Ms Sharon O'Shea v Stihl Pty Ltd

[2017] FWC 739

[2017] FWC 739

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Ms Sharon O’Shea
v
Stihl Pty Ltd
(U2016/11440)

COMMISSIONER ROE MELBOURNE, 6 FEBRUARY 2017

Application for relief from unfair dismissal – genuine redundancy.

[1] Ms O’Shea was employed by Stihl from 2004 until her retrenchment on 9 September 2016. Ms O’Shea has worked in the Customer Service Team throughout her employment. Stihl sells its products through a network of 440 specialist dealers throughout Australia. Ms O’Shea like the other Customer Service Advisors answered calls from dealers and made calls to dealers and also liaised with field sales employees of Stihl and other Stihl technical support employees. In the lead up to her dismissal the customer services team included four Customer Support Advisers and a Customer Support Team leader in addition to Ms O’Shea and the Customer Services Manager and two receptionists.

[2] At one stage Ms O’Shea had been a team leader. In 2015 she became the Customer Support Advisor in charge of Key Accounts (large Government customers) and Key Dealers (the most important dealers from Stihl’s perspective). However, she worked in the same small call centre as the other four Customer Support Advisers and when she was unavailable the other Customer Support Advisors answered calls from the key accounts and key dealers and when necessary Ms O’Shea would answer calls from dealers other than those designated as key accounts and key dealers. The dealers Ms O’Shea was responsible for were national, that is throughout the country, whilst the work for the other Customer Support Advisers had a State focus.

[3] Ms O’Shea was the only person made redundant as a result of the September 2016 restructure. Following the redundancy of Ms O’Shea the Customer Service Team retained a team leader and four Customer Service Advisors making and receiving calls primarily with the dealer network. This situation has remained unchanged in the five months since the retrenchment. However, the Customer Service Manager who had been with Stihl for many years had indicated in late 2015 that she would shortly retire. A decision was made prior to the decision to retrench Ms O’Shea not to replace the position of Customer Service Manager upon her retirement. The Customer Service Manager retired at the end of 2016.

[4] Ms O’Shea argues that her redundancy was a sham. It is accepted that Ms O’Shea had complained about her treatment by the Customer Service Manager and there is no doubt that there were some difficulties in that relationship. Ms O’Shea argues that there has been no significant reduction in workload and no significant operational change. Ms O’Shea argues that she has been targeted because of her complaint about the Customer Services Manager and the termination of her employment is not for operational reasons.

[5] For the dismissal to be a genuine redundancy the three conditions in Section 389 of the Act need to be satisfied:

“389 Meaning of genuine redundancy

(1) A person’s dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy if:

(a) the person’s employer no longer required the person’s job to be performed by anyone because of changes in the operational requirements of the employer’s enterprise; and

(b) the employer has complied with any obligation in a modern award or enterprise agreement that applied to the employment to consult about the redundancy.


(2) A person’s dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy if it would have been reasonable in all the circumstances for the person to be redeployed within:

(a) the employer’s enterprise; or

(b) the enterprise of an associated entity of the employer.”

Conclusion concerning the changes in the operational requirements of the enterprise

[6] I have carefully considered the evidence concerning the changes made and the operational reasons provided. I am satisfied that the most important changes have been:

