Pawan Punia v UBM Corp Pty Ltd

[2019] FWC 7361

[2019] FWC 7361

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Pawan Punia
v
UBM Corp Pty Ltd
(U2019/4627)

COMMISSIONER YILMAZ MELBOURNE, 15 NOVEMBER 2019

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – minimum employment period – whether the Respondent is a small business – whether interruptions in employment affected the minimum period served.

[1] Mr Pawan Punia lodged an application for an unfair dismissal remedy having been dismissed by UBM Corp Pty Ltd (UBM) due to alleged misconduct. UBM objected to the application on the ground that UBM is a small employer with less than 15 employees, and Mr Punia did not serve the statutory minimum one-year employment period. UBM raised no other jurisdictional objections.

[2] Mr Punia challenged the contention that UBM was a small employer. He argued that UBM had 15 or more employees and he served the statutory minimum six-month period of employment. In any event, Mr Punia argued UBM employed him for at least 12 months.

[3] UBM argued that Mr Punia’s service was subject to broken employment periods because he was terminated and reemployed on at least two occasions. UBM argued the last employment period was 49 days commencing on 12 February 2019 and concluding on 2 April 2019. 1 Mr Punia submitted that his period of employment with UBM was more than three years commencing in January 2015 and concluding on 2 April 2019.2

[4] Both parties were permitted legal representation and the matter was listed to determine the following questions:

1. Had Mr Punia completed the minimum employment period of 12 months if UBM is a small employer or 6 months if UBM is not a small employer?

2. Is UBM a small employer?

[5] Material filed relating to the size of the employer’s business is deficient, so I will deal with the question of minimum employment period first. If Mr Punia served a minimum period of 12 months, a decision relating to size of the business is unnecessary.

The legislation

[6] Sections 382 and 383 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) provides that a person is protected from unfair dismissal if they have completed a minimum employment period of 12 months if the employer is a small business employer, or six months if the employer is not a small business employer. 3 A small business employer is defined as having less than 15 employees.4 The relevant period taken into account in determining the minimum employment period is the period of continuous service and the relevant provisions of the Act are sections 22 and 383. The Act specifies certain absences or breaks that may affect continuity of service.

[7] Counsel for the Respondent referred to the decision of Commissioner Saunders in Troy Harris v Laing O’Rourke Australia Construction Pty Ltd, 5 which carefully reasoned the provisions of the Act that relate to the period of employment relevant to an unfair dismissal application. The relevant provisions to this matter are summarised as follows: 6

1. An employee’s period of employment is the period of continuous service with the employer; 7

2. The period of service does not include certain “excluded” periods; 8

3. The ordinary meaning of continuous service is the unbroken period of employment; 9

4. An excluded period does not break the employee’s “continuous service”, but does not count towards the length of period of service; 10

5. Excluded periods not affecting continuity of employment but not counting as service include periods of unauthorised absences, periods of unpaid leave or unpaid authorised absence. 11

What was Punia’s period of employment?

January 2015 to 30 June 2016

[8] Mr Punia submits he commenced employment on 10 January 2015 as a part-time employee because of his visa work restrictions and full-time from January 2016. 12

[9] UBM submits Mr Punia commenced on 11 February 2015, as a casual employee. 13 However, correspondence from Ms Maishan Shabani dated 21 May 2018 states Mr Punia was employed from 8 January 2015 to that present time.14 Further evidence from Ms Maishan Shabani on UBM letterhead dated 19 June 2018, states that Mr Punia worked part-time from January 2015 to January 2016 and full-time from January 2016 to that present time.15

[10] Mr Punia contends he was employed on a part-time basis until January 2016 because he had a restriction on the number of hours he could work on his visa. On being granted a 457 visa in January 2016 he submits he commenced full-time hours working 7:00 am to 3:30 pm Monday to Friday, and 7:00 am to 2:30 pm Saturday. 16

[11] Both parties tendered a copy of the contract of employment signed by Mr Punia and Mr Armin Shabani as the employer. This contract states that Mr Punia was engaged to work a minimum of 38 hours or more per week subject to the 457 visa being approved. The contract was dated and signed on 27 March 2015, which is after the employment arrangement had commenced. The contract makes no reference to either casual or part-time employment.

[12] The contract of employment tendered in evidence states on the first page that it is for a four year period in the version provided by Mr Punia 17 and two years in the version provided by UBM.18 In the body of both versions of the contract under the heading ‘term and conditions of employment’, it is stated that the minimum term is two years with the possibility of renewal. Neither party addressed this conflicting evidence. Other than this one discrepancy, the document is identical.

