti’s employment contract. The Employer asserts in the correspondence that if the alleged conduct is substantiated, it would appear to breach the preceding documents;
- Mr Gaglioti was required to attend a meeting on 10 December 2013 for the purpose of providing a response to the allegation set out in the correspondence of 5 December 2013. The Applicant could bring a support person with him to the meeting;
- on 10 December 2013, Mr Gaglioti met with Mr Wittorff, Maintenance Superintendent and a Human Resources Advisor along with his support person, Mr Waters;
- Mr Gaglioti was required to attend a further meeting on 16 December 2013 with Mr Mackey and Ms Field, Human Resources Advisor;
- at the meeting on 16 December 2013, Mr Gaglioti was first given a “Letter of Findings”. The Letter of Findings states that following an investigation, the Employer had made a finding that on 27 November 2013, Mr Gaglioti failed to perform an inspection of the isolator on DTO96 after being instructed to do so. Mr Gaglioti’s conduct was in breach of 5 different documents;
- the grounds for the Employer reaching the conclusion that the allegation was substantiated are “corroborating evidence from multiple witnesses” and Mr Gaglioti’s own evidence that he did not inspect the isolator on DTO96; and
- after being given the opportunity to read the “Letter of Findings”, Mr Gaglioti was handed correspondence terminating his employment immediately with 2 weeks’ pay in lieu of notice.
“...on 27 November 2013 you failed to perform an inspection of the isolator on DTO96 after being instructed to do so”.
CONSIDERATION
[14] Section 387 of the FW Act sets out the matters which the Commission must take into account in determining whether a dismissal was “harsh, unjust or unreasonable”. In seriatim, they are as follows.
s.387 (a) - was there a valid reason for the Applicant’s dismissal?
[15] A valid reason for dismissal is one that is “sound, defensible or well founded and not capricious, fanciful or spiteful”. The authority for this approach is found in the often cited case of Selvachandran v Peterson Plastics Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 371 at page 373 which reads as follows:
“In its context in s.170DE(1), the adjective “valid” should be given the meaning of sound, defensible or well founded. A reason which is capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced could never be a valid reason for the purposes of s.170DE(1). At the same time the reasons must be valid in the context of the employee’s capacity or conduct or based upon the operational requirements of the employer’s business. Further, in considering whether a reason is valid, it must be remembered that the requirement applies in the practical sphere of the relationship between an employer and an employee where each has rights and privileges and duties and obligations conferred and imposed on them. The provisions must ‘be applied in a practical, commonsense way to ensure that the employer and employee are treated fairly’.”
[16] A valid reason for dismissal attempts to balance, in a practical way, the needs of employees and employers.
[17] When the reason for the dismissal relates to the employee’s conduct, it is necessary for the Commission to determine, on the balance of probabilities, whether the alleged conduct occurred, and if so, whether it was a sufficient reason for termination 1.
Pre-start meeting
[18] Pre-start meetings for day shift commence at 5:30 am.
[19] On 27 November 2013, at approximately 5:00 am, Mr Smith, acting supervisor and Mr Scott attended a handover meeting with the night shift supervisor. During the handover, Mr Smith and Mr Scott were advised that, when a night shift operator parked DOT96 at the deadline for its 1000 hour service, and turned the isolator switch to “off”, she smelt an odour like something was burnt. The night shift supervisor emphasised that the “isolator needed to be checked as soon as possible” 2.
[20] Mr Smith conducted the pre-start meeting for day shift. Mr Scott attended the pre-start meeting and gave evidence of what he heard Mr Smith say at the pre-start meeting.
[21] There is no dispute between the parties that at approximately 5:45 am, Mr Gaglioti was instructed to “change out” the isolator from DTO96. There is a dispute between the parties as to what was said at the pre-start about whether the inspection was to be done at the deadline or at the discretion of Mr Gaglioti. Dump trucks are washed down before entering the workshop for servicing. It was preferable that the isolator be “changed out” at the deadline in case there are difficulties starting the truck at the wash bay.