• The removal of the Forward Order Program. Under this program Ms O’Shea and other members of the Customer Service Team were required to contact each dealer on a quarterly basis. This change was implemented from around the time of Ms O’Shea’s redundancy. It is therefore understandable that Ms O’Shea did not experience any reduction in workload as a result of this change prior to her redundancy. However, I am satisfied based on the evidence of Ms Disher and the documentary evidence from the 31 August 2016 review that there has been a reduction in workload for the Customer Service Team as a result of this change.
• Technical and training support was moved from a central unit to a State based structure with the introduction of new roles of Dealer Support Area Managers. This new structure took some time to be fully implemented. The change was announced in late 2015. The concept was that technical calls to and from dealers were re-routed from the Customer Service Team to the Dealer Support Managers in the States. I am satisfied that this change was in part designed to reduce the workload for the Customer Service Team. I accept the evidence of Ms O’Shea that in the early stages the changes did not result in a reduction in calls, however, I accept the evidence of Ms Disher that the change has now resulted in a reduction in calls.
• A change in focus in respect to dealing with the most important national dealers and the major key accounts they transact with. The relationships with the sales and technical staff at the State level was prioritised rather than dealing with these dealers at the national level. I am satisfied that this change was expected to somewhat reduce the amount of work for the Customer Service Team with the national dealers and major key accounts. Ms O’Shea was responsible for this work. I accept the evidence of Ms O’Shea that the main effect of this change is to redistribute work amongst the Customer Service Team rather than to greatly reduce the total amount of work. However, I accept that it is in part designed to reduce work by increasing direct contact between clients and the State based sales and technical teams.

[7] I accept the evidence of Ms O’Shea that she had not experienced any reduction in her workload. I also accept that the evidence of Stihl of a reduction in inbound calls for the Customer Service Team is partial and inadequate because other aspects of workload such as outbound calls are not included. I accept the evidence of Ms O’Shea that there was a sharp increase in the outbound call requirements in the period leading up to her retrenchment. The evidence of Stihl concerning the restructure featured some double counting – that is, the same change was described in several different ways to give the impression of more than one change. The evidence of Mr Crotty and Ms Disher gave the misleading impression that the reduction in workload due to the ending of the Forward Order Program had already occurred when in fact the change was not implemented until Ms O’Shea was made redundant.

[8] However, I reject the submission that the reason for Ms O’Shea’s selection for redundancy was her complaint about the Customer Service Manager. The evidence of Ms O’Shea that she was a very competent, hardworking and valued employee was supported by Stihl’s witnesses. As part of the restructure a decision was taken not to replace the Customer Service Manager when she retired at the end of 2016. In this situation there was no practical need to remove Ms O’Shea in order to remove a problem between Ms O’Shea and the Customer Service Manager.

[9] The facts of the situation are that four months after the implementation of the restructure the Customer Service Team is operating with two less people; Ms O’Shea and the Customer Service Manager. Ms O’Shea suggests that the team is stressed and overworked. However, that evidence is based on what she has been told by her former work colleagues. Ms Disher gave evidence that the restructure has been successful and the Customer Service Team is operating effectively.

[10] I am satisfied that the reduction from five Customer Support Advisors to four Customer Support Advisors with the removal of Ms O’Shea’s position was because of changes in the operational needs of the business. I am satisfied that management determined that there would be a reduced workload for the team as a result of the changes to cancel the forward order program, to direct calls for technical support directly to the Dealer Support Area Managers rather than the call centre, and the increased responsibility by the State based sales and technical employees for major dealers and key customers. I am satisfied that these operational changes were the rationale for the reduction in positions.

[11] I reject the submission of Stihl that Ms O’Shea’s role was significantly different from the role of the other Customer Service Advisors. They worked in the same area and performed the same sort of telephone sales support work and associated administration. Ms O’Shea was more experienced and trusted and as a result was given special responsibility for particular clients. However, jobs were to a large extent interchangeable within the team and calls for the valued national clients went to other members of the team and State based calls went to Ms O’Shea. I accept that the restructure determined that the differentiated role was no longer required because the valued clients were to be handled at the State rather than national level. However, I am satisfied that the essence of the rationale for the restructure was that the operational changes would reduce workload such that the customer service team could operate effectively with four rather than five Customer Service Advisors.

Conclusion concerning redeployment

[12] Ms O’Shea accepts that there were some discussions concerning redeployment. Ms O’Shea was advised of the redundancy on 2 September 2016 and had a meeting to discuss it on 5 September 2016. At that meeting job vacancies as finance business analyst and an interstate territory manager were raised by Ms Disher. Ms O’Shea raised the possibility that Ms Fisher may be retiring and that a part time Customer Service Advisor might be suitable for her role, then Ms O’Shea could be retained as a Customer Service Advisor. I am satisfied that although this was a legitimate suggestion by Ms O’Shea, this redeployment option was not available because the amount of administration involved with customer warranties, which was Ms Fisher’s role was decreasing due to operational changes. The position has now been abolished.

