Mrs Sue Atherton

[2013] FWC 8603

[2013] FWC 8603

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mrs Sue Atherton

(U2013/333)

Mr Steve Atherton

(U2013/334)

v
Parramatta Basketball Association Incorporated T/A Parramatta Basketball Association

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT DRAKE SYDNEY, 19 NOVEMBER 2013

Termination of employment.

[1] Mr and Mrs Atherton were employed by the Parramatta Basketball Association Incorporated trading as the Parramatta Basketball Association (PBA). Mrs Sue Atherton conducted the PBA canteen on various occasions and Mr Steve Atherton had a variety of duties. Their employment was terminated summarily on 19 January 2013.

[2] Their son, Mr Jed Atherton, was also dismissed by the PBA. Mr Jed Atherton had worked part-time in the PBA canteen and had played basketball for the PBA. I heard his application 1 on 21 May 2013 and delivered an extempore decision on that day.2

[3] An issue arose in the applications of Mr Jed Atherton and Mr Steve Atherton involving sexually inappropriate conduct towards the daughter of the General Manager, Mrs Burke. Mr Jed Atherton was alleged to have forwarded an uninvited series of inappropriate photographs of himself. I rejected those allegations. There was also no corroborative evidence in support of the allegation made in these proceedings by Mrs Burke's daughter, that Mr Steve Atherton had leered at her when he was working at the PBA. At one stage Mrs Burke also alleged that the solicitor for the Athertons had behaved in an inappropriate manner towards Mrs Burke's daughter, moving as if he was going to sweep away the walking stick of Mrs Burke's daughter outside the hearing room. The issues concerning Mrs Burke's daughter were a distraction from the central issue of financial misconduct, except that I am persuaded that they reflected the relationship between the parties. I was not persuaded that there was any substance in the allegation against Mr Steve Atherton and I referred the allegation against the Atherton's solicitor elsewhere.

[4] In Jed Atherton's application the PBA submitted that it had only 14 employees at the time of the termination of his employment, that it was a small business employer and therefore could rely on the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code (the Code). In Jed Atherton's application, because of my findings regarding the preliminary findings of Mr Baker, I applied the Code for convenience, although I was not persuaded that the PBA employed fewer than 15 employees. The Code, as applicable to a summary dismissal, is set out below:

“It is fair for an employer to dismiss an employee without notice or warning when the employer believes on reasonable grounds that the employee's conduct is sufficiently serious to justify immediate dismissal. Serious misconduct includes theft, fraud, violence and serious breaches of occupational health and safety procedures. For a dismissal to be deemed fair it is sufficient, though not essential, that an allegation of theft, fraud or violence be reported to the police. Of course, the employer must have reasonable grounds for making the report.”

(My emphasis)

[5] In these two applications, as in Mr Jed Atherton's application, there was no agreement between the parties regarding the number of the PBA’s employees and the PBA called no evidence as to the numbers. Mr Brennan, Counsel for the PBA, was clearly unfamiliar with the jurisdiction of the Fair Work Commission and, in particular, appeared not to be familiar with the requirement to call evidence concerning a jurisdictional objection. 3 In any event he conceded that the PBA did not call any evidence as to how many employees there were at the time of dismissal.4

[6] Although the PBA gave no direct evidence concerning the number of employees I considered the evidence that had arisen indirectly. The PBA has so many irregular arrangements concerning the engagement and payment of employees, it was not possible for me to determine the number of employees with any certainty. In particular, it was not possible for me to be satisfied that the number of employees at the time of termination of employment was fewer than 15. I could not therefore be satisfied that the respondent was a small business employer to whom the Code would apply on 19 January 2013.

[7] However, should I be in error concerning the number of employees, and therefore the Code might have been applicable to this application, my findings regarding Mr Baker's initial correspondence and what it establishes would have been the same in these two applications as it was in Mr Jed Atherton's application.

