Mrs Cindy Maree Clumpoint v Palm Island Community Company Limited
[2011] FWA 1849
•30 MARCH 2011
[2011] FWA 1849 |
|
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy
Mrs Cindy Maree Clumpoint
v
Palm Island Community Company Limited
(U2010/1473)
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT RICHARDS | BRISBANE, 30 MARCH 2011 |
Summary - whether misconduct warranting dismissal.
[1] On 13 September 2010 Ms Cindy Maree Clumpoint (“the Applicant”) lodged an application for an unfair dismissal remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the Act”). The Respondent was the Palm Island Community Company Limited (“the Respondent”). The Applicant's dismissal took effect on 30 August 2010.
[2] The application was subject to a conciliation conference on 22 October 2010, which failed to resolve the issues in contest. Thereafter the application was allocated to myself for purposes of determining whether the dismissal of the Applicant was harsh, unjust or unreasonable (and therefore unfair within the meaning of s.385 of the Act) and if so, what remedy might be ordered.
[3] As I understand it, the Respondent is a partnership between the Palm Island Community, Palm Island Traditional owners, the Palm Island Aboriginal Shire Council and the Queensland Government.
[4] The Respondent provides business services to non-government organisations, manages the delivery of social services and provides business advice and support to the Palm Island community.
[5] The Applicant performed duties for the Respondent in various positions as a Community Worker, a Youth and Community Programs Officer and as a Planning Co-ordinator between 1 July 2009 and 30 August 2010: a period of some 1 year and 2 months.
[6] It appears that the Applicant was performing higher duties in the position of Planning and Coordination Officer from 15 October 2009 under an arrangement entered into between the Applicant and the Respondent. The letter of offer in this regard stated that “[t]oward the end of the period of higher duties, we will discuss further opportunities with you.”
Allegations: Background
[7] At the broadest level, it appears that the Applicant was dismissed because of breaches of the Respondent's code of conduct.
[8] The breaches were originally put to the Applicant in writing on 10 June 2010 as allegations to which she was provided an opportunity to respond 1. There were six allegations outlined in the letter, which I summarise as follows:
Allegation 1
[9] On or about 13 May 2010, the Applicant took issue with the Respondent's payroll staff over whether the correct amount had been paid to her. It was discovered, promptly it appears, that $500.00 which the Applicant had requested be directed to a separate bank account had been returned. This was because it appeared that the banking details provided by the Applicant to the payroll staff had been inaccurate.
[10] The Applicant, however, is said to have been verbally aggressive (which involved aggressive yelling) towards Mr Hedley Ally, the Palm Island Services Manager, whilst asserting an intention to lodge a grievance against the relevant payroll staff and contact the media 2.
Allegation 2
[11] On or about 2 June 2010 the Applicant was observed, whilst in charge of one of the Respondent's motor vehicles, yelling abuse at the daughter of a community member (Ms Nikita Soper) in a public place. Ms Soper’s mother complained to Mr Ally about the conduct. Ms Soper herself provided a written statement in support of these claims but did not attend the hearing.
Allegation 3
[12] On or about 2 June 2010 the Applicant was said to have failed to have complied with the correct procedures for issuing purchase orders, and was so advised by Mr Ally. The Applicant was said to have disagreed with Mr Ally about the design of the purchase approval process. As a consequence of the refusal to comply with procedures, emergency relief was not provided to a community member that day, a staff function did not take place as planned and a sports sponsorship application was delayed (and was only given effect as Mr Ally intervened and raised the purchase order in the compliant way) 3. Ms Atkinson, General Manager of the Respondent, stated that the Applicant's conduct in not dealing with a request for emergency relief (which usually involved the provision of food vouchers to a member of the Palm Island community) was “completely unacceptable and unprofessional behaviour.”4
Allegation 4
[13] On or about 2 June 2010 the Applicant is said to have telephoned the local Mayor and complained about the management of the Respondent's business, and sought the intervention of the Mayor in that business.