[22] Mr Gaglioti gave evidence that he was not given any priority to this task 3. Mr Scott’s evidence is that Mr Gaglioti was told by Mr Smith that it was “his first job”4. Mr Smith’s contemporaneous notes of the incident on 27 November 2013 record that shortly after allocating Mr Gaglioti the task, the Applicant came to his office and collected the isolator. This action provides a reasonable inference that the change of isolator was to take place early in the shift.
Other events
[23] There is also no dispute that after the pre-start meeting, Mr Gaglioti informed Mr Scott that his tool trolley had been interfered with by night shift employees. Mr Scott gave Mr Gaglioti permission to “clean” 5 the trolley before getting on with his tasks for the day. Mr Scott gave evidence that he did not expect the clean up to take any more than 5 minutes6. Mr Gaglioti gave evidence that it took him from 6:00 am to 7:00 am7.
[24] The isolator had not been inspected or changed out by Mr Gaglioti at 7:00 am.
[25] Sometime after 7:00 am, Mr Gaglioti went to the toilet and then organised a Job Hazard Analysis (JHA) with Mr Godenzi. I am uncertain as to the timing of when the JHA took place but Mr Gaglioti’s evidence was that, when he was carrying out the JHA, he noticed that DTO96 had been moved to the wash pad 8.
[26] The following exchange occurred in cross examination:
“Did you expect that truck to wait there at the deadline for you whilst you got to it whenever you got to it?---I did.
Notwithstanding the fact that you would've known that the truck had been brought in for maintenance...---It was brought in for maintenance by someone else.
It was brought in for maintenance and you were told by Chris Smith to change the isolator at the wash pad which meant that you should change it before anything else was done with the truck, didn't it?---No, he said at the deadline. It was me that made the remark, “Once I've assessed the situation, I'll either do it at the deadline, wash pad or the workshop once I've assessed the risk to myself and others”.” 9
“But you were the one who was given the job?---I was given a job to change that isolator out at the deadline.” 10 (my emphasis)
[27] Mr Gaglioti indicates in his evidence there was a risk to himself and others. However, by the time he came to do a JHA, Mr Whittaker had or was in the process of moving DTO96 to the wash pad.
[28] Mr Gaglioti gave evidence that, on seeing DTO96 in the wash bay, he assisted Mr Whittaker to wash down DTO96 11.
[29] Mr Gaglioti was asked in cross examination why he did not stop the washing of the truck to assess the isolator; his answer was, “the isolator wasn’t faulty, as far I understood it” 12. Further, “I knew that the isolator at the time was not faulty because the truck was being moved”13.
[30] Finally, the Applicant stated “the thought wasn't in my head”. By this, Mr Gaglioti means that although he had not carried out the instruction to “change out” the isolator, he cleared Mr Whittaker to drive DTO96 from the wash pad to the workshop apron 14.
[31] When Mr Gaglioti and others went to morning tea at 9:30 am, he had not carried out instructions given to him at approximately 5:45 am 15.
[32] Mr Gaglioti agreed in evidence that he knew that the servicing due on DTO96 required safe isolation to avoid the truck becoming accidently energized 16.
[33] Mr Gaglioti firstly evaded answering the question of whether he was required to carry out Mr Smith’s direction diligently to change out the isolator 17. Subsequently, Mr Gaglioti gave evidence that he disagreed with the proposition that he failed to carry out the task diligently, “because of other events”18.
[34] I find Mr Gaglioti’s explanation of “other events” neither convincing nor persuasive. The “other events” are: his conversation with Mr Scott; completion of JHA; discussion with Mr Quick; the VIMS download, bullying, and finally, lack of authority.
[35] If Mr Gaglioti was bullied as he alleges, I have no direct evidence. What I do have is his own written evidence which reads “my employment was generally unremarkable except on the odd occasions when I was subjected to bullying behaviour by some of my work mates” 19. There was no description of the alleged bullying. If by bullying, Mr Gaglioti is referring to interference with his tool trolley, the evidence in proceedings is that Mr Scott took a photograph and immediately sent it to the night shift supervisor and maintenance superintendent.
[36] My observation of Mr Gaglioti in cross examination, was that after initially attempting to avoid or evade giving straight answers, he eventually came to the inescapable conclusion that, “I accept that isolation is imperative to making sure that there’s no electrical ability for the machine to have CAD power or to start” 20.