[8] I would not have been satisfied that there were reasonable grounds on which the PBA could have reached a conclusion on the date of dismissal that the Atherton's conduct was serious enough to justify immediate dismissal. The PBA had a document which alerted them to possibilities only. These were serious possibilities arising first from the suspicions of Mrs Burke and later Mrs O'Connor. Although the PBA’s suspicions predated Mr Baker's audit, a final investigation had not occurred and a final report had not been prepared. Apart from Mr Baker's concerns and the anomalies identified in his correspondence, the only matter which could be relied upon by the PBA was the suspicions of Mrs Burke and Mrs O'Connor, friend of Mrs Burke and Mrs Atkinson, and a woman who had had an extensive previous experience with the PBA and basketball generally. Although I accepted Mrs O'Connor as a witness of credit I was concerned that neither of these ladies had any relevant qualifications. There had been no consideration of any explanation from the Athertons. I was not satisfied that on 19 January 2013 there were reasonable grounds on which to reach a conclusion supporting summary dismissal for misconduct which would amount to a criminal offence if established.

[9] Mr Ferris, the treasurer of the PBA, gave evidence in Mr Jed Atherton's application that various anomalies had caused the board to meet and to seek the assistance of the auditor, Mr Baker. His evidence was:

“MR BALDWIN: Sorry, my apologies, your Honour, I keep referring to 18 January. 19 January.

You say in item 4 that you met on that day to discuss anomalies in income sheets. Can you provide the Commission with a little bit of background as to how that came about?---The - there was a discussion that was held late in December. I was - I undergone - I underwent surgery for my right shoulder on the 19th of December for a reconstruction so I was not able to attend the board meeting at that particular time, but I attended on the phone call itself. There were discussions at that time that there were some issues that required resolution and the - and general discussion was that we would look at continuing with the auditor to come in and determine what the problem actually was, and review the video surveillance systems that were in place in the overall canteen area and the stadium itself, to determine if we could ascertain what the particular problems were or what actions were being carried out in regard to these anomalies. So that was the meeting that I attend on the telephone and then at this particular meeting itself the purpose of it was to get the recommendations from the auditor, the formal letter that's attached to the minutes itself, and from the board, to determine what actions we needed to take as an association, given that the information had now been formalised.

In relation to the meeting in December where you say you participated by telephone but not in person?---MR FERRIS: Yes.

Can you tell the Commission what the nature of these anomalies were; what led you to seek that assistance from the auditors?---I think the general manager had determined that there were anomalies in the income sheets themselves, from the income that we had. Anomalies that were occurring there, and also in reviewing the register receipts there were a large number of no sale events that were called out.” 5

[10] Mr Baker, the accountant employed by the PBA to investigate the PBA's suspicions of Mr and Mrs Atherton, provided an initial correspondence, which was relied and acted on by the PBA. It is extracted below.

“Dear Committee,

As part of the audit procedures and processes for the audit of the financial records of the association we test check the appropriateness of the organisation internal control procedures and compare the results of the tests to ascertain whether the system is working effectively.

It has come to our attention by way of test checks of various nights takings throughout the year there appears to be some anomalies in the collection sheet calculations, cash register rolls and amounts of money banked.

There appears to be variances in the amounts that should be collected and banked and the amounts that were actually collected and banked.

The anomalies appear in the form of

1. Unusual number of ‘no sale’ entries on cash register tape rolls on Monday, Wednesday and Friday nights when compared to Tuesday and Thursday nights.

2. The income recorded on Friday nights is not consistent with the number of junior players.

3. There appears to be inconsistent reconciling of cash income for court fees on Monday and Wednesday nights compared to Tuesday and Thursday nights including errors in additions of referee payments.

4. There appears to be anomalies in stock purchases versus sales in deep fried products, drinks and sweets.

5. The method of collecting player fees receipts/tickets by Court Supervisor is inconsistent with player numbers on Friday nights so the system appears to be flawed.

6. There are repeated subtotals of cash register throughout the night (mainly Friday nights) that do not occur on Tuesday and Thursday nights.

7. There appears to be no record of how much referees are paid on Friday nights.

A document issued by CPA Australia ‘Employee Fraud’ gives the following advice.

1. Stop the fraud continuing

2. Collect the facts

3. Discuss the issue with the person involved

4. Once fraud is detected, care must be taken to ensure that no termination of employment of the suspected person takes place unless there is reasonable evidence supporting the allegations. If you intend to terminate the employees employment with you, it is important that you take a measured approach to dismissing such an employee and that dismissal is (sic) accordance with the law. A surprise interview of the employee where dismissal may be discussed may lead to problems with an unfair dismissal if procedural fairness is not followed.