Allegation 5
[14] On or about 3 June 2010 the Applicant was said to have spoken aggressively (repeatedly) to the Respondent's managers, stating that they were “outsiders”. This was said to have been reflected in wider comments made about the Respondent's executive at other times.
Allegation 6
[15] On or about 3 June 2010 the Applicant is said to have attended a meeting in order to discuss her concerns about the arrangements put in place for her acting position. Mr Hedley Ally and Ms Jenny Pryor, Staff Mentor, were in attendance. During that discussion the Applicant is said to have made claims that she would “put a gun to [her] head or overdose on pills”. The Applicant subsequently is said to have explained that she made such comments to “make Hedley sweat”.
[16] The above allegations were said potentially to have breached the Respondent's code of conduct, and the Applicant's contract of employment, in so far as they showed the Applicant, amongst other things, to have:
- conducted herself unprofessionally in her dealings with fellow employees and community members;
- refused to obey a reasonable and lawful instruction in relation to her work;
- acted in a disorderly and discriminatory way in dealing with community members and her fellow employees; and
- breached her implied obligation to act in good faith.
Procedures effecting the dismissal: Background
[17] The Applicant's employment was suspended on pay whilst an investigation was carried out in relation to the allegations as detailed.
[18] The Applicant responded (on 3 June 2010) to the allegations and raised her concerns about matters such as the manner in which her acting arrangements were being given effect, her status once her acting arrangements came to an end, and her performance management to date. The Respondent replied to the correspondence on 15 June 2010 and undertook to provide a written response and then to follow this up with a discussion 5. This discussion was also to encompass the allegations raised in the correspondence of 10 June 2010.
[19] The Applicant took the view that she was unprepared for a meeting at short notice and that she was being bullied and harassed to provide a service to the residents of Palm Island that was not in their interests. The Applicant requested two weeks extension 6.
[20] The Respondent subsequently directed the Applicant to attend a meeting on 28 June 2010 at 11.00am, and was advised expressly to nominate a support person (who would be provided transport from Palm Island by the Respondent if that was requested).
[21] Owing to medical issues with the Applicant's daughter, the meeting of 28 June 2010 did not eventuate. A meeting was eventually re-scheduled for 21 July 2010. The Applicant indicated that each of the allegations as cited above were put to her at the meeting, which she says continued for about 30 minutes. The Applicant contended that the allegations lacked sufficient particularisation. The Applicant nonetheless submitted that she was also given an opportunity to put her version of events in relation to each of the allegations set out above. However she did not consider the inquiry to be fair because of the role played by Mr Ally, whom she considered was conducting a vendetta against her 7.
[22] On 27 July 2010 the Applicant was informed that the allegations had been substantiated and that she would be required to attend a show cause meeting on 6 August 2010. The Applicant did not attend the meeting and put in a written submission contending why she should not be dismissed from her employment.
[23] By correspondence dated 16 August 2010 the Respondent terminated the Applicant’s employment.
[24] It appears that the decisions taken to issue the show cause correspondence and to dismiss the Applicant were taken by Ms Rachael Atkinson (not Mr Ally).
[25] The Applicant was of the view that she was the subject of a vendetta by Mr Ally and that she had been the victim of favouritism directed towards Mr Ally by senior staff.
[26] Mr Ally’s role in the organisation was to train and support staff and build individual performance, though his role also evolved into that of a program manager with directive powers extending to operational matters. Mr Ally was eventually appointed as Services Manager for the Respondent on or about 10 May 2010 8.
[27] The Applicant claimed that Mr Ally was not well regarded and held in suspicion by staff.
[28] The Applicant also claimed that upon being appointed Services Manager, Mr Ally became more hostile towards her, bullied her and found fault with her work. He also became, in Applicant's view, less consultative, for example centralising purchasing processes without discussion with local staff. Ms Atkinson, the General Manager, claimed that Mr Ally was authorised to implement such changes to address various problems that had been identified 9.
