Mr Timothy Draper v PPI Corporation Pty Limited
[2010] FWA 9033
•29 NOVEMBER 2010
[2010] FWA 9033 |
|
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy
Mr Timothy Draper
v
PPI Corporation Pty Limited
(U2010/10229)
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS | BRISBANE, 29 NOVEMBER 2010 |
Summary - unfair dismissal - whether conduct occurred and was it misconduct - whether conduct incident associated with workplace - credit.
[1] This application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”) in relation to an unfair dismissal remedy was lodged by Mr Timothy Draper (“the Applicant”). The Respondent is PPI Corporation Pty Limited. The application was heard in Townsville on Thursday, 18 November 2010.
BACKGROUND
[2] The Applicant was a permanent store person who had been employed by the Respondent since April 2008. The Respondent's business concerned the storage and distribution of pipes from a warehouse facility.
[3] The Applicant was notified of his dismissal in correspondence from Mr John Collins, Manager of the Respondent's Townsville Operations on 16 June 2010.
SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
[4] The Respondent contended that a complaint had been made by Mr Mark Tracey, a co-worker of the Applicant, regarding an alleged abusive telephone call Mr Tracey received (on 9 June 2010) whilst on holiday. The context of that conversation, it was alleged, was an inquiry made by the Applicant as to why Mr Tracey had made a statement in relation to a work-related injury sustained by the Applicant. The Applicant is said to have believed Mr Tracey’s statement to have been unhelpful to his claim. 1
[5] The conversation is said to have commenced with a query of the following kind from the Applicant:
“What is this about you doing a statement about my injury for John Collins?”
[6] Mr Tracey is said to have replied that he was asked to explain (to Mr Collins) how he and the Applicant were working on 21 May 2010 when the Applicant sustained an injury to his shoulder, and he (Mr Tracey) had drafted a statement accordingly.
[7] The Applicant is then said to have stated words to the effect that:
“Is this the way it is going to work is it?” 2
[8] The Applicant was alleged in the further course of that conversation to have called Mr Tracey a “f.ck...g dog” and to have made other abusive comments as well. Mr Tracey states that he ended the telephone call abruptly because of the Applicant’s “language and attitude”. 3
[9] The telephone call had been placed on speaker phone and was overheard in part by Mr Tracey’s partner, Janine Harvey. 4
[10] Shortly after receiving the alleged telephone call, Mr Tracey stated that he inadvertently telephoned the Applicant's mobile phone number when he was trying to contact the Respondent's human resources department. The call was answered by Ms Ashleigh King, the Applicant’s partner, of whom it is said abused Mr Tracey in strong terms before the call was terminated. 5
[11] Ms Harvey claimed (in a record of conversation to which further reference is made below 6) that she subsequently telephoned Ms King, with whom she had had a previous friendship, to clarify the circumstances that had arisen. Ms Harvey states at that time the discussion concerned the appropriateness of Mr Tracey’s conduct in giving evidence in the WorkCover investigation.7 The conversation appears to have been far from an exchange of pleasantries.
[12] Mr Tracey and Ms Harvey thereafter spoke to Ms Jacquita Chaplin, the Respondent's Human Resources Officer. Mr Tracey’s phone log, which was brought into evidence, shows the conversation occurred over 21 minutes, and took place some short time after the telephone call said to have been from the Applicant. 8
[13] Ms Chaplin kept a diary note of the telephone conversation. 9 That diary note records the claims above, including that the focus of the conversation had concerned comments that Mr Tracey had made to WorkCover about the Applicant’s claim. The diary notes also record that Ms Harvey telephoned Ms King later that afternoon and had “an abusive conversation”.10
[14] The Applicant was stood down on 10 June 2010. 11
[15] Mr Collins then prepared, with the assistance of Mr Chris Holmes, the Respondent's Human Resources Manager, a letter outlining the allegations made by Mr Tracey and Ms Harvey and served these on the Applicant. 12 The Applicant claims not to have received this correspondence, though Mr Collins states that he handed it to the Applicant personally.13 The correspondence directed the Applicant to attend an interview the following day.14
[16] The conference convened on 11 June 2010 involved the Applicant, his support person, known as “Daniel”, Mr Collins and Holmes.