The next step should be that the person/persons involved should be suspended from their duties with replacement people taking the position. A full review of the previous periods takings etc to gather proof and ascertain the amount of the loss.

A period of time should be nominated where other people are in the positions and a comparison with what is happening now as compared to what has happened in the past can take place.

I believe these preliminary steps should be handled internally by the committee. Then a full report can be prepared for the committee to ascertain the full extent of the problem and then the committee can decide the next steps to be taken.” 6

(my emphasis)

[11] In Mr Jed Atherton's application I determined that this initial correspondence from Mr Baker did not establish any theft or fraud. In my extempore decision I found:

“PN1580 ...... the accountant's conclusions raise matters of inconsistencies and anomalies. There is no conclusion, in my view, in the accountant's initial report as to actual fraud. There are areas of concern that require investigation and, following the findings of the accountant that had been notified to the employer, there is a whole process of investigation taking place, which took place and is taking place by the employer to investigate those matters.

PN1581 So I do not find that the report by the accountant actually establishes any fraud; merely worrying matters of inconsistency and anomaly. Certainly there is no conclusion as to who was actually responsible for the particular conduct. The employee Mr Atherton is not part of a job lot. The employer has to be satisfied in relation to this particular employee that there was reasonable grounds......

......

PN1583 In relation to the matter that arises under the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code, I am not satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for drawing a conclusion that the employee's conduct was sufficiently serious to justify immediate dismissal or that, although there was a report to the police, the employer had at the time it made the report reasonable grounds for making the report.” 7

(my emphasis)

[12] The criteria for considering whether a termination of employment is harsh, unjust or unreasonable are set out in s. 387 of the Act. Section 387 is set out below:

" 387 Criteria for considering harshness etc.

In considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, FWA must take into account:

(a) whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person’s capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees); and

(b) whether the person was notified of that reason; and

(c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person; and

(d) any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal; and

(e) if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person—whether the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal; and

(f) the degree to which the size of the employer’s enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and

(g) the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and

(h) any other matters that FWA considers relevant."

“392 Remedy—compensation

Criteria for deciding amounts

(2) In determining an amount for the purposes of an order under subsection (1), FWA must take into account all the circumstances of the case including:

(a) the effect of the order on the viability of the employer’s enterprise; and

(b) the length of the person’s service with the employer; and

(c) the remuneration that the person would have received, or would have been likely to receive, if the person had not been dismissed; and

(d) the efforts of the person (if any) to mitigate the loss suffered by the person because of the dismissal; and

(e) the amount of any remuneration earned by the person from employment or other work during the period between the dismissal and the making of the order for compensation; and

(f) the amount of any income reasonably likely to be so earned by the person during the period between the making of the order for compensation and the actual compensation; and

(g) any other matter that FWA considers relevant.

Misconduct reduces amount

(3) If FWA is satisfied that misconduct of a person contributed to the employer’s decision to dismiss the person, FWA must reduce the amount it would otherwise order under subsection (1) by an appropriate amount on account of the misconduct.

Shock, distress etc. Disregarded

(4) The amount ordered by FWA to be paid to a person under subsection (1) must not include a component by way of compensation for shock, distress or humiliation, or other analogous hurt, caused to the person by the manner of the person’s dismissal.

Compensation cap

(5) The amount ordered by FWA to be paid to a person under subsection (1) must not exceed the lesser of:

(a) the amount worked out under subsection (6); and

(b) half the amount of the high income threshold immediately before the dismissal.

Note: subsection 395(5) indexed to $61,650 from 1 July 2012

(6) The amount is the total of the following amounts:

(a) the total amount of remuneration:

(i) received by the person; or

(ii) to which the person was entitled;

(whichever is higher) for any period of employment with the employer during the 26 weeks immediately before the dismissal; and

(b) if the employee was on leave without pay or without full pay while so employed during any part of that period—the amount of remuneration taken to have been received by the employee for the period of leave in accordance with the regulations.”

[13] Misconduct involving the fraudulent operation of the canteen at the PBA, and anomalies in the timesheets, are the only matters relied upon by the PBA for the dismissal of Mr and Mrs Atherton.