[29] The Applicant appeared to have fallen into some measure of conflict with senior management (presumably Ms Atkinson as General Manager and Mr Ally at an earlier point) about why she had not been permanently appointed as a coordinator. The Applicant had lodged a grievance in respect of this issue and had refused to sign a letter of offer extending her acting arrangements. The matter appears to have been raised with some particularity in a meeting held on 1 June 2010. In this meeting the Applicant again declined to accept a short term offer of employment in lieu of permanency and expressed concern that her views were not being taken seriously.
[30] On 2 June 2010, the Applicant claimed that a staff member who had resigned her employment had been asked to leave earlier than her own volunteered notice period. The Applicant was requested to raise a purchase order for an afternoon tea for the departing employee. The Applicant refused to do so as she was of the view that the departing employee did not wish to attend such a function. The Applicant admitted being frustrated, snapping at another management employee about this matter and refusing a second direction from Mr Ally to complete the order for the function 10.
[31] The following day (3 June 2010) in a meeting with senior management (including Mr Ally) the Applicant claimed that she “felt that [she] was being picked on and disrespected because I did not agree and follow commands when directed, but questioned the decisions to ensure clarity 11”.
[32] In the course of that meeting, the Applicant was informed that whilst she would be offered what appeared to be a temporary contract, the higher duties position would be advertised “because the community was asking for transparency 12”. This lead to a heated exchange in which the Applicant, as she put it, “[b]ecame very upset and angry and [...] raised [her] voice and stated “I was going to do harm to myself, because they had just taken away my livelihood.” The Applicant claims that at that point, she was stood down by being requested to take two days of approved leave whilst the Respondent gave consideration to the circumstances that had arisen13.
[33] The Applicant thereafter received correspondence (on 9 June 2010) setting out various allegations to which the Applicant was asked to respond at a meeting to be convened on 11 June 2010. These matters have been set out above.
[34] As also set out above, the Applicant declined the opportunity to attend a show cause meeting to be held on 6 August 2010. She claimed that she was “unable to bring a support person to accompany [her] to this meeting” and was uncomfortable in personally attending 14. Instead, as mentioned above, the Applicant supplied written responses to the show cause correspondence she had received. In that correspondence the Applicant complained about what she perceived to be procedural deficiencies regarding her treatment so far, including unfairness in relation to her stand down and the manner in which allegations were put to her.
[35] The Applicant complained further that the Respondent's actions towards her had been motivated by her expression of contrary views to her employer about various processes (undefined) which were “making staff unhappy” 15. She also claimed that the Respondent had adopted a harsher disciplinary process towards her than towards other employees who had engaged in more aggressive conduct16.
[36] As for Allegations 1 – 6 set out above, the Applicant contended as follows:
Allegation 1
[37] The Applicant claimed that she had acted politely and was only following up the issue as she had suffered financial hardship. The Applicant nonetheless stated that she “took her frustration and disappointment out on” Mr Ally.
[38] The Applicant denied any aggression in this communication, however. She instead claims that when Mr Ally ignored her concerns about various management issues she “then became loud” and sought to lodge a grievance 17.
[39] In the course of the hearing the Applicant conceded that her conduct was such that she expected to receive disciplinary action, but not action that would lead to her dismissal.
Allegation 2
[40] The Applicant denied any conduct that placed the Respondent in an unprofessional light and argued that the alleged incident was a fabrication 18. The Applicant explained in these proceedings that she was yelling at someone else altogether, and for another reason.
Allegation 3
[41] The Applicant denied that she had refused to comply with a direction to process certain purchase orders and stated that the matter about which the Respondent complained must have been a misunderstanding. She contended that no members of the community were disadvantaged, and that the suggestion of a farewell tea was inappropriate in the circumstances as the recipient of the tea did not seek such a gesture and very few staff were available to attend in any event 19.
[42] The Applicant conceded that she had refused to give effect to the direction to take actions to organise an afternoon tea. She said she disagreed with the proposal and said someone else could do it 20.
Allegation 4
[43] The Applicant denied ringing the Mayor, though she admitted that she had threatened to do so 21. She said she frequently talks with the Mayor, whose wife, it appears, is a former employee of the Respondent who was dismissed from her employment.
