Sarah Knowler v WorkPac Pty Ltd

[2020] FWC 6384

[2020] FWC 6384

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Sarah Knowler
v
WorkPac Pty Ltd
(U2020/6161)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS PERTH, 27 NOVEMBER 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[1] This decision concerns an application made by Ms Sarah Knowler (Ms Knowler or the Applicant) pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy. The application was lodged on 5 May 2020. The Respondent is WorkPac Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] At the hearing of this matter Ms Knowler gave evidence on her own behalf and did not call any other persons to give evidence. For the Respondent evidence was given by Mr Cameron Hockaday (Mr Hockaday), the Group General Manager in Risk, People and Compliance, Ms Elizabeth Rakitovszky (Ms Rakitovszky) the IR manager, and Mr Phillip Wheatley the Head of Project Services.

Factual findings

[3] The Applicant commenced employment with the Respondent as a Risk Manager in WorkPac’s Rio Tinto Project Services team on 11 March 2019.

[4] In August 2019 she had made a complaint against an employee (Adam Mack) concerning inappropriate comments and not allowing her to carry out her role.

[5] The Applicant says WorkPac’s response in September 2019 was to demote her to "Safety Manager”. No new job description or contract was issued. Her pay and duties remained the same although she says she was treated with less rank.

[6] In January, February, and March 2020 the Applicant says she had been dealing with building harassment concerns at work.

[7] She had taken time off work due to fatigue on 9th and 16th March 2020 due to the continued conflict at work with Adam Mack.

[8] On the 23 March 2020 she returned to work and for the following week says she was excluded from meetings and information that was important for her to complete her role.

[9] On the 26 March 2020 she says she was told that the Rio Tinto Project Services team was to remain fully functioning by Tasha Stratford. Ms Stratford is WorkPac’s General Manager of Professional and Industrial.

[10] Ms Stratford called out the Business Centres and people's names who would be stood down without pay due to COVID-19. She made it very clear this was not a redundancy being offered.

[11] In Western Australia the only two business centres left and "fully functioning" were Rio Tinto and Perth. The mining and retail sides of the business were closing/minimizing. The Applicant says she felt a threat to potentially shut down further facilities if all the remaining employees did not step up and take on the roles of those who were stood down was intimidating and inappropriate.

[12] The majority of Mr Mack's portfolio had been reduced as his business centres closed. The centres include Newman, Rockingham, Bunbury, Kalgoorlie, Port Hedland and Karratha. The closures were announced publicly by Ms Stratford.

[13] On 26 March 2020 the Applicant says Mr Mack rang her and advised her of the team members in the national safety team who were being put on reduced hours and who would be stood down with rotation.

[14] On 26 March 2020 at 1:00pm she attended the Rio Tinto Business Centre meeting led by the Regional Manager Mr Phil Wheatley and he informed her the entire Rio Tinto Project Services team were to remain fully functioning. He said if we were not up for the task of doing whatever work was given to us, we needed to "put our hands up" as other people who are stood down would like to work.

[15] The next day on the 27 March at 1pm the Applicant was phoned by Mr Wheatley and told she was stood down without pay due to COVID-19.

[16] She asked why, as the day before she been advised the Rio team was fully functioning. He said he had three people to choose and she happened to just be one of them. He advised her that Adam Mack would be taking on her role and she needed to hand everything over to him.

[17] WorkPac subsequently provided the Applicant with a letter dated 26 March 2020 which relevantly read as follows.

“Dear Sarah,

RE: CONFIRMATION OF STAND DOWN

I refer to your employment as a Regional Risk Manager in the WorkPac Rio Tinto Project Services Business Centre.

Stand down

The purpose of this correspondence is to confirm, as discussed today, that pursuant to section 524 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) you are stood down without pay, affective immediately and also to advise you of your options during this stand down.

This correspondence will also provide you with some background for the decision for the stand down

Reasons for stand down

The COVID-19 crisis including the current health guidance and escalating Government responses, has had a dramatic effect on the work of our clients, and, accordingly, the work available for our employees to do.

It has also created risk to the safety and welfare of our employees associated to ongoing work. This is becoming increasingly difficult for WorkPac to manage in accordance with out duty of care and our strong determination to ensure the protection from harm of all of our employees.