[13] Ms Monckton, Ms O’Shea’s support person at the meeting on 5 September 2016, gave evidence that she did not believe that management representatives at the meeting showed any intention of investigating alternative options to retrenchment for Ms O’Shea. She reached this impression because their demeanour and verbal communication felt scripted and impersonal.

[14] Ms Disher and Mr Crotty gave evidence that following the 5 September 2016 meeting they considered whether or not there were any redeployment options for Ms O’Shea and concluded that there were none.

[15] Given her long service with Stihl and the fact that it is not a very large employer in the administration area, I am satisfied that Ms O’Shea was in a reasonable position to be able to identify likely options for redeployment. I accept that Ms O’Shea was capable of changing roles to some extent, particularly given that she had largely completed a Business Diploma. However, I am satisfied that at the meeting on 5 September 2016 the option of administration roles was raised and following this Ms O’Shea gave evidence that Ms Disher specifically identified two roles as available. Ms O’Shea does not suggest that she expressed any interest in these positions. I am satisfied that available options were explored by Ms Disher. Ms O’Shea was not able to point to any particular administrative roles and I have no reason to doubt the statement of Ms Disher that no suitable roles were available. The only specific role pointed to by Ms O’Shea was the opportunities which might arise from the retirement of Ms Fisher in administering warranties discussed earlier. I am satisfied that as at September 2016 management was aware that administration of warranties was being phased out and therefore I accept that this did not create a viable redeployment option.

[16] During the proceedings I raised the possibility that another customer service advisor may have been selected or volunteered for redundancy and Ms O’Shea could have been redeployed into that role. There is no doubt that Ms O’Shea had the skills and experience for the role. This option was not the subject of any consideration at the time of the redundancy. There was no evidence before me concerning the viability of this option.

[17] Based upon the evidence before me I am unable to identify that any reasonable redeployment opportunities were available.

Consultation

[18] I now turn to the remaining issue of consultation.

[19] The Clerks Private Sector Award 2010 is an occupational award for clerical administrative employees.

[20] The consultation term in the Award is Clause 8 and it provides as follows:

“Consultation regarding major workplace change

8.1 Employer to notify

(i) Where an employer has made a definite decision to introduce major changes in production, program, organisation, structure or technology that are likely to have significant effects on employees, the employer must notify the employees who may be affected by the proposed changes and their representatives, if any.
(ii) Significant effects include termination of employment; major changes in the composition, operation or size of the employer’s workforce or in the skills required; the elimination or diminution of job opportunities, promotion opportunities or job tenure; the alteration of hours of work; the need for retraining or transfer of employees to other work or locations; and the restructuring of jobs. Provided that where this award makes provision for alteration of any of these matters an alteration is deemed not to have significant effect.

8.2 Employer to discuss change

The employer must discuss with the employees affected and their representatives, if any, the introduction of the changes referred to in clause 8.1, the effects the changes are likely to have on employees and measures to avert or mitigate the adverse effects of such changes on employees and must give prompt consideration to matters raised by the employees and/or their representatives in relation to the changes.

The discussions must commence as early as practicable after a definite decision has been made by the employer to make the changes referred to in clause 8.1.

For the purposes of such discussion, the employer must provide in writing to the employees concerned and their representatives, if any, all relevant information about the changes including the nature of the changes proposed, the expected effects of the changes on employees and any other matters likely to affect employees provided that no employer is required to disclose confidential information the disclosure of which would be contrary to the employer’s interests.”

[21] Stihl submitted that the Award did not cover senior Customer Service Advisors. I reject that submission. Clerical work is defined in the award as including receiving and answering calls. The Award covers those engaged wholly or principally in clerical work, including administrative duties of a clerical nature. The scope of clerical administrative work is best understood by considering the Classification definitions in the Award. The definitions describe office functions and call centre work in a very broad and inclusive manner. For example:

• At level 3 typical duties include: “Provide specialised advice and information on the organisation’s products and services; respond to client/public/supplier problems within own functional area utilising a high degree of interpersonal skills.”
• At Level 4 typical duties include: “Employees at this level will have achieved a level of organisation or industry specific knowledge sufficient for them to give advice and/or information to the organisation and clients in relation to specific areas of their responsibility.”

