Mrs Seema Kurup
[2025] FWC 921
•22 AUGUST 2025
[2025] FWC 921
The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 22 August 2025.
The decision has been amended to correct an obvious typographical error at paragraph [81].
Associate to Commissioner Matheson
Dated 28 August 2025
| [2025] FWC 921 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.789FC - Application for an order to stop bullying
Mrs Seema Kurup
(AB2025/8)
| COMMISSIONER MATHESON | SYDNEY, 22 AUGUST 2025 |
Application for an FWC order to stop bullying
Seema Kurup (Applicant) has made an application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) for an order to stop bullying. The Applicant’s employer is Woolworths Group Limited (Employer) and the Applicant has named Deanne Scholfield (Ms Schofield) and Janet Stoffels (Ms Stoffels) as the persons she alleges have bullied her at work. The Employer, Ms Schofield and Ms Stoffels were all represented by the same representative in these proceedings and made joint submissions. The Employer, Ms Schofield and Ms Stoffels are referred to as the ‘Respondents’ when referred to jointly in this decision.
Relevant legislation
Sections 789FF (1) and (2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)(Act) provide:
(1) A worker who reasonably believes that he or she has been bullied at work may apply to the FWC for an order under section 789FF.
(2) For the purposes of this Part, worker has the same meaning as in the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, but does not include a member of the Defence Force.
Section 789FD provides:
‘When is a worker bullied at work ?
(1) A worker is bullied at work if:
(a) while the worker is at work in a constitutionally - covered business:
(i)an individual; or
(ii)a group of individuals;
repeatedly behaves unreasonably towards the worker, or a group of workers of which the worker is a member; and
(b) that behaviour creates a risk to health and safety.
(2) To avoid doubt, subsection (1) does not apply to reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner.
(3) If a person conducts a business or undertaking (within the meaning of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011) and either:
(a) the person is:
(i)a constitutional corporation; or
(ii)the Commonwealth; or
(iii)a Commonwealth authority; or
(iv)a body corporate incorporated in a Territory; or
(b) the business or undertaking is conducted principally in a Territory or Commonwealth place;
then the business or undertaking is a constitutionally - covered business.
Section 789FF provides:
“FWC may make orders to stop bullying
(1) If:
(a) a worker has made an application under section 789FC; and
(b) the FWC is satisfied that:
(i) the worker has been bullied at work by an individual or a group of individuals; and
(ii) there is a risk that the worker will continue to be bullied at work by the individual or group;
then the FWC may make any order it considers appropriate (other than an order requiring payment of a pecuniary amount) to prevent the worker from being bullied at work by the individual or group.
(2) In considering the terms of an order, the FWC must take into account:
(a)if the FWC is aware of any final or interim outcomes arising out of an
investigation into the matter that is being, or has been, undertaken by another person or body--those outcomes; and
(b)if the FWC is aware of any procedure available to the worker to resolve
grievances or disputes--that procedure; and
(c)if the FWC is aware of any final or interim outcomes arising out of any
procedure available to the worker to resolve grievances or disputes--those outcomes; and
(d) any matters that the FWC considers relevant”.
It is not in contention, and I find that the Applicant is a worker. However, the Respondents have submitted that the application should be dismissed on the basis that:
Ms Schofield and Ms Stoffels did not repeatedly behave unreasonably towards the Applicant;
the allegations and incidents outlined in the Applicant’s application amounted to reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner; and
there is no risk that the Applicant will continue to be bullied at work by the Respondents such that an order should be made.[1]
Hearing, representation and submissions
A hearing was held to deal with the Application across two days on 2 and 3 April 2025 and the Respondents sought permission to be represented by a lawyer.
The Respondents sought to be represented by a lawyer on the basis of efficiency, and due to the factually complex nature of the matter. The Applicant objected to permission being granted, submitting that it would cause an imbalance and unfairness to the Applicant as she would be representing herself.
Permission was granted under s.596(2)(a) of the Act on the basis that the matter is complex in that there are multiple persons named and an interested employer, together with a highly contested factual matrix and voluminous materials, and I considered that that the participation of one lawyer who represents all Respondents would enable the matter to be dealt with more efficiently, taking into account the complexity of the matter.
The materials filed in this matter are extensive, with the digital court book being over 2700 pages in length and the Applicant filing highly detailed notes. The Applicant filed her outline of submissions on 2 March 2025, the Respondent filed its outline of submissions on 19 March 2025, and the Applicant filed materials in reply on 26 March 2025. The Applicant has also filed further material following the hearing outside of the directions and which also concern other people who are not named in the application, although that material does not have any bearing on the outcome of this matter or recommendations made.
The Applicant gave evidence during the hearing and the Respondent filed witness statements in respect of the following people who also gave evidence during the hearing:
Ms Schofield, the Applicant’s direct manager and person who leads the eBusiness team of which the Applicant is a member;
Ms Stoffels, the Employer’s Head of Business Support Services (BSS) and Ms Schofield’s manager;
Malinda Price (Ms Price), the Employer's Employee Relations Manager; and
Owen Yang (Mr Yang), who was the temporary leader of the eBusiness team before Ms Schofield was appointed as the new team leader.
The Applicant’s allegations concerning Ms Schofield
The Applicant alleged that she had been subjected to bullying by Ms Schofield since 23 May 2024 when Ms Schofield took over the team.[2]
In particular, the Applicant alleged that:
on 12 June 2024:
oMs Schofield ordered her, in an authoritative manner, to have a ‘Social Contract’ with a team member, Faye, who the Applicant considered had been consistently misusing work time, not replying to emails or closing support related cases for days and offloading work to other team members; and
owhen the Applicant expressed confusion Ms Stoffels repeated in a very rude/condescending manner: “You didn’t listen to me. What did I say, Seema? Tell me what I said.” [3]
on 27 June 2024, after Ms Schofield took over from the Applicant’s previous manager, Ms Schofield said: “Though you have done your work well, your ways of working are not good so we reduced your rating to ‘Achieved’”.[4] The Applicant said her previous manager had assessed her performance as outstanding/exceeding expectations and that Ms Schofield’s rating was announced without justification;[5]
despite consistently delivering high performance and contributing positively to the team, Ms Schofileld repeatedly targeted her in one-on-one meetings with destructive personal feedback, including by making the following comments:
o“From what I’m hearing from you Seema, praise is important. So some people don’t care for the praise, but its seeming like praise is very important to you and being called out.”[6]
o“You are not humble”, “You don’t have humility.”[7]
o“You have a need for praise and you have a need to be always telling me and others of the great work that you do.” [8]
o“Whatever you do is just business as usual; the company pays you for that.” [9]
o“If we get allocated projects that are business as usual. That is the expectation from the company to perform and do your role and you are paid for that. If you are not doing your role, we have other conversations”.[10]
o“You are not a team player”, “You put everything for your individual performance.”[11]
o“You don’t put a lot of importance on the team as opposed to your individual contribution”, “I am much more of a team person. For me, you put everything for your individual performance.”[12]
o“You value quite heavily being called out as an individual in the work that you do.”[13]
o“I don’t think you could ever acknowledge when you are wrong.” [14]
o“I don’t think you could ever acknowledge where you think you are not doing something correct. The ‘Ways of Working’ is a good example for that.”[15]
o“You can’t take feedback so I don’t feel respected. I find it extremely frustrating and it makes me feel really underappreciated. It also makes me feel like you don’t respect me at all.. and that is how you make me feel”.[16]
o“I believe that you can’t take feedback at all …, you never can…, that is my observation over the last few months. Every time I talk I get five words out. Every time .. and you cut me off. You don’t listen to me at all…”[17]
o“You think you are perfect and absolutely nailing everything, that is where your ‘Ways of Working’ also bring you down.” [18]
o“You think you’re absolutely nailing all of that. You are telling me that you are perfect, like you are perfect and that you have done all of this. That is expected.”[19]
o“Everybody, including myself, have multiple things that we should be improving on for sure. I have never heard that from you saying, you have a development opportunity.”[20]
o“Thank you for actually listening to me because I think that’s the first time you’ve actually listened to me”.[21]
o“You just told me that I am wrong in regards to the team work. You know what Seema, yes, it is what I think and I listen to you all the time about what you think. I really would like you to appreciate my opinion and I would really like you to respect my opinion because quite frankly you put me down, you don’t listen to me, you can’t take feedback at all …”
Ms Schofield made similar comments in every one-on-one meeting without providing any constructive feedback, reasoning, or specific examples; [22]
between July 2024 and September 2024 Ms Schofield also said:
o“Your ways of working are not good.”
o“We need to work on your ways of working.”
o“I think we do get very murky waters when people think that they are exceeding as opposed to doing what is expected of you and what you are paid to do. That is where your ways of working bring you down.”
o“You say you don’t have any challenges in your work now. You have a different perception of yourself than perhaps what I see now that I’ve been working with you for a few months”
when she disagreed with Ms Schofield’s unreasonable comments, Ms Schofield accused her of being disrespectful and read the Respectful Workplace Policy from printed out papers;[23]
Ms Schofield said “don’t be emotional, it is unprofessional”,[24] even though the Applicant was not displaying any inappropriate emotions;[25]
Ms Schofield said “Don’t use the word ‘dodgy’ anymore, it is unprofessional”[26] despite the word being commonly used in workplace discussions. [27]
The Applicant also alleged that Ms Schofield made insensitive comments about the Applicant’s home country, India, during a one-on-one meeting, saying:
“I heard that India has a lot of corruption and bribery”; [28] and
“I heard from another person that in India, government jobs are corrupt and poorly paid”.[29] The Applicant submitted this was an irrelevant and culturally insensitive comment that made her feel uncomfortable, humiliated and targeted due to her ethnic background and in response she had to provide clarification to Ms Schofield on the nature of government jobs and other facts about India.[30]
The Applicant also alleged that when she extended her medical leave/workers’ compensation claim on 18 December 2024, Ms Schofield:
said “I will look to start training up someone to replace you in the new year”;[31] and
pressured her to submit medical certificates directly to her, even though they had been provided to human resources and the Applicant had informed her of this.[32]
The Applicant also alleged that:
despite being a key contributor and subject matter expert for Big W and EDI-related work, she was completely excluded from Big W support and other projects she had previously worked on;
while all other team members were included in these job activities and Ms Schofield publicly praised their contributions, the Applicant’s contributions and positive feedback from stakeholders were deliberately ignored;
Ms Schofield said: “Whilst you were working on Janus (name of the high-visibility MoNDC/Moorbank DC project), the rest of the team were doing other activities so that you can work on Janus. Doing Janus was your job, that is your role. It is not going above or beyond or anything. That is just doing your job we should all do, that was a task allocated to you to do over the past two years.”[33]
The Applicant’s allegations concerning Ms Stoffels
The Applicant alleged that she escalated her concerns about Ms Schofield to Ms Stoffels and that Ms Stoffels:
dismissed the Applicant’s concerns and echoed Ms Schofield’s sentiments including by saying that the Applicant’s “ways of working were not good” without providing examples or justification;
defended Ms Schofield and repeated her negative feedback without any justification;
told the Applicant that her previous leader was no longer her manager and that Ms Schofield, as her current manager, had the authority to make such comments;
unfairly reduced her performance rating, leading to the lowest bonus the Applicant had received in years despite the Applicant considering she had performed well;
downplayed the Applicant’s concerns by implying that her complaint had no legal standing or that she had confirmed this with the legal team, which the Applicant said discouraged her from seeking justice.[34]
The Applicant alleged that between July and October 2024 Ms Stoffels said:
“oh you say Dee gave that rating to you? It is not Dee, it is my rating, your ways of working is not good so your work numbers don’t matter for me and hence I gave you an ‘Achieved’ rating.”