[37] The Applicant appears to be suggesting that the actions of the Employer deserve condemnation because the causation of the “flashing” was the fault of Mr Whittaker (who was also dismissed) and not himself. The Employer does not resile from the fact that if Mr Whittaker (assuming it was Mr Whittaker) had properly carried out the “test and tag” procedure, the “flashing” may not have occurred.
[38] The Applicant, it appears, is attempting to turn on its head the expression “virtue has its own rewards”. By not carrying out diligently an inspection and removal of the isolator in DTO96, at the deadline, Mr Gaglioti submits that he should now benefit from the fact that Mr Whittaker moved the dump truck to the wash pad, his inaction in not raising with Mr Whittaker the condition of the isolator at the wash pad, not inspecting the isolator at the workshop, and ultimately, Mr Whittaker not carrying out properly the test and tag procedure at the workshop. I consider this an inappropriate approach to the Applicant’s conduct.
[39] The real issue for the Employer is that at 5:45 am Mr Gaglioti was directed to carry out a task. At the time of being given the instructions, both parties agree that Mr Gaglioti had been informed that when the isolator was turned to “off”, there was an “unusual” or “burnt” odour which could be smelt.
[40] Because the operator could smell the “unusual” / “burnt” odour, what does that mean? In my view, this was made plain in Mr Scott’s evidence which was not disturbed in cross examination, and that is:
“I consider Franco [Mr Gaglioti] as a qualified and experienced auto-electrician, should have known that if an operator was concerned there may be a fault with the isolator, it was essential that the isolator be checked and replaced before any maintenance work was conducted on the truck. As a qualified and experienced auto-electrician, I consider Franco should have known the potential safety consequences if employees worked on or near a dump truck that had a faulty isolator, including that the truck could start and move while employees are in its path or working around the engine or fan pulleys. I also expected Franco to follow Chris’s [Mr Smith] instructions to him to make sure that his first task in regards to DTO96 was to check and rectify if needed the suspected faulty isolator” 21 (my emphasis).
[41] It is fair to say that at 5:45 am on 27 November 2013, Mr Gaglioti had been instructed to inspect the isolator as there were potential safety issues with a faulty isolator. Obviously, unless and until he checked the isolator, Mr Gaglioti would not know if the potential safety issues would eventuate. Consequently, what is important is the relationship between the need to carry out an instruction and safety to employees.
[42] If Mr Gaglioti goes through a red traffic light and is not involved in any collision that does not excuse his actions. If Mr Gaglioti stops at the same red traffic light some 5 hours later, that does not excuse his actions of not stopping earlier. It is for this reason, I do not accept the Applicant’s argument that because he inspected and changed the isolator, on or around 1:00 pm, after the flashing occurred, that excuses or removes his earlier conduct.
[43] Mr Gaglioti was given a straightforward task to inspect and, if necessary, remove the isolator on DTO96. I find that Mr Gaglioti did not carry out this task diligently. In fact, he did not carry out the task until after the flashing incident had occurred around 1:00 pm on 27 November 2013, when he and a number of employees were working on DTO96.
[44] In view of Mr Gaglioti’s 19 months of work performance without incident, I have considered whether the Employer’s response was capricious, unsound, indefensible or not well founded; for a number of reasons, I have come to the conclusion that the dismissal was fair and proportionate.
[45] Firstly, the Employer, when the flashing occurred, stopped all maintenance work on DTO96 and carried out an investigation. The investigation was carried out swiftly and in the environment of a high risk mining operation. The Employer’s workplace was not a low risk office environment but a high risk mining workplace. This is the environment in which Mr Gaglioti did not carry out one of his allocated tasks for the day.
[46] Secondly, the Applicant had been an automotive electrician for 23 years with 6 years experience in the mining sector. It was not as if Mr Gaglioti did not know what his role was and was uncertain about what he had to do. Further, Mr Gaglioti was aware of the consequences of not carrying out this task diligently. By his own evidence, Mr Gaglioti knew there was a need to assess the state of the isolator as it posed a risk to himself and others 22. Put simply, Mr Gaglioti knew that there was a potential that, others and himself, could suffer harm unless the isolator was inspected and replaced, if necessary.