[22] I am satisfied that the work as described by Ms O’Shea in her evidence and as set out in her position description comfortably falls within the scope of the Award and its classifications. The main responsibilities in the position description are all clerical administrative duties within that scope.

[23] Ms O’Shea was informed of the restructure which may result in her retrenchment on 2 September 2016 and was provided with written notice at that time. Ms O’Shea then had a meeting on 5 September 2016. It was clear that this meeting was to discuss the impact on Ms O’Shea and particularly the issue of opportunities for redeployment. Ms Disher says that at the 5 September 2016 meeting she provided full information to Ms O’Shea about the proposed changes. The outcome of the 5 September 2016 meeting was that management would review redeployment opportunities. On 9 September 2016 Ms O’Shea was told that they had considered internal options and no suitable position was available and so Ms O’Shea would be retrenched immediately. Ms Disher and Mr Crotty deny that the decision to make Ms O’Shea redundant was made prior to the 5 September 2016 meeting.

[24] In the letter of 2 September 2016 Mr Crotty outlines the operational changes made and proposed and advised “as a result of these changes we have identified your position will be made redundant.” It then states that “we are currently exploring the availability of options to redeploy you” and that “to date we have not been able to identify anything that is suitable for you.” The letter then invites Ms O’Shea to make redeployment suggestions and schedules a meeting for further discussion on 5 September 2016 “to discuss any suggestions you may have and consider any concerns you wish to raise.” The letter then says that if there are no suitable alternative positions Ms O’Shea’s position will be terminated and a severance package in accordance with Stihl policy will be paid.

[25] Considered in context I am satisfied that the letter of 2 September 2016 invites and proposes consultation about redeployment but it does not invite or propose any consultation about the operational changes themselves and measures to avert or mitigate the adverse effects of such changes. That is, the 5 September 2016 meeting was not proposed as an opportunity to consider alternatives to the proposed operational changes.

[26] In the letter of 9 September 2016 advising Ms O’Shea that she was now being retrenched Mr Crotty says that: “in reaching this decision we have considered all the circumstances including the option to avoid redundancy. We have also explored the available options to redeploy you to another position that is in keeping with your skills and experience, and were unfortunately unable to identify anything that is suitable for you.”
[27] Mr Crotty and Ms Disher state in their witness statement that Ms O’Shea was provided with an opportunity to provide feedback “about the proposed redundancy and redeployment opportunities”. Ms Disher says that the meeting on 2 September 2016 was “to notify her of the outcome of the review and to provide her with any opportunity to provide feedback to us about the proposed redundancy of her role and measures that might be taken to minimise the adverse effects of the proposed redundancy on her including redeployment opportunities.” In their evidence they do not suggest that they specifically invited Ms O’Shea to consider or propose alternatives to redundancy other than redeployment. The meeting on 2 September was brief and it is not suggested that there was any real opportunity for discussion. Ms O’Shea was not aware of any review prior to the 2 September 2016 meeting. The only real discussion was at the meeting on 5 September 2016. Mr Crotty and Ms Disher say that the operational reasons for the change were further explained at that meeting and the issue of redeployment options was discussed. There is no suggestion that there was any invitation to discuss alternatives to redundancy. I found the evidence of Ms Disher and Mr Crotty on this point to be unconvincing. I consider that they overstated the amount of information concerning the restructure and the rationale for it provided at the meetings on 2 September 2016 and 5 September 2016. I consider that the information given did not significantly extend beyond what is said in the letter of 2 September 2016. I prefer the evidence of Ms O’Shea on this matter.