“Your previous leader is not your manager anymore, Dee is your manager. Dee can give any feedback as she is your manager and just being in the leader role for less than a month is enough for Dee to give you a rating for your last year’s performance. Also, your manager is not going to change, it is going to be Dee.”
“Dee would have mentioned the BSS social contract that she can tell you to have with your colleague.”
“I saw that email you wrote to Dee on your meeting with [the Major Supplier], it is a blunt email.”
“I heard from Dee that you are doing dirty laundry washing.”
“What you say is your version and there is no evidence for that.”
“What Dee did is reasonable management action.”
“Your allegation against Dee on discrimination and racism put her down.”
“I heard that you were giving running commentary to your team mates”.[35]
The Applicant submitted that Ms Stoffels enabled and endorsed Ms Schofield’s bullying which emboldened Ms Schofield to continue treating the Applicant poorly and left the Applicant with no safe avenue within management to seek relief.[36] The Applicant submitted that Ms Stoffels could have reassigned her or adjusted her reporting lines while the investigation was underway or at the very least firmly instructed Ms Schofield to cease any potentially bullying behaviour but did none of these things and what started as work-related stress evolved into a “full-blown psychological injury”.[37]
Other allegations
While the Applicant did not specifically identify anyone from human resources as a respondent to her application, the Applicant also alleged that the human resources team members failed to act as they:
did not reach out to the Applicant for any further evidence, even after the Applicant’s escalations;
supported Ms Stoffels’ conclusion that there was insufficient evidence without conducting a separate investigation;
warned the Applicant for discussing her distress with team members.[38]
The Applicant also alleged that:
she raised her concerns with Daniel Duncan (Mr Duncan) from human resources but no corrective action was taken; [39]
she escalated the matter to Ms Price but no intervention was made other than advising the Applicant to request that Ms Schofield pause one-on-one meetings until the human resources ticket was closed;[40]
despite her request not to involve Ms Stoffels in the investigation, the investigation was conducted by Ms Stoffels “and her friends”, which was later reviewed and approved by Mr Duncan and Ms Price from human resources.[41]
The Applicant submitted that human resources ruled that Ms Schofield’s behaviour did not breach the Employer’s Code of Conduct or Respectful Workplace Policy despite clear evidence of bullying, harassment and discrimination.[42]
The Applicant also submitted that the investigation was led by Ms Stoffels and lacked integrity as Ms Stoffels had a dual role as an interested party and investigator.[43] The Applicant submitted that rather than conducting an impartial inquiry, Ms Stoffels coordinated with colleagues familiar to her to produce a predetermined outcome and approached the Applicant’s concerns with a defensive mindset instead of an open mind.[44] The Applicant submitted that:
there was no truly independent investigator assigned to her case;
Ms Stoffels played a leading role in gathering evidence, which is a conflict of interest;
she was not interviewed by an impartial third party but instead had meetings with Ms Stoffels and a human resources representative who already seemed aligned with management’s perspective;
key witnesses or pieces of evidence she identified were not pursued with rigor;
statements from individuals including the Applicant’s colleagues Mr Yang and Catherin, who were defending the management narrative, were taken at face value and this made the outcome a foregone conclusion that favoured the Respondents.[45]
The Applicant also submitted the review of her performance rating by Mr Shankar, a manager from another division and a peer of Ms Stoffels, was biased and procedurally unfair because:
it was Ms Stoffels that recommended that Mr Shankar conduct the review;
at no point did Mr Shankar contact the Applicant to gather her version of events, understand her perspective or seek clarification; and
Mr Shankar solely relied on information provided by Ms Stoffels and Ms Schofield.[46]
Applicant’s ‘Diary Notes’
The Applicant said she maintained detailed diary notes of virtually every significant interaction with Ms Schofield from the time she became the Applicant’s manager in May 2024, and these notes were written immediately after the meetings or incidents in question.[47]
In this regard, the Applicant filed a copy of a highly detailed document entitled ‘Seema’s Diary Notes’ which presents as notes of events taking place between 23 May 2024 and 21 January 2025 embedded with screenshots and images together with observations made by the Applicant (Applicant’s Diary Notes). During the hearing the Applicant appeared to indicate that the Applicant’s Diary Notes included contemporaneous notes but had also been edited for the purposes of the hearing.[48] I have considered them and referred to evidence within them throughout this decision.
Outcome sought by the Applicant
The Applicant sought that the Commission:
investigate her allegations of bullying and harassment;
ensure the Employer complies with workplace laws and policies;
take necessary actions to prevent further harm and retaliation;[49]
issue a stop bullying order,[50] including ordering that:
oMs Schofield not engage in any form of bullying toward the Applicant;
oMs Schofield not unnecessarily interact with the Applicant except for legitimate business communication and in writing or with a witness present;
oMs Schofield undergo appropriate training or counselling to ensure she understands her obligations under workplace standards or conduct;
recommend that the Employer facilitate measures to minimise contact between the Applicant and Ms Schofield, such as a reporting line change or other practical accommodations given the breakdown of trust;
forbid the Employer’s management from taking retaliatory action against the Applicant in any form, including but not limited to termination of employment, disciplinary action, putting the Applicant on a performance management plan, reducing the Applicant’s performance ratings or excluding the Applicant from key projects/activities;[51]
recommend that the Employer implement corrective measures including:
ostronger anti-retaliation policies for employees who report bullying;
oa review of human resources practices, specifically in relation to how complaints of bullying are handled;
omaking the human resources representatives accountable and ensuring that they face disciplinary action;
oan independent review of human resources’ grievance handling process, ensuring fair and unbiased treatment of complaints;
oinvestigation of retaliatory actions the Applicant said were taken against her, including the performance downgrade, exclusion from work and threats to replace her whilst she was on medical leave;
oensuring her return to work process is managed fairly to prevent further harm and avoid future workplace discrimination.[52]
Position of the Respondents
Reasonable management action carried out in a reasonable manner
The Respondents objected to the Application on the basis that the alleged bullying was reasonable management action, carried out in a reasonable manner.[53] In this regard the Respondents noted that the Applicant was not undergoing any form of formal performance management, had been a good performer for several years and that there had been no formal conversations to manage the Applicant’s performance.[54]
However, the Respondents submitted that there had been several informal conversations where feedback or direction was provided around the Applicant’s performance or behaviours in certain areas which would benefit from improvement.[55]
While the Respondents disputed some of the specific comments attributed to Ms Schofield, it submitted that those comments related to feedback on the Applicant’s performance and behaviours.[56]
The Respondents also submitted that the comments were made in direct response to the Applicant continuing to discuss why she felt she had outperformed members of her team and why others in the team were not at her same level.[57] In this regard the Respondents submitted that in the context in which the comments were provided, the feedback was reasonable and carried out in a reasonable manner.[58]
Evidence
Applicant’s prior performance record
As will become apparent below, the escalation of this dispute followed the Applicant’s performance rating being changed from ‘Exceeding’ to ‘Achieving’ in financial year 2024 (FY24). Each financial year employees are given a rating each in respect of ‘Business Strategy and Contribution’ (Business Performance) and ‘Ways of Working and People’ (Ways of Working) as well as an ‘Overall’ rating combining both inputs.
The Applicant provided copies of her performance ratings for previous years. These indicate that:
in financial year 2021 (FY 21), the Applicant was rated:
o‘Exceeding’ in respect of ‘Business Strategy and Contribution’;
o‘Achieving’ in respect of ‘Ways of Working and People’; and
o‘Exceeding’ overall;
in financial year 2022, the Applicant was rated:
o‘Exceeding’ in respect of ‘Business Strategy and Contribution’;
o‘Exceeding’ in respect of ‘Ways of Working and People’; and
o‘Exceeding’ overall;
in financial year 2023 (FY 23), the Applicant was rated:
o‘Exceeding’ in respect of ‘Business Strategy and Contribution’;
o‘Achieving’ in respect of ‘Ways of Working and People’;
o‘Exceeding’ overall.[59]
Applicant’s complaint about her colleague Faye on 31 May 2023
It is clear that the Applicant has long standing concerns about the work performance of her colleague Faye. On 31 May 2023, before Ms Schofield became her manager, the Applicant emailed Ms Stoffels and said:
“Hi Janet,
Hope you are doing well.
I am writing this to let you know of an evidently unfair treatment done in my team or some team members get special privileges (for years). That is, Faye has one rule in the team and all others have another rule.
Faye can come and go at any time,
·do work or not,
·attend team meetings or not,
·vanish from the support job all of a sudden leaving everything to the backup person saying that I have an appointment and off for the rest of the day (that she has most of the weeks and would be pre planned but won’t advise the team in advance or it is kind of punishing the backup person who has to do their job + her job) or has nanny duty or some personal jobs or some excuses all the time without giving advanced notice to the team,
·hold cases for a long time (sometimes weeks) without answering,
·She is the only person in the team who doesn't have a proper work start and end time on a day-to-day basis (I don't know what is her timing as it changes most days), and I am seeing this for almost 5 years now. She butters up people and survives.. fed up with this now as it is demotivating for others like me who work honestly and diligently.
I am not sure if this is applicable to every other team member in eBusiness and BSS and if we can do this as well (though I don't want to do any of these dodgy things or misuse anything or mixed personal and work life). Or when a person has 20+ years of experience in Woolworths can they do this kind of work here?
But one thing I know is, I had been asked to apply the leave (even for a shorter time), update in Calendar, and produce a medical certificate for taking sick leave on Monday or Friday (that I did one or 2 times) in the same team (though later Melissa helped me and stopped Derong from asking me alone for producing medical certificate when she was our manager, so that was stopped at least by her).I have raised this to Derong multiple times (I think some past and present team members as well had raised it), but there was no action taken and no improvements in this matter. Perhaps she doesn't listen to him if he conveyed this already. She still continues her time pass work and doesn't care about the team or work or is responsible for the work she does or won't update the team if she has to update us on something etc.. . Hope you can at least take some action or correct this team member.