[17] The Respondent did not accept the Applicant's version of events (which are set out further below) for the following reasons:
- the Applicant did not provide any telephone records to substantiate his claims (stating that his legal representative advised him that he was not required to provide such records and, in any event, his mother, who is the account holder for the telephone line, had not given him permission to access her telephone records);
- the Applicant’s assertion that Mr Tracey would make such a claim about having received a telephone call from the Applicant “out of the blue” was not credible, given he had been the Applicant's friend for a number of years and appeared to lack any motivation to make to make a phone call in the terms described by the Applicant;
- Mr Tracey’s telephone records showed he had received a telephone call from the Applicant's landline at 1423 hours and that he had called the Applicant's mobile telephone at 1425 hours (as the Applicant had claimed). Mr Tracey stated that the call placed at 1425 hours was designed to clarify the situation with the Applicant, but because the Applicant had continued to be abusive, he ended the conversation once more. Several further calls were made from the Applicant’s landline to the Respondent's mobile phone, as Mr Tracey’s records demonstrated, but he did not answer them; and
- in the circumstances, Mr Tracey’s claims were credible.
[18] On the basis of these findings, the Respondent concluded that as the Applicant, for reasons of his inappropriate conduct, had acted contrary to the Respondent’s Code of Conduct. It was noted that the Applicant had already been subject to a written Final Warning (on 30 March 2010) as a result of abusing two other persons. Consequently, the Applicant’s employment was terminated with immediate effect.
[19] I should add that the further context mentioned above in relation to the written warning of 30 March 2010 (which was given at a meeting on 24 March 2010) concerned two complaints, both made on 9 March 2010. The first incident concerned a complaint that the Applicant had sworn at his WorkCover Customer Advisor by referring to her as “f...ing stupid” and as a “bitch” and commenting that she had not been “f...ing listening”, amongst other things, it is said. The conversation is said to have been about the Applicant’s return to work on suitable duties. 15
[20] The second incident concerned a complaint from the offices of the Applicant's treating physician that the Applicant had been verbally abusive to a staff member about the suitable duties arrangements. 16 The Final Warning made reference to the Respondent's Code of Conduct, in respect of which it is said the Applicant had been trained. At the hearing, the Applicant did not deny the warnings, or that he was aware that he was on a final warning, but claimed that he had not sworn directly at anyone.
[21] I also note that after the telephone conversation of 9 June 2010, Mr Tracey states that he telephoned the Respondent's Human Resources Officer, Ms Jacquita Chaplin. He, his partner (Ms Harvey) and Ms Chaplin spoke for some 20 minutes about the incident.. Ms Chaplin maintained a record of the conversation. 17
[22] The Applicant’s position for the purposes of the hearing of this application was that his partner, Ms King, had made a telephone call to Mr Tracey, on a landline that is rented under the Applicant’s mother’s name. The Applicant himself denied making any telephone calls to Mr Tracey on 9 June 2010. 18 Initially, however, it appears that the Applicant informed the Respondent (at the meeting of 11 June 2010) that it had been Mr Tracey who had called Ms King. This matter was clarified at the hearing and it was agreed that the telephone call at 1423 hours on 9 June 2010 was initiated by Ms King and not Mr Tracey. 19
[23] Ms King’s evidence was that she telephoned Mr Tracey for the purposes of seeking deferral of the repayment of $30.00 that was owed to him by Ms King and the Applicant. 20 That is, the originating telephone call in which Mr Tracey claimed he had been abused by the Applicant had in fact been made by Ms King. That telephone call, Ms King contended, concerned the timing of the repayment of the borrowed money and had nothing to do with a WorkCover claim.
