Mr Kevin Williams v Fresh Fields Aged Care Pty Ltd (Hall & Prior)

Case •

[2023] FWC 1372

•

3 JULY 2023
[2023] FWC 1372

FAIR WORK COMMISSION
DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.365 - Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal

Mr Kevin Williams
v

Fresh Fields Aged Care Pty Ltd (Hall & Prior)

(C2023/1884)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BINET

PERTH, 3 JULY 2023

Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal

  1. On 2 April 2023 Mr Kevin Williams (Mr Williams) filed an application (Application) pursuant to section 365 of Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) with the Fair Work Commission (FWC) alleging Fresh Fields Aged Care Pty Ltd (Hall & Prior) (Fresh Fields) contravened the general protection provisions of the FW Act.

  1. On 12 April 2023, Fresh Fields filed a Form F8A – Response to a general protections application raising the jurisdiction objection that Mr William’s Application was filed out of time, as it was filed with the FWC more than 21 days after his dismissal (Jurisdictional Objection).

  1. In light of this, the Application was listed for a Hearing of the Jurisdictional Objection in-person in Perth on Tuesday 13 June 2023 (Hearing). 

  1. Directions for the filing of materials in advance of the Hearing were issued to the parties on 28 April 2023 (Directions).

Permission to be represented

  1. The Directions invited the parties to make submissions as to whether the FWC should grant permission to the parties to be represented. A determination of this issue is necessary to ensure that the manner in which any hearing is conducted is fair and just.[1]

  1. Neither Mr Williams, nor Fresh Fields sought permission to be represented at the Hearing.

  1. Mr Williams represented himself at the Hearing and Mr Cameron Marshall, Director of Human Resources of Fresh Fields represented Fresh Fields.

Evidence

  1. In advance of the Hearing, Mr Williams filed a witness statement setting out his evidence in chief.[2]  Mr Williams gave further evidence at the Hearing and he was not required for cross examination.

  1. Fresh Fields did not file any witness statements.

  1. A digital court book containing the evidence and submissions of the parties was prepared by my Chambers and circulated to the Parties on 13 June 2023 (DCB).  The DCB admitted at the Hearing as an exhibit and marked ‘Exhibit DCB1’. 

  1. Between 9 and 12 June 2023, Mr Williams filed additional documents.  A document prepared by Mr Williams in relation to Fresh Fields data that he deleted after he was informed of his dismissal was admitted as exhibit A1.

  1. Both parties were invited to make oral closing submissions.  Both parties did so. 

  1. In reaching my decision, I have considered all the submissions made and the evidence tendered by the parties including these materials, even if not expressly referred to in these reasons for decision.

  1. While giving oral evidence Mr Williams referred to a conversation between himself and a staff member of the FWC Helpline.  Following the Hearing I accessed the recording of that conversation.  Having done so it does not alter the conclusion I reached in relation to Mr William’s application for of an extension of time which I expressed to the parties at the conclusion of the Hearing.  Set out below are my written reasons for my decision to refuse Mr William’s application for an extension of time.

Background

  1. Fresh Fields is a company owned by Hall & Prior. Hall & Prior is a family-owned aged care provider operating 33 residential aged care homes, with in-home and community care programmes across Western Australia and New South Wales.

  1. Mr Williams commenced employment with Fresh Fields at its Corporate Office on 5 July 2021 in the role of Injury Management Coordinator.[3]

  1. Mr Williams is currently a Registered Occupational Therapist who is registered by the Occupational Therapy Body of AHPRA.[4]

  1. As Injury Management Coordinator Mr Williams was responsible for the implementation and management of systems, policies, procedures and practices relating to injury management. The Injury Management Coordinator is a management position, leading a team providing support to the business and its employees.[5]

  1. On 1 March 2023, Fresh Fields sent a letter to Mr Williams directing him to attend a meeting with Ms Armanda Capelli, WHS Manager (Ms Capelli), and Ms Alejandra Latorre on 7 March 2023 to discuss concerns about his performance and professional conduct.[6]

  1. Mr Williams requested that the meeting be rescheduled to 8 March 2023.  Mr Williams did not attend the rescheduled meeting.[7]

