Mr Peter Evan John Morris v Crown Equipment Pty Ltd
[2010] FWA 3447
•10 MAY 2010
[2010] FWA 3447 |
|
DECISION |
Workplace Relations Act 1996
s.643 - Application for relief re (Unlawful and Harsh, Unjust or Unreasonable) termination of employment
Mr Peter Evan John Morris
v
Crown Equipment Pty Ltd
(U2009/10291)
COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN | PERTH, 10 MAY 2010 |
Application for relief.
[1] On 13 July 2009, Mr Peter Evan John Morris (“the Applicant”) made application, pursuant to s.643 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (“the Act”), for relief in relation to the termination of his employment.
[2] Mr Morris’ employer was Crown Equipment Pty Ltd (“the Employer”) and his employment was terminated on 26 June 2009. Mr Morris alleges that his termination of employment was:
- harsh, unjust and unreasonable; and
- in contravention of s.659 of the Act in that it was discriminatory; and
- the Employer failed to give the required notice pursuant to s.661 of the Act.
[3] The matter was unable to be resolved at conciliation and the Applicant elected to proceed to arbitration in the Tribunal. The matter was referred to me for arbitration and determination.
BACKGROUND
[4] Mr Morris was employed as a Service Technician by the Employer from 9 May 2008 until 26 June 2009.
[5] On 26 June 2009, Mr Peter Morris signed and dated the following memorandum:
“To whom it may concern
I, Peter Morris, tender my resignation as a Service Technician effective 26 June 2009 with 2 weeks notice.”
[6] Mr Peter Morris signed and dated the above memorandum following a meeting with Mr Alan Morris (no relation), WA Service Manager and Mr Julian Powell, Product Support Manager. The meeting related to Mr Alan Morris finding a dismantled lead light with exposed wires on the Applicant’s metal workbench the previous evening. The electric plug of the lead light was connected to an extension cord which, in turn, was plugged into the wall power outlet, which it must be said, was not switched on.
[7] The Employer sought an explanation from Mr Peter Morris as to why he dismantled the lead light and left it in such potentially dangerous circumstances. Mr Morris failed to provide a satisfactory explanation and the Employer, after taking into account this incident and two previous formal warnings relating to safety matters, informed the Applicant that his employment was to be terminated. As an alternative to termination of employment, the Applicant was given the opportunity to resign – which he did.
[8] The Applicant was not required to work his notice and was provided by the Employer with two weeks’ wages in lieu of notice.
RELEVANT ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION
Did the Applicant resign voluntarily?
[9] In the first instance, the Employer submitted that the Applicant was unable to seek relief under the Act in relation to this termination of employment, as he resigned.
[10] It is clear on the evidence of the Applicant, Mr Alan Morris, Mr Steven Hill, State Manager and Mr Powell that the Applicant did not resign voluntarily but knew that should he not do so, his employment would have been terminated there and then.
[11] It should be noted that the Employer’s Counsel did not extensively prosecute this argument, and the witnesses for the Employer gave honest evidence to the effect that Mr Peter Morris did not resign of his own free will, but knowing that if he did not, his employment would be ceased by the Employer immediately.
[12] Having given regard to all the evidence, I consider that the termination of employment meets the provisions of s.642(4) of the Act and the Applicant is able to seek relief in respect of his termination of employment.
Was Mr Morris’ termination of employment harsh, unjust or unreasonable?
[13] For Mr Morris to persuade the Tribunal that his termination of employment was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, it is necessary to have regard for the following in s.652(3) of the Act:
“In determining, for the purposes of the arbitration, whether a termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the Commission must have regard to:
(a) whether there was a valid reason for the termination related to the employee’s capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees); and
(b) whether the employee was notified of that reason; and
(c) whether the employee was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the employee; and
(d) if the termination related to unsatisfactory performance by the employee—whether the employee had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the termination; and
(e) the degree to which the size of the employer’s undertaking, establishment or service would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the termination; and
(f) the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the undertaking, establishment or service would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the termination; and
(g) any other matters that the Commission considers relevant.”
[14] I will now examine the evidence presented at the hearing against the criterion set out immediately above in paragraph [13] to determine whether Mr Morris’ termination of employment was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
Was there a valid reason for Mr Morris’ termination related to the employee’s capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees)?
[15] The adjective “valid” should be given its ordinary meaning of sound, defensible and well grounded 1.