Allegation 5
[44] The Applicant contended that the reference to the Respondent's staff being “outsiders” was not discriminatory but simply reflected what the Palm Island community believed was the factual case: that decision making was Townsville – based and non-inclusive 22. During the hearing the Applicant stated that she actually said “you’se mob” (and not “outsiders” as in her written evidence)23. Ms Atkinson for her part, as a person of aboriginal descent, was offended by these comments.
Allegation 6
[45] The Applicant did not deny that she became loud in the meeting of 3 June 2010 and that she made references to self-harm. She explained that this conduct was explicable for the reason that she had been informed that her position (a higher duties assignment), which she held temporarily, would be advertised 24. The Applicant explained in the course of the proceedings that this was her way of expressing her anger or frustration at the situation she faced.
CONSIDERATION
[46] The relevant legislative provisions arise under s.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)
[47] It appears to me that that there are a number of allegations of substance.
[48] The first of these is that the Applicant refused a lawful and reasonable direction by her employer to execute certain directions in relation to raising purchase orders. The Applicant's evidence supports this finding: she agreed that she had a different view and refused Mr Ally’s directions. Her claims to the contrary were mere obfuscation. The Applicant refused to organise a tea party when directed, because she had a different view from her employer as to whether such an event for a departing employee was appropriate 25.
[49] On its own, the Applicant's objection to the reasonable directions is a concern that warranted disciplinary action, but it did not on its own warrant dismissal.
[50] The Applicant also conceded that during a telephone conversation with Mr Ally in which she had complained about an error in her salary (for which she came to accept responsibility in the course of the hearing 26), she had spoken to him in terms that would have warranted disciplinary action:
No, what did you do?---I raised my voice on the phone. I yelled, I screamed. I was frustrated.
[…]
You yelled and screamed?---Yeah, but he rang me and we was discussing stuff about programs, which I became loud and aggressive, because I said, “Well, then, Hedley, who are you? You’re only the service mentor.” 27
[51] The Applicant appreciated that she had overstepped the mark:
How about the code of conduct which requires you to deal with fellow employees in a professional manner?---What am I - I don’t know, yeah, okay. I admitted that I did it. I expected to be reprimanded for it, not sacked or suspended 28.
[52] A further allegation of substance concerns the Applicant's conduct in a disciplinary meeting in which she threatened self harm, as an admitted device to advance her position by disarming Mr Ally.
[53] Mr Ally initially took the threat seriously and acted to protect the Applicant's well being. When the threat was made, Mr Ally closed the meeting and acted to ensure the tone of the discussion remained calm and Ms Pryor invited the Applicant to accompany her to the mental health unit of the Palm Island Hospital. The Applicant refused to accompany her. Mr Ally, for his part, contacted the Diversionary Centre of the Townsville Hospital to inform them of the situation, though he was subsequently informed that the Applicant had acted to cause him “stress” 29.
[54] Ms Pryor’s evidence was that when she had observed the Applicant laughing about the incident and telling her friends that she had threatened to “hang” herself in order to “stress Headley out”, she (Ms Pryor) “took issue” with the Applicant’s conduct.
[55] Ms Pryor’s evidence was not challenged by the Applicant.
[56] These incidents alone demonstrably placed significant stress on the employment relationship. The Applicant had demonstrated an unwillingness to respond to her employer’s directions, had spoken to her Manager in aggressive terms, and had acted inappropriately in communications with her employer over disciplinary matters.
[57] In my view, the cumulative effect of these three incidents (even putting aside consideration of the wider allegations) was sufficient to undermine the essential condition of trust in the employment relationship.
[58] I give weight to the conduct of the Applicant in threatening self-harm as a deliberate device to cause discomfort to Mr Ally, in respect of whom the Applicant held a disparaging view.