[28] I am satisfied that the proposed redundancy is a significant change within the scope of Clause 8.1 of the Award. I am satisfied that the change was decided at a meeting on 31 August 2016. There is no reason to doubt the evidence of Ms Disher on this point and the presentation which outlines the proposed restructure. 1 I am therefore satisfied that the requirement for consultation to occur as soon as practicable has been met. I am also satisfied that on balance the following requirement has been met: “the employer must provide in writing to the employees concerned and their representatives, if any, all relevant information about the changes including the nature of the changes proposed, the expected effects of the changes on employees”. The letter of 2 September 2016 is not a fulsome explanation of the proposed restructure and the reasons for it but given that the restructure was simple, that is, the reduction from five to four in customer advisers because of the changes specified which were expected to reduce workload I consider on fine balance that it was adequate. The reason for the selection of Ms O’Shea’s position rather than that of other customer advisers was also identified – that is, the move away from national service of leading clients to state based service. The only important information which was not included was the proposal to abolish the manager’s position upon her retirement. However, I do not consider that this piece of information was critical to Ms O’Shea’s capacity to respond.

[29] There was a capacity to discuss the impact of the changes on Ms O’Shea and to consider mitigation in the form of redeployment. However, I do not consider that there was any meaningful capacity to influence the decision maker about the change itself or any real opportunity to discuss alternatives to the changes proposed which might avert the effect on Ms O’Shea or other employees.

[30] I am satisfied that considering the evidence as a whole that Stihl had made an irreversible decision to make Ms O’Shea’s position redundant prior to the 2 September 2016 meeting and the only matters that they were prepared to discuss were options for redeployment and other matters Ms O’Shea might raise about her personal situation. There was no openness to consider alternatives such as making another member of the team redundant or alternative ways of meeting the business objectives. Mr Crotty effectively conceded this point – he accepted that the decision to make the position redundant had been made a few days prior to the 2 September 2016 meeting but he insisted that the decision as to whether or not this would result in Ms O’Shea being retrenched or redeployed was not made until 6 September 2016.

[31] I am not satisfied that the consultation requirements of the Award were met. The failure was not a minor technical failure. It was a substantial failure to provide Ms O’Shea with the opportunity to influence the decision maker or to mitigate the impact of the changes.

[32] As a consequence I must find that the dismissal was not a genuine redundancy.

Was the dismissal unfair?

[33] In deciding whether or not the dismissal was unfair I am required to consider the following:

“387 Criteria for considering harshness etc.

In considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the FWC 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 the FWC considers relevant.”

[34] Ms O’Shea was dismissed due to redundancy and not because of conduct or performance. Section 392(a), (b), (c) and (e) are therefore not relevant.

[35] Ms O’Shea was not refused a support person. A support person was present at the 5 September 2016 meeting. Section 392(d) is a neutral factor.

[36] Stihl is not a small business and it does have specialised human resource personnel. Sections 392(f) and (g) are therefore neutral factors.

[37] The relevant other factors (Section 392(h)) are:

• My finding that the dismissal was for reasons of redundancy.
• My finding that consultation obligations were not met.
• My finding that reasonable redeployment options have not been identified.

[38] The fact that there was a defensible business reason for the redundancy and it is not established that the redundancy was a sham means that there was a sound, defensible and well founded reason for the termination. This stands in favour of a finding that the dismissal was not unreasonable. The fact that there were no reasonable opportunities for redeployment also stands in favour of a finding that the dismissal was not unreasonable or unjust. However, the failure to properly consult stands in favour of a finding that the dismissal was unjust and harsh.

[39] The opportunity to consult is about justice and procedural fairness. However, it is also a recognition of the negative impacts redundancy causes to employee wellbeing and that it is harsh to terminate employees for reason of redundancy without giving them the dignity and opportunity provided by the consultation process. In my view in the circumstances of this case it is difficult to conclude that nothing would have changed if the consultation process had occurred. This is the case even where other viable options have not been specifically identified. The whole idea of the consultation process is to allow for exploration of options both known and unknown. Employees often have information and ideas which are not apparent to management. In an unfair dismissal hearing the protagonists are not engaging in such a consultative exploration. Opportunities for redeployment can be assessed on the evidence but alternatives to a restructure and options for modification to a restructure and its impacts are difficult to assess in the context of an unfair dismissal hearing. It is often not possible to determine what might or might not have resulted from consultation which did not occur.