As a consequence of the above, a significant proportion of the work available to our employees has effectively stopped. This is highly regrettable, however clearly it is a stoppage of work for which WorkPac is not responsible.

This stoppage has created a situation where WorkPac is no longer able to usefully employ you in your role.

As further discussed prior to making this decision, WorkPac assessed a number of alternatives, however, at this point, WorkPac has not been able to identify any opportunity to redeploy you into alternative useful work.

These circumstances permit a stand down without pay under s.524 of the Act”

[18] The Applicant initially put in a form for annual leave but later withdrew that. She formed the view that her stand down was unlawful.

[19] She says because of the behaviour and attitude of Mr Wheatley she turned off her work computer and work phone from that point. Consequently, she did not respond to emails to her work computer or phone calls to her work phone. She says as a result of this she was unaware that Mr Wheatley had tried to email her.

[20] The Applicant’s evidence is that On 20 April 2020 she received a large payment into her bank account and a payslip from which she could tell WorkPac had terminated her employment.

[21] The Applicant, in her evidence, says she was only ever a member of the Rio Tinto Project Services team and was not a member of WorkPac’s Safety and Risk team.

[22] The Applicant denies that her position was made redundant.

[23] The Applicant says in her statement she could have, in any event, been redeployed to the role of Business Manager in Karratha which was vacant. However, under cross-examination the Applicant’s evidence was that at the time of her termination another employee was working in this position, so it was not vacant. 1

[24] Due to errors by WorkPac the termination payments were made to the Applicant before the letter of termination had been sent to her. The termination letter dated 22 April 2020 relevantly reads as follows.

“Dear Sarah

RE: Termination of your employment by reason of redundancy

The purpose of this letter is to confirm the outcome of a detailed organisational review undertaken by WorkPac Senior Management of its operational requirements, current commercial constraints, and the impact of these factors for your role with WorkPac.

As a result of this organisational review, WorkPac has unfortunately determined that your role of Regional Risk Manager within the Rio Tinto Project Services - Karratha Business Centre, has been deemed as being no longer required by The WorkPac Group of Companies. This decision has not been made lightly and is not a reflection on your performance.

Consistent with WorkPac’s statutory obligation pursuant to the provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), WorkPac's first priority was to identify if any reasonable alternative role/s existed within the WorkPac Group of Companies which may have suited your skills and experience. Having conducted such a review, WorkPac advises that it has no suitable or comparable role/s are available to present to you for consideration at this time. In those circumstances, WorkPac has no other option other than to terminate your employment due to a genuine redundancy situation.

This letter serves as confirmation that your role has been identified as being redundant. You will not be required to work your two (2) week notice period, in accordance with your Employment Agreement. Therefore, your last working day will be 23 April 2020. You have been paid two (2) weeks' in lieu of your notice period.

In the circumstances that your employment has ended because of redundancy, you have also been paid a redundancy payment to the approximate amount of $8,462.00 (gross) in accordance with the Notional Employment Standards and your Employment Agreement. Please note, this figure is indicative only and has been calculated in with respect to your tenure with WorkPac and is equivalent to approximately four (4) weeks' pay.”

[25] Mr Hockaday is the Group General Manager in Risk, People, and Compliance at WorkPac.

[26] He explains that WorkPac is a national Labour Hire company, that places its employees, known as Field Team Members, under commercial arrangements with WorkPac clients, on client sites throughout a variety of industries including construction, mining, and health care across Australia.

[27] He says that on or about Wednesday 8th April 2020, he attended a meeting of the WorkPac executive leadership team during which a company restructure was discussed.

[28] The restructure was for the purposes of streamlining the business and improving efficiency to ensure ongoing financial stability. It was determined that achieving this objective would necessitate a considerable reduction in headcount across WorkPac. This resulted in the termination of approximately 114 employees for reason of redundancy in April 2020.

[29] His evidence was that as part of this restructure, the decision was made to reduce the Safety and Risk team by one person.

