Rasanpreet Kaur v Legacy Medical Pty Ltd T/A Active Medical
[2023] FWC 1181
•19 MAY 2023
| [2023] FWC 1181 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Rasanpreet Kaur
v
Legacy Medical Pty Ltd T/A Active Medical
(U2023/1495)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON | MELBOURNE, 19 MAY 2023 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – jurisdictional objections – whether minimum employment period met – whether dismissal consistent with small business fair dismissal code – employer found to not be a small business employer – minimum employment period of six months met – jurisdictional objections dismissed.
Introduction
On 24 February 2023, Ms Rasanpreet Kaur (the Applicant) lodged an application pursuant to s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) in which she asserts that the termination of her employment with Legacy Medical Pty Ltd T/A Active Medical (the Respondent) on 23 February 2023 was unfair. The Applicant seeks an order for compensation.
On 3 March 2023, the Respondent filed its Form F3 response to the unfair dismissal application in which it raised two jurisdictional objections to the application, that being the employer is a small business employer and the employer complied with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code and that the Applicant’s employment does not meet the minimum employment period (the MEP). As a result of not meeting the MEP of one year, the Respondent contends that the Applicant is not a person protected from unfair dismissal and is therefore not entitled to pursue relief for her claimed unfair dismissal under the Act.
The matter was listed for determinative conference/hearing before me on 15 May 2023 to determine the Respondent’s jurisdictional objections and the merits of the application. Materials were filed by the Applicant and Respondent in accordance with directions issued by the Commission. After hearing from the parties, I determined to conduct a hearing pursuant to s 399 of the Act.
The Applicant appeared on her own behalf and gave evidence at the hearing/conference while the Respondent was represented by Nick Duggal of Moray & Agnew Lawyers who was granted permission to appear pursuant to s 596 of the Act. Mr Duggal called Raphael Sammut, the Managing Director and owner of the Respondent, and Ms Faustina Carron, the Practice Manager, to give evidence.
While the matter was originally listed for hearing of both the Respondent’s jurisdictional objections and the merits of the unfair dismissal applications on 15 May 2023, it became apparent through the course of the hearing that further evidence would need to be adduced in respect of matters critical to the resolution of factual contests going to the merits of the application. Consequently, this decision deals only with the jurisdictional objections raised by the Respondent.
Background and evidence
Applicant’s employment
The Respondent is a bulk billing general medical practice located in Caroline Springs[1] and operates seven days per week. Mr Sammut is the owner and Managing Director of the business. According to Mr Sammut, the Respondent does not employ Doctors and allied health practitioners (Practitioners). Rather, Practitioners use the Respondent’s rooms and equipment to consult with patients that the Respondent books for them and the Practitioners pay a service fee on invoice issued by the Respondent for the administrative services the Respondent provides. Each Practitioner is registered for GST and in possession of an Australian Business Number (ABN)[2].
On 10 June 2022, the Applicant commenced employment with the Respondent on a casual basis in the position of medical receptionist. The hours of work in the Employment Agreement[3] (the Casual Employment Agreement) which the Applicant accepted and signed on 10 June 2022, provided at clause 5 that hours will “vary according to the operational requirements of Active Medical”. Mr Sammut states that during the period the Applicant was engaged on a casual basis from 10 June – 7 August 2022, she worked an average of 50 hours per fortnight[4].
On 4 August 2022, the Applicant received an offer to move to permanent employment which she accepted and signed on 5 August 2022[5] (the Full Time Employment Agreement) with the commencement date in the full-time role being 8 August 2022. The Full Time Employment Agreement stated that the Applicant’s employment was ‘governed’ by the Health Professionals and Support Services Award 2010 and provided for a base ordinary hourly rate of pay for Monday-Friday of $25.60.
On 5 February 2023, the Applicant sent an email (5 February Email) to Ms Carron and Mr Sammut requesting urgent leave as she needed to travel to India to see her sick mother. In the email the Applicant advised that she was departing on 6 February 2023 and had only purchased a departure ticket at that stage and would not be available to attend work from the following morning[6].
On 10 February 2023, Ms Carron received an email from the Applicant in which the Applicant stated she would return to work on 22 or 23 February 2023. According to Mr Sammut, the Applicant called in sick on 22 February 2023 and returned from leave on 23 February 2023[7].