[40] In this particular case there was an obvious issue which should have been the subject of consultation. In changing the number of customer service advisers in the team from five to four, why select Ms O’Shea? It is possible that one of the other customer advisers may have wished to take a voluntary redundancy package. There is no doubt Ms O’Shea was qualified to perform the remaining customer advisor roles. I am satisfied that the essential difference between Ms O’Shea’s role and that of the other Customer Service Advisors was the particular group of clients she was to focus on and the importance the company placed on the service of this group of clients. Of course there may have been reasons why this option may in the end have been unacceptable to either the company, Ms O’Shea or other affected employees. However, there should have been the opportunity for consultation about this or other options.

[41] I am satisfied taking into account all of these factors that on balance the dismissal was unfair because it was harsh and unjust to terminate Ms O’Shea without the opportunity for the consultation process provided for in the Award.

Remedy

[42] Ms O’Shea does not seek reinstatement. Stihl opposes reinstatement. In circumstances where I have accepted that there was a redundancy situation and the employee does not seek reinstatement I accept that reinstatement is inappropriate.

[43] I consider it appropriate to make an order for compensation.

[44] I am required to consider the following matters in determining compensation (Section 392(2)):

“Criteria for deciding amounts

(3) In determining an amount for the purposes of an order under subsection (1), the FWC 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 the FWC considers relevant.

[45] There was no evidence before me that demonstrated that the viability of Stihl will be adversely affected by any order I make. I am not satisfied that any order I may make is likely to affect the viability of the company.

[46] The length of service of almost 12 years is significant.

[47] I estimate that if there had not been a redundancy situation arising then the employment would have continued for a further three years. In reaching this conclusion I have taken into account the length of service and the history of good work performance. I do not conclude a longer period as the business is obviously subject to ongoing market changes and potential further restructure. I estimate that effective consultation, including consideration of alternatives, would have taken two weeks. It is not possible to exclude the possibility that consultation would have resulted in an alternative which continued Ms O’Shea’s employment being found. This is one of the purposes of the provision. In the circumstances of this case I consider the probability of continuing employment to be 33.3%. I am therefore satisfied that the employment would have continued for 52 weeks plus the five week notice period; a total of 57 weeks.

[48] Ms O’Shea received 5 weeks’ pay in lieu of notice and 35.75 weeks’ severance pay. In addition she has earned $9,801.26 from employment in the period since her dismissal. In the two weeks between the date of the hearing and the date of this decision I estimate that Ms O’Shea would have earned a further $2,291.50

[49] I estimate that Ms O’Shea will earn a further $2,291.50 in the two weeks before the payment of the actual compensation.

[50] In the 57 week period Ms O’Shea would have earned $69,931.50 not including superannuation. I will deduct from that the severance package of $50,956.25 and the earnings from other employment of $14,384.30. The compensation amount remaining is $4,590.95.

[51] Ms O’Shea applied for many jobs following her termination. She was active as a job seeker throughout the period between her dismissal and the time of getting a new job in November 2016. She has made adequate efforts to mitigate her loss. I do not consider it appropriate to make any deduction for this reason.

[52] I make no deduction for contingency.

[53] There is no issue of misconduct.

[54] There are no other factors I consider relevant. Stihl argued that I should take into account the beneficial taxation arrangements which applied to the redundancy package paid to Ms O’Shea. I have deducted the gross amount of the redundancy package from the gross amount which would have been earned. I consider that this is the appropriate approach to the calculation of compensation.

[55] Taking into account all the factors specified in the legislation I consider that the amount of compensation payable is $4,590.95 from which taxation should be deducted according to law. The amount is payable within fourteen days. An order to this effect is issued in conjunction with this decision.  

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Mr G Dircks appeared for the Applicant.

Mr R Millar appeared for the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2017

Melbourne

January 19

 1   Exhibit R2, Attachment SD3.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR589991>