I can understand people taking flexibility and need that sometimes and may have doctor appointments, but her continuously misusing flexibility during work time and not following team rules are clear to everyone and come up with excuses all the time (specially for a person who does a support job and monitoring the gateway and order missing kind of questions) are not correct. I think this is not the ways of working we all agree to.
Most of the time Derong and Owen protect her and help her a lot by creating special reports, macros to mass close cases, and templates to send emails in the partner hub, excluding her from some work we do, allowing her to skip team meetings, etc…(there can be even more of these others do not know), all special things when others are capable to do all these jobs themselves, and doing it daily without any issues and complaints or excuses.
I don't even know if she applies for leave whenever she takes a long time away and goes for her personal activities on a working day. Faye does some personal favours to Derong and Owen back for this and there is a mutual understanding between them (that everyone knows in the team). So I don't trust them to take any action on this or control her, that is another reason for me reaching out to you. I have even written this issue sometime in the VOT without mentioning her name.”[60]
Ms Stoffels responded to the Applicant’s email the same day, thanking her and indicating that she would discuss the matter with Derong, the Applicant’s manager at that time, and Mr Yang and would endeavour to get back to the Applicant as soon as she could.[61]
The Applicant said that instead of addressing the issues she raised, Ms Stoffels and Ms Schofield shifted the focus on to her, accusing her of having “poor ways of working”.[62]
First one-on-one meeting between the Applicant and Ms Schofield on 23 May 2024
The Applicant and Ms Schofield had their first one-on-one meeting on 23 May 2024.[63] Ms Schofield gave evidence that she had not previously dealt with the Applicant before becoming her manager on 13 May 2024[64] and the Applicant’s Diary Notes indicate this was the first time the Applicant spoke to Ms Schofield in a one-on-one setting.[65] Ms Schofield said the intention of the meeting was to get to know the Applicant and understand how she could best support her in her role and that she had a list of questions that she shared with the Applicant as a part of the meeting invite.[66]
Ms Schofield attached a copy of her notes of the meeting to her statement which indicate she asked the following questions,[67] which are consistent with those that appear in a meeting invite embedded within the Applicant’s Diary Notes:[68]
“What has been something that you have achieved whilst working at Woolworths that you are really proud about?”
“What does a regular day look like for you?”
“Are you really motivated to come to work or some days just feel it’s a bit of a challenge and if so, why?”
“What do you really like about working in your team and why?”
“Is there anything preventing you from doing your job well and achieving your goals?”
“Do you have any particular goals/aspirations for the short term i.e. next 12-18 months?’
“Would you like to see something change, what is it and why? What can I do to help influence the change?”
In relation to this last question the Applicant stated in the Applicant’s Diary Notes that:
she raised an issue she and her team had faced for years, being that her team member Faye consistently misused work time, did not check and close support cases within service level agreement requirements and offloaded her work to others;
she showed Ms Schofield some of the support cases that Faye had not closed;
she requested that Ms Schofield observe Faye’s work in the team and requested that she correct Faye and make her work to help the team if she was convinced that Faye was not doing her job as expected;
Ms Schofield said “why are you raising it to me?” and she felt from Ms Schofield’s attitude and response that she took the Applicant’s comments in a negative way or did not like that she had raised the issue;
she requested that Ms Schofield ‘erase’ what she said about Faye’s work and to watch and act, not just based on what the Applicant said or showed her during the meeting;
Ms Schofield then asked her to give evidence to her next time it occurred.[69]
The Applicant said:
she mentioned Faye does some ‘dodgy work’ in moving cases to on hold status to ‘fool’ the team and the service level agreement which kept cases untouched for weeks that then went to others in the team to answer; and
Ms Schofield then warned her in a bossy tone “don’t use the word ‘dodgy’ anymore, it is unprofessional.[70]
Ms Schofield gave evidence that the Applicant referred to Faye as being “dodgy” and that she did say to the Applicant that it was unprofessional to use the word “dodgy” when referring to another team member.[71]
In this regard, the Applicant gave evidence that she had brought up a concern regarding the work habits of Faye, explaining that Faye had a practice of moving cases to an “on hold” status for extended periods, which she felt was a way to avoid work and mislead the team about the backlog, bypassing service level agreements.[72] The Applicant said that in describing this to Ms Schofield she said that Faye was doing “some dodgy work”, meaning the actions were questionable.[73] The Applicant gave evidence that she did not call Faye herself “dodgy” but was pointing out a potentially dishonest practice in her work.[74]
The Applicant said Ms Schofield warned her “don’t be emotional, it is unprofessional” when she was not crying or behaving unprofessionally but may have been talking about how she would be in a hurry after work time in peak traffic to pick up her son from care and would get calls about being late due to the traffic, yet at the same time Faye would come and go in her own time.[75] Ms Schofield denied telling the Applicant not to be emotional because it was unprofessional.[76]
Ms Schofield gave evidence that the meeting stalled when discussing what the Applicant would like to see changed, at this point the Applicant dominated the rest of the meeting and instead of discussing her role and how Ms Schofield could best support her, focused almost exclusively on past grievances with her former team leader and ongoing grievances with her colleague ‘Faye’.[77]
Ms Schofield’s evidence was that the Applicant’s complaint about Faye included that:
Faye was not performing her role to the standard expected, including not closing cases and misusing work time;
Faye had a close personal relationship with her former team leader, Derong, and Mr Yang who the Applicant claimed were making excuses for and protecting Faye.[78]
Ms Schofield gave evidence that the Applicant told her that she was keeping detailed notes on Faye’s performance issues, including screenshots of unresolved cases in the support queue.[79]
The Applicant gave evidence that during the meeting Ms Schofield described her former manager’s behaviour as “toxic” and expressed curiosity about why several of her former teammates had left the team.[80] The Applicant said it appeared Ms Schofield was prompting her to speak negatively about her former manager and colleagues but she refrained from doing so and responded professionally, explaining that some of her former teammates had transferred, others had retired and the rest had pursued roles aligned with their interests.[81]
Ms Schofield’s evidence was that the Applicant’s complaint about Derong related to his:
· management style;
· “lack of leadership skills”;
· failure to properly manage Faye;
· inability to provide examples of feedback to the Applicant; and
· failure to thank the Applicant, which Ms Schofield said she was surprised by as she recalled Derong regularly announcing the Applicant’s good work.[82]
Ms Schofield’s evidence was that the Applicant seemed quite distressed when discussing her concerns about Derong and Faye and that she raised her voice, spoke quickly, jumped between and repeated stories.[83]
Ms Schofield said it was hard to follow what the Applicant was saying and difficult to speak and she told the Applicant that if she had any particular concerns regarding Faye, she could send them through to her.[84] Ms Schofield said it was not correct that she told the Applicant to “provide further evidence” in relation to Faye as this is not a word that Ms Schofield would use in this context and said she was just trying to better understand the Applicant’s challenges.[85]
Ms Schofield’s evidence was that the meeting was supposed to run for an hour but ended up going for an hour and a half.[86] The Applicant gave evidence that she reminded Ms Schofield multiple times during the meeting that the allotted time had concluded but that Ms Schofield stated she was free and willing to continue, and proceeded to extend the meeting beyond the scheduled duration.[87]
Ms Schofield denied:
saying “you didn’t listen to me, what did I say Seema? Tell me what I said…” in the first meeting;[88]
raising the concept of a social contract in the first meeting;[89] or
being rude, dismissive or bossy in her tone with the Applicant.[90]
Amendments to the Applicant’s Diary Notes suggest that the discussion concerning a social contract with Faye did in fact occur in a later meeting and I return to this below.
Concerns raised by the Applicant about Faye on 6 June 2024
In the Applicant’s Diary Notes the Applicant indicated that in respect of Faye’s jobs in the support queue:
· on 6 June 2024 she messaged Ms Schofield with a screenshot of the support queue from that date;
· the same issue was happening most days;
· Ms Schofield responded saying “Thank you Seema, please leave it with me.”[91]
Second one-on-one meeting between the Applicant and Ms Schofield on 12 June 2024
The Applicant gave evidence that in the second one-on-one meeting on 12 June 2024:
Ms Schofield unexpectedly brought up the topic of the Applicant’s complaint about Faye’s work performance when the Applicant had been trying to avoid the topic because the first meeting had gone poorly when this was raised;
Ms Schofield said “Seema, you need to have a social contract with Faye” in a bossy tone;
rather than explaining what she meant by “social contract” or why it was necessary, Ms Schofield raised her voice and demanded “You didn’t listen to me, what did I say Seema? Tell me what I said…”
the Applicant said “You just told me that I need a social contract with Faye” to show she had heard her;
Ms Schofield responded “Yes…We can have that meeting next Friday when you, me, Owen and Faye are available in the office”, effectively planning to schedule a four way meeting for the following week;
Ms Schofield did not frame this as an informal coffee or voluntary chat to mend fences but issued an order and made the Applicant recite the order back to her;
she did not refuse outright in the moment but was mostly stunned into silence and compliance; [92]
she stayed calm and said:
“I have raised the issue about ‘Faye not working’ only with the line leaders or I never had any discussions about Faye’s work directly with her and I maintain a good personal relationship with Faye and she does that to me as well. I always help her whenever she reaches out to me and I still do that.”