[13] UBM submitted evidence from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection dated 27 November 2015 19 confirming its approval of UBM as the employer sponsor of Mr Punia. The correspondence refers to UBM’s obligations as a sponsor and states that UBM must advise the Department of any changes in circumstances, including if Mr Punia ceases employment, within set timeframes.

[14] Other material evidence supporting Mr Punia’s continuity of employment are PAYG summaries 20 for the periods 11 February 2015 to 30 June 2015 and 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016. A further PAYG payment summary covers the period 8 January 2016 to 30 June 2016. Neither party addressed the issue of two PAYG payment summaries dated 8 July 2016 covering the same financial period, albeit with different commencing dates.

[15] On balance, I find the period of employment from 2015 to 30 June 2016 is continuous and counts towards the period of service. In the absence of any evidence supporting the submission that Mr Punia was a casual employee, I rely on the written contract of employment and letter from Ms Maishan Shabani that Mr Punia was a weekly employee. I need not find whether Mr Punia commenced employment in January or February 2015. The period of employment between February 2015 to June 2016 is not in dispute and is in excess of 12 months.

1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017

[16] The period of employment in the financial year 2016/17 is supported with a PAYG payment summary and the period is not in contention. I find this period of 12 months to be a continuous period.

1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018

[17] Mr Punia submits he received a call from his migration agent in March 2018, reporting that his agent received an email from Ms Maishan Shabani that Mr Punia’s employment was terminated on 24 December 2017. Mr Punia states that when he queried this, Ms Maishan Shabani advised him to disregard it. 21

[18] Mr Punia submitted payslips for the period 16 October 2017 to 1 April 2018, which support the submission that the period of employment is continuous. The payslips show that Mr Punia had taken and had been paid 120 annual leave hours, while the rest of the pay was for ordinary hours worked. 22

[19] The PAYG payment summary submitted by Mr Punia covers the complete financial year and the payment of wages sum accords with his full-time salary. The PAYG payment summary does not contain any lump sum payments on termination of employment such as annual leave.

[20] Mr Armin Shabani in his amended witness statement alleges that Mr Punia was terminated on 12 September 2017 (not 24 December as first indicated)  23 and re-employed on 19 June 2018 (not 26 June as originally advised).24 Mr Shabani further in evidence submits that his phone records will show if Mr Punia was terminated and employed. Mr Shabani altered his position again during cross-examination stating that Mr Punia was re-employed in early 2018.25

[21] Mr Shabani described the payments made to Mr Punia between the periods of October 2017 and April 2018 as annual leave and not payments for hours worked. 26

[22] When examined on his employment records, Mr Shabani submits that his phone records of messages and calls to Mr Punia are a more accurate record of employment. 27

[23] I find the evidence of Mr Shabani conflicting and unconvincing. His explanation that the payslips are a record of Mr Punia being paid annual leave on termination as weekly wages is unconvincing and inconsistent with the evidence.

Was Mr Punia’s continuous employment interrupted after 30 June 2018?

[24] Mr Punia submits he continued to work until August 2018, when he was permitted to take leave to visit his family in India. 28 He submits he returned to Melbourne on 24 October 2018, then proceeded to work less hours as he took time for English language study relating to his permanent residency exam. He submits he worked five days between November 2018 and December 2018. He submits his hours of work increased to full time on 20 January 2019.

[25] In cross-examination, Mr Punia submitted that his wages were sometimes more than a month late to explain the absence of payslips covering work he alleges that he performed in November and January 2018. 29 To further support the absence of payslips for these periods he states that he was never paid annual leave, RDOs or public holidays.30 I note the payment of Mr Punia’s hours worked in April 2018 was paid more than a month after he ceased employment. The employment records of UBM submitted in evidence were lacking. They do show that payment of wages was late on at least one occasion which was after Mr Punia was terminated in April 2018, however, the payslips provided show that annual leave was paid.

