Mr Kristopher Townend v Bureau Veritas T/A Bureau Veritas Asset Integrity & Reliability Services
[2010] FWA 4570
•28 JUNE 2010
[2010] FWA 4570 |
|
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy
Mr Kristopher Townend
v
Bureau Veritas T/A Bureau Veritas Asset Integrity & Reliability Services
(U2010/6199)
COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN | PERTH, 28 JUNE 2010 |
Unfair dismissal.
[1] On 19 February 2010, Mr Kristopher Townend (“the Applicant”) made application to Fair Work Australia alleging that he was unfairly dismissed from his employment at Bureau Veritas (“the Employer”) on 19 February 2010.
[2] Mr Townend has made the application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”). Mr Townend is not seeking reinstatement as a remedy for his alleged unfair dismissal, but the maximum amount of compensation available under the Act in lieu of reinstatement.
[3] Mr Townend’s application was unable to be resolved at conciliation and subsequently referred to me for arbitration.
[4] Arbitration took place on 9 June 2010. The Applicant gave evidence along with Mr Steven Rennie who was Mr Townend’s immediate Manager for 18 months prior to his resignation of employment. Mr Richard Lake, Vice President of Bureau Veritas Asset Integrity and Reliability Services Pty Ltd and Dr Jonathan Pemberton, Consultant, gave evidence for the Employer.
[5] To assist the proceedings, both parties provided documentation to the Tribunal which was incorporated into proceedings. Having received this material, heard submissions, evidence and provided with further exhibits, I reserved my decision. In reaching this decision, I have considered all material provided to the Tribunal.
BACKGROUND
[6] The Applicant was employed in November 2007 as a Non-Destructive Testing Manager. In January 2008, the Applicant was appointed the Manager of the Henderson Branch.
[7] The Employer has two branches in Western Australia. The Karratha Branch servicing the North West region and the Henderson Branch servicing the southern region of the State.
[8] The Henderson Branch financial results were suboptimum at the time the Applicant became Branch Manager and continued to deteriorate, especially after the closure of the BHP Ravensthorpe processing plant in early 2009 and due to the impact of the Global Financial Crisis on the resources sector.
[9] To address the deteriorating revenue situation, the Henderson Branch was restructured during 2009 with some employees being redeployed, resigning, moving interstate or being made redundant.
[10] It is common ground that Mr Richard Lake who is the Vice President, Bureau Veritas Asset Integrity and Reliability Services Pty Ltd (AIRS) and responsible for the Employer’s operations across Australia, became more intrusive in the operations of the Henderson Branch in the second half of 2009. In doing so, it is not contested that he came in “over” the State Manager and his focus was to increase sales, to make up for the loss of key contracts at Ravensthorpe and KNR Nickel.
[11] In the third quarter of 2009, Mr Rennie who was the Applicant’s State Manager suggested to Mr Lake that the employment of a Business Development Manager would assist in increasing sales, and therefore, revenue, at the Henderson Branch. Despite some initial reluctance to the idea, Mr Lake warmed to the idea as a solution to increasing profitability of the Branch.
[12] Separate to these matters with Mr Townend, Mr Lake, on 7 December 2009, asked Mr Brian Casson if he would be interested in becoming the State Manager. At the time, Mr Casson had been managing the Mechanical Testing Business Unit for two years.
[13] On 14 December 2009, Mr Lake announced a restructure of the Employer’s business in Western Australia which, for the purposes of this Decision, led to:
- the merger of two State Manager positions and Mr Rennie being made redundant with immediate effect;
- Mr Casson being appointed State Manager; and
- the Applicant being relieved of his position as Branch Manager and offered the position of Business Development Manager (Sales Manager) reporting to the State Manager, Mr Casson.
[14] The Applicant was advised of the restructuring of the WA operations in a meeting with Mr Lake and Ms Barbara Marks, Human Resources Manager on 14 December 2009.
[15] The Applicant was given from 14 December until 18 December 2009 to consider the offer of the Business Development Manager’s position. To this effect, Mr Townend was given a letter; the relevant parts are as follows:
“This letter is to confirm the information provided to you in our meeting that, following a review of the Bureau Veritas business within Australia, a decision has been taken to change the organisational structure of Asset Integrity and Reliability Services and a decision has been made to change your position to that of Sales Manager for Henderson Branch. There will be no change in your remuneration.
“As you are aware, I constantly review the business in line with the BV AIRS Strategic Plan and I have decided that the only way to achieve our goals and objectives, given the small size of the branches and revenue steam, is to rationalize and restructure the current West Australian business.