“I don’t even talk with anyone outside of my team other than work related matters as I go only on Friday to the office and that day only my team is there who already knows about Faye not working properly, and I don’t need to tell them that or they can see that every day.”[93]
The Applicant said after the meeting she:
kept thinking why these things were said and why they were said in a rude and bossy manner;
wondered why she deserved such treatment after working hard for the team for years and helping everyone in the team, including Faye;
wondered if Faye had raised false accusations about her with Ms Schofield to ‘escape from her wrong doings’.[94]
Ms Schofield’s evidence was that the meeting started off well, but that discussion quickly turned again to the Applicant’s historic complaints about Derong and her concerns with Faye.[95] A copy of Ms Schofield’s notes of the meeting were attached to her statement.[96]
Ms Schofield gave evidence that during the meeting the Applicant:
raised allegations about Faye again, including that she wasn’t doing her job (because cases in the Partner Hub were lagging) and stating that she “misuses others’ trust” without detailing what she meant by this;
said she was “fed up” with Faye’s excuses for not doing her job;
said she was frustrated because this had been happening for a long time and “no one tells Faye to do her job”;
said that continually raising her concerns about Faye was “mentally not good” and that it was hard to talk about;
said her issues with Faye were not personal and her concern was about Faye’s performance.[97]
Ms Schofield gave evidence that during the meeting:
she again found it very hard to get a word in;
the Applicant spoke over the top of her and tended to repeat the same thing;
she acknowledged that she may need to take some action related to Faye’s performance if it was the case that she was not completing tasks;[98]
she assured the Applicant that she was taking her concerns about Faye’s performance seriously and told her that she needed more time to observe Faye’s performance, which takes time and is of a sensitive nature.[99]
Ms Schofield gave evidence that:
in her brief time in the team, she had not observed any significant performance issues with Faye;[100]
despite inviting the Applicant to come to her with concerns she had with Faye following the first one-on-one meeting, the Applicant had not done so except for one occasion on 6 June 2024 where the Applicant sent a screenshot of the job queue showing that Faye had not completed all of her tasks as at 6pm.[101] Ms Schofield said she did not consider this to be a significant issue in isolation[102];
her observations from speaking with both the Applicant and Faye were that they had a very strained work relationship and were both keeping detailed notes on each other;
she was concerned by the Applicant’s fixation with Faye’s work performance, demonstrated by the amount of time the Applicant spent in the first two one-on-one meetings discussing Faye and the emotive language she was using.[103]
Ms Schofield gave evidence that:
her priority in the short term was to help the Applicant and Faye improve their working relationship;
she suggested the idea of forming a ‘social contract’ which would involve bringing the Applicant and Faye together in a meeting to resolve their differences and agree on how they would like to be treated by the other in the workplace;
she thought this was a thoughtful approach to take that would create a nicer work environment for the Applicant and Faye, and also benefit the broader team;
she ran the idea past her manager, Ms Stoffels before she raised it with the Applicant and Ms Stoffels supported the approach.[104]
Ms Schofield gave evidence that she suggested to both the Applicant and Faye that a meeting be set up for this purpose, but both declined to meet and she did not pursue it further.[105]
Ms Schofield denied being bossy or rude during the meeting and gave evidence that she struggled to say much as the Applicant consistently spoke over the top of her.[106]
Events on 13 June 2024
Ms Schofield gave evidence that on 13 June 2024, the day after her meeting with the Applicant, she received an email from the Applicant asking her to “withdraw the issues” she had raised about Faye in the first two one-on-one meetings.[107] A copy of this correspondence is included in the Applicant’s Diary Notes.[108]
The Applicant said she had no personal issue with Faye outside the work-related concerns she had raised to management, she had always maintained a civil working relationship with Faye and after the meeting she formed a realisation that she was being forced into a direct confrontation with Faye under those circumstances and this was deeply unfair. [109] The Applicant said forcing a meeting felt more like a punishment or a manufactured confrontation rather than a means of addressing the performance problem and that in withdrawing her complaint about Faye on 13 June 2024 she “essentially conceded defeat on that issue” – a result that left the original concern unresolved.[110]
Ms Schofield gave evidence that she was surprised by the email but assured the Applicant that she had taken her feedback on board, was working to address it and was available to listen to constructive feedback.[111] Ms Schofield denied the Applicant’s allegations that she dismissed her concerns or tried to shut her down.[112]
Applicant’s 2024 Performance Review Rating
Ms Stoffels is the Head of BSS[113] and Ms Schofield is her direct report.[114] Ms Stoffels said she is not friends with Ms Schofield outside of work and does not have a relationship with her outside of work.[115] Ms Stoffels gave evidence that:
prior to June/July 2024 she did not have day to day contact with the Applicant;
she would hear the Applicant’s name through liaising with Mr Yang and Derong about what the team had done or if there were issues raised within the team;[116]
the feedback she had received from Mr Yang was that the Applicant was technically capable.[117]
Mr Yang gave evidence that in May 2024 he was acting as the lead of the eBusiness team and Ms Stoffels had asked him to send through performance ratings for the team for the 2024 financial year (FY 24) .[118] Mr Yang rated the Applicant with an overall rating of ‘Exceeding’ expectations on the basis that her technical skills were excellent.[119] Mr Yang said that as per the usual process for performance reviews, once managers rate their team’s performance those preliminary ratings are put through a process of calibration involving senior leaders coming together to compare results against an agreed benchmark.[120]
Ms Stoffels said that employees were provided with two ratings, one for ‘Business and Strategy Contribution’ and one for ‘Ways of Working and People’, which each contributed to the overall rating by 50 per cent.[121] Ms Stoffels attached a copy of a presentation to her statement that provided further details of these performance areas.[122] Ms Stoffels gave evidence that:
· while ‘Ways of Working and People’ had always been a criteria worth 50 percent of the overall performance rating, in previous years managers across the BSS group had focused too much on the ‘Business and Strategy Contribution’ which assessed technical skills;
· the focus of the FY 24 calibration process was to better assess how employees were achieving results (i.e. ‘Ways of Working’) and not just the end result (‘Business Performance’);
· Mr Yang, who is usually the Applicant’s peer but was acting in the leadership role, had rated the Applicant as ‘Exceeding’ expectations; [123]
· a calibration process took place where employees across BSS were benchmarked;[124]
· she did not believe that the Applicant was demonstrating everything expected for an ‘Exceeding’ rating including because:
o the Applicant was not always proactively looking for ways to support the wider team and assist with the development of others;
o she understood the Applicant was always willing to assist if asked and would provide feedback to others on work they completed but would do so in a very direct way;
o she did not see evidence of the Applicant showing enough initiative; and
o the Applicant’s approach appeared more focused on her individual work;[125]
· a part of the calibration process the Applicant was rated as ‘Exceeding’ for ‘Business and Strategy Contribution’ but was downgraded to ‘Achieving’ and after the criteria was weighted this meant the Applicant achieved an overall rating of ‘Achieving’;[126]
· across the BSS team a total of six employees had their performance ratings downgraded from ‘Exceeding’ to ‘Achieving’ as a result of the calibration process and the Applicant was not targeted in any way;[127]
· as the Head of the BSS team, she made the decision to downgrade the Applicant’s performance rating as a part of the calibration process, not Ms Schofield.[128]
A presentation attached to Ms Stoffels’ statement states:
“The Ways of Working, as well as our Values, underpin our Purpose and how we will deliver on our Strategy. They describe how we operate and what behaviours are important to us. Performance is not only about what we deliver (our results) it’s also how we deliver those results (our behaviour).
Our Purpose = why we exist
Our Values = why we are
Our Ways of Working = how we work
Whilst we have definitions for each of the Ways of Working, everyone should take the time to understand what it means for them”.[129]
The presentation sets out a number of descriptions of Ways of Working and includes a matrix which indicates that if an employee is rated ‘Achieving’ under ‘Ways of Working’ but ‘Exceeding’ under ‘KPIs/Business Performance’, they will be given an overall rating of ‘Achieving’.[130] This appears to be different to previous years noting that in financial years 2021 and 2023, the Applicant was also rated ‘Exceeding’ in respect of ‘Business Strategy and Contribution’ and ‘Achieving’ in respect of ‘Ways of Working and People’ yet was still rated as ‘Exceeding’ overall.[131]
Under the rating ‘Exceeding’ the following descriptors appear in respect of the eBusiness team:
‘We’re customer 1st, team 1st’’:
o“I always listen to and understand our customers (Suppliers and business stakeholders) problems and requests. If the problem is not within our domain, I will strive to resolve, or reach out to the correct team, and ensure the issue gets resolved for our customers. Based on the outcome I will learn an update our processes or documents accordingly”.
o“I always (100%) adhere to Service Levels expectations and aim to respond to customers within one business day”.
‘We're always improving’:
o“I have identified ways to improve and develop ebusiness processes and systems and worked with relevant team to deliver them”.
o“I initiate the change and collaborate with other teams to make ideas or areas of improvement happen in order to realise business benefits”.
o“I take proactive actions to prevent the issues before they happen””.
‘We deliver end-to-end’:
o“I proactively deliver the initiatives with other teams and achieved better outcomes and share the learning and feedback with the relevant teams”.
o“I understand the importance of team success over individual, I always proactively offer help and support other team members when there is a need, and value the team members’ contribution”.
o“I actively seek for feedback and turn it into an opportunity for growth”.
o“I consistently receive outstanding stakeholders feedback.”
‘We support freedom within clear frameworks’:
o“I speak up to ensure that I and people around me do the right thing, and provide constructive feedback in a respectful way”.
o“I always understand how to apply the frameworks and how to embrace the freedom in my current role. I also enable others to do the same thing.”
‘We keep things simple’:
o“I identified ways to simplify our process is for suppliers and business stakeholders and delivered the simpler and more efficient processes for our customers”.
o“I have a thorough understanding of the negative impacts that my actions slash in actions can have on business stakeholders and suppliers therefore making no room for mistakes.”[132]
Under the description ‘Achieving’ the following descriptors appear in respect of respect of the eBusiness team:
‘We’re customer 1st, team 1st’:
o“I listen to an understand our customers (Suppliers and business stakeholders) problems and requests. If the problem or requests are not within our domain, I will explain and direct them to the right team”.
o“I regularly (95%) Adhere to Service levels expectations and aim to respond to customers within one business day”.
‘We're always improving’:
o“I'm actively looking for ways to continuously improve our business processes and ebusiness systems. I have actively participated in the idea sessions and retrospective meetings with new ideas and areas of improvement”.
o“I have achieved my performance goals and my personal development objectives”.
o“I have taken the ownership and initiative to improve ebusiness systems or processes whenever there is a gap or room for improvement”.
‘We deliver end-to-end’:
o“I collaborate with other team members and share my knowledge and resources to achieve better outcomes for the team”.
o“I offer ideas and suggestions and work with other teams to provide better service to our customers”.
o“I collaborate with business and project teams to achieve common business goals and receive positive stakeholder feedback”.
o“I am open for any feedback including constructive feedback”.
‘We support freedom within clear frameworks’:
o“I understand how to apply the frameworks and how to embrace the freedom in my current role”.
o“I can make my own decision in my area of expertise to ensure our customers are satisfied”.
o“I have the ability to prioritise my activities based on business impact and urgency.”