  1. On 8 March 2023, Fresh Fields sent a letter to Mr Williams providing Mr Williams with an opportunity to show cause why his employment should not be terminated (Show Cause Letter). The reasons for the proposed termination of his employment were identified in the Show Case letter as:[8]

a.A repeated failure to follow up with Hall & Prior employees who have an open workers compensation claim either by phone or in person on a fortnightly basis as is required as a part of Mr Williams role.

b.A repeated failure to update and maintain the Solvinjury Database with all current medical certificates and reports for all workers compensation claims on a daily basis as required as a part of Mr Williams role.

c.A repeated failure to have Return to Work Plans signed by both employees and treating doctors as required as a part of Mr Williams role.

d.An ongoing failure to remain up to date on all current workers compensation claims as a part of Mr Williams role.

e.A repeated failure to behave professionally by using unacceptable language whilst in meetings, and to conduct himself in a transparent and trustworthy manner.

f.A failure to follow a direction to attend a meeting to address performance concerns, rescheduled to a time as per Mr Williams request.

  1. At approximately 3.16pm on the same day, Mr Williams responded to Ms Capelli, accusing Fresh Fields of a “bullying, blame focus and manipulative culture”, and pledging to respond to the Show Cause Letter by noon on Friday 10 March 2023.[9]

  1. At approximately 5.48pm on the same day, Ms Capelli wrote to Mr Williams and explained that she had attempted to carry out a welfare check on him that morning, but realised that Mr Williams’ next of kin details had not been updated and she did not have his address details.[10]

  1. At approximately 1.03am on 9 March 2023, Mr Williams replied to Ms Capelli, dismissing her efforts to organise a Welfare Check and threatening to sue Fresh Fields for $30 million.[11]

  1. Later on 9 March 2023, at approximately 2.20pm, Mr Williams sent an email providing QBE and Fresh Fields with a workers compensation claim form and first medical certificate. The first medical certificate indicated that Mr Williams had no capacity to work from 7 March to 28 March 2023. In the same email he made a “first and final offer” of $5,000,000 indicating that the offer expired at close of business on 10 March 2023 and stated he was “not open to any counter offers”.[12]

  1. Mr Williams did not provide a response to the allegations set out in the Show Cause Letter within the time frame set out in the Show Cause Letter of noon on 10 March 2023.[13]

  1. At approximately 3.57pm on 10 March 2023, Ms Capelli sent Mr Williams an email headed “Termination of Employment” which attached a notice of termination of employment (Notice of Termination).[14]  In the email Ms Capelli informed Mr Williams that she would need to organise collection of Mr Williams’ company laptop, laptop bag, mobile phone and uniforms and asked when it would be convenient to him to have the items picked up by a courier.[15]

  1. Among other things, the Notice of Termination informed Mr Williams:

a.   that his actions amounted to serious misconduct;

b.   of the grounds for his termination;

c.   that his employment would be terminated with immediate effect; and

d.   that his leave entitlements and any notice period under his employment contract would be paid by Fresh Fields.

  1. Mr Williams acknowledged receipt of Fresh Fields’s email and the Notice of Termination the same day. He said he would return “it” (i.e. the company property) “sometime next week”.[16]

  1. At approximately 4.07pm, Mr Williams wrote again to Ms Capelli, stating: “I will return it [i.e. the company property] once I have a claim number. Please advise me once the claim has been lodged and when to expect a call from QBE.”[17]

  1. Between approximately 3.51pm and 6.23pm, Mr Williams logged onto Fresh Fields’ computer system using his login profile and deleted approximately 1,390 records relating to injured workers from the front end of Fresh Fields’ injury management database, ‘Solve Injury’, including copies of medical certificates, employee claim forms, employer claim reports and liability decisions required for the management of workers compensation claims.[18]

  1. At approximately 3.43pm on 11 March 2023, Mr Williams wrote again to Ms Capelli, stating:

“I’m lucky I just realised I get paid 8 weeks notice period! Can you please let me know when it will be processed and I will arrange to either drop the stuff off at reception that day, or alternately any day/time will be fine for the courier (after the final pay has cleared)?”[19]

  1. On discovering that Mr Williams had deleted company data his access was removed.  Mr Williams subsequently sought to unsuccessfully access the company against on 13 March 2023.[20]

  1. Between 14 and 31 March 2023, Mr Williams exchanged further emails with Ms Capelli as she sought his return of company property. These exchanges included a lengthy email from Mr Williams to Ms Capelli sent on 16 March 2023, which included the following comments:

“Katy was right for being paranoid because i can’t think of a scenario that won’t result in a lengthy prison sentence for Graeme [i.e. Mr Prior]. I don’t know the full extent of how much my silence is actually worth to Graeme by I do know that he would be arrogant/narcissistic enough to order a hit on my life, but fortunately for me I’m not at all worried about death. My death won’t make his legal problems go away and at least i can take solace in knowing that he is too stupid effectively plan anything, let alone a hit. It will just speed up the date and extend the length of his sentence. For the record Graeme, I live at apartment 26/1 Bourke St, North Perth. I never lock my balcony door and I regularly forget to lock my front door. Do not dare come to my home unless you are there to kill me. Go fuck yourself you coward!!”[21]

  1. Mr Williams filed his Form F8 – General protections application involving a dismissal (Form F8) at 1.05am AWST on Sunday 2 April 2023.

  1. In answer to question 3.2 of the Form F8 which asks applicants which sections of the FW Act they allege were breached by their employer Mr Williams ticked all of the following:[22]

a.Section 340 – Protection

b.Section 343 – Coercion

c.Section 344 – Undue influence or pressure

d.Section 346 – Protection

e.Section 348 – Coercion

f.Section 351 – Discrimination

g.Section 352 – Temporary absence – illness or injury

  1. The Form F8 Application did not specify the grounds for the Application.[23]

  1. Mr Williams confirmed at the Hearing that he had simply ticked each box in question 3.2 without ascertaining whether each section was in fact relevant to his circumstances.  He also confirmed the Hearing and was not yet in a position to clearly identify the ground for his application other than general discontent with Fresh Fields.

Consideration

  1. Section 366 of the FW Act provides that an application for a general protections claim must be made ‘within 21 days after the dismissal took effect’, or within such further period as the FWC allows pursuant to subsection 366(2) of the FW Act.

  1. The 21 day period does not include the day on which the dismissal took effect.”[24]

  1. If the final day of the 21 day period falls on a weekend or public holiday, the prescribed time will be extended until the next business day.”[25]

  1. It is not in dispute, and I so find, that the dismissal took effect on Friday 10 March 2023.[26]

  1. The date 21 days after the dismissal took effect was Friday 31 March 2023. 

  1. It is not in dispute, and I so find, that the Application was made on Sunday 2 April 2023.[27]

  1. The Application was therefore filed 2 days out of time.

  1. The FW Act allows the FWC to extend the period within which a section 365 general protections application must be made only if it is satisfied that there are ‘exceptional circumstances’. Exceptional circumstances are circumstances that are out of the ordinary course, unusual, special or uncommon, but the circumstances themselves do not need to be unique nor unprecedented, nor even very rare.[28]  Exceptional circumstances may include a single exceptional matter, a combination of exceptional factors, or a combination of ordinary factors which, although individually of no particular significance, when taken together can be considered exceptional.[29]

  1. Section 366(2) of the FW Act requires that, in considering whether to grant an extension of time, the FWC must take into account the following:

  1. the reason for the delay; and
  2. any action taken by the person to dispute the dismissal; and
  3. prejudice to the employer (including prejudice caused by the delay); and
  4. the merits of the Application; and
  5. fairness as between the person and other persons in a similar position.

  1. The requirement that these matters be taken into account means that each matter must be considered and given appropriate weight in assessing whether there are exceptional circumstances.[30]

  1. The test of exceptional circumstances establishes a high hurdle for an applicant to overcome for an extension to be granted.[31]

  1. Having taken into account the factors set out in sub-section 366(2) of the FW Act, ultimately, the power to grant an extension for the filing of an application which has been lodged out of time is a discretionary one.[32] 

  1. The requirement that there be exceptional circumstances before the time for the lodgement of an application can be extended under section 366(2) of the FW Act contrasts with the broad discretion conferred on the FWC under section 185(3), to extend the 14 day period within which an enterprise agreement must be lodged, which is exercisable simply if in all the circumstances the Commission considers that it is ‘fair’ to do so.

Were there reasons for the delay?

