Nina Kolevski v Unique Building Services Pty Ltd
[2022] FWC 530
| [2022] FWC 530 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Nina Kolevski
v
Unique Building Services Pty Ltd
(U2021/8457)
| COMMISSIONER MIRABELLA | MELBOURNE, 14 APRIL 2022 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.
On 20 September 2021, Ms Nina Kolevski filed an application for an unfair dismissal remedy (the application) pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), her employment having ceased on 10 September 2021.
Ms Kolevski alleges that she was dismissed in contravention of s.385 of the Act by Unique Building Services Pty Ltd (Unique Building) and seeks compensation.
Unique Building has raised an objection to Ms Kolevski’s application. It says that she resigned and that she was not dismissed. Ms Kolevski denies that she resigned but alleges that Unique Building suggested to her that she resign.
This jurisdictional objection by Unique Building needs to be determined by the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) before there can be any consideration of the merits of Ms Kolevski’s application. That is because only a person who has been dismissed is able to make an unfair dismissal application.[1]
A staff member of the Commission conducted a conciliation in the matter on 22 October 2021. The matter did not settle, so it was allocated to me on 27 October 2021. I issued directions for the filing and service of material on 4 November 2021 and conducted a determinative conference in the matter on 20 December 2021 and 20 January 2022 via Microsoft Teams.
Background
Unique Building’s business is to assess damage caused by insurable events, report on that to the relevant insurer and undertake building works as directed by the insurance company.
Ms Kolevski commenced employment by Unique Building on 19 October 2020. At the time that her employment with Unique Building had ended, she was working as a Customer Service Support Officer.
In her Form F2 Application, Ms Kolevski states that her dismissal took effect on 10 September 2021 but that she was first notified of her dismissal on 13 September 2021 when she received an employment separation certificate from Unique Building.
On 10 September 2021, Ms Kolevski met with Mr Tony Pickles, the Managing Director of Unique Building, to discuss a desktop assessment Ms Kolevski had made in relation to an insurance claim. Ms Courtney Rowe, the Human Resources Manager, joined this meeting shortly after it had commenced. Unique Building alleges that the manner in which Ms Kolevski had undertaken this assessment was in possible breach of its contract with its client IAG. The parties disagree as to what occurred next. Ms Kolevski says that Ms Rowe told her that it would be in her best interest to resign rather than be dismissed. Unique Building says that Ms Kolevski offered to resign on multiple occasions during the meeting. Following the meeting, Ms Kolevski left Unique Building’s premises at approximately 2:30pm. Ms Kolevski says that she went home because she felt unwell.
On 13 September 2021, Ms Kolevski attended the premises of Unique Building. A meeting then took place between her, Ms Rowe, Mr Pickles and Ms Renee Clapson, the Project Coordinator at Unique Building and who acted as Ms Kolevski’s support person during this meeting. Ms Kolevski recorded this meeting, and it was produced to the Commission as evidence. Although the recording was made by Ms Kolevski, Unique Building produced a transcript of the material Ms Kolevski recorded and relied upon material therein.
Other than a typographical error that was corrected by consent, the words of the transcript are not in dispute.
On at least five occasions during the meeting, Ms Kolevski denied that she was recording the meeting. The relevant extracts from the transcript are as follows, with “N” referring to Ms Kolevski, “C” referring to Ms Rowe and “T” referring to Mr Pickles.
“N: I’m not recording, sorry cos I am waiting for some test results sorry, is that okay if I wait?”
…
C: It’s just not on and I think you’re recording the conversation
N: No seriously I am waiting on test results seriously if you want to see the test results or a medical certificate
…
N: Why are you being whatever? I’m actually waiting for results
…
N: I actually haven’t, you’re really paranoid that I am recording
N: Do you want
N: You’re really paranoid, I’m actually waiting for my test results cos I went for a thing and I’ve got blocked arteries so I’m actually waiting for an appointment to go to hospital and I can, I said that from the start if you want to check my phone its here.
…
C: Nina what are you trying to achieve?