“As part of this review I have considered your performance in the role of Branch Manager along with your skill set. You and I have, on more than one occasion discussed your performance in the branch manager role and a further review of the branch performance has led me to a decision that in order to generate acceptable returns we can no longer support your employment in this role.
“I do believe that you can make a success of the Sales role and I look forward to hearing of your plans. You will, of course, be issued with the kpi’s that are attached to this position.
“If you are in agreement with the contents herein, please sign the attached copy of this letter and return it to me.” 1
[16] On 17 December 2009, Mr Townend emailed both Mr Lake and Ms Marks attaching a medical certificate; the relevant parts which are:
“As you are aware I have been off work sick for the last few days. I have attached a Doctors note to this email, that indicates I will not be fit to return to work until after the 24/12/2009.
Since our meeting on Monday, I had not felt well, I had nausea, dizziness and chest tightness, and other symptoms.
“My anxiety has been caused by your requirement that I be transferred into a sales role. I was under the impression that you were satisfied with my personal performance as Branch Manager. I do not have the training and qualifications for a purely sales role. Also, I do not consider that you are offering me comparative employment, except in initial remuneration.
“I feel that due to my current medical condition, the issue of change of job cannot be fairly resolved by your imposed deadline of this Friday the 18/12/2009.” 2
[17] The Applicant proceeded on annual leave after sick leave which concluded on 24 December 2009.
[18] On 5 January 2010, while on annual leave, the Applicant sought the Employer to investigate “the possibility of offering me [Mr Townend] a voluntary redundancy” 3. The Employer declined to offer voluntary redundancy.
[19] On 13 January 2010, while still on annual leave, the Applicant forwarded to the Employer an email with the subject heading of Resignation:
“Richard
I would like to tender my resignation from the position as Branch Manager of Bureau Veritas – Henderson. I am required to give one month’s notice. My final working day will be Friday the 19th February 2010.
Over the last month or so, I have experienced a general dissatisfaction working for Bureau Veritas. I am not happy to take on the role of Sales Manager as I do not believe that it is in line with my desired career path, nor the skills and abilities that I bring to the table.” 4
[20] On 15 January 2010, the Employer accepted the resignation and noted his final day of 19 February 2010.
[21] The Applicant conceded that he resigned from his employment by email on 13 January 2010 to take effect on 19 February 2010. Consequently, for the purposes of the Act, Mr Townend did not submit that the ending of the employment relationship was at the initiative of the Employer pursuant to s.386(1)(a) of the Act.
[22] The Applicant’s case was that he resigned from his employment because of conduct or a course of conduct engaged in by his Employer in accordance with s.386(1)(b) of the Act.
[23] Where an applicant contends that they were forced to resign from their employment due to the conduct of the employer, the focus of any inquiry tends to concentrate upon the actions of the employer. However, the Objects of the Unfair Dismissal provisions of the Act, provide the requirement to balance the needs of businesses and employees (s.381(1) of the Act). For this reason, I set out a synopsis of the Applicant’s and Employer’s submissions.
The Applicant’s Case
[24] Mr Townend summarised his case as follows:
“…I am seeking protection by Fair Work Australia for an unfair dismissal claim against the re-examine Bureau Veritas. I am heavily reliant on clause 386.1(b), resigned due to being force to do so. I feel that the respondent's action, workplace mentality and options given to myself at the time of my proposed role change left me no other option than to resign. I feel that the job offer was one that was made up as an interim step that would ultimately leave it with me going out the door in any such way anyway, and I hope to provide evidence to that fact.” 5
“…I also believe that I was given no prior warning, verbally or written, and also nor were any of my direct management or supervision staff. I believe that the pressure applied directly by Mr Lake prior to my resignation, and his interference with the day-to-day operations of the branch, led to the resignation and led to the constant interference of communication between the two parties. I believe I was unfairly blamed for loss of income due to factors that were out of my control and I was unreasonably requested to meet unrealistic profits and turnovers for an economic climate that we have seen in the last 12 months to 16 months.” 6
“I don't believe that the offer of the sales job was an offer as such. I personally believe it was a take it or leave it situation that I was put in, which would then lead to a forced resignation, and I don't believe it was equivalent or within my scope of abilities and capabilities as previous experience and qualifications would lead - I believe there were multiple other positions within the business itself. The company has consistent, as we call them, trawling ads on Seek, consistently looking for personnel with my experience, with my qualifications. I could have been offered other roles. I believe the role that I was offered was known throughout the company as being the last step to being sent out the door.” 7
“… I was backed into a corner and forced to resign.” 8
[25] The Applicant’s case revolved around specific issues as follows:
- a belief that if he took up the sales manager role, it was only a matter of time before being dismissed due to a lack of performance 9;
- insecurity or lack of belief that he was good at sales 10;
- the dominating 11, intrusive behaviour or management style of Mr Lake;
- the lack of alternative offers of employment within the Employer’s organisation 12;
- the discomfort of returning to the workplace environment after being replaced as branch manager and reporting to the person who had replaced him 13;
- the unfairness of the process 14
The Employer’s Case
[26] The Employer summarised its case as follows:
“…the respondent will be leading evidence that it acted wholly reasonably with the employee and that he was not forced to resign contrary to his own assertions. In fact, any process of dismissal was not in fact concluded. We claim that the spirit and intent of 386(2) should also be taken into account that a person is not being dismissed if they were demoted in employment if the demotion does not involve a significant reduction in his or her remuneration or duties and if he or she remains employed with the employer that effected the demotion…” 15
“When it was apparent that the applicant was not making any appreciable impact on these KPIs after 10 months he was offered an alternative position on 14 December 2009 with no reduction in salary. This was considered by the respondent as a good faith gesture and a preferable alternative for both parties to termination of employment. We would say that that offer was made on fair and just terms and we'll lead evidence to attempt to prove that.” 16
“The alternative position of sales manager was a new position created for the applicant at his existing salary so he could continue a senior and influential role in the company…” 17
“…The employer was fair with the employee, we attest, in offering an alternative to dismiss or sideways transfer. That was an offer in fair and just terms. It was a senior role with retention of salary within the capabilities of the employee and that he had considerable time to consider this offer and, further, that if he had taken the time to inquire, he would have been able to obtain further information to support his transition to the new role.” 18
[27] The Employer’s case centred on the following issues:
- the Applicant was a trusted and respected person within the organisation 19;
- a restructure of the Henderson Branch was necessary to improve its performance 20;
- the Employer had the following options regarding the Applicant’s employment:
- termination on grounds of non performance; or
- redundancy; or
- transfer to the Business Development Manager’s position; or
- relocate to another division or operation of the Employer.
- the Employer chose to transfer the Applicant to the Business Development Manager’s position as Mr Townend had the ability to carry out the role and responsibilities and there would be no loss of income, access to motor vehicle, etc;
- there were no vacancies in Western Australia. Other positions should they have been available, were in operations as distinct from management, with a consequential reduction, at least, in base salary 21;
- the Applicant should have given consideration to the offer of the alternative position and given it a go, at least, on a trial basis 22; and
- the Applicant resigned of his own volition and was not forced to do so by the conduct of the Employer.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
[28] The relevant provisions of the Act for the purposes of this Decision are as follows:
- Section 396 - Initial matters to be considered before merits
FWA must decide the following matters relating to an application for an order under Division 4 before considering the merits of the application:
(a) …
(b) whether the person was protected from unfair dismissal;
- Section 385 - What is an unfair dismissal
A person has been unfairly dismissed if FWA is satisfied that:
(a) the person has been dismissed; and
- Section 386 - Meaning of dismissed
(1) A person has been dismissed if:
(a) the person's employment with his or her employer has been terminated on the employer's initiative; or
(b) the person has resigned from his or her employment, but was forced to do so because of conduct, or a course of conduct, engaged in by his or her employer. (my emphasis)
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
[29] The Employer tendered, in evidence, Mr Townend’s “terms and conditions of the offer of professional salaried employment” for his position as Non-Destructive Testing Operations Manager – in effect, the Applicant’s contract of employment. While a similar document was not tendered for the position of Henderson Branch Manager, I suspect it would be similar, if not the same. At paragraph 4, it has the following clause:
“You will be provided with a written list of duties and responsibilities applicable to this position. The list may be changed from time to time to reflect changed operating requirements. You are expected to carry out the full range of duties as directed.” 23 (my emphasis)
[30] At its very basic, a contract of employment is an agreement between an employee and employer outlining duties, rights and entitlements of both parties. It goes without saying that, on occasions, it is necessary to change the terms and conditions of employment and these changes can be instigated by either party. As envisaged in Mr Townend’s contract of employment, duties and responsibilities may be changed to reflect “changed operating requirements”. This Employer, like many other employers, has had to respond to changing economic circumstances in their business. Unfortunately, for some employees, this has led to redundancy or reduced hours. For some employees, it has meant being allocated additional and different duties, or in Mr Townend’s case, being transferred to a different position.