  1. The onus is on Mr Williams to provide a credible reason for the delay.

  1. While the delay to be considered is the period subsequent to the expiration of the 21 day period, the circumstances from the time of the dismissal may be relevant in determining whether the reason for the delay constitutes exceptional circumstances.[33]

  1. In Diotti v Lenswood Cold Stores Co-op Society t/a Lenswood Organic,[34] the Full Bench explained the correct approach by reference to the following example:

“For example if an applicant is in hospital for the first 20 days of the 21 day period this would be a relevant consideration if the application was filed 2 days out of time as occurred in this matter.”

  1. The reason for the delay is not in itself required to be an exceptional circumstance. It is one of the factors that must be weighed in assessing whether, overall, there are exceptional circumstances.[35]

  1. The absence of any explanation for any part of the delay will usually weigh against an applicant in the assessment of whether there are exceptional circumstances, and a credible explanation for the entirety of the delay will usually weigh in the applicant’s favour, however all of the circumstances must be considered.[36]

  1. The FW Act does not specify what reason for delay might tell in favour of granting an extension. However, decisions of the FWC have referred to an acceptable or reasonable explanation. Ignorance of the 21 day timeframe is not, of itself, an exceptional circumstance.[37]

  1. Mr Williams conceded at the Hearing that the Application was filed late.  He explained that the reasons for the delay were variously that:

a.he had miscalculated the number of days;

b.he had been given incorrect advice about the filing dates by the FWC Helpline staff member;

c.he was suffering from mental health illnesses; and

d.he was waiting for documentation in relation to his workers compensation claim.

  1. I am not satisfied that the evidence before me provides a reasonable explanation for the delay or the period prior to the delay. 

  1. A failure to calculate filing dates correctly is not exceptional.

  1. Following the Hearing, I obtained a copy of the recording between the FWC Help Line employee and Mr Williams which occurred on at 3.52pm (AWST) Friday 31 March 2023. The following is a transcript of the call:

“Mr Williams: Hi, my name is Kevin Williams, I just have a very quick question, I just want to just double check this. So basically a claim for general protections or unfair dismissal, you have 21 Days to lodge a claim is that correct?

FWC Employee: Yes that’s correct, 21 days from the day of dismissal taking effect.

Mr Williams: From what I read briefly the 22nd day should still be fine is that correct?

FWC Employee: Um so it’s a 21 day time frame, so the day the dismissal takes effect is day zero and then the next day is day 1 counting up to 21 in calendar days.

Mr Williams: Cool, ok, so um although you have answered my question to a large extent, now can we just do this on the phone. For evidence in case it goes pear shaped? So basically my date of termination was on 10 March as per the letter of the termination from my employer. So, 21 days would be well the 31st today, so tomorrow, is tomorrow is fine to submit my claim?

FWC Employee: So yeh other than, unfortunately I can’t um myself say you calculate the exact day for you, it is just because unfortunately that would constitute um legal advice so yeh it is the day the dismissal took effect as day zero, the next day, day one counting up to 21 in calendar days. Including the 21st day um but yeh…..

Mr Williams: Yeh cool, yeh yeh, so yeh so without you being, yeh yeh that’s fine, I am happy with that.

FWC Employee: I can also.. You’re calling from WA if you did want to place some context just to double check for guidance and assistance I can give you a phone number for a non-profit organisation in Perth that helps people for employment law advice.

Mr Williams: Ah that ok thanks mate, to be honest I think I’ve got that anyway, in terms of the 21 days I’ll probably, I’m just in two mind whether or not, because I haven’t got all my stuff together where I’m going to it all properly today so I’m just wondering whether or not I take my time and then submit it tomorrow because tomorrows a Saturday so obviously that wouldn’t make a difference so because the next working day would be too late on Monday because it would be still be that I should submit it on a Saturday even if it falls over a weekend if its with in the 21, is that, is that right or does it fall in line with business days?

FWC Employee: Um so it is, yeh its calendar days so yeh, no not business days, calendar days….”

  1. The FWC staff member correctly identified the time limit and the relevant counting principles.  He made it clear that he was unable to provide legal advice and offered to direct Mr Williams to a community legal provider who could.  I do not accept that this exchange provides a reasonable explanation for the delay.

  1. Other than Workcover WA – progress of capacity certificates in relation to his workers compensation claim no medical evidence was provided by Mr Williams.  Nor did Mr Williams provide any medical evidence to explain how the diagnosis contained in these certificates might impact on his capacity to file the Application.