[14] Arising from my consideration of the evidence before me, I suggested to Mr Brennan, Counsel for the PBA, that poor performance might have been an appropriate alternative ground for dismissal. Reference had been made to decreased takings on the nights the Athertons worked. I considered that it was possible that the concerns and operating procedures referred to in Mr Baker's initial correspondence might have arisen from poor performance rather than dishonesty. Mr Baldwin, solicitor for the PBA, had submitted that the earnings of the PBA canteen on the evenings worked by the applicants were two thirds of the takings on the evenings worked by other employees. 8 These failures might have amounted to a valid reason for termination of employment even if no defalcation had occurred.9 Reliance on this proposition was vehemently rejected by Counsel.

[15] At the hearing of these applications a further and final report was said to have been provided to the police. Mr Brennan stated from the bar table that it was in a similar form to the statement of Mrs Burke. However, it was not provided to me during the course of the hearing. Neither was Mr Baker called to give evidence. It was not until Counsel for the PBA was in addresses that any attempt was made to provide the report. Since it had not been provided during the conduct of the applications, and there had been no opportunity to cross-examine Mr Baker as to its contents, I rejected its tender at that stage.

[16] Although the final report was not supplied to me I was informed that the police had been provided with the report and had charged Mrs Atherton. Counsel for the PBA placed some emphasis on the fact that the police had charged Mrs Atherton. This would have had more relevance if the PBA had called any evidence to establish that it was a small business employer. Without that evidence I do not understand what effect the police charging Mrs Atherton could have in my determination of the issues before me. Mrs Atherton may be acquitted. The prosecution may not proceed. These are all matters to be determined in the future by the appropriate Local Court.

[17] The respondent's position is that Mr and Mrs Atherton stole from it. The best evidence would have been the direct evidence of Mr Baker, his final report or both reports. Mr Baker did not give evidence despite the possible significance of his evidence being drawn to the attention of the PBA. The report was not provided until addresses and its tender was rejected for obvious reasons. In the absence of the accountant or his report what was the evidence of the defalcation?

[18] There were various instances of conduct identified by the PBA in the closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage. I am not persuaded that the CCTV footage demonstrates any particular dishonest conduct to the requisite standard. I am satisfied that the conduct demonstrated by the footage is capable of different interpretations. There are explanations other than dishonest conduct provided by the Athertons. The evidence of Mrs Sue Atherton cast sufficient doubt on the interpretation argued for by the PBA that I was unable to conclude that the CCTV footage demonstrated dishonest conduct.

[19] There were various instances of alleged misconduct and inconsistencies identified by the PBA in the documents of the PBA on which both applicants were cross-examined. These documents were more persuasive. There were certainly anomalies and inconsistencies in the takings and the documentation. Mrs Atherton relied on instructions provided by Mrs Burke. Similar instructions were denied by other workers. Mrs Burke denied giving those instructions.

[20] Against the allegations and adverse conclusions regarding the documentation relied upon by Mrs Burke and Mrs O'Connor is the fact that the first concerns were raised by Mrs Burke. Mrs O'Connor examined the documents against the background of Mrs Burke’s pre-existing suspicions. Mrs Burke had a particular reason to be unhappy with the Athertons arising from her perception of sexual misconduct by Mr Jed Atherton towards her daughter. In Mr Jed Atherton's application Mrs Burke exaggerated that conduct into an allegation that Mr Jed Atherton was unsafe around young girls. Neither lady was qualified to reach a final conclusion but their suspicions were sufficient to cause them to have the board instruct Mr Baker. It was Mrs O'Connor’s evidence that they were not 100% certain of misconduct. They wanted to verify their conclusions with an auditor. 10 He was satisfied that there were inconsistencies and anomalies.

[21] However, taking into account the time that had elapsed since the documents were created, the time over which this conduct took place without correction, the nature of the documents, the chaotic business of any sporting canteen, and the various simultaneous team pursuits, against the background of the conflicting evidence as to whether or not Mrs Sue Atherton was acting in accordance with Mrs Burke's instructions, I am not persuaded that this evidence can be relied on to establish to the relevant standard any defalcation by Mr and Mrs Atherton.