[47] Thirdly, Mr Gaglioti has attempted to absolve himself of personal responsibility for his inaction because of “other events”. With the exception of approval to clean his trolley, I find reliance on the remaining reasons not credible and retrospective justification for not carrying out the task in a timely way. To be candid, some of the “other events” are disguised attempts to blame others for the decision he made not to inspect DTO96 at the deadline.
[48] In this regard, it is useful to highlight two paragraphs of Mr Gaglioti’s written witness statement as follows:
“DTO96 was then moved from the wash pad to apron near the service bays and two other employees began working on it. Both of these employees had participated in the same pre-start meeting that I attended that morning and should have been aware of the isolator issue.
I did not have the authority to tell any of my work mates, each of which knew about the isolator problem on DTO96, that they should stop work until I dealt with the isolator.” 23 (my emphasis)
[49] In my view, these paragraphs are indicative of Mr Gaglioti’s ability to see wrong in the actions of others but an inability to see wrongness in his own actions. For this reason, I am inclined to agree with the Employer’s submission that the Applicant did not and is unable to show any contrition for his conduct.
[50] In our everyday working lives, we evaluate the priority given to tasks we are required to undertake. I am satisfied, on the evidence, that the Employer identified a possible faulty isolator on DTO96 to be inspected as a priority. Mr Gaglioti’s own statements on 10 December 2013 confirm that Mr Smith said to him at the pre-start meeting “...before we get it on wash pad, we need it changed before there are any issues with it” 24. Whether it was tardiness or because of his annoyance at having to clean up his tool trolley, Mr Gaglioti did not carry out the task with any urgency.
[51] While I am uncertain, on the evidence, as to whether Mr Gaglioti saw DTO96 at the wash pad or saw it being moved to the wash pad, I infer from his statement on 10 December 2013 that he considered the relocation of DTO96 problematic. Mr Gaglioti’s statement was “why is that [DTO96] being moved” 25. Either his expression was for the mechanical/safety reasons I have discussed above or consistent with his later statement “I’m not going to run after someone if they go ahead on own accord”26. Whatever the reason for his statement at the time of seeing DTO96 at the wash pad, the question asked by Mr Gaglioti suggests that its relocation should not have occurred.
[52] The workplace, as in ordinary life, has unintended consequences from our actions. By not attending to his task with some alacrity, Mr Gaglioti’s inaction encountered a series of unintended consequences beginning with Mr Whittaker moving DTO96 to the wash pad. However, Mr Gaglioti could have, but did not, stop those consequences continuing by inspecting the isolator and removing it, if necessary. By his inactions, it resulted in the flashing which ultimately led Mr Gaglioti finally undertaking the task at approximately 1:00 pm.
[53] It is trite but an employee is under an obligation to carry out lawful instructions from his or her employer. Further, if an employee is skilled to perform certain tasks and duties, he or she has an obligation to carry out those duties with reasonable care. Finally, just as an employer has a statutory duty to provide a safe place of work, an employee has an obligation to take reasonable care for their own safety and other employees.
[54] Mr Gaglioti’s contract of employment states that he is required to “exercise diligence”, “comply with lawful and reasonable instructions”, “ensure the highest level of safe working practices are adhered to and maintained” and “report any unsafe and hazardous conditions”. Further, Mr Gaglioti’s contract of employment states that employees who, “cause hazardous situations, or fail to report, or where appropriate, remedy such situations, may be subject to disciplinary action”.
[55] Kirby J expressed in his judgement in Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell 27 citing Starke J in Shepherd v Felt and Textiles of Australia Ltd28 that an employee is “bound to render faithful and loyal service to the [employer] and not do anything inconsistent with the continuance of confidence between them”. In this application, I am satisfied that Mr Gaglioti’s conduct in not inspecting the isolator diligently was in the first instance careless, if not wilful. However, having become aware that other employees were now working on DTO96 without Mr Gaglioti having inspected the isolator, and not ceasing all activity until he sanctioned its safe operation, I consider this inaction serious, reckless and improvident.