On 23 February 2023, Mr Sammut and Ms Carron met with the Applicant on her return to the office to advise her that the Respondent had decided to terminate the Applicant’s employment during the probationary period. The Applicant subsequently received on 23 February 2022 a letter dated 6 February 2023[8] confirming the termination of her employment (the Letter of Termination). The termination of employment took immediate effect and the Applicant received one week’s pay in lieu of notice. The Letter of Termination relevantly stated as follows;
“………….
It is with regret that we inform you that we will not be continuing your employment with Active Medical.
You commenced working with us on the 8th August 2022 in a full time role and we wish to thank you for your contribution made at Active Medical during that time. We wish you the best of luck in the future.
As you are still within your six-month probationary period, please accept this as your oneweek termination notice and you will be paid one week in lieu of the notice period. You will not be required to attend the practice any further.
Please note the following entitlements that will be shown on your final pay slip:
Normal hours worked - TBA
Notice Period - 38 hours
Accrued annual leave - TBA
Deduction for Uniform provided (if unreturned by 5/3/2023) - $66.45
Once again, thank you for your work with us and we hope that you will be able to look back upon your time with us as a positive experience.
………………”
Employees of Respondent
Mr Sammut gave evidence that at the date of the Applicant’s dismissal on 23 February 2023 the Respondent employed 12 staff, comprising seven full-time, one part-time and three casual employees, those numbers including the Applicant[9]. Mr Sammut also identified another employee “MB” who was not included in the 12 staff due to her having commenced parental leave on 15 December 2022, was on unpaid parental leave on 23 February 2023 and at the date of hearing remained on unpaid parental leave[10]. The Respondent properly conceded however during closing submissions on the jurisdictional objection that MB was an employee for the purpose of counting the number of employees engaged at the date of the Applicant’s dismissal, thus bringing the number of employees to 13.
Mr Sammut gave further evidence in relation to several other casual employees identified as “MU”, “PC”, “JR”, “RE” and “SC” who cover nursing and reception staff when required. They were not included in the staff numbers referred to above as Mr Sammut states they were not regularly and systematically engaged by the Respondent at 23 February 2023. Both Mr Sammut and Ms Carron gave evidence that the five casuals are engaged to cover various absences arising from personal and annual leave as well as covering gaps in staffing created by resignations. The details of these casuals are set out below and the hours and days that they worked is set out in an annexure to Mr Sammut’s witness statement[11].
MU commenced with the Respondent as a Casual Practice Nurse on 16 May 2022[12] and completed 31 shifts in the period from 24 August 2022 to 3 January 2023. According to Mr Sammut, MU works for another employer and has not worked for the Respondent since 3 January 2023[13]. MU’s limited availability is revealed by text messages exchanged with her regarding her availability[14].
PC is engaged on a casual basis by the Respondent as an on-call nurse and is employed elsewhere by another employer in a full-time position[15]. In the period from 26 August 2022 to 23 February 2023, PC worked 43 shifts totalling 328 hours with an average shift length of 7.5 hours. She worked every week in the period up to 23 January 2023 following which she did not work again until 7 March 2023[16]. Mr Sammut states there is variability in PC’s availability due to other commitments[17] which is revealed by text messages exchanged with her regarding her availability[18].
JR has been engaged on a casual basis as a medical receptionist for the Respondent, works full-time for another employer and has limited availability[19]. In the 25-week period between 28 August 2022 and 23 February 2023, JR worked 21 shifts in this period of an average shift length of 7.5 hours. There were several weeks in that period where she did not work for the Respondent including a 3-week period from 4 – 24 December 2022 and a 2-week period from 5 February – 23 February 2023[20]. JR then worked for the Respondent on 13 & 18 March 2023 and then not again until 7 & 8 April 2023. There are currently no further shifts scheduled for JR[21]. JR’s limited availability is revealed by text messages exchanged with her regarding her availability[22].
RE is a university student that has been engaged on a casual basis as a medical receptionist for the Respondent and worked 62 shifts between 23 August 2022 and 23 February 2023 totalling 433 hours. Over that 26-week period RE worked an average of 16 hours per week and between 2-3 shifts per week. She worked every week during that period save for the 6-week period from 26 December 2022 to 7 February 2023 when she worked no shifts[23]. Mr Sammut states that she had been called in to previously cover shifts because of the Applicant’s absences and more recently the resignations of two other staff which the Respondent is looking to replace permanently[24]. He states that the limited availability of RE is due to her university commitments and is revealed by text messages exchanged with her regarding her availability[25].