T: I tell you why cos she’s recording this
N: I’m not recording it, for gods sake you guys are paranoid
C: It doesn’t matter of she is, it doesn’t matter…
T & C: Cos we’re being setup
(laughing)
N: Seriously I’ve offered you my phone”
Initial matters to be considered – s. 396 of the Act
Section 396 requires that I decide four matters before considering the merits of Ms Kolevski’s application. I am satisfied of the following. First, the application was made within the 21-day period required by s.394(2). Secondly, there is no dispute that Ms Kolevski was a person protected from unfair dismissal. Thirdly, the dismissal was not a genuine redundancy. Fourthly, Unique Building is not a small business employer, and the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code is, therefore, inapplicable.
Relevant legislation
Before the merits of the application can be considered and whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, I must determine whether Ms Kolevski was dismissed by Unique Building.
Section 386 of the Act sets out when a person has been dismissed and further provides:
“386 Meaning of dismissed
(1) A person has been dismissed if:
(a) the person’s employment with his or her employer has been terminated on the employer’s initiative; or
(b) the person has resigned from his or her employment, but was forced to do so because of conduct, or a course of conduct, engaged in by his or her employer.”
Section 386(1) is divided into two limbs, subsections 386(1)(a) and (b) respectively. In this matter, Ms Kolevski is contending that she was dismissed from her employment as per the first limb of s.386(1).
There are exemptions to the operation of s.386(1),[2] none of which are relevant in this matter.
Was Ms Kolevski dismissed or did she resign?
Section 386(1) of the Act allows for dismissal under two distinct limbs, the first being that an employee’s employment is terminated on the employer’s initiative and the second being a resignation forced by the conduct of the employer where the employee had no choice but to resign.
Ms Kolevski denies that she resigned, either voluntarily or because she was forced to do so because of her employer’s conduct. She contends that her employment was terminated at the employer’s initiative.
Parties’ evidence and submissions
I have considered all of Ms Kolevski’s and Unique Building’s evidence and submissions and do not reproduce all of it in this decision.
Ms Kolevski
Ms Kolevski gave evidence on her own behalf.
Ms Kolevski contends Unique Building did not terminate her employment in writing as required in her employment contract. Further, she says that at no time was she advised by Unique Building that they were officially terminating her employment.
She says that she was never officially dismissed but that, on 13 September 2021, she was refused permission to attend her workplace by Unique Building who claimed she was trespassing and threatened police attendance.
Ms Kolevski submits that at no time did she offer a resignation verbally or in writing which she says is required by her employment contract. Although Ms Kolevski does not provide evidence, she believes that Unique Building terminated her employment as a result of a conversation she had on 9 September 2021 with Mr Joshua Beckman, the OHS representative at Unique Building. She says that this conversation was in relation to numerous concerns she had regarding the working environment and culture at Unique Building and that these concerns were never addressed.
Ms Kolevski submits that at a meeting on 10 September 2021 to discuss an alleged workplace incident, with Mr Pickles and Ms Rowe, she was advised that it would be “favourable” for her if she resigned. Ms Kolevski says that when she asked if she was being dismissed, she was told that it was in her best interest that she resign so Unique Building could provide her with a positive reference which would allow her to find future work in the insurance industry. Ms Kolevski says that she never offered her resignation and immediately went home following the meeting at 2:30pm. She says that she went home because she was feeling sick.[3]
She says that at 4:07pm on 10 September 2021 she sent an email to Mr Pickles and Ms Rowe, as well as a text message to Ms Rowe, advising them that she had not resigned and would be returning to work on 13 September 2021. Ms Kolevski says that she mentioned that she felt she had been bullied and harassed during the meeting with the offer of a favourable reference if she resigned. She says that she asked for an acknowledgement to her email with confirmation that she was being dismissed.
Ms Kolevski says that, as she had not yet received a response, at 6:15pm on 10 September 2021 she sent a second email to Mr Pickles and Ms Rowe as well as a second text to Ms Rowe confirming she would be at work on 13 September 2021.
Ms Kolevski says that at 7:24pm on 10 September 2021, she sent a third email to Mr Pickles and Ms Rowe advising them that she may need access to the building as she had left her access fob at work.