[30] In determining which member of the Safety and Risk team would be made redundant, WorkPac had regard for the foreseeable longevity of each position within the team, including the relationship between these positions and the relevant commercial contracts. Namely, WorkPac was in the middle of a competitive tendering process for the commercial contract to supply labour to Rio Tinto, the outcome of which was not known and a decision on the outcome was further delayed due to COVID-19 related issues. Additionally, market pressures had required WorkPac to revise down their commercial rates to remain competitive, which further added to the need to reduce input costs and derive further efficiencies.

[31] In circumstances where the ongoing nature of WorkPac’s commercial contract with Rio Tinto could not be confirmed and/or a reduction in their commercial margins, the position of Regional Risk Manager within the WorkPac Rio Tinto Project Services Team was identified as the headcount reduction that must occur within the WorkPac Safety and Risk team.

[32] Under cross-examination Mr Hockaday explained there is a different nomenclature used to describe teams internally within WorkPac versus the teams allocated to clients. He says the role the Applicant was performing as a safety advisor was internally within the broader safety and risk function of WorkPac. She was however allocated to work for a particular client and as such fell within what was called the Rio Tinto Project Services team. 2

[33] In short, the Rio Tinto Project Services team falls within the internal Safety and Risk team of WorkPac.

[34] Under cross-examination his evidence is that in March 2020 only part of the Rio Tinto project services team was operating normally and that the work of the team had diminished. 3

[35] He says it was further identified that the Applicant’s duties could reasonably be reallocated to her superior, Adam Mack, in addition to his existing responsibilities. The Applicant’s duties were absorbed by others within WorkPac. 4

[36] As the headcount had been reduced within WorkPac’s Safety and Risk Team and across the business more broadly, there was no position, that suited the Applicant’s skills or experience, to offer her in an attempt to redeploy her elsewhere within WorkPac.

[37] Accordingly, the decision was made to terminate the Applicant’s employment for reason of redundancy.

[38] The Applicant’s termination pay was processed on 20 April 2020. There were approximately 114 employees who received their severance pay on this day and accordingly, the pay file had been organised for payroll processing prior to the realisation that the Applicant was uncontactable. As a consequence of this monies were paid into her bank account before she had been advised that her employment was terminated.

[39] The evidence of Ms Rakitovszky is that she is the National IR Manager for WorkPac.

[40] On 20 April 2020 she received an email from the Applicant enclosing a WorkCover WA medical certificate and requesting a written explanation as to why she had been made redundant.

[41] Ms Rakitovszky then investigated and established that the Applicant’s termination pay was processed on 20 April 2020 due to an administrative error. Namely the Applicant’s pay file had been organised for payroll processing prior to the notification that the Applicant was uncontactable and had not been advised of the termination.

[42] Around 22 April 2020, she responded to the Applicant’s email, advising that WorkPac had undertaken a business and organisational review and, as a result, a significant restructure had occurred. As a result, the Applicant’s position of Regional Risk Manager within Rio Tinto Project Services was deemed to be no longer required by WorkPac. She enclosed in this email a letter formally confirming the termination of the Applicant’s employment due to redundancy.

[43] She explained to the Applicant how her severance, notice and accrued entitlements had been processed on 20 April 2020 as a result of an administrative error and apologised for this. She further explained that in consideration of this error, WorkPac had amended the date of her termination of employment to be effective as of close of business 23 April 2020, the day after she had received formal correspondence relating to her termination.

[44] She also explained WorkPac had also decided to pay out to the Applicant her accrued personal leave entitlements, which she would not otherwise be entitled to on termination of employment. The Applicant was advised she would receive approximately six (6) days additional payment in respect of her accrued personal leave balance.

[45] Evidence was also given by Mr Philip Wheatley Head of Project Services for the WorkPac Group of Companies. He explained that he had overall responsibility for the Project Services team, including the Rio Tinto Project Services.

[46] He was effectively the Applicant’s manager. 5

[47] His evidence was that around 9:25am (AEST) on Thursday 16 April 2020, he emailed the Applicant to confirm she had received a calendar invite to attend a conference call for WorkPac's Industrial and Professional team at 10:00am on Friday 17 April 2020, delayed from the original planned time of Thursday 15 April 2020.

[48] Mr Wheatley’s evidence was the conference call was scheduled to notify the WorkPac team that there would be significant redundancies across the business.