SC was previously employed as a full-time medical receptionist but resigned with effect on 26 October 2022[26] to commence employment elsewhere but opted to remain as an irregular casual employee following her resignation. Following her resignation as a full-time employee SC worked 13 shifts between 26 October 2022 and 23 February 2023, the last shift being 12 February 2023[27]. In that period SC did not work between 3 November – 2 December 2022, worked one shift on 3 December 2022, worked one shift on 26 December 2022, worked six shifts in January and one on 12 February 2023 and has not worked since.
Each of the five casuals referred to above entered into casual contracts of employment reflected in ‘Employment Agreements’[28] that contained similar terms. Relevantly, the Employment Agreements each state that “The hours of work will be rostered on a fortnightly basis and will vary according to the operational requirements of Active Medical” and that casual employees were also “required to notify your Manager of your availability and any changes to your availability during your employment”. The Employment Agreements identified the following commencement dates of the five casual employees, MU, PC, JR, RE and SC;
MU – 16 May 2022
PC – 22 February 2021
JR – 23 June 2020
RE – 20 October 2021
SC – 31 October 2022
Has the Applicant been dismissed?
A threshold issue to determine is whether the Applicant has been dismissed from her employment. Section 386(1) of the Act provides that the Applicant has been dismissed if:
(a)the Applicant’s employment with the Respondent was terminated at the Respondent’s initiative; or
(b)the Applicant resigned from her employment but was forced to do so because of conduct, or a course of conduct, engaged in by the Respondent.
Section 386(2) of the Act sets out circumstances where an employee has not been dismissed, none of which are presently relevant. There was no dispute and I find that the Applicant’s employment with the Respondent terminated at the initiative of the Respondent.
Initial matters
Under section 396 of the Act, the Commission is obliged to decide the following matters before considering the merits of the application:
(a)whether the application was made within the period required in subsection 394(2);
(b)whether the person was protected from unfair dismissal;
(c)whether the dismissal was consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code; and
(d)whether the dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy.
Relevant to the determination of the preliminary matters I am satisfied that;
·the Applicant was dismissed on 23 February 2023 and filed her unfair dismissal application on 24 February 2023, that latter date being within 21 days of the date of her dismissal;
·the Applicant was covered in her employment by the Health Professionals and Support Services Award 2020 and was in receipt of an ordinary hourly rate of pay of $25.60 at the time of her dismissal; and
·the Applicant was not dismissed due to the Respondent no longer requiring the Applicant’s job to be performed by anyone because of changes in the operational requirements of the Respondent’s enterprise.
I am satisfied that the application was made within the required period in subsection 394(2), and the dismissal was not a genuine redundancy. I now turn to the remaining preliminary matters to be dealt with. Those matters are whether the Applicant was a person protected from unfair dismissal, specifically whether she had met the MEP, and whether the dismissal was consistent with the small business fair dismissal code.
Minimum Employment Period
The evidence set out above reveals that the Applicant commenced employment as a casual employee with the Respondent on 10 June 2022 and moved to a full-time role on 8 August 2022. On the basis of the hours worked by the Applicant between 10 June – 8 August 2022, I am satisfied that the Applicant was engaged on a regular and systematic basis and would have had an expectation of ongoing employment in the period from 10 June 2022 to 8 August 2022. Consequently, I am satisfied that period of casual employment of two months should be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the Applicant’s period of employment with the Respondent. The Applicant then served a further period of 6 months and two weeks as a full-time employee, bringing her total period of employment to that of approximately 8 months and two weeks.
As earlier stated, the Respondent contends that the Applicant has not met the MEP on the basis that the Respondent is a small business employer. Relevantly, the MEP is one year for a small business employer and six months for other employers as set out in s 383 of the Act as follows:
“383 Meaning of minimum employment period
The minimum employment period is:
(a) if the employer is not a small business employer—6 months ending at the earlier of the following times:
(i) the time when the person is given notice of the dismissal;
(ii) immediately before the dismissal; or
(b) if the employer is a small business employer—one year ending at that time.”
To determine whether the Respondent is a small business employer it is necessary to do so by reference to the meaning of term, ‘small business employer’ which is set out at s 23 of the Act in the following terms;
“23 Meaning of small business employer
(1) A national system employer is a small business employer at a particular time if the employer employs fewer than 15 employees at that time.
(2) For the purpose of calculating the number of employees employed by the employer at a particular time:
(a)subject to paragraph (b), all employees employed by the employer at that time are to be counted; and
(b)a casual employee is not to be counted unless, at that time, the employee is a regular casual employee of the employer.
(3) For the purpose of calculating the number of employees employed by the employer at a particular time, associated entities are taken to be one entity.