[16] To determine whether the Employer had a valid reason to terminate Mr Morris’ employment, I need to look at the actions of both parties and, having done so, reliably come to the conclusion that a valid reason existed or not.
[17] Further, and importantly, it is necessary that the reasons for termination be justifiable on an objective analysis of the facts, and not simply a belief that the reasons are valid 2.
[18] Mr Peter Morris, on the day he commenced employment with the Employer, acknowledged and signed that he had “read and understood the Company’s Policies and Procedures and the terms and conditions contained within them” 3. Among the Company’s policies and procedures, was one relating to Occupational Health and Safety.
[19] While there was disputation about how much time was devoted to the Employer’s induction course, it is not disputed that occupational health and safety was raised and dealt with. While I suspect that discussion and detail was not as extensive as put to me by the Employer, I am satisfied that it was sufficient for Mr Morris to understand its importance in the culture of Crown Equipment Pty Ltd.
[20] The Occupational Health and Safety Policy is a “one pager” and has the following key lines:
“The health, safety and wellbeing of all employees, visitors and contractors is important and fundamental to the operations of all Crown Equipment Pty Ltd sites…”
[21] From this broad statement and the means by which to achieve this objective, the policy highlights the responsibilities of employees and managers and supervisors. Among these are:
- Employees
“Follow all work instructions and safe work procedures either written or verbal”; and
“Accept that safety in your work area is your responsibility”.
- Managers and Supervisors
“Never walk past a hazardous condition or practice. Walk and talk the commitment to safety every day thereby leading by example” 4.
[22] It is against this background, that three occupational health and safety incidents led to Mr Morris being faced with the situation of “you’re fired or required” (to sign a resignation letter).
First Incident
[23] The first incident occurred in November 2008, relating to Mr Morris failing to “green tag” forklift trucks.
[24] Essentially, in the words of Mr Powell, who at the relevant time was the Product Support Manager, and worked in the industry since 1993:
“The forklift, before we send it out to rent, has to be checked to make sure that everything functions. It has to be safe, there's no oil leaks, the brakes work, the lights work; all the general things which would make the forklift safe. So the procedure is laid out here in my PMP procedure. So it's simply reading through it, doing each of those steps. When he's done that, he would compile his job card to say he had done the rental pre-check. Once that had been done, then he would put a tag on the machine, red or green, to say it was ready to go or not ready to go”. 5
[25] Also, Mr Alan Morris advised that, apart from safety reasons, tagging was an efficiency procedure:
“…when it come (sic) to green tagging or red tagging the machines, that everyone could identify where that truck was at instead of going in and doing repairs on a forklift, sitting it outside, that was already looked at, and then we would get another service technician go in and do the same procedure and there was no formal record that you could actually go and have a look at and see. So I implemented that every truck had to be tagged and every truck had to have a check sheet”. 6
[26] In short, the process of tagging was a safety, accountability, transparency and efficiency procedure.
[27] The Employer did not argue that the Applicant never put a tag on equipment but there were “several instances” 7 or “many times”8 where Mr Peter Morris failed to fill in the correct paperwork or tag the equipment. Further, it should be borne in mind that the procedure was described by Mr Hill as nothing “complex”9 and within the workshop, a task “of least competence required”.10
[28] The Employer, noting Mr Peter Morris’ suboptimum performance in this area of his responsibilities 11, made tagging an agenda item at a “toolbox meeting” on 19 November 2008. The minutes of the meeting record the following:
“All units are to be tagged either green or red depending on readiness. Refer to Workshop Supervisor for procedures. Written instructions to follow.” 12
[29] The Employer acknowledged that, following a discussion with the Training Manager in Sydney, further instructions which followed were verbal, not written.
[30] Two days later on 21 November 2008, the Applicant had a meeting with Mr Alan Morris, Mr Powell and Mr Colquhoun. At the meeting or subsequent to the meeting, the Applicant was forwarded correspondence which has the title of “NOTICE OF WRITTEN WARNING” and signed by Mr Alan Morris. The key paragraphs are as follows:
“The purpose of the meeting was to discuss your unsatisfactory work practice By (sic) failing to carry out the correct procedure. Completing green tags for units for the customer as discussed at the last tool box meting the day before.”