[31] Firstly, I find on the evidence of Mr Lake, that the Employer had reasonable and proper cause to reorganise its business as a result of the Global Financial Crisis, loss of contracts and suboptimum performance of the Henderson Branch.
[32] Mr Townend was employed in a professional salaried position. Should the Employer have redeployed Mr Townend into, for example, a cleaner’s position and, even if he continued to receive the same entitlements, I would have to conclude that the Employer had repudiated, by such conduct, its contract of employment with the Applicant and forced him to resign. However, in this case, the position which was offered to Mr Townend is not at the extreme end of the occupational difference and I find no intent to repudiate the Applicant’s contract of employment with the offer of the Business Development Manager’s position. However, it is relevant to examining this finding further.
[33] The Tribunal was provided with the list of duties of the Branch Manager and Business Development Manager. The relevant functions of Branch Manager, for the purposes of this Decision, are as follows:
- achievement of the sales, gross profit and contribution budgets of the Branch
- ensuring growth in Branch business by:
- increasing the Company’s share of existing markets;
- maintain the Company’s share of growing markets;
- developing new markets for the Branch.
[34] In the area of “responsibilities”, the job description specifies:
- analyses the workload at all times and marshals the necessary resources so that the Branch can meets its commitments for:
- sales activities including calls on customers, product presentations, cost estimating and proposal presentation.
[35] As you would expect, the Business Development Manager has a focus on sales. For the purposes of this Decision, the relevant extracts are as follows:
- FUNCTION: Accountable for the sales process for the appropriate State or Region to develop new and maintain existing clients, secure profitable project work and to match and develop our products to current and future market needs; and
- market and sells new products.
[36] In the position Mr Townend occupied at the time of his resignation and in the position he was offered, he reported to the State Manager. Further and finally on this issue, the Applicant conceded that there was no loss of status in accepting the position of Business Development Manager.
[37] Accordingly, I find that, on an objective basis, the position offered to Mr Townend was reasonable, contained similar professional salaried duties, maintained the same reporting arrangements and, so far as possible from the evidence, the same terms and conditions of employment. The offer of the position of Business Development Manager was not conduct that was intended or designed to repudiate Mr Townend’s existing contract of employment.
[38] Notwithstanding this objective assessment which I have applied to both job descriptions, Mr Townend sought to persuade the Tribunal that a subjective assessment of being offered the position of Business Development Manager was conduct of the Employer that had forced him to resign. Put simply, Mr Townend’s perception of himself was that he was no good at sales 24, and therefore, to be offered such a position, was intended to force him to resign.
[39] I have a reluctance to embark on a subjective assessment. To do so would be self determination by employees as to whether an employer was repudiating an employment relationship when, for business reasons, it had to change the contract of employment.
[40] However, I think I can dispose of this contention by the Applicant by referring to the fact that the Applicant on another occasion (August 2009) retracted his resignation after a discussion and email exchange with Mr Lake. In the course of the email exchange, Mr Townend states: “I have been out selling BV to anyone that will listen and we are slowly improving”, to which Mr Lake responded, “…we have to improve, that will be a combination of sales at the right rates, labour utilisation and cost control. Everyone in the business wants Henderson to succeed” 25.
[41] Further, there was evidence from Mr Lake and Dr Pemberton that Mr Townend was provided with training in sales to assist him carry out these responsibilities as part of his role. Finally, as demonstrated by the job descriptions and confirmed by Mr Rennie, part of Mr Townend’s role as Branch Manager was sales 26.
[42] For the Applicant to say that it was an “unknown area in my career path…and that it really wasn’t in line with anything I’d done before in the past as a sales role” 27 is plainly wrong and contradictory to other evidence he gave28.
[43] From the evidence, I find that the Applicant failed to make out a case that he was no good at sales and, the Employer knowing this, on a subjective basis, offered him the Business Development Manager’s position to force him to resign.
[44] Further, Mr Townend sought the Tribunal to infer that the offer of the Business Development Manager position was calculated conduct by the Employer to make him resign or “I still had the positive belief I would be dismissed once I took the role on” 29.