(3) To avoid doubt, in determining whether a national system employer is a small business employer at a particular time in relation to the dismissal of an employee, or termination of an employee’s employment, the employees that are to be counted include (subject to paragraph (2)(b)):
(a)the employee who is being dismissed or whose employment is being terminated; and
(b) any other employee of the employer who is also being dismissed or whose employment is also being terminated.” (my emphasis added)
There are a number of casuals that the Respondent contends should not be included in the calculation of employee numbers for the purpose of determining whether the Respondent employed less than 15 employees at the time of the Applicant’s dismissal. As made clear by s 23(2)(b) of the Act, it is only ‘regular casual employees’ at the time of the Applicant’s dismissal that are to be counted in the number of employees. Relevantly, the term ‘regular casual employee’ referred to in s 23(2)(b) is defined as follows in s 12 of the Act;
“…………..
regular casual employee: a national system employee of a national system employer is a regular casual employee at a particular time if, at that time:
(a) the employee is a casual employee; and
(b) the employee has been employed by the employer on a regular and systematic basis.
……………..”
It follows from the foregoing that in calculating the number of employees at the time of the Applicant’s dismissal for the purpose of determining whether the Respondent was a small business employer, it is necessary for me to include only those casuals who had been employed on a regular and systematic basis at that time. It is to that task I turn.
It was not contested by the Applicant, and I am satisfied that, excluding the casual employees MU, PC, JR, RE and SC which I will shortly deal with, there were 13 employees employed at 23 February 2023. That number included seven full time staff members (including the Applicant), one part-time staff member, three casual employees and one full-time staff member who was on maternity leave at that time and currently remains on maternity leave.
Before turning to consider whether any of the remaining five casual employees were regularly and systematically engaged at the time of the Applicant’s dismissal, it is necessary to briefly refer to some authorities dealing with the meaning of ‘regular and systematic’ casual employment. The oft cited authority relied on in both Full Bench and single member decisions of the Commission is that of Yaraka Holdings Pty Ltd v Giljevic[29] (Yaraka). In that decision the Court of Appeal of the ACT held that it is the “engagement that must be regular and systematic; not the hours worked pursuant to such engagement”[30] and went on to say as follows;
“[68] The term "regular" should be construed liberally. It may be accepted, as the Magistrate did, that it is intended to imply some form of repetitive pattern rather than being used as a synonym for "frequent" or "often". However, equally, it is not used in the section as a synonym for words such as "uniform" or "constant"……”[31]
It is also apparent from the Full Bench authority of Chandler v Bed Bath N’ Table Pty Ltd[32] (Chandler) that it would be wrong to treat the degree of regularity in the pattern of the hours worked by a casual employee as decisive, “(rather than merely as one of a number of relevant considerations in the analysis)”[33] Further, a Full Bench in Bronze Hospitality Pty Ltd v Janell Hanson[34] (Bronze Hospitality) cautioned that Yaraka does not stand for the proposition that the hours worked by a casual employee are analytically unimportant and that “Clearly, the days on which a person works and the hours worked on those days are relevant to the consideration of whether casual employment is regular and systematic,…..”[35] I discern from the authorities referred to that in determining whether a particular casual employee was regularly and systematically engaged, all of the circumstances of the casual employment must be taken into account including, the periods of engagement, the hours worked, the frequency of the work, whether there is a pattern or system to the engagements, the contractual terms and the working relationship.
Returning to the five casual employees that the Respondent contends are not ‘regular casual employees’ as defined in s 12 of the Act I commence by considering SC. As set out above, SC resigned with effect from her permanent employment with the Respondent on 26 October 2022 to take up full-time employment with another employer. Prior to her resignation she was employed as a full-time medical receptionist. On resignation SC did however agree to continue to work for the Respondent on a casual basis commencing on 31 October 2022, her availability being subject to her commitments to her other employment.
Since SC commenced as a casual employee on 31 October 2022, she has worked 10 shifts, the last of which was worked on 12 February 2023 and no shifts have been worked since. She did not work any shifts from 3 November to 2 December 2022, from 3 December to 25 December 2022 and from 26 December 2022 to 6 January 2023. She worked six shifts between 7 January and 31 January 2023 and one further shift between that later date and 23 February 2023. The total number of hours worked between 31 October and 23 February is that of 77 hours which over the 16-week period from 31 October 2022 to 23 February 2023 is an average of 4.8 hours per week.