[24] It is also said that when the Respondent investigated the nature of the telephone exchanges some 2 days later in the conference of 11 June 2010, the Applicant made no mention of the matter having been excited by an outstanding loan, or that reason his partner, Ms King had telephoned Mr Tracey (though it was apparently put the other way around at the time) in the first place was in order to reschedule the payment of the $30.00, and it had been that request that had ignited Mr Tracey’s abuse. 21
[25] That said, Ms King went on to state after the initial telephone conversation, Mr Tracey telephoned the Applicant's mobile telephone. Ms King answered the call. Mr Tracey was seeking another person, a Mr Dunstan who performed duties for the Respondent, not Mr Draper. Mr Tracey, Ms King says, ended the conversation. Ms King agreed under cross examination she had referred to Mr Tracey as “dumb f.ck” at this time. 22
[26] Notwithstanding this, Ms King then says subsequently she tried to call Mr Tracey back several times, “to find out what was happening”, but that Mr Tracey did not answer any of her calls. 23 Ms King’s persistent attempts to contact Mr Tracey immediately after their exchange might seem surprising on the evidence of their exchange as evidenced above.24
[27] Ms King then claimed that Mr Tracey’s partner, Ms Harvey, then called her mobile telephone and spoke abusively to her and about her partner, the Applicant. The telephone call, she says, went “for a significant period of time”. 25
[28] Ms King stated that she once had a very close relationship with Mr Tracey and his partner, and had shared accommodation with them, and the only motivation for the allegations she could suggest was that Mr Tracey was seeking the Applicant's permanent position with the Respondent. 26
CONSIDERATION
[29] Section 387 of the FW Act reads as follows:
387 Criteria for considering harshness etc.
In considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, FWA must take into account:
(a) whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person’s capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees); and
(b) whether the person was notified of that reason; and
(c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person; and
(d) any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal; and
(e) if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person—whether the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal; and
(f) the degree to which the size of the employer’s enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and
(g) the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and
(h) any other matters that FWA considers relevant.
Section 387(a) whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person’s capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees)
[30] In order to conclude whether there was a valid reason for the Applicant’s dismissal, I must resolve the following questions (on the balance of probabilities):
- whether the telephone conversation Mr Tracey alleges did take place; and if so,
- whether the content of that telephone conversation is as Mr Tracey alleges or otherwise;
- did any telephone call that was made involve matters that had a sufficient nexus with the employment relationship or workplace; and
- depending on the content of that telephone conversation (if it took place) whether it warranted the termination of the Applicant's employment with the Respondent.
Whether the telephone conversation Mr Tracey alleges took place
[31] The parties have given starkly contrasting constructions of the telephone conversation of 9 June 2010, which took place at 1423 hours.
[32] In such circumstances I need to reach a view as to which construction, on the balance of probability, is credible and which is not.
[33] I prefer the construction advanced by Mr Tracey and Ms Harvey. The reasons for preferring their construction is as follows.
[34] Having heard the evidence in this matter, it appears to me to be most unlikely that Mr Tracey and Ms Harvey would have interrupted their holiday in Tasmania, during which they had become engaged the day prior to the telephone call, to lodge a detailed complaint about the Applicant to Mr Tracey’s employer, which involved a 20 minute discussion with the Respondent’s HR Department [see PN 22 above], as a means of discrediting the Applicant.
[35] To have done so on the basis of a telephone call not initiated by themselves, to have acted in such a short time thereafter to file a complaint, and to have provided corroborating narratives when reporting the incident, all requires too compacted a period for the claims to have been concocted, rehearsed and aligned with the sequence of calls made and received.
[36] It is an agreed fact between the parties, for these proceedings, I should add, that the critical telephone call of 9 June 2009 (at 1423 hours) was not initiated by Mr Tracey. 27
[37] In short, the surrounding circumstances in which the complaint was made by Mr Tracey support the genuineness of the complaint itself.
[38] Further to this, I add that the Applicant did not make mention himself of the content of Ms King’s call having concerned the borrowed money when he was interviewed on 11 June 2010 and asked to explain the purpose of the telephone of 9 June 2010. 28
[39] If the borrowed money had been the principal reason for the telephone call, and not any concern on the Applicant's part about Mr Tracey’s involvement in his WorkCover claim and his use of abusive language in relation to Mr Tracey’s involvement there-in, it would reasonably have been front and centre of the Applicant's defence at first instance. But it was not.
[40] The Applicant's reason for not referring to the telephone conversation essentially was that he was stressed by the events at the time and distracted.
[41] But the circumstances do not allow me to accept this explanation as being credible.
[42] I have already mentioned above that it appears unusual in the extreme that the Applicant did not provide what was to become his critical defence against the allegations at the first interview with his employer. But there is more to this.
[43] The Applicant was on a final warning for the use of abusive language. In such circumstances it cannot be contemplated reasonably that he would not have proffered his principal defence to his employer at the earliest opportunity.