[49] The Applicant did not respond to his email on 16 April 2020 and he was subsequently advised that she did not attend the conference call on Friday 17 April 2020.

[50] Consequently around 4:00pm (AEST) on Friday 17 April 2020, he attempted to contact the Applicant via phone to her personal mobile number, to notify her that her employment was being terminated for reason of redundancy. This call went to the message bank and he left a voicemail message requesting the Applicant to return his call as soon as possible. The Applicant did not return this call.

[51] Around 5:38pm (AEST) on Friday 17 April 2020, he says he emailed the Applicant to advise that he had left a voicemail on her mobile and requested that she call him as a matter of urgency. The Applicant did not respond to his email or attempt to contact him in response to this request.

[52] Mr Wheatley rejected the suggestion in cross examination that all that had occurred was that the Applicant’s job was allocated to Mr Mack. His evidence was that there were parts of her role that a number of employees in the team had to pick up. Her duties had been distributed to Mr Mack at a corporate level in Perth with the client and to the site managers who were involved in an operational ground level on site. 6

[53] Mr Wheatley did not agree that the Applicant’s qualifications and experience would have enabled her to be redeployed into other positions within WorkPac. He agrees however there were no discussions with the Applicant about potential redeployment.

Submissions

The Applicant

[54] The Applicant was a Risk manager for the Respondent.

[55] She was dismissed on the 23^rd April 2020 on the grounds that she had been made redundant.

[56] The Applicant disputes that the dismissal was due to a redundancy.

[57] Meetings with management before the Applicant was stood down on the 27th March 2020 indicated clearly that the Applicant's team would continue to operate despite Covid-19.

[58] There were no meetings with the Applicant before the dismissal.

[59] There was no discussion about redeployment.

[60] The dismissal was preceded by a payment into her bank account and then rumours that she had been dismissed. The dismissal letter came a few days after that.

[61] Firstly, the Applicant does not accept that the Respondent can even make out its case under s 389(1) of the Act because it does require the duties of Regional Manager Rio Tinto Project Services to be performed. It is part of the Respondent's contract with Rio regardless of whatever title the Respondent gives the role or how they produce an organisational chart.

[62] On the evidence those duties are being performed by another employee, Adam Mack, who has variously been described as the Applicant's manager, but never identified as such in any of the documents. There appears to be no consideration given as to whether the Applicant could have been offered a position in the new arrangement which has been promulgated.

[63] Secondly, if the Applicant is wrong in that submission, she relies upon s.389(2) of the Act, in that there was a failure by the Respondent to properly consider the question of re-deployment of the Applicant in the employer's enterprise. The employer completely failed to discharge its obligations about redeployment and cannot simply state that there were no roles available for her. There was her existing role to start with. Then there were lesser roles she would have entertained.

[64] The Applicant therefore submits that the jurisdictional objection raised by the Respondent that her dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy cannot be made out for the following reasons:

[65] The evidence does not establish the requirements of the first limb of s 389 of the Act. Namely, that the employer did not require the work of the Applicant to be done by anyone. The Risk Manager role in the Rio Tinto Project Services Team continues to be fully functioning;

[66] There is overwhelming evidence that the Applicant was on the Rio Tinto Project Services team. The Applicant says she was. The IR manager says she was. The organisational chart before dismissal shows she was. Her contract of employment states that she was.

[67] The Respondent wants the Commission to believe that the Applicant was on the Risk and Safety team. She was not. She was on the Rio Tinto Project Services team and even on the Respondent's own evidence the decision of the Executive Management team was that there would be a reduction of one headcount in Risk and Safety team.

[68] The evidence also does not establish that it would have not been reasonable to redeploy the Applicant into a new position within the Rio Tinto Project Services group if in fact there was a re-structure. The Respondent must rely upon s 389(2)(a) of the Act. The minimum requirement for it to be reasonable is for the possibility of redeployment to have been discussed with the Applicant and it was not. The Respondent has essentially made a decision, on its own, that redeployment was not possible. The authorities mentioned above establish that the Applicant has to be involved in those discussions. This is a different process to the consultations required by s 389(1)(b) of the Act. The evidence is in the province of the employer and it has failed to act appropriately to have the benefit afforded by the section. There is no reasonable ground for the decision that the Applicant could not have been re-deployed into the position of Business Manager if in fact she was made redundant.