I readily accept that the total number of hours per week is not determinative of whether SC can be regarded as a casual employee engaged on a regular and systematic basis. However, taking into account the limited number of hours worked in the period by SC, the absence of any apparent system or pattern of engagement, the long breaks between engagements, the fact that SC is employed on a full-time basis by another employer thus limiting her availability to work for the Respondent and that she has not worked since 12 February 2023, I am satisfied that SC was not engaged on a regular and systematic basis at the time of the Applicant’s dismissal. As SC was not a ‘regular casual employee’ at 23 February 2023, she is not to be included in the Respondent’s employee numbers at that date.
Turning to MU, she commenced employment with the Respondent on 16 May 2022 as a casual practice nurse and in the period between 31 August 2022 and 23 February 2023 worked 31 shifts, the last of which was worked on 3 January 2023. MU’s availability has been more recently impacted by her work for another employer. In the period prior to 23 December 2022, it is apparent that she worked on a regular basis, working shifts in all but one of the weeks between 31 August and 23 December 2022 and averaged 7.5 hours per week over that period. Since 23 December 2022 however she has only worked two shifts totalling 14.5 hours. Having regard to MU’s limited recent availability and the fact that she has only worked two shifts since 23 December 2022, the last one being 3 January 2023, I am not satisfied that MU was a ‘regular casual employee’ at the date of the Applicant’s dismissal. It follows that she is not to be included in the Respondent’s employee numbers at 23 February 2023.
JR commenced as a casual medical receptionist on 23 June 2020, works full-time for another employer and is said to have limited availability which is reflected in a text message exchange in February 2023 where JR indicated that she was unable to work shifts during weekdays and was only available on weekends[36]. In the 25-week period between 28 August 2022 and 23 February 2023 JR worked 21 shifts totalling 159.25 hours which averaged 6.4 hours per week. In that 25-week period there were a number of weeks in which JR was not engaged, those weeks being from 5 – 25 September 2022 (three-week period), 14 – 20 October 2022 (one-week period), 5 – 18 December 2022 (two-week period), 9-15 January 2023 (one-week period) and 6 – 12 February 2023 (one week period).
Looking more closely at JR’s engagements, of the 21 shifts worked, 18 shifts were worked on either a Saturday, Sunday, or in one case on a public holiday (2 January 2023). This reinforces the evidence that JR’s availability is generally limited to working weekends. I am satisfied on the evidence that JR was engaged on a regular basis over the period between 28 August 2022 – 23 February 2023 notwithstanding there were periods in which she did not work. I am further satisfied that there was a ‘pattern’ to her engagements in that she was engaged to cover weekend absences. Also taking into account the longevity of JR’s employment with the Respondent which commenced in June 2020, the terms of the Employment Agreement, the frequency of engagements, average shift length and the recurring pattern of weekend work, I am satisfied that JR was a ‘regular casual employee’ at the date of the Applicant’s dismissal. It follows that JR is to be included in the Respondent’s employee numbers at 23 February 2023.
PC commenced with the Respondent as a casual practice nurse in February 2021. Her engagements from 26 August 2022 to 23 February 2023 are summarised above at [15] and reveals that she worked 43 shifts, totalling 328 hours averaging 7.5 hours per shift in that period. I note that she did not work any shifts in the period from 23 January – 7 March 2023 and while no explanation was provided for that hiatus in engagements, PC appears to have resumed working shifts on 7 March 2023.
The Respondent contends that PC’s shifts are variable and impacted by other commitments. That contention is not however borne out by the number of hours worked, the consistency of engagement and the pattern of those engagements between 23 August 2022 and 23 January 2023. She worked every week in that period with 35 of the 43 shifts being worked on a weekday while 8 shifts were worked on a weekend. In the 21-week period from 26 August 2022 to 23 January 2023 PC worked on average 2 shifts per week.
Having regard to PC’s period of service as a casual employee, the terms of her Employment Agreement, her resumption of shifts on 7 March 2023 after a break of six weeks and the frequency as well as the pattern of engagements between 26 August 2022 – 23 January 2023, I am satisfied that PC was a ‘regular casual employee’ at 23 February 2023. It follows that she should be included in the Respondent’s employee numbers at 23 February 2023.
Turning finally to RE, she commenced as a casual medical receptionist for the Respondent on 20 October 2021. The hours and shifts worked by RE between 23 August 2022 and 23 February 2023 are summarised above at [17]. On any view, RE’s engagements have been regular and systematic. She worked a total of 433 hours over 62 shifts which averaged 6.9 hours per shift. She worked every week in the above-referred period except the 6-week period between 22 December 2022 and 7 February 2023. If one excludes that 6-week period, RE worked an average of over three shifts per week in the other 20 weeks between 23 August 2022 and 23 February 2023.