[59] This is conduct that was particularly disturbing for Ms Pryor and Mr Ally in the context in which they work. Objectively viewed, the conduct is very serious because it was a deliberate mischief in respect of a critically sensitive issue in relation to the Respondent's duty of care: and it demonstrated that the Applicant was not to be trusted to work honestly and cooperatively with her employer in the future.
[60] The evidence in this matter demonstrates that the Applicant threatened self-harm as a mischief, as I indicated above. I come to this conclusion as the Applicant was subsequently overheard to be laughing about the incident with her friends while telling them she had threatened to “hang” herself. When this conduct was observed by Ms Pryor, the Applicant informed her (Ms Pryor) that she had never actually seriously considered self-harm.
[61] The Applicant argued that she had conducted herself in this way because that is how she deals with stressful circumstances. This was far from a persuasive explanation for her conduct. I prefer Ms Pryor’s candid evidence that the Applicant made light of her conduct and threats and had acted deliberately to upset Mr Ally.
[62] There is nothing in the contextual circumstances that can justify this conduct. The Applicant rationalised that her conduct was necessary because she felt her very “livelihood” was under threat and she had to take whatever action she could to defend herself.
[63] I make the point that much of the Applicant's concerns about her position appear to arise from a fundamental misapprehension of the terms and conditions of her employment. The Applicant had a contract of employment as a Community Officer that had an expiry date of mid 2011. She was offered two higher duties assignments. The first of these assignment expired on 2 February 2010. The second offer of higher duties expired on 30 June 2010. It was in respect of the second higher duties assignment that the Applicant fell into dispute with her employer, refusing to sign the higher duties assignment and contending that she should have access to the substantive position. The Respondent sought to advertise that position in due course.
[64] The Applicant believed that a conspiracy of one kind or another was afoot to deprive her of the position and to jeopardise her employment. This is a position that is not sustainable on the evidence. The Applicant was faced with a choice, in actuality, to apply for the substantive Coordinator role or revert to her Community Officer role, which still had another 16 months of operation under the contract (based on the Applicant falling into dispute with the Respondent in February 2010). Mr Ally - the evidence demonstrates - understood this, though the Applicant appears to have fallen into confusion about where she stood in relation to either position.
[65] Regardless of this, both Ms Pryor and Mr Ally gave evidence that the Applicant was informed that she could apply for the substantive Coordinator position when it was advertised.
[66] The Applicant’s employment, therefore, was not in jeopardy at the time, and the Applicant's conduct cannot be rationalised on this basis.
[67] No suggestion arose from the evidence that Mr Ally had conspired in some manner to damage the Applicant's professional standing within the Respondent and had conducted a vendetta against her. The email annexures to the Applicant's evidence (A1) show Mr Ally to have been both polite and professional 30. His demeanour in these proceedings whilst under cross examination reflected this same professionalism. Indeed, the Applicant herself accepted that Mr Ally had been helpful to her31.
[68] Further, I have observed the Applicant in the witness box. The Applicant is a particularly voluble and assertive character-type, as well as being articulate. But this does not explain away the deliberate threat to inflict self-harm; a threat which has a deeply disturbing resonance in the community in which the Respondent delivers its services.
[69] As I have explored above, I cannot frame the Applicant's conduct in this regard as being simply a gross over-reaction or an impulsive comment that was quickly withdrawn or for which the Applicant was remorseful at the time. The Applicant in my view acted mischievously, and without regret, in respect of an issue of very considerable sensitivity.
[70] In all, because of the Applicant’s reluctance to give effect to her employer’s reasonable directions, her aggressive manner in communicating with her manager, and her misleading and insensitive remarks in a disciplinary hearing (for which there was no demonstrated remorse at the time) I find there was a valid reason for the termination of the Applicant's employment.
Section 387(b): whether the person was notified of that reason
[71] The evidence as I have set out above demonstrates that the Applicant was provided with notice in advance of the dismissal of the various allegations that had been made against her.
Section 387(c): whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person
[72] The Applicant, as set out above, was provided an ample opportunity to respond to the allegations made in respect of her conduct and she exercised that opportunity by replying in detailed, written terms.