The Respondent

[69] In respect of s 389(1)(a) of The Act, it is submitted the Respondent no longer required the Applicant’s job to be performed by anyone because of changes in the operational requirements of the Respondent’s business.

[70] In April 2020, the Respondent undertook a detailed business and organisational review and consequently, significantly restructured its operational and delivery functions. The change in the Respondent’s operational requirements was undertaken, among other reasons, for the purposes of improving efficiency.

[71] During this process, approximately 114 positions within the Respondent’s business were identified as being redundant, including that of the Applicant’s. In determining to make the Applicant’s position redundant, as opposed to another of the Respondent’s employees in the Safety and Risk team, the Respondent heavily considered the ongoing utility of the Applicant’s position. The Respondent was in the process of re-tendering for the commercial contract to supply labour for Rio Tinto and therefore, restructure notwithstanding, could not confirm the Applicant’s role would be required long term should the Respondent’s tender be unsuccessful. Accordingly, the decision was made to make the Applicant’s position redundant in circumstances where her duties may only be required for a short period and if not, could be redistributed amongst existing employees of the Respondent’s, with no duties remaining for her to perform.

[72] As per Kekeris v A. Hartrodt Australia Pty Ltd [2010] FWA 674, there can still be a genuine redundancy where the duties of the redundant job are still required to be performed but have been redistributed to other positions. Accordingly, the fact that some of the Applicant’s duties have been reallocated to another existing employee of the Respondent, namely Mr Mack, does not mean the Applicant’s position was not made redundant. The Applicant reported to Mr Mack during her employment and since termination, Mr Mack’s position has absorbed the Applicant’s former duties. There has not been an employee who has assumed the job the Applicant was employed to do. This is demonstrated by the Respondent’s organisation structure prior to and post restructure, a copy of which has been annexed hereto and marked ‘Annexure R2’.

[73] Having regard to s 389(1)(b) of The Act, there was no enterprise agreement or modern award that applied to the Applicant’s employment with the Respondent. The Act does not provide any legislative requirement for employers to consult with employees prior to notifying them of redundancy where the employee is not covered by an enterprise agreement or modern award. Accordingly, the Respondent was not subject to any obligation to consult with the Applicant prior to notifying her of the redundancy.

[74] In relation to s 389(2) of The Act, redeployment to another role will not be considered reasonable where the employee does not have the skills to perform the role, as confirmed in Patti v Vincent Chrisp & Partners P/L t/a Vincent Chrisp Architects [2012] FWA 8677. The Applicant was employed as a Regional Risk Manager within the Respondent’s Rio Tinto Project Services Team. Following the restructure, the Respondent only had vacant positions for ‘Business Managers’, ‘Business Administration Managers’ and ‘Recruitment Coordinators’, for which the Applicant’s skills and experience did not make her a suitable candidate. Further, all of these roles would have involved a considerable reduction in salary (approximately $30,000-$40,000 per annum) and involved a vastly different working environment. Accordingly, no alternative positions were identified as suitable to present to the Applicant for consideration and redeployment of the Applicant within the Respondent’s enterprise was considered not reasonable.

[75] The Applicant was dismissed because the Respondent’s change in operational requirements meant the role she was employed to do was no longer required to be performed by anyone. The Respondent was not required to comply with any consultation obligations and could not reasonably facilitate redeployment of the Applicant. Accordingly, the Respondent contends that the Applicant’s dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy, consistently with the meaning of same as provided in s 389 of The Act.

The Legislation

[76] In circumstances where the Applicant’s dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy, the Applicant cannot be found to have been unfairly dismissed, per s 385 of The Act.

[77] Section 385 on the Act states the following:

“385 What is an unfair dismissal

A person has been unfairly dismissed if the FWC is satisfied that:

(a) the person has been dismissed; and

(b) the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable; and

(c) the dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code; and

(d) the dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy.”

[78] Genuine redundancy is defined in s 389 of the Act which states the following:

“389 Meaning of genuine redundancy

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

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

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

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

(a) the employer’s enterprise; or

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

Consideration

[79] The Respondent has raised the preliminary jurisdictional objection that the Applicant’s dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy and so cannot be an unfair dismissal by virtue of section 385.