Ms Kolevski says that at 7:27pm, Mr Pickles sent her an email stating that he was replying because Ms Rowe was unavailable and that Ms Kolevski had emailed her at an incorrect email address. Ms Kolevski says that she re-sent the email to Ms Rowe at the correct email address at 4:10pm. Ms Kolevski says that Mr Pickles claimed that she had freely offered her resignation which he had accepted. He also refuted her claims that she was bullied and harassed during the 10 September 2021 meeting and said that she made defamatory comments to fellow colleagues as she left the building. Ms Kolevski says that Mr Pickles then suggested she not go to work on Monday and stated, “as far as [Unique Building] are concerned your resignation still stands and you are no longer employed at [Unique Building]”.
Ms Kolevski says that at 7:40pm, she replied to Mr Pickles and Ms Rowe via email advising that she had not resigned, that she left work early as she was feeling unwell, shocked, confused and upset, and that she would attend work on 13 September 2021 as per her employment agreement.
Ms Kolevski says that on 13 September 2021 she attended at Unique Building to work and discovered she had been locked out of the computer system. She says that at approximately 8:30am, Ms Rowe approached her at her desk and asked her to attend a meeting in the boardroom. Ms Kolevski says that also in attendance at this meeting were Ms Cameron and Ms Clapson. Ms Kolevski says that she was in possession of her mobile phone which she had set to “record” mode and placed in clear view on the table. Ms Kolevski says that Ms Rowe stated at the beginning of the meeting that she believed Ms Kolevski was recording the meeting. Ms Kolevski denied she was recording the meeting.
The discussion on 13 September 2021 as per the transcript is not in dispute. I have considered the totality of the transcript in my decision.
At the 13 September 2021 meeting, as transcribed, Ms Rowe proceeded to explain her recollection of the previous meeting on 10 September 2021. Ms Rowe advised Ms Kolevski that the alleged workplace incident that had occurred could be considered “gross or serious unlawful misconduct” which could be a “sackable offence”. Ms Rowe repeated several times that Ms Kolevski had offered her resignation. As the meeting continued, both Ms Rowe and Ms Kolevski gave opposing recollections of the 10 September 2021 meeting. Ms Rowe’s emphatic recollection was that Ms Kolevski made continued offers of resignation which Ms Kolevski emphatically denied. Ms Kolevski made repeated comments that she was there to work.
During the 13 September 2021 meeting, there were at least five separate occasions where Ms Kolevski denies recording the meeting.
After Mr Pickles joined the meeting, Ms Rowe informed Mr Pickles that Ms Kolevski was adamant that she had not resigned on 10 September 2021. The conversation eventually turned to the issue of the desktop assessment with Ms Kolevski raising a lack of training as an issue relating to workplace practices. Mr Pickles intervened and stated that on 10 September 2021 he and Ms Rowe had heard Ms Kolevski offer her resignation on multiple occasions.
Ms Rowe went on to say:
“C: The only situation that you are pointing us into is that we will to remove you from site. Now I am not having this for the rest of the Team.
N: Why not?
C: We care about our people
N: Do you?
C: Yeah we do actually, we care about our people, this is a gross and serious misconduct
C: You asked the question and I answered the question that this is a gross and serious misconduct
C: At no point did I say to you that I was going to terminate you under those terms Tony was still investigating it and dealing with it with IAG
C: You said on multiple occasions you said do you want me to resign I said it Is your choice Nina and I did say it will look better on your resume and I wouldn’t want to get that out to the industry of you wanted to stay in it
C: 100% word for word, that is what was said. Ok?”
The discussion continued with accusations between Ms Kolevski on one hand and Mr Pickles and Ms Rowe on the other regarding who was telling the truth. Accusations were made about both parties and the impact on other staff was discussed. Ms Kolevski was told that she could no longer work at Unique Building as she had resigned. Eventually, Ms Rowe said, “[y]ou need to leave and if you refuse to leave then I have no choice but to call for the police, you’ve been asked to leave the property and the premises and you need to do so.”[4]
Ms Kolevski says that on 14 September 2021, she received her employment separation certificate and final payslip via email from Unique Building. She says the certificate stated that her employment had ceased on 10 September 2021 and that she had ceased work voluntarily. Ms Kolevski says that her final payslip included an employment termination payment of $1,019.23 in lieu of one weeks’ notice. Ms Kolevski says that the final payslip also included 2.5 hours personal leave within the 37.5 hours which she says acknowledges that when she left the office on 10 September 2021 at the conclusion of her meeting at 2:30pm, she was still gainfully employed by Unique Building and on personal leave.