“In view of the above we are issuing you with a written warning. It has been explained to you that if there is insufficient improvement, then further disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment could result”. 13
[31] While the Applicant took issue with the correspondence, especially the fact that he had not signed to say he had received it, and a mistake regarding the date of the tool box meeting, I am satisfied, on the evidence, that a meeting did occur on 21 November 2008. The meeting discussed Mr Peter Morris’ unwillingness to comply, on every occasion, with Company policy in relation to tagging, and that the correspondence was issued to Mr Morris.
[32] Notwithstanding my findings, it should be noted that the Applicant could not recall the meeting or receiving the letter. 14
Second Incident
[33] The second incident occurred in February 2009 and related to the use, by the Applicant of soft wood rather than hard wood for supporting the mast of forklifts.
[34] Essentially, on occasions, it is necessary to lift a forklift truck off the ground to work on the machine, for example, to take the wheels off the truck. For safety reasons, when the truck is lifted off the ground, it is “blocked” (supported) by hard wood. On a number of occasions 15, the Applicant used “soft” or pine wood. It should be noted that the pine wood was in the workshop because it was used for packing purposes in the transportation of the forklifts. Further, and importantly, in the transportation of the forklifts, pine wood is not used for support purposes.
[35] The Employer gave evidence, which Mr Peter Morris did not contradict, that he had received module training information in relation to what is described as, “Control of Hazardous Energy” 16. The module makes it repetitively and abundantly clear, that hard wood is to be used to support load bearing equipment.
[36] Hard wood is preferred, as it has a greater density and less subject to compression. Soft wood is not preferred due to the characteristics of less density and prevalence to split and splinter. It should be noted that, an averaged sized forklift truck weighs five tonne.
[37] Further, and illustratively, the Employer gave evidence of a forklift truck toppling sideways after a service technician failed to follow proper procedures. I should emphasise that the technician was not Mr Peter Morris. The Employer responded to the incident by issuing a safety alert to all service technicians in the Company and retrained them on the control of hazardous energies.
[38] The Applicant successfully completed the Control of Hazardous Energy Module and Control of Hazardous Energy (IC) Skill Check. It is noticeable that the instructor for both courses was Mr Powell and both modules incorporated the correct blocking of trucks 17.
[39] Against this background, the Employer on 18 February 2009 issued, following a meeting with the Applicant, a further formal warning. The relevant paragraphs of the correspondence to Mr Peter Morris are as follows:
“On numerous occasions you have been advised not to use soft wood blocks for supporting the M series mast. The use of soft wood blocks is a breach of safety procedures. When completing this task in the future you are to utilise hard wood blocks as per the Control of Hazardous Energy Section of the Service and Parts Manual, M Series.
Please note failure to adhere to company policies and procedures in the future will attract disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.” 18
[40] Mr Morris signed to say that he received the correspondence.
[41] Firstly, Mr Peter Morris denied that he had seen the safety alert 19. However, he did agree that he had seen the Employer’s “Take Five and Stay Safe” card which is intended to fit into the top pocket of working overalls20. The key five points are:
1 Stop and think
2 Spot the hazards
3 Assess the risk
4 Make the changes
5 Do the job safely
[42] On the back and easily readable are the “Crown Care” beliefs. There are four, and for my purposes, I set out two of them as relevant to Mr P Morris’ application:
“No task is so important that it cannot be done safety” and
“Everyone has a personal responsibility for the health and safety of themselves and their work mates”.
[43] Thirdly, the Applicant conceded that, as part of his training and in the manuals, he was required to use hard wood blocks. 21 However, notwithstanding Company policy, Mr Morris’ approach was unconventional and stated:
“Well I believe when I did that M series…the blocks of wood that I had would do the job safely and it did the job safely.” 22
[44] The Applicant appears to have adopted the view that his self proclaimed belief concerning safety, is sufficient to override Company safety practice.
[45] The Applicant’s attempt to undermine the Employer’s position on hard wood by: questioning whether it was pine wood 23; whether there was sufficient hard wood blocks24; the fact that two storey houses are built with pine wood25; or the Employer’s witnesses are not wood experts,26 is not sustainable in the context of employee safety
[46] While not directly in contradiction, the Applicant put to the Tribunal two positions he adopted. Firstly, that there was insufficient hard wood and more should have been readily available. Secondly, Mr Morris submitted, which I think is closer to the truth, when he states:
“The blocks I used I believe were safe.” 27
[47] I am satisfied that the Employer, after observing instances of Mr Morris breaching Company policy, in relation to the blocking of equipment with soft wood, confronted the Applicant and gave him a further final warning.