[26] It is also submitted by Mr Shabani that Mr Punia was terminated again on 26 July 2018 as he did not attend jobs and was not contactable by phone for a few days. 31 This statement is inconsistent with payroll summaries provided by UBM which show that Mr Punia worked in the weeks up to and inclusive of 26 July 2018,32 and it is inconsistent with the amended statement of Mr Rahbar who does not state that he terminated Mr Punia’s employment at that time.33

[27] Under cross-examination, Mr Shabani changed his evidence again stating that Mr Punia was terminated in September 2018. 34 Mr Shabani’s witness evidence lacked any conviction. I find concerning his admission that UBM fabricated documentation to support Mr Punia’s application for a rental property35 and rather than rely on wage records, he asserts that phone messages are an accurate indicator of whether Mr Punia was employed.36

[28] Mr Shabani submits that he is a small business to explain his lack of employment records, I do not accept his explanation. In my opinion Mr Shabani has selectively presented employment records and phone records. Despite submitting that Mr Punia would have received a text message that his employment was terminated in 2018, 37 no text message was presented in evidence.

[29] Mr Shabani altered his position a number of times, he could not recall key dates and events and appeared confused on important facts. I do not find Mr Shabani a reliable witness.

[30] The amended witness statement of Faizan Rahbar 38 does not contain consistent information with Mr Shabani’s statement. While Mr Rahbar amended his statement that Mr Punia was terminated on 12 September 2017 (not 26 July 2018), he states that Mr Shabani agreed to reemploy Mr Punia in February 2019.39 This statement alleges there was a break in employment of 17 months. This statement is also inconsistent with payslips and PAYG summaries provided to Mr Punia, including letters from Ms Maishan Shabani confirming Mr Punia’s employment.

[31] I find Mr Rahbar an unreliable witness concerning Mr Punia’s alleged termination of employment as he states on the one hand, he does not really deal with UBM Corp, but on the other hand he states that he and Mr Shabani make the decisions as to who is employed. 40 Mr Rahbar goes on to explain that while he does not terminate directly, only from the site, he then explains that “we dismissed [Mr Punia] and I know we dismissed him; he wasn’t working. That’s all it was”41. Mr Rahbar is then unable to confirm if Mr Punia was dismissed in July 2018, stating “I think he was. I’m not 100 per cent sure…. It’s hard to keep track of what every single thing that happens” 42.

[32] The evidence of Mr Punia did confirm that there was an interruption to the period of employment when he went to India. Again, the evidence was unclear relating to the precise date when Mr Punia last worked before his trip overseas and his return to work. Payment summaries filed by UBM demonstrate a break in early August 2018 until February 2019. 43 Unfortunately, the payment summaries are not time and wage records and the break does not accord with the PAYG payment summary.

[33] It was not contested that Mr Punia was subject to a subclass 457 visa and UBM was a recognised sponsor. Mr Punia admitted to pursuing an application for permanent residency which is why he presented evidence of his attempts to pass the English examination. Attempts to fulfil the English exam requirements applied while he was absent and immediately on his return to Australia.

[34] No evidence was advanced to confirm if the visa and sponsorship legal obligations continued to apply at this crucial period of interruption to employment. If it had, both parties had clear legal obligations to inform the Department of Immigration if employment was terminated. Failure to inform the Department of Immigration carries serious repercussions for both parties.

[35] However, in March 2018, Ms Maishan Shabani of UBM Group wrote to Mr Punia’s migration agent to advise that he had been terminated in December 2017, and that he had returned seeking his continued employment. 44 This email further seeks advice whether the break would affect the employer sponsorship arrangement. This evidence supports the view that the employment relationship continued to apply subject to employer sponsorship. As previously noted, the email was explained away as confusion, and not relied on by the parties to support the contention that employment was terminated in December 2017. Mr Shabani stated that the termination was not in December but September of 2017, and Mr Punia submitted that he was advised by Ms Maishan Shabani to ignore the email.

[36] No evidence was submitted that the Department of Immigration was informed of a termination of the employer sponsor arrangement at any point in 2018.

[37] It is the period of August 2018 to early 2019 that UBM argue is a termination in the period of employment, while Mr Punia argues the break in employment was a period of authorised absence.

[38] Having carefully considered the materials filed and witness evidence I cannot confidently conclude that Mr Punia’s employment was terminated. The period or part of the period may have been a period of unauthorised leave; however, I cannot confidently find as such. Nevertheless, should the period or some of the period constitute an unauthorised absence, the period would not count towards service, but the overall period of service exceeds a period of 12 months.

Conclusion on Period of employment

[39] It is UBM that advanced the jurisdictional argument; therefore, it bears the onus to satisfy the Commission that Mr Punia was terminated and re-employed in the financial year post 30 June 2018. Mr Shabani relies on his phone records and ignores his own business employment records that do not accord with his own testimony. I find that UBM did not provide any convincing evidence that Mr Punia was terminated then re-employed and it did not persuade me that Mr Punia did not complete the minimum 12 months employment period.