[45] In this regard, Mr Townend put to Mr Lake in cross-examination:
“…Are you aware of the notion within the company that the business development role was an exit from the company? It was the last position to be held before being asked to leave through lack of performance?---I'd refute that.” 30
[46] Mr Lake not only refuted the Applicant’s contention but gave four examples, including himself, where employees had moved into business development roles successfully. Mr Lake agreed with the Applicant that, on one occasion where it did not work to the satisfaction of the Employer and employee, the employment relationship terminated. However, just because it did not work on one occasion, is not sufficient for the Tribunal to find that the conduct of the Employer, in this application, conducted itself in a way to force Mr Townend to resign. Finally, it was noticeable that this contention by the Applicant regarding the “exit aisle” was as a result of the grapevine of Mr Moran who was the person where it did not work successfully.
[47] I now turn to the assertion by Mr Townend that the conduct of the Employer in not offering the Applicant an alternative position, was designed to make him resign. Firstly, Mr Lake took the view that the position was comparable and utilising the skills which Mr Townend had demonstrated while employed 31. Secondly, Mr Lake did not contemplate a technical/hands-on role because either the positions were not available, or more probably, this issue did not arise in their discussion.
[48] Importantly, in cross-examination, in regard to alternative offers of employment, this exchange occurred:
“…Did you raise any possibilities or engage in any conversation with the company about other roles other than the sales manager's role?---I personally did not request, as being a branch manager I am not aware of every single role that would have been available at the time. I would feel that I would have been plucking from the sky, so to speak - and I would have expected that a vice-president like Richard Lake would be aware of the vast number of roles available within the company.” 32
[49] Mr Townend contends that because he voiced his concerns about occupying the role of Business Development Manager at the meeting on 14 December 2009, the Employer should, in the absence of any formal rejection of their offer, have sourced alternative available positions, if any, for the Applicant’s consideration.
[50] I am satisfied that the Employer’s conduct was reasonable. In my view, the Applicant cannot portray his lack of action or engagement on this issue, as damaging conduct on behalf of the Employer.
[51] I now turn to the Applicant’s submission and evidence concerning the work environment leading up to the meeting on 14 December 2009. While not articulated by the Applicant this way, Mr Townend was seeking to persuade the Tribunal that the organisational restructure was the final incident in a series of other events which led the Applicant to resign.
[52] When the Applicant tendered his resignation previously in August 2009 by email to Mr Lake, he states:
“I have seen some very promising things from your [Mr Lake] recent visits here to WA…I [Mr Townend] feel like I am telling you what to do, but I feel more time spent doing this style of work, and less time asking me a million questions will benefit the company a lot more, sure grill me at the pub…or privately…when something goes wrong but not everyday or every time…I am seen as a puppet controlled by Newcastle, I am seen to have no authority of my own.” 33
[53] It is not contested that Mr Lake bypassed the State Manager and dealt with Mr Townend directly. The Applicant described the interaction as being “hammered” 34 but essentially they were focussed conversations on increasing sales35. The interactions also related to the “financials” of the Branch which were “not up to speed by quite a long shot”36.
[54] Mr Lake was concerned with the operational outcomes. Initially, he attempted to correct the situation through the State Manager but being frustrated with lack of improvement, began to deal directly with Mr Townend. Mr Lake described his intervention in terms of “mentoring” 37, whereas, Mr Townend describes it as “dominating”38.
[55] The Applicant put, ironically, to Mr Lake why he would, knowing his dissatisfaction with the performance of the Henderson Branch, go to such detail and lengths, to retain Mr Townend when he voluntarily resigned in August 2009. Mr Lake responded:
“…Well, I suppose what it does; it reinforces my belief that you were worth putting effort into and mentoring further to develop you further within the business. I didn't think that you were, if you like, not worth exercising any effort. I believed that you had a future with the organisation. The fact that the branch was still not performing was, I thought, unrelated to that email at the time. You were saying "I'm going to resign, for all these frustrations on how a business operates", I responded in detail why I thought that was important and why it would always have to happen, but at the end of the day I still believed that you had the ability to turn this - as far as becoming a decent manager within the organisation.” 39
[56] It is noticeable that in the reorganisation, the Employer took the view that the State Manager should leave the organisation but attempted to retain the services of Mr Townend.
[57] I am satisfied, on the evidence presented, that the intervention of Mr Lake in the management of the Henderson Branch was out of commercial necessity. It was not intended or the cause of conduct, which led to the Applicant resigning. While Mr Townend may have desired to “run his own show”, those needs cannot take precedent over the Employer’s imperative to have profitable branches. Further, I am satisfied that the restructure was a further event, to improve the performance of the Branch and not to force the Applicant to resign.