‘We keep things simple’:
o“I actively look for ways to improve and simplify our processes for suppliers and business stakeholders”.
o“I enable suppliers to do business simpler with Woolworths and ultimately contributes (sic) to keep things simple for our customers”.
o“I am aware of the negative impacts that my actions/inactions can have on the business stakeholders and suppliers and do my best to avoid mistakes.”[133]
Ms Stoffels said she discussed her decision to downgrade the Applicant’s ‘Ways of Working’ rating with Mr Yang and Ms Schofield after the benchmarking exercise[134] and that Mr Yang agreed with the decision, admitting he had not focused as much on ‘Ways of Working’.[135] Ms Stoffels said she and Mr Yang agreed that the Applicant’s technical skills were very good and that is why the ‘Exceeding’ rating for ‘Business and Strategy’ was maintained.[136]
Mr Yang gave evidence that when he provided the Applicant with an initial rating of ‘Exceeding’ he had not given equal weight to her ‘Ways of Working’ and confirmed he agreed to downgrade the Applicant’s rating to ‘Achieving’ on this basis.[137] Mr Yang gave evidence that while the Applicant would help someone in the team when asked, he did not always see the Applicant proactively supporting the rest of the team and did not always think she was helping others to achieve their goals.[138]
Ms Schofield also gave evidence that during the Applicant’s FY 24 performance review, the Applicant’s performance rating was downgraded as a result of a Business Enablement (BE) management decision to undertake a calibration process impacting all employees across the BE team, with a particular focus on reassessing those who had received an ‘Exceeding’ rating.[139] Ms Schofield said that this meeting was attended by Senior BE managers, she was not included and she did not participate in that process.[140]
Ms Schofield expressed an understanding that as a part of the calibration process the BE management team benchmarked each rating against the categories of ‘Business and Strategy Contribution’ and ‘Ways of Working and People’ which contributed by 50 percent.[141]
Ms Schofield gave evidence that:
· Mr Yang, as the acting team leader for the majority of FY 24, was responsible for the Applicant’s performance review;
· Ms Stoffels attended the calibration meeting and made the decision to downgrade the Applicant’s performance rating;
· she provided no input into the decision-making process;[142]
· she understood from discussions with Ms Stoffels and Mr Yang in a meeting she had with them that Ms Stoffels, with Mr Yang’s support, decided to downgrade the Applicant’s rating from ‘Exceeding’ to ‘Achieving’ as a part of the calibration process because she did not satisfy the requirements for an ‘Exceeding’ rating for the category ‘Ways of Working and People’.[143]
Within the Applicant’s Diary Notes was an extract from Success Factors dated 4 July 2024 which set out the following feedback from Ms Schofield in relation to the Applicant:
“Performance review conducted and by Owen Zang as he was Seemas TL for 2024, I took over mid May. Over the past 12 months, Seema has demonstrated outstanding performance in both BAU and project areas, continuously seeking opportunities to deliver improvements in our systems and processes. She completed 74 EDI implementations, achieving a weightage point of 268, and maintained an impressive survey record of 4.9 out of 5 for her implementations, reflecting a high level of satisfaction from suppliers and stakeholders. Additionally, she covered BigW EDI support and closed many admin support cases all within the SLA.
In her project activities, Seema managed and coordinated the continuous service improvement (CSI) project by providing requirements, reviewing user stories, performing UAT and business verification, and successfully delivering 19 enhancements and changes into production. She also contributed to the Janus project’s success by coordinating and providing regular updates to the stakeholders, and nearly reaching the project goal for overall pallet volume in preparation for the opening of MonDC. Her efforts have been positively received by the stakeholders.
Beyond her BAU and project responsibilities, Seema completed [the Major Supplier]-BigW EDI testing and identified issues with SPS Commerce, showcasing her attention to detail. She updated both Woolworths and BigW Message Implementation guidelines to reflect the latest enhancements and changes. Seema managed numeric issues in the Self-certification portal and liaised with the provider to promptly resolve those issues, ensuring smooth failures, and assisted them in resolving message issues. Seema also provided invaluable support to the team by covering for colleagues during their leaves, addressing team questions, and covering after-hour support.
Seema’s commitment to excellence, proactive approach, and ability to manage multiple projects independently make her a valuable asset to the team. I look forward to her continued contributions and success in the coming year’.[144]
While the evidence of Ms Stoffels suggests that it was only the Applicant’s rating with respect of ‘Ways of Working’ that was downgraded to ‘Achieving’ and that the Applicant’s rating in respect of ‘Business and Strategy Contribution’ remained as ‘Exceeding’, data provided by the Applicant indicates that Success Factors had recorded her as ‘Achieving’ in all measures.
Events on 25 June 2024
Ms Schofield gave evidence that an incident occurred on 25 June 2024 involving the Applicant, another employee within the Respondent’s group and an external person from a major supplier (Major Supplier Meeting Incident).[145] In particular, Ms Schofield gave evidence that:
upon the conclusion of a meeting the Applicant started sending a large number of messages to her entire team through an eBusiness Google chat, a screenshot of which is included in the Applicant’s Diary Notes;[146]
she told the Applicant that she thought the group chat was not the way to raise concerns she had with another internal stakeholder, noting that the Applicant had referred to the employee as a “crazy person from the IT team” and said that the employee was inappropriately questioning the Applicant and the external stakeholder and being rude;
she messaged the Applicant in the group chat advising that she would take it up with the employee’s manager and would need constructive feedback sent through to her;
she needed to ask the Applicant to do this twice because after the first request the Applicant had only sent a screen shot of the messages she sent to the employee and the Applicant said that she did not want to take the incident further because she wasn’t sure if the employee was “mentally affected or have any problem (sic)”.[147]
In an attachment to her statement, Ms Schofield included a copy of the messages in the group chat which state:[148]
Applicant: “just had a meeting with [the Major Supplier] on the PAD file update”
“my goodness we had a crazy person from the IT team, she was literally questioning me and the Applicant lady”
“on what is the problem statement, tell me that etc..”
Mr Yang: “Is she from WDP?”
Applicant:“I passed on all the data though there is already an enhancement ticket exists for that raised by the CM or CA”
“yes Owen”
“she was so rude”
“and it was a shame to have that meeting with [the Major Supplier] with her”
“she didn’t prepare anything for the meeting and I had to share all the details to her over the meeting”
“and she was questioning us like anything”
“first time I had such an experience from here”
“don’t know if she had some issue or was in fight with someone and came to the meeting”
…
Ms Schofield: “Who was the person Seema”
Applicant: “some [IT team member]”
“let me get her name”
“[IT team member]”
Syed Zaidi: “Project Manager Tech Mahindra”
Applicant: “hmm.. that is why she showed her power infront of the supplier”
“it was a shame for me infact to take her to the call”
Syed Zaidi: “It was [the Major Supplier]!! no power show off”
Applicant: “I had to go behind her to check if she is attending at the last moment”
“yeah infact Syed”
“[the Major Supplier] lady was so cool”
“so she was quiet”
Syed Zaidi: “too much and useless talking always have a bad impact”
Applicant:“I had to interrupt [IT team member] to check if we need to reschedule the meeting checking the request again”
Ms Schofield: “@Seema Kurup please send through email and not via this chat group. Please ne (sic) clear and constructive with your points, perhaps inclusive of how they made you feel in in the meeting and concern for our customer being [the Major Supplier] rep.”
Applicant:“sure”
“thanks Dee”
In the attachment to her statement, Ms Schofield also included a copy of the messages that the Applicant sent to her directly:[149]
“Applicant: Hi Dee, this is the chat I had to do internally to remind her we are in a
meeting with an external party.
Applicant: “Can you please be polite infront of the supplier”
“I am not sure how rude you are talking”
“can you please mind your talk”
“I am not sure what we are talking infront of the supplier here, you are questioning her and me”
“for an enhancement request the CM raised internally”
“if we are not prepared to talk to them please reschedule the meeting instead of talking rude infront of the supplier”
“you were telling what this lady is talking about etc. infront of the supplier”
“I am not sure wat is going on with you”
“I was talking politely and was providing all what you wanted”
Applicant: “I don’t want to create any issues with her job”
“because I don’t know if she is mentally affected or have any problem”
“but I felt it very strange, so raised”
“was telling the same to Ariana, the CM as well”
“she was telling ne to raise it as she too felt it odd”
“so raised it”
“otherwise I don’t even know [IT team member] from WDP”.
The Applicant provided the following account of the [the Major Supplier] Meeting Incident:
she had a meeting with an external supplier and an internal team member from the WDP team;
the meeting was based on the Applicant’s request that the WDP team join the meeting and details were sent to them days prior to the meeting;
the WDP team member who joined the meeting was not prepared, had not checked the request prior to the meeting and was questioning the Applicant and the external supplier in a rude tone, stating:
“Why [the Major Supplier] alone needs a change, it is not possible, it needs an enhancement request, who told you we can make a change, Big W can’t do this change, why can’t [the Major Supplier] adjust your system …”
she then:
oclarified that a system enhancement request had already been already opened and approved by the category manager so the WDP team member would understand;
otold the WDP team member that [the Major Supplier] had been in touch with the Big W team for over a month and the enhancement request was opened and approved based on another internal team’s advice;
she asked the WDP team member if she wanted to move the meeting to go through it and discuss the matter again;
the WDP team member was rude in her response and said in front of the [Supplier] contact “what is the problem with this lady…”
she felt bad as the supplier was listening;
she put herself on mute and messaged the other team member to remind her that she was speaking rudely to the Applicant and the external party;
the WDP team member slowed down and continued discussing the requirement;
the [Supplier] contact was kind and walked through the requirement again, which she had been talking about in various emails for a month;
after the meeting she casually said to her team in the group chat that she had a bad experience with one of the internal team members in the meeting and the person was rude to the Applicant and the external supplier;
her team members were asking about it;
Ms Schofield then got involved in the conversation and asked her to write about it so she could check and escalate;
she then told Ms Schofield in a private chat that she did not know the WDP team member and did not want to affect her job as she had no idea if she had any issues on that day and was expressing her bad mood in that meeting;
Ms Schofield insisted that she write down her concerns in an email and the Applicant finally did as she instructed.[150]
Performance review meeting on 27 June 2024
The Applicant met with Mr Yang and Ms Schofield for a performance review meeting on 27 June 2024. There is conflicting evidence about what happened during the meeting and I provide the accounts of the meeting provided by the Applicant, Mr Yang and Ms Schofield below.
The Applicant’s Diary Notes indicate, by way of summary, that during the meeting:
she was asked to share what she wrote about her FY 24 performance and did so;
Mr Yang read out his review and said the Applicant’s performance was outstanding/exceeding performance expectations, but the Applicant’s rating would be done by Ms Schofield as her new leader;
Ms Schofield then said “though you have done your work well, your ways of working is (sic) not good so we reduced your rating to Achieved” and asked the Applicant if she agreed;
she was shocked to hear the feedback, lost patience and said:
“No, I don’t agree with my rating or your feedback. I believe I did an exceeding performance last year and my work numbers and stakeholder feedback and survey ratings clearly shows it, and I always maintained the highest level in my ways of working. You are attacking me personally, on the other day you said I am emotional, unprofessional and ordered me to not use the word dodgy anymore. In another meeting, you ordered me to have a social contract with Faye when I have no personal issue with her and asked me to repeat that. Now you are saying my ways of working is bad and hence you reduced my performance rating as well. It is unfair. It shows there is an issue here with the work culture”;
she added that some of Ms Schofield’s promotional team members showed emotions in public in meetings by crying and “playing dramas” but Ms Schofield did not say anything to them;
she told Ms Schofield that she was trying to erase the word ‘dodgy’ from her head and dictionary because Ms Schofield told her never to use that word;
Ms Schofield replied:
“oh, you are disagreeing with me, and questioning me?”
she asked Mr Yang:
“Is there any issue with my ways or working? Am I unprofessional Owen? Do I have any personal issues with Faye? Do you know anything about it for me to have a social contract with Faye? Did I ever talk about Faye’s work directly to her?”