The Respondent contends that RE’s availability is limited because of her university commitments. That submission cannot be squared with the actual hours and shifts RE worked, noting that the only break she actually took from working shifts for the Respondent fell during January 2023 which is a period during which university would be on its long Christmas/New Year break. In any case, RE resumed working shifts on 7 February 2023 following which a consistent pattern of weekly shifts resumed. I am satisfied that RE was a ‘regular casual employee’ at the date of the Applicant’s dismissal. Therefore, RE should be included in the Respondent’s employee numbers.
Based on the forgoing analysis I am satisfied that at the time of the Applicant’s dismissal, the three casual employees RE, PC and JR were ‘regular casual employees’ and therefore should also be included in the number of employees employed by the Respondent at 23 February 2023. When those three employees are added to the earlier referenced uncontested employee numbers of 13, it brings the total number of employees employed by the Respondent at 23 February 2023 to 16. That means that the Respondent was not a small business employer at that date, therefore the MEP required to have been served by the Applicant was six months and not twelve months as contended by the Respondent. As previously stated at [25], I am satisfied the Applicant’s period of employment with the Respondent was 8 months and 2 weeks. Consequently, she has met the MEP of six months. It follows that she was protected from unfair dismissal.
For the sake of completeness it is necessary to also confirm that because the Respondent was not a small business employer at the time of the Applicant’s dismissal, the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code is not relevant.
Conclusion
Having found that the Respondent was not a small business employer at the time of the Applicant’s dismissal, the Applicant has completed the minimum employment period of 6 months with the Respondent at the time of her dismissal (s.382(a) of the Act). I therefore dismiss the Respondent’s jurisdictional objection concerning the minimum employment period. The Respondent’s jurisdictional objection that the dismissal of the Applicant was consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code must also be dismissed. The matter will be shortly listed for mention to deal with programming of determination of the application.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
R Kaur, Applicant.
N Duggal for the Respondent.
Hearing details:
2023.
Melbourne:
May 15.
[1] Exhibit R2, Witness Statement of Raphael Sammut, dated 14 April 2023, at [18]
[2] Ibid at [25]
[3] Exhibit R2, Annexure RS-1, Employment Agreement dated 10 June 2022
[4] Exhibit R2 at [7]
[5] Exhibit R2, Annexure RS-2, Employment Agreement dated 4 August 2022
[6] Ibid, Annexure RS-3, Email from Applicant, dated 5 February 2023, titled ‘Urgent Leave’
[7] Exhibit R2, at [15]-[16]
[8] Exhibit R2, Annexure RS-4, Letter of Termination, dated 6 February 2023
[9] Exhibit R2, at [19], Annexure RS-5, Employee list as at 23 February 2023
[10] Exhibit R2, at [20]
[11] Exhibit R2, Annexure RS-6, Casual Employees hours
[12] Exhibit R2, Annexure RS-17, Casual employee contracts
[13] Exhibit R2, at [21]
[14] Ibid, Annexure RS-7, Text message exchange with MU, at Court Book pp. 95-99
[15] Exhibit R2, at [21]
[16] Exhibit R2, Annexure RS-6, at Court Book pp. 89-90
[17] Exhibit R2 at [21]
[18] Exhibit R2, Annexure RS-7, at Court Book pp. 93-94
[19] Exhibit R2, at [21]
[20] Exhibit R2, Annexure RS-6, at Court Book p. 88
[21] Exhibit R2, at [21]
[22] Exhibit R2, Annexure RS-7, at Court Book at pp. 105-107
[23] Exhibit R2, Annexure RS-6, at Court Book pp. 90-91
[24] Exhibit R2, at [21]
[25] Exhibit R2, Annexure RS-7, at Court Book pp. 100-104
[26] Exhibit R2, Annexure RS-7, Resignation of “SC”, dated 12 October 2022, at Court Book p. 108
[27] Exhibit R2, Annexure RS-6, at Court Book pp. 91-92
[28] Exhibit R17, Employment Agreements for casual employees MU, PC, JR, RE and SC.
[29] [2006] ACTCA 6, 149 IR 339
[30] Ibid at [65]
[31] Ibid at [68]
[32] [2020] FWCFB 3706
[33] Ibid at [14]
[34] [2019] FWCFB 1099
[35] Ibid at [24]
[36] Exhibit R2, Annexure RS-7, at Court Book pp. 105-107
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR762039>
1
2
0