Third Incident
[48] The third incident which led to the Applicant’s termination of employment related to the Employer finding a dismantled lead light with exposed wires (active and neutral) on Mr Morris’ metal workbench. The lead light was connected to an extension power cord, which, in turn, was plugged into a general purpose outlet (power point) on the wall. The outlet was, it should be said, not switched on. Although the power point was not switched on, the Employer saw the situation as dangerous with the risk of electric shock and potentially, electrocution to Mr Peter Morris or other employees.
[49] The situation was observed by Mr Alan Morris, WA Service Manager, on 25 June 2009, after employees had left the premises.
[50] Mr Alan Morris fetched Mr Hill to show him the circumstances as he found them. Mr Alan Morris took photographs of the circumstances, and these were tendered as Exhibit R3. Importantly, a photograph shows the lead light plug connected to the extension cord.
[51] Mr Powell, who has a restricted electrical licence (C grade), was shown the photographs on the following morning. Mr Powell’s response was unequivocal:
“…I was flabbergasted. A metal work bench with an active and neutral, on that metal bench, isolated by the switch, just astounded me…” 28
And further:
“…This is where 240 volts AC comes out of these two and it’s quite capable of killing someone – very capable of killing someone.” 29
[52] On the following day, Mr Alan Morris discussed the situation with Human Resources in the Sydney Office of the Employer. Subsequently, Mr Alan Morris and Mr Julian Powell met with the Applicant for 15-20 minutes. The Applicant was presented with the photographs and asked to provide an explanation.
[53] Evidence given by Mr Alan Morris about the meeting was that the Applicant’s initial response was to the effect, “what’s wrong with the power lead? It’s not turned on.” 30 And in response to a statement from Mr Powell that it was unsafe, the Applicant couldn’t see what the fuss was all about.
[54] Mr Powell’s evidence of the meeting is captured in paragraph 1288 when he says:
“Tell me what happened at that meeting, if you would?---At that meeting we showed Peter the pictures. We asked him to explain. He was adamant that he was - that it was safe. He couldn't - he was - he was astounded that I couldn't see that it was a safe procedure. He just couldn't believe that we had - we thought this was unsafe. At that stage we gave him the option of leaving or us resigning his - terminating his employment. Yes.” 31
And
“Right. Did you go through the prior history of - - -?---I'm pretty sure we'd said to Peter that, you know, the fact that and with all these other incidences that had occurred and this incident here, this to me was the final straw. I'd just - my son works in the workshop, you know, in two bays down, and if someone just had to try and flick a fan on which is in the next power point, then touching a metal bench, the guy could have been killed. Yes. We would have discussed a fair few of Peter's misdemeanours in that meeting.” 32
[55] Mr Powell was cross-examined extensively by the Applicant as to whether he claimed, in the interview on 26 June 2009, that the lead light was plugged into the extension cord. In summary, Mr Powell’s evidence was either the Applicant did not assert, or he does not recall, him making the statement that the lead light was not plugged into the extension cord.
[56] To determine whether the lead light was or was not plugged into the extension cord, I have also referred to Form R27 as requested by the Applicant in his witness statement. To ensure clarity and ease of ready, I have corrected the spelling mistakes. Mr Morris states:
“Remember the switch on the wall must be in the on position for power to reach point and for power to flow to the lead light through the extension lead and to the lead light. One must have both the switch on the wall to be in the on position and the extension lead connected to the lead light for the power to reach the lead light. If the lead light is plugged into the extension lead and the plug on the wall is not switched on, then power will not get to the light. Or the other way around, the switch was (in the) on position, and the extension lead not connected to the lead light, no power will flow and the lead light will not work, making it totally safe to work on…one must knowingly have both the plug on the wall switched in the on position and the extension lead and light plugged in the current to reach the light and turn on.” 33
[57] Mr Peter Morris’ statement demonstrates to the Tribunal his thought processes which are logical, but fail to take into account, unfortunate accidents and fatalities, which have led to safety practices and procedures, which go way beyond logic to avoid or reduce, the potential for such accidents to occur.