Section 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
[73] As set out above, the Applicant was expressly provided an opportunity to have a support person to assist her. At no point does the evidence suggest that the Applicant was refused an opportunity to have a support person to assist her in any discussions.
Section 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
[74] This application raises no issues of the Applicant’s performance of her duties.
Section 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
[75] This is not a relevant consideration.
Section 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
[76] This is not a relevant consideration.
Section 387(h): any other matters that FWA considers relevant.
[77] I have taken account of the Applicant's concern expressed over the course of the proceedings that she was in a culturally and personally difficult circumstances, and that these circumstances should be taken into account in some manner. But having heard the Applicant, she is very far from being a disempowered individual. The Applicant is articulate, assertive and voluble, with a strong sense of personal direction.
CONCLUSION
[78] Having regard to all the circumstances, the Applicant ultimately came to lose the trust and confidence of her employer as a result of the cumulative effect of various conduct issues.
[79] As a result, I do not find that the termination of the Applicant's employment was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
[80] Having reached this finding, I must dismiss the application under s.394 of the Act.
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
Ms C. Clumpoint for Herself
Mr M. Smith, Solicitor,for the Respondent
Hearing details:
2011.
Townsville Supreme and District Court Complex.
March 17 and 18.
1 Correspondence of 10 June 2010 from Mr Ms Rachel Atkinson, General Manager of the Respondent, to the Applicant.
2 Statement of Hedley Paul Ally dated 20 December 2010 PN 7.
3 Statement of Hedley Paul Ally dated 20 December 2010 PN 9.
4 Statement of Rachel Caralyne Atkinson dated 21 December 2010 PN 10.
5 Correspondence of 15 June 2010 from Ms Rachel Atkinson to Ms Clumpoint.
6 Correspondence of 16 June from Ms Clumpoint to Ms Jane Akorous.
7 Statement of Cindy Maree Clumpoint dated 1 December 2010, Page 7.
8 Statement of Rachel Caralyne Atkinson dated 21 December 2010 PN 3.
9 Statement of Rachel Caralyne Atkinson dated 21 December 2010, PN 10.
10 Statement of Cindy Maree Clumpoint dated 1 December 2010, Page 4
11 Statement of Cindy Maree Clumpoint dated 1 December 2010, Page 5.
12 Statement of Cindy Maree Clumpoint dated 1 December 2010, Page 5.
13 Statement of Cindy Maree Clumpoint dated 1 December 2010, Page 5.
14 Correspondence of 6 August 2010 from Ms Clumpoint to Ms Atkinson.
15 Correspondence of 6 August 2010 from Ms Clumpoint to Ms Atkinson.
16 Correspondence of 6 August 2010 from Ms Clumpoint to Ms Atkinson.
17 Correspondence of 6 August 2010 from Ms Clumpoint to Ms Atkinson.
18 Correspondence of 6 August 2010 from Ms Clumpoint to Ms Atkinson.
19 Correspondence of 6 August 2010 from Ms Clumpoint to Ms Atkinson.
20 Transcript of proceedings dated 17 March 2011 at PN 603.
21 Correspondence of 6 August 2010 from Ms Clumpoint to Ms Atkinson.
22 Correspondence of 6 August 2010 from Ms Clumpoint to Ms Atkinson.
23 Transcript of proceedings dated 17 March 2011 at PN 841.
24 Correspondence of 6 August 2010 from Ms Clumpoint to Ms Atkinson.
25 Transcript of proceedings dated 17 March 2011 at PNS 324 - 326 and 344 - 360.
26 Transcript of proceedings dated 17 March 2011 at PN 468.
27 Transcript of proceedings dated 17 March 2011 at PNS 790 and 800.
28 Transcript of proceedings dated 17 March 2011 at PN 801.
29 Statement of Hedley Paul Ally dated 20 December 2010 PN 14.
30 Statement of Cindy Maree Clumpoint dated 1 December 2010,
31 Transcript of proceedings dated 17 March 2011 at PN 481.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, PR507868>
0
0
0