Is UBM a small employer?

[40] Although I have found that UBM did not make out its jurisdictional objection in respect to Mr Punia’s period of employment, I make the following comments on the issue of whether UBM is a small business employer. On 24 July 2019, I issued an order that UBM produce company records from the ASIC Register for UBM Services Pty Ltd, UBM Group Pty Ltd and UBM Plastering Pty Ltd, including payroll records for UBM Corp Pty Ltd for the period 1 March 2019 to 30 April 2019 with employee names and sensitive information redacted.

[41] It was contended that the three companies may be associated with UBM Corp Pty Ltd which is relevant to the question whether UBM Corp Pty Ltd is a small business.

[42] In summary the production of ASIC company records demonstrates:

UBM Corp Pty Ltd

The UBM Corp Pty Ltd 45 records indicate that the Director is listed as Mr Armin Shabani from 25 August 2014. The previous Directors are listed as Aryan Shabani and Tom Kotsimbos. This is the company that employed Mr Punia as a painter.

UBM Plastering Pty Ltd

The UBM Plastering Pty Ltd 46 records show the Director is also Mr Armin Shabani since its inception on 14 September 2011. Evidence advanced from the accountant RDV Business Solutions was that the company had not traded for over 12 months and that it has no assets, liabilities or employees.

UBM Services Pty Ltd

The ASIC record for UBM Services Pty Ltd 47 lists the Director as Mr Amin Shabani, the father of Mr Armin Shabani. This company commenced on 26 June 2015. It is argued by UBM that this company is not an associated entity, although it was admitted that UBM Corp Pty Ltd relies on administrative support from this company.

UBM Group Pty Ltd

The Director of UBM Group Pty Ltd 48 is Mona Shabani and it is alleged that this company does not trade and has no assets or liabilities. Mona has been the Director since 28 February 2012 and previous directors included Armin, Aryan and Tom Kotsimbos, all on the day of 28 February 2012.

A letter produced from RDV Business Solutions states that it “confirms UBM Group Pty Ltd did not trade and this company currently has no assets or liabilities” 49. If this statement is correct, it infers the company is no more than a shelf company.

Are the four companies associated entities?

[43] I note that all four companies have the registered office address of the accountant RDV Business Solutions and operate from 56 Korong Road Heidelberg West.

[44] The interest in each company by the company representatives infers that the companies are associated. Ms Maishan Shabani holds herself as a representative of UBM Corp in various correspondence including the Form F3 to this application and provides her email address as [email protected]. Correspondence relating to Mr Punia’s employment is signed off by Ms Maishan Shabani as Account/Office Manager and contains the UBM Group email. 50 Ms Maishan also interviewed Mr Punia for the job jointly with Mr Shabani.51

[45] There appears to be a sharing of resources, material interest, and control and influence between the four entities.

[46] Evidence advanced from UMB was that UBM Plastering and UBM Group have not traded, it is therefore peculiar that UBM Plastering and UBM Group have been subject to credit enquiries in the last 12 months (4/7 since inception and 1/3 respectfully).

[47] Evidence advanced demonstrates that both Ms Maishan Shabani and Ms Joyce Phan sign off with employee titles for UBM Group.

[48] Mr Faizan Rahbar is the operations manager of UBM Services and reports to Amin Shabani (not Armin Shabani of UBM Corp) and in his role he supervises workers on work sites. Mr Punia reported to him and was dismissed by him, even though Mr Punia was employed by UBM Corp. 52 It is curious that if the companies are not associated, what authority did Mr Faizan have to dismiss Mr Punia?

[49] While it appears on the face of it that the entities are associated, it is unclear what is the total number of employees across the four businesses.

Does UBM employ less than 15 employees?

[50] UBM listed six employees engaged full-time and part-time at the time of Mr Punia’s termination of employment. The six included Mr Punia, and Mr Armin Shabani, Director. 53 The list of five employees was consistent with the list contained in UBM Corp’s Payroll Activity Summary submitted, excluding Armin Shabani.54

[51] During proceedings, other names were raised, and the witness Mr Vinay Kumar for the Applicant alleged there were between 10-15 other UBM workers 55 at the Box Hill site on his last day of employment, which was also the last day Mr Punia worked for UBM. Mr Kumar states he cannot recall the names of those present as he was new to that job but describes the workers as a combination of Indian and Iranian workers.