[58] I reiterate that Mr Powell gave evidence that the Applicant did not raise, or he could not recall, him asserting that the lead light was not plugged into the extension cord. Mr Alan Morris, however, gave evidence that the Applicant did claim, at the end of their discussion, on the day of his dismissal, that the lead light was not plugged into the extension cord. 34 However, the Applicant maintained and it was corroborated by the Employer’s witnesses, that the early part of the meeting related to the fact that the power point was not switched on, making the situation safe (in the view of the Applicant) and not to whether the lead light plug was plugged into the extension cord.
[59] Having considered the statement of the Applicant in his original application, the evidence of Messrs Powell and Alan Morris (whose evidence while not consistent, in my view, was truthful), I conclude that, on the balance of probabilities, that the lead light was plugged into the extension cord. Further, in my view, if the lead light was not plugged into the extension cord, it would have been argued promptly and vociferously by the Applicant early in the meeting which led to his dismissal, rather than what appears to be, an after thought.
[60] Mr Morris raised a number of issues such as: having to do “electrical work” such as changing light bulbs and that “rules and regulations are sort of changing with regards to repairing a lead light in WA” 35 and his qualifications, versus those of the Employer’s witnesses. Many of these issues, some of which are conjecture, did not go to the essence of the application to the Tribunal.
[61] It goes without saying that an employee is responsible for their own safety and health at work. However, an employee is also responsible for ensuring that they do not conduct themselves in a way which could endanger or increase the risk of endangering other persons at work. I am satisfied from the evidence presented to the Tribunal that the manner in which the lead light was left, by the Applicant, in the workshop was unsafe.
[62] It has to be said that the Applicant continually put the view that his conduct in relation to “tagging”, “soft wood blocks” and the “lead light” incident as safe, because he believed it to be safe and no harm eventuated. However, that is not the standard which I can, or should apply, to the Applicant’s conduct. Either, due to his own self belief or confidence in his own capacity, the Applicant chose a path different to the Employer’s policy on health and safety and instructions from his immediate supervisor. This path led to two formal warnings with the potential that, if improvement did not occur, termination of employment. On the third occasion, the Employer, given the serious nature of the circumstances, took the view that this was the “final straw” and took into account the earlier incidents and terminated the Applicant’s employment.
[63] Finally, when the Applicant entered into his contract of employment, he expressly acknowledged that he had “read and understood” the Employer’s Occupational Health and Safety Policy and the terms and conditions contained within them. There was no argument from the Applicant that the aims and objectives contained within the Policy were anything but legitimate. Having done so, the Applicant cannot pick and choose which instructions and duties he will perform consistent with his own views about what is safe or not. Simply put, especially in the area of health and safety, the Applicant cannot expect that his desires or beliefs, override the Employer’s statutory duty to provide a safe working environment.
[64] To answer the question posed at the beginning of this section, was there a valid reason for Mr Peter Morris’ termination of employment relating to his capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees)? I have to conclude that there was a valid reason to terminate the Applicant’s employment after the accumulation of the three incidents to which I have referred to. Further, the reason was sound, defensible and well grounded.
Was the Applicant notified of the reason for termination of employment?
[65] I find that the Employer provided the Applicant with reasons and photographs of the third incident, which led to his termination of employment.
Was Mr Morris given the opportunity to respond to his conduct on what I have described at the third incident?
[66] Mr Morris, on his own evidence, has advised that, in the meeting of approximately 20 minutes, he advised the Employer why his conduct was safe. While, in my assessment, the Employer’s representatives took into that meeting a fixed view on Mr Morris’ conduct, in the circumstances, such a view, was understandable and not unreasonable in view of the previous incidents.
[67] From my observations, Mr Morris is capable of asserting his views and from the evidence presented, the Inquiry into the incident and follow-up meeting was conducted in reasonable circumstances which did not prejudice the Applicant. While not an human resources text book Inquiry, nevertheless, it was reasonable process in view of the seriousness of the situation which the Employer found itself in.
Did Mr Morris’ termination relate to unsatisfactory performance, and if so, had he been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the termination?
[68] The Employer did not submit to the Tribunal that, save for these three incidents over 20 months, that Mr Morris’ performance was unsatisfactory.
[69] I am satisfied that the evidence presented indicates that Mr Morris did receive warnings concerning his ongoing employment relating to the first and second incidents.
The degree to which the size of the employer’s undertaking, establishment or service would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the termination.
[70] The procedure followed by the Employer was not contested by Mr Morris with the exception of being fired or required to sign a letter of resignation.
The degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the undertaking, establishment or service would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the termination.
[71] No evidence was given that dedicated human resource specialists were involved in the first and second incidents. In relation to the third incident, contact was made with dedicated human resource specialists prior to the meeting with Mr Morris on 26 June 2009.
[72] Having the benefit of submissions, evidence and exhibits, I am unable to agree that, in all the circumstances, the Applicant’s termination of employment was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
WAS THE APPLICANT DISCRIMINATED AGAINST PURSUANT TO S.659 OF THE ACT?
[73] Mr Morris, in his application for relief in relation to his termination of employment, alleged that one of his reasons for making the application, was that he had been discriminated against.
[74] Section 659(2) of the Act sets out that an employer must not terminate an employee’s employment for a number of reasons. I do not propose to detail the reasons as they are contained in the Act, save to say that Mr Morris did not particularise the reason in his application to the Tribunal. Further, as part of the process leading to arbitration, I requested, in correspondence to the Applicant dated 10 March 2010, for him to, “address the essential elements of why you allege you were dismissed contrary to the provisions of s.659(2) of the Act”. Mr Peter Morris did not address the issue in his reply dated 16 March 2010.
[75] Notwithstanding the lack of particularity leading up to the hearing, Counsel for the Employer put to the Applicant “…on what basis do you say Crown discriminated against you unlawfully?” 36
[76] Mr Peter Morris responded by stating, “Well, basically you’re terminating my employment on these three notices, okay, and you’re saying sort of like three strikes and you’re out. Okay?” 37 Further, “Now you didn’t have any reason to give me any of these notices. Now, you say that you – I terminated my employment. I didn’t terminate my employment. Your people told me to sign this or, I will terminate your employment”38 Finally, “then there were situations whereby I put in a request to get a rise and your people didn’t put the modules together so he denied me the right to…[promotion and therefore a wage increase]”39
[77] From the evidence provided by Mr Peter Morris, it is clear that the reasons for alleged discrimination primarily relate to his contention that his dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable, and secondly, to undertake training modules leading to a potential pay rise. There is no evidence to reach the conclusion that the Employer unlawfully terminated Mr Morris on the grounds set out in s.659(2) of the Act.
DID THE EMPLOYER FAIL TO GIVE THE REQUIRED NOTICE PURSUANT TO S.661 OF THE ACT?
[78] Mr Morris received two weeks pay in lieu of notice on termination of employment.
[79] Section 661 provides, where an employee is paid an amount in lieu of notice, the amount should be consistent with the table provided in s.661(2). In the Applicant’s case, he was employed for more than one year, but less than three years and, consequently, entitled to two weeks pay in lieu of notice.
[80] Where an employee is aged 45 years and over, he or she is provided with a further one week if they have completed two years of continuous service with the employer. In Mr Morris’ case, he is over 45 years of age, but did not complete at least two years of continuous service. Consequently, Mr Morris is not entitled to any further payment pursuant to s.661 of the Act.
CONCLUSION
In accordance with my reasons and findings above, I am unable to agree with the Applicant that his termination of employment was harsh, unjust or unreasonable and, consequently, the application must be dismissed.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
Mr Peter Evan John Morris, the Applicant.
Mr Joseph Scarcella, General Legal Counsel, Crown Equipment Pty Ltd
Hearing details:
2010
Perth
21 April
1 Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 371 at 373
2 Rode v Burwood Mitsubishi Print R4471 at pn 19
3 Acknowledgement Form Company Polices & Procedures provided in accordance with Directions dated 29 March 2010
4 Exhibit R6
5 PN 1142
6 PN 1816
7 PN 1682
8 PN 1684
9 PN 834
10 PN 833
11 PN 1183
12 Exhibit A1
13 Exhibit A1
14 PN 471-483
15 PN 1237
16 Exhibit R6
17 Exhibit R2 Copy 4
18 Exhibit A1
19 PN 202
20 Exhibit 4
21 PN 266
22 PN 261
23 PN 273
24 PN 1637
25 PN 674
26 PN 674
27 PN 262
28 PN 1272
29 PN 1274
30 Exhibit R9
31 PN 1288
32 PN 1291
33 R27 Form
34 PN 2337
35 PN 2341
36 PN 527
37 PN 527
38 PN 528
39 PN 530
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, PR996646>
0
2
0