[44] To this I would further add that the Applicant and Mr Tracey and Ms Harvey and Ms King had up until this incident been on friendly terms for some lengthy period of time. I am being asked by the Applicant in this matter to find that Mr Tracey and Ms Harvey abandoned that relationship on the basis of a concern about the timetable for the payment of $30.00 (on Ms King’s evidence). I say this because on Ms King’s evidence it was her request to amend the timetable for the repayment of the small loan that led Mr Tracey to react with such extraordinary virulence (as she claimed) against her. 29
[45] Again, in the context of the other matters I have discussed above, this is a set of circumstances that on a reasonableness test appears a most unlikely construction of events.
[46] I note further in this regard that Ms King’s evidence was that on the two prior occasions when the issue of the $30.00 had arisen, the issue of the repayment had never been a matter of concern to Mr Tracey. The second of these occasions had been immediately prior to Mr Tracey leaving on holiday. But some few days later Ms King invites me to accept that Mr Tracey’s attitude had completed altered and he had become extremely aggressive and abusive over the request to delay the repayment of the $30.00 by a very modest degree. 30
[47] The transition in Mr Draper’s behaviour that is alleged is not explicable on the basis of the wider evidence as given by the Applicant (which corroborated Ms King’s own evidence) 31. This suggests to me that on the balance of probability Mr Draper did not act in the manner as alleged.
[48] I have found no reason to find against Mr Tracey and Ms Harvey’s construction of the telephone call of 9 June 2009 at 1423 hours. I can identify no reasonable motivation for them to have acted as they are alleged to have by the Applicant. The Applicant essentially contended that the motivation for Mr Tracey having concocted the telephone conversation was that he set out to secure the Applicant's position (which was a full time position in contrast to his long standing casual position).
[49] But here the evidence adduced in the course of the proceedings demonstrated that Mr Tracey had turned down opportunities to become a full time employee upon the Respondent having offered him the opportunity and had also requested to reduce his hours at another point in time. Indeed, Mr Tracey has left the employment of the Respondent in recent times.
[50] I cannot discern in such circumstances any motivation for Mr Tracey and his partner to have acted as the Applicant claims.
[51] I also see nothing in Mr Tracey and Ms Harvey’s construction of the telephone call of 9 June 2010 (in respect of the circumstances in which the call was taken and how they responded to the call) that suggest to me that their version of events is in some manner questionable or subject to reasonable doubt. Their construction of events provides largely a seamless narrative.
[52] If the Applicant had had no knowledge that Mr Tracey had made a statement to WorkCover about the Applicant’s injury sustained at work during the previous week, then there would be some reason to doubt Mr Tracey’s version of events.
[53] But in this respect, the evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrated to my satisfaction that there had been a meeting conducted on 1 June 2010, at which Mr Tracey and the Applicant (amongst others) had attended, in which Mr Tracey had made comments about the injury incident and had been publicly requested to provide a written statement by his manager, Mr Collins. This meeting was convened as a matter of course to ensure the injury incident was investigated and all WorkCover and workplace health and safety requirements were discharged. 32
[54] The Applicant for his part gave evidence that he was not aware of any such statement being prepared by Mr Tracey until documents were filed in these proceedings. 33 This puts him at odds with the evidence of both Mr Draper and Mr Collins which was adduced under cross examination only and in circumstances in which neither Mr Collins or Mr Draper was aware of one another’s evidence. Mr Draper’s evidence was adduced at under questioning from myself and cannot said to have been predetermined.34 That evidence supported Mr Collin’s subsequent evidence.
[55] I prefer the evidence of Mr Draper and Mr Collins that the Applicant was at an incident report meeting in which Mr Tracey was requested to provide a statement about the circumstances in which the Applicant injured himself.
[56] The Applicant in all probability was therefore seized of the fact that Mr Tracey was providing written input into his WorkCover claim. This was evidence that was adduced from both Mr Collins and Mr Tracey in circumstances in which I consider attests to its authenticity.
[57] Taken together, these various interlocking circumstances, as set out above, lead me to conclude that on the balance of probability the Applicant did make the telephone call to Mr Tracey on 9 June 2009.
Whether the content of that telephone conversation is as Mr Tracey alleges
[58] For the same reasons as given above, including that it is unlikely that Mr Tracey and Ms Harvey would have acted with such intensity if the conversation had been benign in tone, I am of the view that on the balance of probability that the Applicant spoke to Mr Tracey in the terms Mr Tracey claims and for the reason Mr Tracey claims. That is, I am of view that the Applicant spoke in abusive terms to Mr Tracey for reason that Mr Tracey provided evidence on the circumstances of the Applicant's injury (for purposes of a WorkCover claim) as he was requested to do by the Respondent.