Unique Building
Unique Building relied on the evidence of:
· Mr Tony Pickles – Managing Director
· Ms Kylie Cameron – Chief Financial Officer
· Ms Renee Clapson – Project Coordinator
· Mr Joshua Beckman – former Safety Manager
Unique Building says that it has a contract with IAG, an insurer, to carry out assessments. It says that those assessments can only be carried out either by attending the insured’s property or by carrying out a virtual assessment. It contends that, towards the end of the day on 9 September 2021, it had learned that Ms Kolevski had been carrying out assessments via desktop and not by attending the insured’s property or by virtual assessment. They say that this occurred on at least four occasions. Unique Building says that, as a consequence, IAG was considering whether to issue Unique Building with a notice of breach of its contract. It says that this is a clear breach of assessment protocols and could lead to it losing its contract with IAG.
Unique Building submits that, on 10 September 2021, Ms Kolevski, Mr Pickles and Ms Rowe discussed the IAG matter when Ms Kolevski resigned from her employment with Unique Building and then left its premises at approximately 2:30pm.
Mr Pickles’ evidence was that on 10 September 2021, he was in the boardroom giving consideration to the IAG matter when, at approximately 1:00pm to 1:30pm, Ms Kolevski entered the boardroom to speak with him about it because she had apparently heard about a problem with assessments earlier that day. Mr Pickles says that Ms Kolevski said she was unaware and mortified that the process she had followed was not the correct process and that she had potentially caused a breach of one of Unique Building’s contracts.[5] It is not in dispute that Ms Rowe joined the meeting shortly afterwards.
It is Mr Pickles who says:
“During the course of that discussion, the Applicant told me and Ms Rowe on several occasions that she would resign and, ultimately, I accepted her resignation.”
Mr Pickles says that at the 10 September 2021 meeting, Ms Kolevski said, “‘[w]ould that be the best way to resolve this situation. I will resign’, not, ‘I can resign’.”[6]
He went on to say that, “[Ms Rowe], as HR manager, indicated that it was potentially gross misconduct anyway and that if she was tendering her resignation then that would be looked upon favourably and that if she wanted to resign that we would accept her resignation.”[7]
Mr Pickles says that Ms Kolevski “was so upset that we had accepted her resignation that we would allow her to go home”.[8]
At the determinative conference, Mr Pickles said that, over the course of about 15 to 20 minutes, Ms Kolevski had raised the issue of resigning and had offered her resignation on multiple occasions.[9]
Unique Building says that at 3:28pm on 10 September 2021, Mr Pickles sent a text message to Ms Cameron which read, “Nina has resigned this afternoon, not common knowledge yet”.
Unique Building says that at the 13 September 2021 meeting Ms Kolevski recorded that meeting on her mobile phone despite stating in that recording that she was not recording the meeting but that she had the phone on the desk because she was waiting for some test results.
Unique Building submits that on 10 September 2021, Ms Kolevski resigned from her employment with Unique Building which they say was accepted, and contends, therefore, that she has no standing to bring this application.
Findings
I accept Mr Pickles’ account of his discussion and interactions with Ms Kolevski on 10 September 2021. Mr Pickles’ evidence was clear, and he was forthcoming and direct in his responses.
Ms Kolevski gave evidence that was at times contradictory, confusing or obtuse. In addition to claiming on at least five occasions that she was not recording the meeting on 13 September 2021 when she was clearly recording it, the transcript of same having been produced as uncontested evidence of the meeting, Ms Kolevski claimed that plain English words had an alternative meaning.
When cross-examined Ms Kolevski said that at the 13 September 2021 meeting she had denied recording it “once, twice at a pinch” and at another time she says that she denied recording it “perhaps two times.”[10]
In cross-examination Ms Kolevski was asked why she denied at the 13 September 2021 meeting that she was recording it and her response was:
“I wanted to show - I just wanted the meeting to proceed, and everyone to be open and honest, and not … I was - I don't know. I probably felt a little bit intimidated.”[11]
Ms Kolevski denied, as per the transcript on pages 2 and 3, that she was recording. The relevant extract from the transcript is as follows:
“C: It’s just not on and I think you’re recording the conversation
N: No seriously I am waiting on test results seriously if you want to see the test results or a medical certificate”
When I questioned Ms Kolevski about the meaning of the word “no” as used in that sentence and what it referred to, Ms Kolevski replied, “probably”.