Mr Yang nodded “No” but was on mute at the time;
she asked for an example from Ms Schofield to demonstrate what she meant in saying the Applicant’s ways of working were bad and Ms Schofield said:
“You said you had a bad experience in a meeting with [the Major Supplier] from another internal team member to your team, that is not correct, you were not supposed to say that, it is bad ways of working and it is unprofessional”;[151]
she was shocked hearing about this and about it being used as an example to reduce her rating and the example did not make sense to her.[152]
The Applicant said that when Ms Schofield told her that her ‘ways of working’ were not good she immediately asked for clarification, disagreed with her assessment, pointed out that at that moment she was personally attacking the Applicant and brought up the examples of Ms Schofield’s prior comments (such as calling the Applicant emotional and unprofessional and the comments concerning the social contract with Faye) to illustrate that Ms Schofield’s treatment of her had been unfair.[153]
The Applicant indicated in the Applicant’s Diary Notes that:
she was so upset after the meeting she took personal leave for the rest of the day and following day to recover;
during this time some of her teammates called her, offered support to her, mentioned that the Applicant did nothing wrong by saying she had a bad experience in a meeting and endorsed that she was a professional and always had good ways of working and work ethics based on their observation and experience;[154]
Mr Yang had told the Applicant that he nominated her for the top rating ‘Exceeding’ but that the final rating was not within his control.[155] In support of this the Applicant included a copy of a message from Mr Yang in the Aplicant’s Diary Notes dated 27 June 2025 and which states:
“btw, I did nominate you as exceeding performance, but it’s not up to me to approve it, sorry”[156]
Also included with the Applicant’s Diary notes is a copy of some messages sent between the Applicant and one of her team members on 27 June 2024 and which read:
Applicant: “hmm..”
“had a meeting with Owen and Dee and I was mad in taht (sic)…”
“she was telling me a feedback I was not supposed to say about my [Supplier]meeting in the ebiz chat”
“she questions me unnecessary for each and everything”
“so I said I disagree with what she says”
“I am kind of a black listed person in her list and she questions me for everything. So I had to speak up for myself”
“thinking to take leave for the rest of the day”
“not mentally good now”
“she says my ways of working is not good though I have the highest numbers in everything else work related in the team, so I have only the achieved rating”
Colleague: “really !!!”
“so the whistle blower is questions !! why they raise the issue”
Applicant: “yes”
“she was telling me I was not supported to tell about my bad experience in the [Supplier] meeting to the team in the team chat”
“what to say”
“she was asking me do you agree”
“I said No. I disagree”
Colleague:“thats what we have been doing in this team chat, share our discussions, thoughts, ideas, feelings etc”
Applicant:“she was questioning me earlier for the same thing when I was asked to provide proof about Faye note closing cases and leaving in the queue and going”
“when I provided her that she questioned me on tat too asking why are you giving that”
“so I don’t know what I should do or not”
“she says one and talks another in the next meeting just to beat me”[157]
The Applicant maintains that she exceeded her performance goals for the financial year.[158]
Mr Yang gave evidence that he led the performance review meeting with the Applicant on 27 June 2024 and Ms Schofield came to observe as she had recently replaced him as the leader of the team.[159] Mr Yang gave evidence that during the meeting:
he told the Applicant that her work product and performance had been outstanding;
he explained that while the Applicant’s work product was ‘Exceeding’ expectations, as a result of calibration and her ‘Ways of Working’, her overall rating had been set as ‘Achieving’;
the Applicant started asking questions about why this had happened;
the Applicant said she couldn’t believe she had only received an ‘Achieving’ rating and believed she deserved an ‘Exceeding’ rating and started to explain how she had done an outstanding job in the last 12 months;
the Applicant kept asking the same questions repeatedly about why she hadn’t received a higher rating so Ms Schofield stepped in to assist in explaining;
in response to the Applicant’s request for examples, Ms Schofield provided an example of a communication to the wider team in respect of an internal employee who had not acted professionally in front of external stakeholders that the Applicant could have handled better (i.e. the Major Supplier Meeting Incident);
the Applicant was talking very quickly and cut Ms Schofield off when she tried to say anything;
the Applicant was very emotional and upset and it was hard to follow what the Applicant was saying because she was talking so quickly;
Ms Schofield ended the meeting by telling the Applicant that she shouldn’t let her disappointment with her rating detract from all the outstanding work she had done and that her contribution was appreciated.[160]
Mr Yang gave evidence that:
· Ms Schofield did not raise her voice and was very calm and polite when talking to the Applicant;
· the feedback provided by Ms Schofield was given in the context of the Applicant asking for examples of why her ‘Ways of Working’ were not at an ‘Exceeding’ level;
· Ms Schofield did not do anything in the meeting which he felt was not appropriate or that could be considered bullying or harassment.[161]
Ms Schofield gave evidence that while she wasn’t involved in decision making regarding ratings, she attended the performance review discussions along with Mr Yang.[162] A copy of Ms Schofield’s notes of the meeting was attached to her statement.[163] Ms Schofield said that during the meeting with the Applicant on 27 June 2024: [164]
the Applicant shared what she said were her successes for the last 12 months and said she was achieving all her goals at a high standard;
Mr Yang agreed that the Applicant was achieving at a high standard;
Mr Yang advised the Applicant that it was a tough year and that a lot of the ratings were challenged, particularly where the proposed rating was exceeding;
she explained the calibration process;
Mr Yang advised the Applicant that the rating was split equally between ‘Business and Strategy’ and ‘Ways of Working’ and that while she was rated as ‘Exceeding’ for the former category, she was rated as ‘Achieving’ for the ‘Ways of Working category and was therefore rated as ‘Achieving’ overall;
the Applicant’s demeanour changed immediately, and she asked for examples of how her ‘Ways of Working’ were not at an exceeding level;
Ms Schofield put forward the Major Supplier Meeting Incident as an example;
Ms Schofield suggested to the Applicant that a way she could improve her ‘ways of working’ would be to email Ms Schofield constructive feedback when a similar incident happened in the future including key details of what happened and how it made her feel;[165]
the Applicant immediately became defensive, argued that the eBusiness team was a family and that it discusses these sorts of things all the time and said she would not use the group chat anymore;
Ms Schofield told the Applicant that expressing her feelings about a meeting was ok and she could continue to use the group chat, but clarified that she should be mindful of name-calling and spreading negative perceptions of internal stakeholders which might give other team members pre-conceived ideas about them and that the appropriate way to pass feedback on would be to email Ms Schofield directly;
Ms Schofield explained that in the Promotions team, where she had been involved in ratings decisions, she had put forward three people for an ‘Exceeding’ rating but was challenged through the calibration process and that the ratings were revised such that only one person achieved an ‘Exceeding’ rating in the team;
Ms Schofield explained this was occurring across all of BSS;
the Applicant became emotional, and the meeting was derailed;
the Applicant was speaking quickly and jumping between topics, and it was difficult to follow her conversation;
the Applicant accused Ms Schofield of calling her dishonest on multiple occasions but was unable to clarify what she meant by this when Ms Schofield asked her;
the Applicant said that since someone had accused her of being a bully she was being treated differently. Ms Schofield said that she didn’t know what the Applicant meant at the time but formed a later understanding that Faye had told others in the team that the Applicant was bullying her;
the Applicant brought up the previous discussion Ms Schofield had with her about use of the term dodgy and returned to this point multiple times;
the Applicant said that if Ms Schofield thought the term ‘dodgy’ was unprofessional then the Promotions team was unprofessional because they were “always laughing and talking too loudly”;
the Applicant continued to revisit past issues with Derong and Faye, returning to this on multiple occasions;
the Applicant said she consistently performed better than others in her team, particularly Faye, and that this was having an impact on her mental health;
Ms Schofield reassured the Applicant that she was taking her feedback seriously and was monitoring Faye’s performance;
the Applicant said she had never been treated like that before and if it happened in her home country of India, Derong and Ms Schofield would have been sacked;
the Applicant said she did not get the pay rises that others did and in response Ms Schofield clarified that all team members receive the same percentage-based pay rise, which is linked to CPI and not to the performance review;
the Applicant said she was paid less than others in the team despite working harder and when Ms Schofield asked her how she knew this, the Applicant admitted that she did not know but started to talk about earning more elsewhere;
Ms Schofield suggested getting pay rises was difficult but that the Applicant could form a case to justify why she deserved a pay rise;
the Applicant said her meetings with Ms Schofield, and previously Derong, were always a bad experience at perhaps that “was the Woolworths Way” to which Ms Schofield replied she did not agree and would like to think the Applicant had attended pleasant meetings;
Ms Schofield told the Applicant that she should see feedback as a gift and pointed out that the example provided to her was a result of the Applicant asking for examples;
Ms Schofield reinforced that an ‘Achieving’ rating was still very good and that the meeting should not detract from the great work that the Applicant had achieved in the past year;
Ms Schofield thanked the Applicant for her work and acknowledged her achievements, including a 4.9 out of 5 supplier satisfaction score and managing working with a challenging supplier who was very important to the business;
the Applicant kept repeating herself, Ms Schofield felt she was no longer getting anywhere so she thanked the Applicant for her time and suggested a catch up with the Applicant and Ms Stoffels the following week to talk through the Applicant’s concerns;
the Applicant said thank you and the meeting ended.
The Applicant said that at no point during the meeting did Ms Schofield or Mr Yang mention that a calibration process led by higher management “had forced [the Applicant’s] rating down” and that the first time she heard this explanation was much later, by Ms Stoffels, after the Applicant challenged the fairness of her rating.[166] The Applicant also said that while Ms Schofield now asserts that the Applicant was rated as ‘Exceeding’ for Business Strategy and Contribution, Ms Schofield did not inform the Applicant of any ‘Exceeding’ aspect of her performance and that her message was entirely negative, focusing on alleged flaws.[167] The Applicant said the impression she was given was that Ms Schofield considered both aspects of her performance to be subpar as nothing positive was mentioned and she was told she had been “reduced” to ‘Achieved’ in general.[168]
Ms Schofield said she found the conversation challenging as:
the Applicant was upset and had a confrontational manner;
the Applicant’s demeanour was erratic, and she spoke very quickly and jumped between topics, which made it difficult to speak to the Applicant and contribute;
I consider that human resources could have intervened more effectively by providing some support to Ms Stoffels in preparation for and during her meeting with the Applicant on 1 July 2025 to ensure the Applicant had a clearer explanation about the performance review process and reason for her rating. When the Applicant continued to escalate her concerns, human resources should have intervened to have her concerns investigated by a third party who was not Ms Stoffels, whether this be a person from within human resources or an appropriately qualified external person.