  1. I note that between 10 March 2023 and 2 April 2023 Mr Williams was fit enough to:

a.Correspond with Ms Capelli on multiple occasions.

b.Access Fresh Fields data base remotely.

c.Contact the FWC to seek assistance in lodging the Application.

  1. Mr Williams was unable to explain how the delay in obtaining documentation in relation to his workers compensation claim prevented him filing his Application given that he eventually filed his application without this information or how the information prevented him making the Application earlier.

  1. The absence of an acceptable explanation for all of the delay weighs against a conclusion that there are exceptional circumstances.

What action was taken by Mr Williams to dispute the dismissal?

  1. Action taken by an applicant to contest the termination, other than by virtue of making the application will be relevant and may weight in favour of granting the extension of time.[38]

  1. Mr Williams concedes that he did not take any action to dispute the dismissal prior to lodging the Application.[39]

  1. On balance the submissions and evidence before me with respect to this consideration weigh against of a conclusion that there are exceptional circumstances.

What is the prejudice to the employer (including prejudice caused by the delay)?

  1. Prejudice to the employer will go against the granting of an extension of time. The mere absence of prejudice to the employer is an insufficient basis to grant an extension of time.[40]

  1. The employer must produce evidence to demonstrate prejudice. It is then up to the employee to show that the facts do not amount to prejudice. 

  1. A long delay gives rise “to a general presumption of prejudice”.[41]

  1. The Application was lodged 2 days late. Further, the Application did not specify the grounds for the Application and Mr Williams has yet to specify any grounds for the Application.

  1. Fresh Fields says that the delay in providing grounds for the Application - has caused prejudice to Fresh Fields, because Fresh Fields does not understand the case it is being asked to meet and is unable to respond to it.

  1. In addition, the passing of further time before Mr Williams provides any grounds for the Application  is only likely to cause further prejudice to Fresh Fields, because the longer Fresh Fields is without the information it needs to understand the case it is being asked to meet, the more time consuming and difficult it will be for Fresh Fields to investigate the facts and matters giving rise to the Application and put on a proper response.

  1. On balance the submissions and evidence before me with respect to this consideration weigh against of a conclusion that there are exceptional circumstances.

What are the merits of the application?

  1. If a claim has merits, this will weight in favour of the grant of an extension of time.[42]

  1. Fresh Fields submits there is no merit to the Application and that there is nothing in the Application to suggest it has any merit.

  1. The Application did not specify any grounds for disputing the dismissal. It appears from the Application that Mr Williams was waiting on a report from a separate workers compensation claim investigation before providing grounds for the Application.

  1. Fresh Fields submits that Mr Williams’ failure to specify any grounds in the Application, and Mr Williams’ apparent reliance on a report not yet received, indicate that the Application has no merit and is wholly speculative.

  1. Fresh Fields submits that it would be unfair to allow the Application to proceed in circumstances where Mr Williams has lodged the application late and failed to specify any grounds for the Application, and these circumstances weigh against granting an extension of time.

  1. In considering the merits of an application for an extension of time, the FWC is not normally in a position to make findings of fact on contested issues because to do so would require the parties in effect to present their evidentiary cases twice.[43]

  1. In the absence of clearly identified grounds for the Application the Application would currently appear to be without merit. 

  1. On balance the submissions and evidence before me with respect to this consideration weigh against of a conclusion that there are exceptional circumstances.

Fairness as between the Mr Williams and other persons in a similar position

  1. The FWC may have consideration to fairness in matters of a similar kind that are currently before the FWC or have been decided in the past. This consideration is concerned with the importance of the application of consistent principles in cases of the same kind; however, cases of the same kind often turn on their own facts.[44]

  1. As Commissioner Bissett observed in Murray v Ambulance Victoria[2022] FWC 215 at [48]:

“In considering whether I should grant an extension of time, I need to have regard to whether it is fair to other unfair dismissal applicants whose applications are either currently before the Commission, or have been decided in the past. It would be unfair to other persons who have not been allowed a further period to make an unfair dismissal application in the absence of exceptional circumstances.”

  1. The FWC has recently denied extension of time applications for claims commenced even if they are one day out of time.[45]

  1. Taking into account the criteria set out in section 366 of the FW Act, there is no exceptional circumstance on the evidence before me that differentiates Mr Williams circumstances from the circumstances of other individuals whose extension of time applications have recently been denied.[46]

  1. This weights against the granting of an extension of time.

Conclusion

  1. Having regard to the matters I am required to take into account under section 366 of the FW Act, and all of the matters raised by Mr Williams, I am not satisfied that there are not exceptional circumstances in this case, either when the various circumstances are considered individually or together.