When I sought further clarification, stating that “no” referred to the question that had just been asked, Ms Kolevski responded with “[o]kay, yes” and “I'm assuming that it reads that way. I don't believe it sounded that way, so I apologise. It does read that way, yes.”
In cross-examination, Ms Kolevski was asked why, if she had not resigned, did she send an email at 4:07pm on 10 September 2021 to Mr Pickles stating, “I have not resigned from my role.” Ms Kolevski’s response included the following: “I spoke with my partner and I had received a phone call from a colleague, who wasn't at work, who was told about a resignation at that time, and at 3.18, I sent that message just to clarify that I did not resign.”[12]
I do not find Ms Kolevski’s reply convincing. Accepting Mr Pickles’ evidence that he sent a message to Ms Cameron at 3:28pm on 10 September 2021 regarding Ms Kolevski’s resignation, it is unlikely that any work colleague would have contacted Ms Kolevski. Neither did Ms Kolevski produce any witnesses or evidence on this issue.
It is not disputed that Ms Kolevski entered the boardroom on 10 September 2021 of her own volition. Having considered all the evidence and submissions, I make the following findings. At the 10 September 2021 meeting, there was a discussion regarding the IAG contract and that as a consequence Ms Kolevski offered her resignation on multiple occasions. She had been emotional during the 10 September 2021 meeting and became upset after her resignation was accepted. Her resignation was accepted by Mr Pickles, and he agreed that she could leave early on that day and return at a later time to collect her personal items.
I find that Ms Kolevski sought to reverse her decision by denying she had ever offered to or did in fact resign. Ms Kolevski started by sending texts and emails on the afternoon and evening of 10 September 2021 to Mr Pickles and Ms Rowe backtracking on her earlier resignation by denying it.
Mr Pickles never wavered in his evidence that Ms Kolevski resigned. He communicates this as early as 3:28pm on the day she resigned, and he maintained his position at the determinative conference.
Further, I find that Ms Kolevski, in regretting her decision to resign, decided to record the meeting of 13 September 2021. I do not accept the explanations she offered for denying that she had recorded the meeting.
Section 386(1) of the Act allows for dismissal under two distinct limbs, the first being that an employee’s employment is terminated on the employer’s initiative and the second being a resignation forced by the conduct of the employer where the employee had no choice but to resign.
Ms Kolevski submits that she was dismissed under the first limb; that is, that her employer terminated her. She denies resigning, either voluntarily or otherwise.
I do not find that Mr Pickles’ words or conduct during the discussion with Ms Kolevski at the 10 September 2021 meeting or communications later on that day or on 13 September 2021 can be described as a termination of employment by the employer’s initiative.
What ended the employment was Ms Kolevski’s resignation. In my view, objectively considered, Ms Kolevski’s multiple offers of resignation conveyed a clear intention to resign.
Ms Kolevski’s subsequent behaviour, in sending an email and text message at 4:07pm on the day of resignation stating that she had not resigned, and in covertly recording a conversation at the workplace in which she states on multiple occasions that she did not resign, supports the conclusion that she was perhaps trying to create self-serving evidence.
Although Ms Kolevski denies that she resigned at all, let alone “in the heat of the moment”, in light of her being upset and mortified and in leaving her workplace on 10 September 2021 feeling sick, I have considered whether the circumstances of this case fall within those described in Bupa Aged Care Australia Pty Ltd t/a Bupa Aged Care Mosman v
Shahin Tavassoli in which the Full Bench concluded as follows:
“(1) There may be a dismissal within the first limb of the definition in s.386(1)(a) where, although the employee has given an ostensible communication of a resignation, the resignation is not legally effective because it was expressed in the “heat of the moment” or when the employee was in a state of emotional stress or mental confusion such that the employee could not reasonably be understood to be conveying a real intention to resign. Although “jostling” by the employer may contribute to the resignation being legally ineffective, employer conduct is not a necessary element. In this situation if the employer simply treats the ostensible resignation as terminating the employment rather than clarifying or confirming with the employee after a reasonable time that the employee genuinely intended to resign, this may be characterised as a termination of the employment at the initiative of the employer.