[22] I have reached the same conclusion in relation to the allegations of falsifying timesheets made against Mr Steve Atherton. In relation to the allegation that he worked as a team with Mrs Atherton in defrauding the PBA there was no evidence. I think the PBA case against Mr Steve Atherton is, at its highest, a reliance on an inference that Mr Atherton must have known of the dishonesty of his wife because of the way in which monies were taken and recorded for court fees. 11 This is not sustainable on the evidence.

[23] If established against both applicants, breaches of operating procedures in the conduct of the PBA canteen would have provided a reason for further instruction, training, or more likely in my opinion, have provided grounds for termination of employment with notice. The evidence that I have before me does not establish to the requisite standard dishonest conduct amounting to misconduct providing a valid reason for summary termination of employment.

[24] Pursuant to section 387(a) of the Act I am not persuaded that there was a valid reason for the dismissal of either Mr or Mrs Atherton arising from the dishonest operation of the PBA canteen. Had poor performance not been specifically rejected as a valid reason available to be relied upon by the PBA, I might have been persuaded that that was a valid reason for the dismissal of Mr and Mrs Atherton with notice. Had failure to follow operating procedures been relied upon, I might have been persuaded that that was a valid reason for the dismissal of Mr and Mrs Atherton with notice. However, that course was not available to me because of the manner in which the PBA conducted its case.

[25] Pursuant to section 387(b) of the Act I am satisfied that Mr and Mrs Atherton were notified of the reason for the termination of their employment.

[26] Pursuant to section 387(c) of the Act I am satisfied that no real opportunity was provided to Mrs Sue Atherton to respond to the reason for the termination of her employment. It was conceded by the PBA, and I am satisfied, that no opportunity at all was provided to Mr Steve Atherton to respond to the reason for the termination of his employment. 12

[27] I put the following to Counsel for the PBA:

“SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: ------what is required is an opportunity to respond, and in my view, what is required is an opportunity to examine the detail of the allegations and, quite frankly, the detail of the report provided by Mr Baker, even an opportunity to hear what Mr Baker thought at the end of his weekend’s work with Mrs Burke. I don’t still know what that might be, I haven’t heard from him, but I don’t need to take it any further for you. You can address me as you like.------“ 13

[28] Mr Brennan displayed a very unusual attitude to the operation of the Act in his address. He described the board’s possible failure to provide an opportunity for a response as "the touchy-feely things". 14 I responded as follows:

“SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Mr Brennan, these are not touchy-feely things. These are requirements of the Act. These are matters that I am obliged to take into account. They’re not touchy-feely. They are obligations, an obligation to have an opportunity to respond, and were this allegation made against Ms Burke, as it was, then she would certainly - had the board said, “Oh my God. Mrs Atherton has made an allegation against Mrs Burke. Mrs Burke must be terminated immediately,” then she would be as entitled to say, “Where is my opportunity to defend myself?------” 15

[29] In her defence Mrs Atherton raised a counter allegation against Mrs Burke when presented with the allegations by the board of the PBA. She responded that Mrs Burke had authorised her to conduct the operation of the canteen as she had done. Her response was rejected out of hand. It was not investigated. The board proceeded to dismissal without delay. There was no opportunity for Mrs Atherton to respond to the allegations against her, or any investigation of her allegation against Mrs Burke.

[30] Pursuant to section 387(d) of the Act I am satisfied that there was no unreasonable refusal to allow Mrs Atherton to have a support person. Mrs Atherton did not ask for a support person and there was no circumstance under which such an opportunity to ask could have arisen for Mr Atherton.

[31] Section 387(e) of the Act is not relevant to this application.

[32] Sections 387(f) and (g) of the Act both refer to factors which were likely to affect the procedures followed in affecting the termination of employment of Mr and Mrs Atherton. In this regard however, the PBA sensibly sought the advice of an accountant and he provided sensible advice, not only regarding the issue under investigation, but also the procedures to be followed in the possible dismissal of Mr and Mrs Atherton. Less sensibly the PBA did not follow his advice.

[33] Pursuant to section 387(h) of the Act there are a number of matters which I took into account because I considered them relevant.