  1. As I am not satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, there is no basis for me to allow an extension of time. I therefore decline to grant an extension of time under section 366(2) of the FW Act.

  1. Accordingly, Mr Williams’ Application for a general protections claim involving dismissal must be dismissed.

  1. An Order[47] to this effect will be issued with this Decision.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

Mr K Williams, for the Applicant.
Mr C Marshall, for the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2023
PERTH
13 June


[1] Warrell v Walton (2013) 233 IR 335, 341 [22].

[2] Digital Court Book (DCB) 127-155.

[3] Ibid 127-155.

[4] Ibid 162.

[5] Ibid 127-155.

[6] Ibid 156-157.

[7] Ibid 158-159.

[8] Ibid 158.

[9] Ibid 12.

[10] Ibid 12, 213.

[11] Ibid 12, 213.

[12] Ibid 13.

[13] Ibid 13.

[14] Ibid 160-161, 211.

[15] Ibid 13, 211.

[16] Ibid 6, 211.

[17] Ibid 13, 211.

[18] Ibid 13.

[19] Ibid 13, 210.

[20] Ibid 14.

[21] Ibid 14, 204.

[22] Form F8 – General Protections Application Involving Dismissal, filed by Mr Kevin Williams at 2 April 2023.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Singh v Trimatic Management Services Pty Ltd [2020] FWCFB 553, [10]. See also Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 36(1) as in force on 25 June 2009; Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 40A.

[25] Ibid; Stedman v Transdev NSW Pty Ltd [2015] FWCFB 1877.

[26] DCB (n 2) 1, 76.

[27] DCB (n 2) 7

[28] Nulty v Blue Star Group Pty Ltd[2011] FWAFB 975, [13].

[29] Ibid.

[30] Stogiannidis v Victorian Frozen Foods Distributors Pty Ltd[2018] FWCFB 901, [39].

[31] Diotti v Lenswood Cold Stores Co-op Society t/a Lenswood Organic[2016] FWCFB 349 at [16].

[32] Kyvelos v Champion Socks Pty Ltd (unreported, AIRCFB, Giudice J, Acton SOP, Gay C, 10 November 2000) Print T2421 at [8].

[33] Diotti v Lenswood Cold Stores Co-op Society t/a Lenswood Organic (n 42) at [31].

[34] [2016] FWCFB 349.

[35] Stogiannidis v Victorian Frozen Foods Distributors Pty Ltd (n 41) [39].

[36] Ibid.

[37] Nulty v Blue Star Group Pty Ltd (n 39)at [14].

[38] Brodie-Hanns v MTV Publishing Ltd (1995) 67 IR 298 at 300.

[39] Ibid 3.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 at 556.

[42] Haining v Deputy President Drake (1998) 87 FCR 248, 250.

[43] Kyvelos v Champion Socks Pty Ltd (AIRCFB, Giudice J, Acton SOP, Gay C, 10 November 2000) Print T2421 at [14].

[44] Andrew Green v Bilco Group Pty Ltd[2018] FWC 6818 at [31].

[45] See for example Battigelli v Respiratory West Pty Ltd[2022] FWC 25 and Murray v Ambulance Victoria[2022] FWC 215.

[46] See for example: O’Dea v Grampians Health[2022] FWC 362; Yates v Dahlsens Building Centres Pty Ltd[2022] FWC 329, Ainslie v Groot Eylandt Mining Company Proprietary Limited[2022] FWC 304; Fried v Travel Management Services Pty Ltd[2022] FWC 261; Massey v Centrecare[2022] FWC 250, McIntosh v Barwon Health[2022] FWC 227; Potapova v Alfred Health[2022] FWC 225; Murray v Ambulance Victoria (n 45); Scanlan v Aged Care and Housing Group Inc[2022] FWC 174.; Ferrato v Virtus Diagnostics[2021] FWC 6460; Petherick v Estia Investments Pty Ltd[2021] FWC 6274.

[47] PR763886.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR762990>

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

0

Murray v Ambulance Victoria [2022] FWC 215