At this point in time there is some merit in the suggestion of a change in reporting line if this can be accommodated, at least in the near term while options are explored and measures to start rebuilding trust are put in motion. However, I am aware that the Applicant is an important part if the eBusiness team and if this cannot be accommodated and when the Applicant is well enough to return to the workplace, the Employer may also wish to consider:
mediation between the Applicant and Ms Schofield as well as group mediation between the members of the eBusiness team, noting that four of the five team members have in some way been drawn into the dispute. This should be facilitated by a competent external person and ideally someone all parties agree to. Such mediation should enable the parties to safely share their perspective on how they can work together constructively in the future and see if the parties can reach a shared understanding about this;
continuation of the practice that there be no one-on-one meetings between the Applicant and Ms Schofield;
a directive there be no communication between the Applicant and Ms Schofield about the subject of India or other personal matters that are not work related;
having another appropriate person review the Applicant’s performance ratings in future years while Ms Schofield and Ms Stoffels remain as the Applicant’s managers.
Other suggested measures include:
circulation of clearer rules for use of ‘group chats’ to manage expectations of all employees in the Applicant’s team, particularly as they mostly work in a remote environment, and appear to communicate regularly via group chats;
assigning the Applicant a mentor who role models ‘Ways of Working’ that are considered to be ‘Exceeding’ expectations and who can help the Applicant work on this development area and achieve her performance goals;
refresher training for all parties involved in this dispute about appropriate workplace behaviours and what to do in the event they observe or are impacted by behaviour that they perceive to be unacceptable;
continuing to make external counselling services available to the parties involved directly or indirectly in this dispute and making them aware that these services are available.
Once there has been sufficient time to heal relationships and build trust, there may also be merit in the Employer exploring facilitated activities involving all members of the eBusiness team to build team cohesion and strengthen working relationships, particularly as team members only attend the office in person one day per week.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
Mrs S. Kurup on her own behalf.
Ms. J. Tinsley of Kingston Reid for the Respondent.
Hearing details:
2025.
2 and 3 April,
Sydney.
[1] Respondent submissions at [5].
[2] Applicant’s Form F72 application, response to 11.
[3] Applicant’s submissions, part 2(A).
[4] Applicant’s submissions, part 2(B).
[5] Applicant’s submissions, part 2(B).
[6] Applicant’s submissions, part 2(F).
[7] Applicant’s Form F72 application, response to 11; Applicant’s submissions, part 2(f).
[8] Applicant’s Form F72 application, response to 11; Applicant’s submissions, part 2(f).
[9] Applicant’s Form F72 application, response to 11.
[10] Applicant’s submissions, part 2(F).
[11] Applicant’s Form F72 application, response to 11.
[12] Applicant’s submissions, part 2(F).
[13] Applicant’s submissions, part 2(F).
[14] Applicant’s Form F72 application, response to 11.
[15] Applicant’s submissions, part 2(F).
[16] Applicant’s submissions, part 2(F).
[17] Applicant’s submissions, part 2(F).
[18] Applicant’s Form F72 application, response to 11.
[19] Applicant’s submissions, part 2(F).
[20] Applicant’s submissions, part 2(F).
[21] Applicant’s submissions, part 2(F).
[22] Applicant’s Form F72 application, response to 11.
[23] Applicant’s Form F72 application, response to 11.
[24] Applicant’s submissions, part 2(C).
[25] Applicant’s Form F72 application, response to 11.
[26] Applicant’s submissions, part 2(F).
[27] Applicant’s Form F72 application, response to 11.
[28] Applicant’s Form F72 application, response to 11.
[29] Applicant’s submissions, part 2(D).
[30] Applicant’s submissions, part 2(D).
[31] Applicant’s Form F72 application, response to 11; Applicant’s submissions, part 2(E).
[32] Applicant’s Form F72 application, response to 11.
[33] Applicant’s submissions, part 2(C).
[34] Applicant’s Form F72 application, response to 11.
[35] Applicant’s submissions, part 2(B).
[36] Applicant’s Statement in reply to Stoffels Statement at [8].
[37] Applicant’s Submissions at [10].
[38] Applicant’s Form F72 application, response to 11; Applicant’s submissions, part 2(F).
[39] Applicant’s submissions, part 2(B).
[40] Applicant’s submissions, part 2(C).
[41] Applicant’s submissions, part 2(B).
[42] Applicant’s Form F72 application, response to 11.
[43] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Stoffels Statement, p.3.
[44] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Stoffels Statement, p. 2.
[45] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Stoffels Statement, p. 13.
[46] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Stoffels Statement, p. 3.
[47] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Stoffels Statement, p. 17.
[48] Transcript of Proceedings, PN 77.
[49] Applicant’s Form F72 application, response to 11.
[50] Applicant’s Form F72 application, response to 18.
[51] Applicant’s Statement in reply to Schofields Statement, p.21 -22.
[52] Applicant’s submissions, part 4.
[53] Employer’s Form F73 response, response to q. 9.
[54] Employer’s Form F73 response, response to q. 9.
[55] Employer’s Form F73 response, response to q. 9.
[56] Employer’s Form F73 response, response to q. 9.
[57] Employer’s Form F73 response, response to q. 9.
[58] Employer’s Form F73 response, response to q. 9.
[59] Applicant’s Statement in reply to Stoffels Statement, Appendix.
[60] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 100. Note the text is a direct extract from the email and any typographical errors are as they appear in the email.
[61] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 101.
[62] Applicant’s Statement in Response to Stoffels Statement, p. 11.
[63] Schofield Statement at 3.2; Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.3.
[64] Schofield Statement at 2.3.
[65] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.3.
[66] Schofield Statement at 3.2 – 3.3.
[67] Schofield Statement, Attachment DS1.
[68] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.3.
[69] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.3.
[70] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.4.
[71] Schofield Statement at 3.8.
[72] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Schofield Statement, p. 8.
[73] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Schofield Statement, p. 8.
[74] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Schofield Statement, p. 8.
[75] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.4.
[76] Schofield Statement at 3.9.
[77] Schofield Statement at 3.5.
[78] Schofield Statement at 3.5.
[79] Schofield Statement at 3.5.
[80] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Schofield Statement, p.2.
[81] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Schofield Statement, p.2.
[82] Schofield Statement at 3.6.
[83] Schofield Statement at 3.7.
[84] Schofield Statement at 3.7.
[85] Schofield Statement at 3.7.
[86] Schofield Statement at 3.3.
[87] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Schofield Statement, p.2.
[88] Schofield Statement at 3.10.
[89] Schofield Statement at 3.10.
[90] Schofield Statement at 3.11.
[91] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.
[92] Applicant’s Reply Statement to Schofield Statement at 10.
[93] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.4.
[94] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.4.
[95] Schofield Statement at 4.1.
[96] Schofield Statement, Attachment DS2.
[97] Schofield Statement at 4.2.
[98] Schofield Statement at 4.3.
[99] Schofield Statement at 4.6.
[100] Schofield Statement at 4.4.
[101] Schofield Statement at 4.4.
[102] Schofield Statement at 4.4.
[103] Schofield Statement at 4.5.
[104] Schofield Statement at 4.7.
[105] Schofield Statement at 4.8.
[106] Schofield Statement at 4.10.
[107] Schofield Statement at 4.11.
[108] ‘Seema’s Diary Notes’, p. 5.
[109] Applicant’s Reply Statement to Schofield Statement at 10.
[110] Applicant’s Reply Statement to Schofield Statement at 11.
[111] Schofield Statement at 4.11.
[112] Schofield Statement at 4.11.
[113] Stoffels Statement at 1.2.
[114] Stoffels Statement at 2.3.
[115] Stoffels Statement at 2.6.
[116] Stoffels Statement at 2.4.
[117] Stoffels Statement at 2.5.
[118] Yang Statement at 3.3.
[119] Yang Statement at 3.4.
[120] Yang Statement at 3.4.
[121] Stoffels Statement at 3.3.
[122] Stoffels Statement, Annexure JS-1.
[123] Stoffels Statement at 3.2.
[124] Stoffels Statement at 3.2.
[125] Stoffels Statement at 3.8.
[126] Stoffels Statement at 3.5.
[127] Stoffels Statement at 3.7.
[128] Stoffels Statement at 3.6.
[129] Stoffels Statement, JS-1, p. 5.
[130] Stoffels Statement, JS-1, p. 5.
[131] Applicant’s Statement in reply to Stoffels Statement, Appendix.
[132] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 99; Stoffels Statement, JS-1, p. 27.
[133] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 99; Stoffels Statement, JS-1, p. 27.
[134] Stoffels Statement at 3.8.
[135] Stoffels Statement at 3.9.
[136] Stoffels Statement at 3.9.
[137] Yang Statement at 3.7.
[138] Yang Statement at 3.7.
[139] Schofield Statement at 5.2.
[140] Schofield Statement at 5.2.
[141] Schofield Statement at 5.5d.
[142] Schofield Statement at 5.3.
[143] Schofield Statement at 5.4.
[144] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.13.
[145] Schofield Statement at 5.8.
[146] ‘Seema’s Diary Notes’, pp. 7 – 9.
[147] Schofield Statement at 5.8.
[148] Schofield Statement, Attachment DS4.
[149] Schofield Statement, Attachment DS4.
[150] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p 7 – 9. See Also Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 80.
[151] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.12.
[152] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.13.
[153] Applicant’s Statement in reply to Schofield Statement, p 6.
[154] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.13.
[155] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.14.
[156] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.14.
[157] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.15.
[158] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.19.
[159] Yang Statement at 3.8.
[160] Yang Statement at 3.8.
[161] Yang Statement at 3.8.
[162] Schofield Statement at 5.6.
[163] Schofield Statement, Attachment DS4.
[164] Schofield Statement at 5.8.
[165] Schofield Statement at 5.8.
[166] Applicant’s Statement in reply to Schofield Statement, p 4-5.
[167] Applicant’s Statement in reply to Schofield Statement, p 5.
[168] Applicant’s Statement in reply to Schofield Statement, p 5.
[169] Schofield Statement at 5.10.
[170] Schofield Statement at 5.9.