Whether any telephone conversation had a sufficient nexus with the workplace or employment relationship
[59] The telephone conversation took place outside of working hours. The Applicant submitted that the interaction was personal in nature and unrelated to the work place or the employment relationship. But given my findings above, this cannot have been the case. The telephone conversation, as I have found it to be, was related to the actions of the relevant persons in their course of their employment, and in particular in the context of a work-related injury and a WorkCover claim.
[60] The telephone conversation of 9 June 2010 between the Applicant and Mr Tracey was far from being a personal conversation about a private loan arrangement.
Whether the content of the telephone call warranted the termination of the Applicant's employment
[61] I have accepted Mr Tracey’s evidence as well as that of Ms Harvey that the content of the telephone conversation was as they had claimed.
[62] It appears to me that the parties that were involved in the telephone conversations on 9 June 2010 were hardly strangers to the use of strong language, at least in so far as Ms King and Ms Harvey’s evidence about their telephone call suggested.
[63] What, however, is more significant is that the Applicant contacted Mr Tracey and spoke in abusive terms about his conduct in meeting a request by his employer to provide evidence in respect of a workplace injury.
[64] This is demonstrably inappropriate conduct.
[65] But it is made more so, however, because the Applicant had been warned on 30 March 2010 about his conduct in relation to his interactions with external parties who were assisting in managing a workplace matter. The nature of the warning is set out above and concerned two inappropriate interactions involving abusive language, both of which occurred on 9 March 2010.
[66] I note again that the Applicant claims that he was not abusive directly to the persons involved in either one or both of these incidents. But this does not help his situation. 35
[67] Despite the Respondent indicating its reasonable expectations about appropriate work-related interactions on 30 March 2010 and highlighting the relationship of such expectations to its Code of Conduct, on 9 June 2010 the Applicant’s conduct again lapsed (in relation to Mr Tracey).
[68] In my view, the Respondent was reasonably of the mind that it could have no further confidence or trust in the Applicant that he could conduct himself appropriately in relation to workplace matters.
[69] For these reasons, I conclude that the Respondent had a valid reason for terminating the Applicant’s employment.
s.387(b) whether the person was notified of that reason
[70] The Applicant was called to an interview and the allegations about his conduct were put to him at an interview on 11 June 2009 with the Respondent in advance of the termination of his employment.
s.387(c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person
[71] The Applicant was stood down on 10 June 2010 and given written notice of the allegations that he faced and that he was required to attend a meeting the following day.
[72] The Applicant was provided with an opportunity by Respondent to respond to the allegations that were put to him in the abovementioned interview. The Applicant knew his employment was at risk. 36 He also knew the previous day that he was required to attend the interview, and even in his modest recollection, that the matter involved something to do with Mr Tracey.
[73] In my view, it is more than likely that the Applicant was handed the prepared and specific (not template) written correspondence for the purpose of advising him of the claims against him and the arrangements of the next day’s meeting. Mr Collins’ evidence was that he handed it to the Applicant. The Applicant contended he could not remember being handed any such correspondence.
[74] In any event, the circumstances of this matter do not disclose any procedural deficiency in respect of the opportunity given to the Applicant to respond to the allegations put to him.
s.387(d) any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal
[75] The Applicant states that he was not able to access the support of his union in the first interview owing to his late request for assistance. But it is undisputed that the Applicant was advised of the meeting the day prior, and even on his own evidence he accepted that the interview concerned matters relating to Mr Tracey.
[76] The Applicant had an opportunity, therefore, to organise representation from his union, subject to the availability of a union representative, of course. And as it was, the union representation was not available in the period of notice provided.
[77] The Applicant was assisted by a support person, who was a friend of his, at his interview on 11 June 2010, though not by an experienced union representative.
[78] I see in the circumstances no grounds for any breach of this sub section.