[80] The questions for the Commission to determine is firstly whether WorkPac no longer required the Applicant’s job to be performed by anyone because of changes in its operational requirements, then secondly whether WorkPac complied with any obligations in a modern award or enterprise agreement that applied to the Applicant’s employment to consult about redundancy and finally whether it would have been reasonable in all the circumstances for the Applicant to have been redeployed within WorkPac or that of an associated entity.

[81] Whilst the Applicant disagrees with the decision the employer has made there is no evidence that the decision to terminate the Applicant’s employment was for reasons other than as the Respondent detailed in the termination letter dated 22 April 2020

[82] The evidence is that WorkPac undertook an organisational review which was conducted by senior management and, as a result of that review, decided to make a number of positions across its organisation redundant.

[83] Approximately 114 positions were made redundant including the Applicant’s position of Regional Risk Manager within the Rio Tinto Project Services team.

[84] Whilst in the period leading up to the decision to make the Applicant’s position redundant there had been some tense interactions between the Applicant and her manager about having been stood down there is no evidence that this or an earlier complaint she had made about bullying were, in truth, the reasons for her employment being terminated.

[85] In addition, the accusation levelled by the Applicant at the Respondent that her position was simply given to her previous manager Mr Mack was not supported by the evidence. 7

[86] I am satisfied, on the evidence, that what occurred was that for a number of reasons the work of the Rio Tinto Project Services Team was reduced around March 2020. 8 There was also considerable uncertainty about the future at that time for the Respondent.

[87] The decision to make the Applicant’s position redundant did not mean that none of her duties were still required to be done. Rather, those duties of her former position that WorkPac still required to be done were distributed to be undertaken by other employees. Certainly, some duties were distributed to Mr Mack, who then undertook these in addition to his existing tasks, 9 but some other of the Applicant’s duties were distributed to the site managers.10 Her duties were absorbed by other employees in other positions.11

[88] Having redistributed the duties of the Applicant’s former position the Respondent no longer required her previous position to be done by anyone. The Rio Tinto Project Services team continued to operate but with one less position. WorkPac have not replaced the Applicant’s position since her employment was terminated. 12

[89] I am satisfied that WorkPac no longer required the Applicant’s job to be formed by anyone because of changes in its operational requirements.

[90] It is common ground that at the time of the Applicant’s employment there was no modern award nor an enterprise agreement that applied to her employment.

[91] Consequently, there were no consultation obligations which WorkPac were obliged to comply with.

[92] With respect to redeployment, the Applicant’s evidence in chief was that she could have been redeployed to the role of Business Manager in Karratha which she says was vacant.

[93] Under cross-examination it became apparent that her understanding of this arose from a chance meeting with another employee at a shopping centre who had told the Applicant that she was working in the position but was apparently dissatisfied with this. 13

[94] The Applicant’s evidence, however, was not sufficiently clear that the Commission could conclude that there was in fact a vacant position immediately prior to her termination let alone that it was one for which she was suitably qualified. 14

[95] I am not satisfied on the evidence that there was a job within the enterprise or an associated entity to which it would have been reasonable to redeploy the Applicant. 15

[96] I am satisfied the Applicant’s dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy within the meaning of s 389 of the Act. Consequently, the Applicant was not unfairly dismissed.

[97] This application is dismissed and an order to that effect will be issued.

Appearances:

Patrick Mullally of WorkClaims Australia for the Applicant.
Kat Bennet for the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2020.
Perth:
September 7.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR724939>

 1   Transcript at PN 207-210.

 2   Ibid., PN 30.

 3   Ibid., PN 34-35, 45.

 4   Ibid., PN 37-38, 51-52.

 5   Ibid., PN 102.

 6   Ibid., PN 131-132, 143.

 7   Ibid., PN 131-132, 143, 160-161.

 8   Ibid., PN 45, 54.

 9   Ibid., PN 52.

 10   Ibid., PN 51.

 11   Ibid., PN 38.

 12   Ibid., PN 162.

 13   Ibid., PN 204.

 14   Ibid., PN 208.

 15   [2014] FWCFB 714 at [36]