[171] Schofield Statement at 5.11.
[172] Schofield Statement, Attachment DS4.
[173] Schofield Statement at 5.13.
[174] Schofield Statement at 4.1.
[175] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.15.
[176] Stoffels Statement at 4.1.
[177] Stoffels Statement at 4.4.
[178] Stoffels Statement at 4.2.
[179] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.17.
[180] Stoffels Statement at 4.2.
[181] Yang Statement at [4].
[182] Yang Statement, Annexure OY1.
[183] Applicant’s Statement in reply to Yang Statement, p.3.
[184] Stoffels Statement at 5.1.
[185] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.18.
[186] Stoffels Statement, Annexure JS-2.
[187] Stoffels Statement at 5.1.
[188] Stoffels Statement at 5.2.
[189] Stoffels Statement at 5.2.
[190] Stoffels Statement at 5.2.
[191] Stoffels Statement at 5.5.
[192] Stoffels Statement at 5.3.
[193] Stoffels Statement at 5.4.
[194] Stoffels Statement at 5.6.
[195] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Stoffels Statement, p.1.
[196] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Stoffels Statement, p.1.
[197] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.20.
[198] Schofield Statement at 6.2.
[199] Schofield Statement at 6.2.
[200] Schofield Statement at 6.3.
[201] Schofield Statement, Attachment DS5.
[202] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.22.
[203] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.22.
[204] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.22.
[205] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.22.
[206] Schofield Statement, Attachment DS6.
[207] Schofield Statement, Annexure DS6.
[208] Schofield Statement at 6.7, Annexure DS7.
[209] Schofield Statement at 7.1.
[210] Schofield Statement at 7.2.
[211] Schofield Statement at 7.1.
[212] Schofield Statement at 7.3.
[213] Schofield Statement at 7.4 and 7.5.
[214] Schofield Statement at 7.4.
[215] Schofield Statement at 7.5.
[216] Schofield Statement at 8.1
[217] Schofield Statement, Annexures DS8 and DS9.
[218] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.26.
[219] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.26.
[220] Applicant’s Reply Statement to Schofield Statement, p. 12.
[221] Applicant’s Reply Statement to Schofield Statement, p. 12.
[222] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.26.
[223] Schofield Statement at 7.5.
[224] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.26.
[225] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.26.
[226] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.26.
[227] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.26.
[228] Schofield Statement at 5.8.
[229] Schofield Statement, Attachment DS3.
[230] Schofield Statement at 9.1.
[231] Schofield Statement at 9.1.
[232] Schofield Statement at 9.3.
[233] Schofield Statement at 9.3.
[234] Schofield Statement at 9.4.
[235] Schofield Statement at 9.5.
[236] Schofield Statement, Annexure DS10.
[237] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.32.
[238] Schofield Statement, Annexure DS11.
[239] Applicant’s Diary Notes. p.33.
[240] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 33 – 34..
[241] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 34.
[242] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 34.
[243] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 34.
[244] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 35.
[245] Schofield Statement at 10.3.
[246] Schofield Statement at 10.1.
[247] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Schofield Statement, p. 8.
[248] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Schofield Statement, p. 8.
[249] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Schofield Statement, p. 9.
[250] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Schofield Statement, p. 8.
[251] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Schofield Statement, p. 8.
[252] Schofield Statement at 10.1
[253] Schofield Statement at 10.1.
[254] Schofield Statement at 10.2.
[255] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.35.
[256] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.35.
[257] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.35.
[258] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.36.
[259] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.37.
[260] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.38.
[261] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.38.
[262] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.38.
[263] Schofield Statement at 10.4.
[264] Schofield Statement, Annexure DS12.
[265] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.38.
[266] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.38.
[267] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.38.
[268] Schofield Statement at 10.5, Annexure DS13.
[269] Schofield Statement at 11.1.
[270] Schofield Statement at 11.1.
[271] Schofield Statement at 11.2.
[272] Applicant’s Reply Statement to Schofield Statement, p. 14.
[273] Applicant’s Reply Statement to Schofield Statement, p. 14.
[274] Applicant’s Reply Statement to Schofield Statement, p. 14.
[275] Schofield Statement at 11.7.
[276] Yang Statement at 6.7.
[277] Yang Statement at 6.7.
[278] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.6.
[279] Applicant’s Reply Statement to Schofield Statement, p. 15.
[280] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.6.
[281] Applicant’s Reply Statement to Schofield Statement, p. 15.
[282] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.80.
[283] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.40.
[284] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.40.
[285] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.40.
[286] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.40.
[287] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 20.
[288] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 20, 24.
[289] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 24.
[290] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 24.
[291] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 24.
[292] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 30.
[293] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 30 - 31.
[294] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 39.
[295] Stoffels Statement at 6.1.
[296] Stoffels Statement at 6.1.
[297] Stoffels Statement at 6.5.
[298] Stoffels Statement at 6.2.
[299] Stoffels Statement at 6.2.
[300] Stoffels Statement at 6.6.
[301] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 42.
[302] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 42.
[303] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 44 – 45.
[304] Stoffels Statement, Annexure JS-3.
[305] Stoffels Statement at 6.10.
[306] Stoffels Statement, Annexure JS-5.
[307] Stoffels Statement at 6.10.
[308] Stoffels Statement at 6.11.
[309] Applicant’s Statement in Respondent to Stoffels Statement at [5].
[310] Applicant’s Statement in Respondent to Stoffels Statement at [6].
[311] Stoffels Statement at 6.13.
[312] Stoffels Statement, Annexure JS-6.
[313] Stoffels Statement at 6.8.
[314] Stoffels Statement at 6.8.
[315] Stoffels Statement, Annexure JS-4.
[316] Stoffels Statement at 6.14.
[317] Stoffels Statement at 6.4.
[318] Stoffels Statement at 6.4.
[319] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Stoffels Statement, p.3.
[320] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Stoffels Statement, p.3.
[321] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Stoffels Statement, p.3.
[322] Stoff Stoffels Statement at 7.1.
[323] Stoffels Statement at 7.1.
[324] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 48.
[325] Stoffels Statement at 7.2.
[326] Stoffels Statement, Annexure JS-7.
[327] Stoffels Statement at 7.3.
[328] Stoffels Statement at 7.3.
[329] Stoffels Statement at 7.3.
[330] Stoffels Statement at 7.7.
[331] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 48 – 49; Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Yang Statement, p. 14.
[332] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 51.
[333] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.51.
[334] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.52.
[335] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.52.
[336] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.53.
[337] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.54.
[338] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.54.
[339] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.57.
[340] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.57.
[341] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.55.
[342] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.55.
[343] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.54.
[344] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.56.
[345] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.60.
[346] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.61.
[347] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.61.
[348] Price Statement at 3.1.
[349] Price Statement at 3.3.
[350] Price Statement at 3.3.
[351] Price Statement at 3.5, Annexure MP3; Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.62.
[352] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 62.
[353] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 62.
[354] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 63.
[355] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 63.
[356] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 64.
[357] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 64.
[358] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 66.
[359] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 67.
[360] Price Statement at 3.9.
[361] Price Statement at 3.10.
[362] Price Statement at 4.1.
[363] Price Statement at 4.2.
[364] Price Statement, Annexure MP1.
[365] Price Statement, Annexure MP2.
[366] Price Statement at 4.3.
[367] Price Statement at 4.4.
[368] Price Statement at 4.6.
[369] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.69.
[370] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.69.
[371] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.69.
[372] Price Statement at 4.7.
[373] Price Statement, Annexure MP4; Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 70 – 71.
[374] Price Statement at 5.6.
[375] Price Statement at 5.7.
[376] Price Statement at 5.7.
[377] Price Statement at 5.7.
[378] Price Statement at 4.11.
[379] Price Statement at 5.2.
[380] Stoffels Statement, Annexure JS-10.
[381] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Stoffels Statement, p.11.
[382] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Stoffels Statement, p.11 - 12.
[383] Yang Statement at 6.3.
[384] Yang Statement at 6.5.
[385] Yang Statement at 6.10 – 6.13.
[386] Yang Statement at 6.14
[387] Yang Statement at 6.14.
[388] Applicant’s Statement in reply to Yang Statement, p. 2.
[389] Applicant’s Statement in reply to Yang Statement, p.2.
[390] Yang Statement at 6.15.
[391] Yang Statement at 6.15.
[392] Yang Statement at 6.20.
[393] Yang Statement at 6.22 – 7.1.
[394] Yand Statement at 7.3 – 7.4.
[395] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Stoffels Statement, p.3. See also Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Yang Statement, p. 4.
[396] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Stoffels Statement, p.3.
[397] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Yang Statement, p.1.
[398] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Yang Statement, p.5.
[399] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Yang Statement, p.5.
[400] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Yang Statement, p.5.
[401] Yang Supplementary Statement at [4] – [9], Annexures OY-2 and OY-3
[402] Yang Supplementary Statement at [10] – [11].
[403] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Yang Statement, p.6.
[404] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Yang Statement, p.7.
[405] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.27.
[406] Applicant’s Statement in reply to Schofield Statement, p. 16.
[407] Applicant’s Statement in reply to Schofield Statement, p. 16.
[408] Applicant’s Statement in reply to Schofield Statement, p. 16.
[409] Schofield Statement at 12.5.
[410] Schofield Statement at 12.5.
[411] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 72
[412] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 78
[413] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 72
[414] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 72 – 73.
[415] Schofield Statement at 11.5.
[416] Schofield Statement at 11.5.
[417] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 74
[418] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 74
[419] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 74
[420] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p. 75
[421] Applicant’s Statement in Reply to Yang Statement, p.15.
[422] Schofield Statement at 11.6.
[423] Schofield Statement at 11.6.
[424] Applicant’s submissions, part 2(F).
[425] Schofield Statement at 3.7.
[426] Schofield Statement at 4.4.
[427] Schofield Statement at 4.4.
[428] Schofield Statement at 4.3.
[429] Transcript of Proceedings, PN 503 – 504.
[430] Yang Statement at 3.4.
[431] Yang Statement at 3.8.
[432] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.26.
[433] Schofield Statement at 7.5.
[434] Applicant’s Reply Statement to Schofield Statement, p. 12.
[435] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.26.
[436] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.26.
[437] Applicant’s Statement in reply to Schofield Statement, p. 16.
[438] Applicant’s Statement in reply to Schofield Statement, p. 16.
[439] Stoffels Statement at 3.8.
[440] Stoffels Statement at 3.8.
[441] Stoffels Statement at 3.9.
[442] Yang Statement at 3.7.
[443] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.29.
[444] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.29.
[445] Applicant’s Diary Notes, p.29.
[446] Transcript of Proceedings, PNs 1663 – 1673.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR785750>
0
0
0