[79] The Applicant complains of being disadvantaged by not having access to his preferred representative. It would seem little of substance would have turned on the Applicant having had his own preferred representative, in any event. The case against the Applicant, which I have discussed above, turned on matters that would likely not to have been affected by the presence of a preferred representative.
s.387(e) if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person—whether the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal
[80] This matter concerned conduct issues and not the Applicant's work performance.
s.387(f) the degree to which the size of the employer’s enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal
[81] The Respondent's business is not a small business for the purposes of s.23 of the Act, and it was not claimed that the size of its enterprise impacted on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal.
s.387(g) the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal
[82] It was not claimed that the absence of human resource specialists or expertise impacted on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal. The Respondent had access to such expertise.
s.387 (h) any other matters that FWA considers relevant.
[83] The Applicant was employed by the Respondent for a period of some two years, which is not a lengthy period of time. It could not be said that the Applicant had consolidated his career path with the Respondent at the time of his dismissal. Indeed, at the time of his dismissal he had been subject to a final warning for inappropriate conduct.
CONCLUSION
[84] Reflecting on the circumstances of this application as set out above, I do not find that the Applicant’s dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
[85] Accordingly, I dismiss the Applicant’s application under s.394 of the Act.
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
Mr. G. Hay of the Australian Workers Union for the Applicant
Mr. D. Miller of the Australian Industry Group for the Respondent
Hearing details:
2010.
Townsville Magistrates Court:
November 18.
1 Statement of Mr M Tracey dated 25 October 2010 at PNS 9-10
2 Statement of Mr M Tracey dated 25 October 2010 at Attachments MT-2 and MT-3
3 Statement of Mr M Tracey dated 25 October 2010 at PN 10
4 Statement of Mr M Tracey dated 25 October 2010 at PN 10 and Harvey PN5
5 Statement of Mr M Tracey dated 25 October 2010 at PN 12
6 Statement of Mr M Tracey dated 25 October 2010 at Attachment MT-2
7 Statement of Mr M Tracey dated 25 October 2010 at Attachment MT-2
8 Statement of Mr M Tracey dated 25 October 2010 at PN 14 and Attachment MT-1
9 Statement of Mr M Tracey dated 25 October 2010 at Attachment MT-2
10 Statement of Mr M Tracey dated 25 October 2010 at PN 23 and Attachment MT-2
11 Statement of Mr J Collins dated 26 October 2010 at PN 4
12 Statement of Mr C Holmes dated 22 October 2010 at Attachment INSERT
13 See Statements of Mr J Collins dated 26 October 2010 and Mr C Holmes dated 22 October 2010
14 See Statement of Mr J Collins dated 26 October 2010 at PN 4 and Attachment JMC-1; Statement of Mr C Holmes dated 22 October 2010 at PN 3 and Attachment CH-1
15 Statement of Mr P White dated 22 October 2010 at Attachment PW-1
16 Statement of Mr P White dated 22 October 2010 at Attachment PW-1
17 Statement of Ms J Chaplin dated 21 October 2010 at Attachment JC-1
18 Statement of Mr T Draper dated 16 September 2010 at PN 16
19 Statement of Mr C Holmes dated 22 October 2010 at PN 13
20 Statement of Ms A King dated 16 September 2010 at PNS 1, 17
21 Statement of Mr C Holmes dated 22 October 2010 at PN 13
22 Transcript of Proceedings dated 18 November 2010 at PN 529
23 Statement of Ms A King dated 16 September 2010 at PNS 3-9
24 Statement of Ms A King dated 16 September 2010 at PN 9 and compare with Transcript of Proceedings dated 18 November 2010 at PNS 464-467 and 526-529
25 Statement of Ms A King dated 16 September 2010 at PNS 13-16
26 Statement of Ms A King dated 16 September 2010 at PNS 18-19
27 Transcript of Proceedings dated 18 November 2010 at PNS 323 and 453-459
28 Statement of Mr C Holmes dated 22 October 2010 at PN 13
29 Transcript of Proceedings dated 18 November 2010 at PN 540
30 Transcript of Proceedings dated 18 November 2010 at PNS 546-554
31 Transcript of Proceedings dated 18 November 2010 at PN 589
32 Transcript of Proceedings dated 18 November 2010 at PNS 670, 673-894-674, 894- 904
33 Transcript of Proceedings dated 18 November 2010 at PNS 361-364
34 Transcript of Proceedings dated 18 November 2010 at PNS 618-626, 670, 674, 757-769
35 Transcript of Proceedings dated 18 November 2010 at PNS 274-278
36 Transcript of Proceedings dated 18 November 2010 at PNS 269-272 and 278
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, PR504281>
0
0
0