[56] For the above reasons, I find that the Employer had a sound, defensible and well founded reason to terminate Mr Gaglioti’s employment.
s.387(b) - notification of the reasons for termination of employment
[57] As I have already set out in paragraph [13], the reason for Mr Gaglioti’s dismissal was that he failed to perform an inspection of the isolator on DTO96 after being instructed to do so at the pre-start meeting. The Employer considered that Mr Gaglioti’s failure to inspect the isolator was in breach of various internal policies and his contract of employment.
[58] While Mr Gaglioti was not in breach of all the documents referred to in the letter of termination of employment, they indicate the extent and seriousness with which the Employer takes towards a safe workplace. Mr Gaglioti’s contract of employment particularly refers to the need for him to comply with the Code of Conduct. The Code of Conduct “embraces our [the Employer] values and provides guidance on the principles, practices and standards of behaviour required...”. The first section that deals with the workplace is entitled “Health and Safety” and refers to it being the Employer’s highest priority. Further, the Code of Conduct states the necessity for employees to demonstrate safe behaviour at all times and for employees to look out for other employees 29.
s.387(c) - opportunity to respond
[59] The Applicant concedes that he was given the opportunity to respond to his conduct at a meeting on 27 November 2013 at 2:30 pm. Subsequently, the Employer sent correspondence to Mr Gaglioti on 5 December 2013 setting out the allegation and attaching four (4) documents referred to above. The correspondence clearly states that Mr Gaglioti would be given the opportunity to respond to the allegation at a further meeting on 10 December 2013. Mr Gaglioti was also advised on 5 December 2013 that the Employer was prepared to receive any written submissions prior to the meeting on 10 December 2013. Mr Gaglioti was given the opportunity to respond on 10 December 2013 in a meeting that went for approximately 50 minutes.
s.387(d) - support person
[60] Mr Waters attended the meeting on 10 December 2013 as Mr Gaglioti’s support person.
s.387(e) - unsatisfactory performance
[61] The parties agree that up until Mr Gaglioti’s conduct on 27 November 2013, there were no issues with his performance since commencing employment in April 2012.
s.387(f) - size of enterprise
s.387(g) - Human Resources
[62] By and large these criteria are a neutral factor when considering whether Mr Gaglioti’s dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. However, I make this observation (and this employer is not an “orphan”) when it comes to allegations of misconduct, there is a tendency for Human Resources personnel to “throw the book” at employees, and list a number of alleged breaches by the employee of “this or that” document. Rather than focus on quantity, it is preferable, in my view for employers, to set out the key documents which have been breached and not adopt a “scattergun” approach. Clearly, as in this case, the Employer conceded that Mr Gaglioti was not in breach of each and every document set out in the letter of dismissal. However, in the totality of this application, this action by the Employer is not detrimental to my overall conclusion as to Mr Gaglioti’s conduct in the employment relationship.
s.387(h) - other matters
[63] I am satisfied that there are no other matters involved in this application which has not been considered above and requires my consideration.
CONCLUSION
[64] In conclusion, for the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that Mr Gaglioti’s dismissal from his employment was not unfair pursuant to s.387 of the FW Act. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. An order to this effect is issued jointly with this Decision.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
S Heathcote of Counsel for the Applicant.
T Caspersz of Counsel for the Respondent.
Hearing details:
2014:
Perth,
13 May.
<Price code C, PR555486>
1 Brink v TWU PR922612 at paragraph [7]
2 Exhibit R6
3 Exhibit A2
4 Exhibit R6
5 Exhibit A2
6 Exhibit R6
7 Exhibit A2
8 Exhibit A2
9 Transcript PN180 to PN182
10 Transcript PN195
11 Exhibit A2
12 Transcript PN209
13 Transcript PN213
14 Transcript PN217
15 Transcript PN232
16 Transcript PN229
17 Transcript PN240
18 Transcript PN242
19 Exhibit A2
20 Transcript Pn367
21 Exhibit R6
22 Transcript PN180 to PN182
23 Exhibit A2
24 Exhibit R5(3)
25 Exhibit R5(3)
26 Exhibit R5(3)
27 [2000] HCA 64
28 (1931) 45 CLR 359
29 Exhibit R5
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
0
3
0