(2) A resignation that is “forced” by conduct or a course of conduct on the part of the employer will be a dismissal within the second limb of the definition in s.386(1)(b). The test to be applied here is whether the employer engaged in the conduct with the intention of bringing the employment to an end or whether termination of the employment was the probably result of the employer’s conduct such that the employee had no effective or real choice but to resign. Unlike the situation in (1), the requisite employer conduct is the essential element.”[13]
In considering and applying this passage, I adopt Deputy President Colman in Jack Lipari v YPA Estate Agents Pty Ltd (Lipari) when he said:
“[30] It is clear from this passage that the mere fact that a person resigns in circumstances of heightened tensions or strong emotions will not turn a rash or imprudent decision made by an employee into a dismissal at the initiative of the employer. Rather, if, applying the objective test referred to by the Full Bench, it can be said that the employee could not reasonably be considered to have conveyed a real intention to resign, then there may be a termination on the employer’s initiative if the employer treats the resignation as effective. The conclusion must be that objectively no such intention was evident, not simply that it is fair to allow the employee an opportunity to rethink the matter. There is no statutory ‘cooling off’ period for resignations. It is for the Parliament to create any such rule. The Commission cannot fashion one.”[14]
The contract with IAG was hanging in the balance because Ms Kolevski had undertaken desktop assessments which was a potential breach of the contract between Unique Building and IAG.[15] This issue was discussed at the 10 September 2021 meeting. It was not a meeting that Mr Pickles called. Ms Kolevski had discovered earlier that morning that there was a serious issue with desktop assessments and decided to discuss it with Mr Pickles. It was a tense meeting with heightened emotions. This is quite understandable as there was a lot at stake financially for Unique Building. It is also understandable that in these circumstances Ms Kolevski was “mortified that she had not followed the correct process and that she was upset that she had potentially caused a breach of contract.”[16] Ms Kolevski knew that she had made a serious error. In the course of 15 to 20 minutes she made repeated offers of resignation. Ms Kolevski’s state of upset was not such that she could not reasonably be understood to convey a real intention to resign. That she changed her mind does not affect this. As per Deputy President Coleman in Lipari, “[t]here is no statutory ‘cooling off’ period for resignations.”
An objective and reasonable assessment of the circumstances is that Ms Kolevski chose to resign from her job.
The evidence does not support a finding that Unique Building acted in any way that gave Ms Kolevski no choice but to resign. Ms Kolevski went to see Mr Pickles in the boardroom. She initiated the meeting. Unique Building had made no decisions regarding the matter because it was still under investigation, and they were waiting to hear further from IAG. Unique Building did not suggest that Ms Kolevski resign; that was her suggestion, and she made the offer to resign on multiple occasions.
Conclusion
Ms Kolevski’s employment ended because she resigned from her job and not as a result of any conduct by Unique Building.
Ms Kolevski was not dismissed on the initiative of Unique Building as per s.386 of the Act. Accordingly, Ms Kolevski’s unfair dismissal application is dismissed.
An order to this effect will be issued with the decision.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
Ms N. Kolevski on her own behalf
Mr J. Price for the Respondent
[1] Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) s.385(a).
[2] The Act s.386(2).
[3] Transcript of Determinative Conference conducted on 20 January 2022 at PN267.
[4] Transcript of 13 September 2021 meeting at page 27.
[5] Transcript of Determinative Conference conducted on 20 January 2022 at PN671.
[6] Ibid at PN673.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid at PN680.
[9] Ibid at PN675; PN679.
[10] Ibid at PN338.
[11] Transcript of Determinative Conference conducted on 20 December 2022 at PN180.
[12] Transcript of Determinative Conference conducted on 20 January 2022 at PN267.
[13] Bupa Aged Care Australia Pty Ltd t/a Bupa Aged Care Mosman v Shahin Tavassoli[2017] FWCFB 3941, [47].
[14] Jack Lipari v YPA Estate Agents Pty Ltd [2019] FWC 3546, [30].
[15] Transcript of Determinative Conference conducted on 20 January 2022 at PN671.
[16] Ibid.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR739173>
0