[34] One of these considerations was the underlying virulent antagonism which I was satisfied Mrs Burke felt towards the Athertons. I am satisfied that this partly arose from Mrs Burke's acceptance of the allegations of sexual misconduct by Jed Atherton against Mrs Burke's daughter. In Mr Jed Atherton's application Mrs Burke suggested that Mr Jed Atherton was a danger to the honourable young women. There was no such danger even if all the alleged misconduct had been true. All persons involved were adults and in any event I found the conduct was consensual. In the present hearings Mrs Burke suggested that her daughter had been unable to defend herself. That was not true. Mrs Burke's daughter did not attend and contradict the evidence of Mr Jed Atherton and his witnesses.

[35] Secondly I considered the absence of procedural fairness provided to Mr and Mrs Atherton. Mrs Atherton was ambushed by the allegations at the board meeting. She was dismissed at the same board meeting at which she was presented with the allegations. They could have been provided to her beforehand. They were not. The board had known about Mrs Burke’s suspicions for some time. The suspicions had been investigated by Mr Baker and he had indicated that there was some cause for concern about operational procedures. He gave advice. Mr Brennan made submissions concerning the aggressive nature of Mrs Atherton's response to the allegations, submitting that it was somehow brutal for Mrs Atherton to respond with a counter allegation. Nothing about Mrs Atherton's response seemed surprising to me given the manner in which the allegations were presented to her. Mr Atherton was not presented with any allegations at all. He was dismissed without any hearing.

[36] Given my findings of fact I am satisfied that the termination of Mr and Mrs Atherton's employment was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

[37] I must now consider what remedy should follow.

[38] I am satisfied that reinstatement is not appropriate. The relationship between the parties is toxic. I have rarely been involved in an application for an unfair dismissal remedy where the party’s relationship was so poor and it is likely to further deteriorate given the prospective Local Court proceedings.

[39] Pursuant to section 392(2) of the Act I have considered the criteria to which my attention is directed.

[40] I have considered the financial viability of the PBA. I received no submissions as to whether or not the viability of the PBA’s enterprise was likely to be affected by a compensation order. There was no evidence before me regarding this issue.

[41] I have considered the length of Mr and Mrs Atherton's service with the PBA. This was a positive factor in favour of an order for compensation. The evidence was that the Athertons had served the PBA as voluntary workers, supportive parents and then employees since 2001.

[42] I have considered the remuneration Mr and Mrs Atherton would have received if their employment had not been terminated.

[43] I have considered the efforts made by Mr and Mrs Atherton to mitigate their losses arising from the termination of their employment.

[44] I considered the remuneration earned by Mr and Mrs Atherton since termination of employment and any amount of income reasonably likely to be earned from the making of this order to the payment of compensation.

[45] I have considered the manner in which the Athertons conducted the canteen. Whilst I am not persuaded to the requisite standard that their conduct of the business of the canteen was dishonest, I am satisfied that it was inefficiently run. Given my conclusion in this regard I considered how long the relationship was likely to have continued. One can only speculate, but I have concluded it unlikely that Mrs Burke would have wished to continue the relationship beyond a further two months for business reasons. The conflict over the operation of the canteen and whether or not it was being operated according to instructions would have arisen in the ordinary course, even without any suspicion of dishonesty, or the peripheral issue of her daughter’s allegations.

[46] At least two months notice would have been reasonable in all the circumstances. Taking into account all of these factors I have decided to award both Mr and Mrs Atherton four months compensation.

[47] I have considered section 392(3) of the Act. As I have not found that either applicant engaged in misconduct I have not reduced the amount of compensation in this respect.

[48] The parties may confer and agree on the average weekly earnings of both Mr and Mrs Atherton and provide the agreed amount in relation to both applicants within seven days.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

 1   U2013/335

 2   Transcript - 21 March 2013 - PN1573 - PN1595

 3   Transcript PN4152 - PN4164

 4   Transcript PN4156

 5   Transcript PN574 - PN576

 6   Exhibit PBA22

 7   Transcript PN1581 - PN1584

 8   Transcript PN1488

 9   Transcript PN4142 - PN4143 and PN4205

 10   Transcript PN3362

 11   Transcript PN4205

 12   Transcript PN4202 - PN4203

 13   Transcript PN4135

 14   Transcript PN4132

 15   Transcript PN4133

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR544048>