[52] Mr Kumar could not confirm which UBM company the employees belonged to. Mr Faizan Rahbar proclaimed that the workers on site during the Golden Age project in Box Hill were not all employed by UBM Corp, claiming most employees were engaged by UBM Services. 56

[53] During proceedings and in materials tendered, the following names appeared or were mentioned, which is relevant to the question whether UBM is a small employer:

•  Nosheen and Ms Maisham Shabani appear to be the same person, the mother of Mr Armin Shabani that allegedly was not paid by UBM Corp Pty Ltd, but assisted the business when required

•  Ms Mona Shabani is likely a relative of Mr Armin Shabani and is younger by four years

•  Tracy was allegedly employed by UBM Services and assisted Mr Armin Shabani with administrative/ payroll tasks when required

•  Tom was referred to by Mr Punia in a text message seeking that he clear Mr Punia’s wages. 57 It is unclear whether Tom is the same person referred to in ASIC company records

•  Ms Joyce Phan was the accountant at UBM Group

•  Aryan Shabani – no evidence was advanced to confirm this person’s role in either company, other than being a former director of UBM Group and UBM Corp

•  Mr Faizan Rahbar is the Operations/ Project Manager of UBM Services. Mr Punia reported to Mr Rahbar. Mr Rahbar’s witness statement had been amended to state that he was employed by UBM Services, while originally it stated he was employed by the UBM Group of Companies which includes UBM Corp Pty Ltd 58

•  Mr Amin Shabani Director of UBM Services and father of Mr Armin Shabani

•  Mr Vinay Kumar appeared as a witness for the Applicant. In his witness statement he stated that he was employed by UBM Corp Pty Ltd. 59 During cross-examination he conceded to not being sure whether he was employed by UMB Corp or UBM Services accepting he only knew he was engaged by “UBM something”60. Mr Kumar did not provide any payslips because he never received any and UBM did not confirm the employing entity.61 The list of employees produced by the Respondent did not contain Mr Kumar’s name.

[54] Insufficient evidence was advanced to clarify the nature of engagement of several of the above individuals. Nevertheless, I am not persuaded from the evidence of UBM that UBM employed solely the six employees referred to in their materials, 62 which goes to the question of size of business.

Conclusion on size of the business

[55] UBM’s evidence failed to credibly satisfy me that it only employed six employees and was not an associated entity with the three other UBM companies. However, if I was to draw the conclusion that the above names are or were employees of UBM Corp Pty Ltd at the relevant time, or all four UBM companies are associated entities, then for the purposes of the headcount there is potentially 15 employees employed by the business entity. This number does not incidentally include any other painters engaged to work on site and does not consider any other related entities that UBM may have.

[56] A small business employer is defined as a business having fewer than 15 employees 63 and the total number of employees is based on headcount regardless of whether they are full-time, part-time or regular and systematic casuals.

[57] Mr Punia argues that UBM is not a small employer because at the time of the dismissal there were three painting sites; Box Hill, Glen Waverley and Chadstone. It was also submitted that there were around 12 painters in Box Hill, three to four in Glen Waverley and seven to eight at the Chadstone site. 64

[58] I cannot confidentially conclude that UBM has satisfied me that it is a small employer.

Conclusions and Order

[59] This matter requires consideration of the following questions to determine whether the employer’s jurisdictional objection has legs.

1. Had Mr Punia completed the minimum employment period of 12 months if UBM is a small employer or 6 months if UBM is not a small employer?

2. Is UBM a small employer?

[60] Mr Punia was employed in 2015, and both parties stated that he was engaged under an employer sponsored visa arrangement.

[61] Even though UBM argues that Mr Punia’s employment consisted of at least two other breaks in his employment, no reliable evidence was advanced to satisfy this contention.

[62] The evidence of Mr Punia also has its shortfalls with limited evidence of payslips or his alleged authorised absence to travel to India.

[63] There were no employment records or pay records to account for the period August 2018 to January 2019, however, the employer submits Mr Punia returned to work in February 2019 and a payment summary confirms this.

[64] UBM provided no evidence to support the contention that Mr Punia’s employment was terminated or that any of the alleged terminations were communicated to him except for 2 April 2019. For a termination to be effective it must be communicated to the employee. The only evidence of a termination of employment that can be relied on is the termination on 2 April 2019. Consequently, I find that Mr Punia served the required period of employment of 12 months.

[65] UBM failed to provide reliable evidence to support the contention that the business is a small employer. The evidence infers that the four businesses are associated entities and the number of individuals referred to accounts for 15 without any consideration of painters employed by UBM Services or any other related entity to perform the work. In any event, it is unnecessary for me to determine whether UBM is a small employer as I have already found that Mr Punia served a period of more than 12 months continuous employment.