[58] Finally, I now turn to the meeting on 14 December 2009 as described by Mr Townend in cross-examination:
“…"We would like you to take a business development role. We believe you'll be good at it," et cetera, as Mr Lake had clearly said in his statement today. I voiced my concerns and said that I really don't think it's what I am trained to do or capable of doing and was told there and then - I said - I actually requested that, "Is it possible for me to retain the branch manager's role because I'm quite happy in that role?" And he said, no, that it was given to Brian and I asked if it was open for discussion and he replied, "No, he starts Monday. That's just the way it is." From there I don't feel that it was an admirable role. I was very insecure in myself in my sales aspect….Whilst people say that I may have been good at sales or poor at sales, I do not believe my strength was in sales. I aired that to my CEO or my vice-president at the time and was told, "That's it. Have a couple of days to think about it."…and get back to them…To me it was like asking a farmer to be a pilot.” 40
[59] Mr Townend submitted to the Tribunal in his outline of submission that he “was given four days to consider accepting the only option or resign”.
[60] Not only did the Employer extend the period to which Mr Townend was able to respond to the offer of the Business Development Manager from 19 to 23 December 2009, but also, at no time, was he put in the circumstances of accept the position or resign as the following exchange reveals:
“But they did extend it. They didn't force - they didn't pressure you and say, "You must make a decision today. Your time is up"?---No.” 41
“They didn't at any time say, "You must resign"?---They gave me no other option.” 42
“No, they didn't say it, did they?---They gave me no other option.” 43
“Please answer my question?---What is your question?” 44
“My question is did Mr Lake or Ms Marks say to you, "If you do not take up this offer you will be dismissed"?---They did not say those exact words, no.” 45
“Yet on 30 December in Mr Lake's email to you he's still being positive and up beat, isn't he? Said, "You can do this role"?---In the email, yes.” 46
[61] I am satisfied that the Employer did not put to the Applicant the offer of the Business Development Manger’s position on the basis of “take it” or resign.
[62] From the evidence, the Employer did not conclude the issue of whether the Applicant would take up the offer of alternative offer of employment. The most significant event after 23 December 2009 in 2010 was Mr Townend seeking a voluntary redundancy payment. This request was refused. On 13 January 2010, the Applicant submitted his resignation which was accepted on the following day.
[63] Prior to 13 January 2010, with the exception of rejection of the voluntary severance, the last communication from Mr Lake was:
“…All that we really want is for you to return to work in a role that we believe is more suited to your skills. We have, as you have acknowledged, offered any further training that you require. An offer was also conveyed to you to have Rod Cheney (a Branch Manager who has successfully made the transition to BDM) come to Perth to personally assist you. I am copying James Gillespie in on this email. Please contact him so that we can move forward. Please be advised that we still want you to take on the Business Development role and believe you could make a success of it.” 47
[64] Having considered all the evidence and exhibits, I cannot conclude that Mr Townend resigned from his employment because of conduct or a course of conduct engaged in by his Employer. In these circumstances, the Applicant was not dismissed from his employment in pursuant to s.386(1) of the Act.
[65] Accordingly, the application must be dismissed and an order to that effect now issues.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
Mr K Townend, the Applicant
Mr A Price for the Respondent
Hearing details:
2010
Perth:
9 June 2010
1 Exhibit A1 - Reference 4, paras 1-5
2 Exhibit R2 - paras 1, 4-5.
3 Document provided to Tribunal, tab 15
4 Exhibit A1- Reference 1, paras 1 & 2
5 PN 248
6 PN 249
7 PN 250
8 PN 251
9 PN 275
10 PN 295 and PN 316
11 PN 328
12 PN 276
13 PN 355
14 PN 249
15 PN 18
16 PN 20
17 PN 21
18 PN 24
19 PN 80
20 PN 123
21 PN 642
22 PN 644
23 Exhibit R1 – tab 1
24 PN 316
25 Exhibit R1, tabs 5 & 6
26 PN 588
27 PN 159
28 PN 287
29 PN 275
30 PN131
31 PN 170
32 PN 276
33 Exhibit R1, tabs 5 & 6
34 PN 281
35 PN 281 & PN 282
36 PN 302
37 PN 139
38 PN 328
39 PN 145
40 PN 295
41 PN 416
42 PN 417
43 PN 418
44 PN 419
45 PN 420
46 PN 422
47 Exhibit R4
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, PR998449>
0
0
0