[66] While I have expressed a view regarding the reliability of the evidence from Mr Shabani and Mr Faizan Rahbar, I also find that the evidence of Mr Punia is lacking in consistency and candour. It appears that the relationship between the parties was self-serving, the informal arrangements were convenient to both parties; UBM required painters and Mr Punia required an employer sponsor to gain permanent residency. There were times when business was quiet and painters not required; Mr Punia needed time to visit his family in India and time to concentrate on passing his English exam for permanent residency. Consequently, I find this is most likely the reason the evidence and lack of it provided little assistance to UBM to advance their jurisdictional arguments.

[67] The Respondent bears the onus to advance their jurisdictional argument and I do not accept it has done so reliably. On this basis I find that Mr Punia had served the minimum employment period. Further, should I be wrong that the four businesses are associated entities and collectively there are 15 or more employees, there is no evidence to support the contention that Mr Punia’s continuity of employment has been broken since his engagement with UBM, which is a period greater than 12 months.

[68] I dismiss the jurisdictional argument that Mr Punia has not completed the minimum employment period requirement.

[69] The application will be programmed for arbitration and the parties will be advised of the time and date in due course.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Mr J Tierney counsel for the Applicant

Mr R Millar counsel for the Respondent

Hearing details:

2019.

Melbourne.

26 July; 12 August.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR713677>

 1 F3 Employer Response Form at Q1.2-Q1.3; Respondent’s Outline of Argument filed 24 June 2019 at Q2a-Q2b.

 2   Applicant’s Outline of Argument at [20]-[21].

 3   Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss.382; 383.

 4 Ibid at s.23.

 5   [2017] FWC 1204.

 6 Ibid at [8].

 7   Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.384(1).

 8   Ibid ss.12; 22.

 9   Holland v UGL Resources Pty Ltd[2012] FWA 3453 at [20].

 10   Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.22(3).

 11   Ibid s.22(2).

 12 Exhibit A2 at [12].

 13 Exhibit R9 at [2].

 14   Exhibit A2 at PP-2.

 15   Exhibit A2 t PP-3.

 16 Exhibit A2 at [12].

 17   Exhibit A2 at PP-1.

 18   Respondent’s Outline of Argument at Attachment 2.

 19   Ibid at Attachment 3.

 20   Exhibit A2 at PP-4.

 21   Exhibit A2 at [38]-[41].

 22   Ibid at PP-5.

 23 Exhibit R9 at [8].

 24   Transcript of proceedings, 12 August 2019 at PN312.

 25   Ibid at PN317.

 26   Ibid at PN357-PN364.

 27   Ibid at PN176-PN177, PN312, PN317.

 28 Exhibit A2 at [29].

 29   Transcript of proceedings, 12 August 2019 at PN1056-PN1059; PN1101.

 30   Ibid at PN1106.

 31 Ibid at PN383; Exhibit R9 at [13].

 32   Exhibit R8.

 33   Exhibit R10.

 34   Transcript of proceedings, 12 August 2019 at PN310.

 35   Transcript of proceedings,12 August 2019 at PN299-PN303.

 36   Ibid at PN312-PN317; PN322.

 37   Ibid at PN416 – PN422.

 38   Exhibit R10.

 39   Ibid at [12]-[14].

 40   Transcript of proceedings,12 August 2019 at PN614-PN617; PN678-PN679.

 41   Ibid at PN686.

 42   Ibid at PN688.

 43   Respondent’s Outline of Argument at Attachment 5.

 44   Ibid at Attachment 4.

 45   Exhibit R2.

 46   Exhibit R4.

 47   Exhibit R5.

 48   Exhibit R3.

 49   Exhibit R6.

 50   Exhibit A2 at PP-2; PP-3.

 51   Ibid at [9]-[10].

 52 Exhibit R10 at [3]; [19].

 53   Respondent Outline of Argument at Q2v.

 54   Exhibit R1.

 55 Exhibit A1 at [5].

 56   Transcript of proceedings,12 August 2019 at PN741-PN746.

 57   Form F3 at Attachment 1.

 58 Exhibit R10 at [1].

 59 Exhibit A1 at [3].

 60   Transcript of proceedings,12 August 2019 at PN825-PN828.

 61   Ibid at PN826 - PN831.

 62   Exhibit R1; Respondent’s Outline of Argument at Q2v.

 63   Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.23.

 64   Applicant Outline of Argument at [29]-[32].