Tapan Mistry v Woolworths Ltd t/a Woolworths Fuel
[2017] FWCFB 3926
•4 SEPTEMBER 2017
| [2017] FWCFB 3926 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.604 - Appeal of decisions
Tapan Mistry
v
Woolworths Ltd t/a Woolworths Fuel
(C2017/3487)
| VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER | SYDNEY, 4 SEPTEMBER 2017 |
Appeal against decision [2017] FWC 3097 of Commissioner Williams at Perth on 7 June 2017 in matter number U2016/13165.
Introduction and background facts
Mr Tapan Mistry has applied for permission to appeal and appealed a decision of Commissioner Williams issued on 7 June 2017[1] (Decision). The Decision concerned an application by Mr Mistry for an unfair dismissal remedy in respect of the termination of his former employment with Woolworths Limited t/a Woolworths Fuel (Woolworths). In the Decision, the Commissioner found that Mr Mistry’s dismissal by Woolworths was not unfair, and dismissed his application for an unfair dismissal remedy.[2]
Prior to his dismissal Mr Mistry had worked as a console operator at a Woolworths service station at Beckenham in Perth. Mr Mistry was dismissed by Woolworths because of an alleged failure to comply with its policies in relation to an apparent attempted robbery incident which occurred on 7 October 2016. The Commissioner made findings of fact concerning that incident in the Decision which are not the subject of challenge in Mr Mistry’s appeal and which may accordingly be summarised in a non-controversial way.[3] Mr Mistry commenced his shift at 7.30pm and was working alone. Later during the shift a young male customer approached him and placed some food and beverage items on the counter. Mr Mistry scanned the items and then waited for payment, but the customer said: “Give me the money”. Mr Mistry mistakenly believed that the customer was referring to his change, and was confused because the customer had not yet paid for the items. He replied: “Mate you need to pay me first, then I can give you the change”. The customer, speaking normally, then said: “Give me the money or I’ll jump the counter”. It was only at this point that Mr Mistry realised that the customer was asking for money from the till, and he then felt uncomfortable and backed away from the till. The customer then said “Ok give me the smokes”. Mr Mistry became confused at what the customer wanted at this point, but more customers then came into the service station, and the customer took the scanned items from the counter and left the store. The incident was recorded on CCTV, and the customer was at the counter for a period of one minute and 59 seconds.
The Commissioner made the following critical finding about the incident:
“[24] During the incident the customer did not display any weapon, never stated he had any weapon, never tried to use any object as a weapon, he was never violent and he never talked in a raised voice.”
The Commissioner found that after the incident, Mr Mistry served the customers who had come into the store and then telephoned his Site Manager, Ms Vanitha Jayapahan, about what had happened. She told him that she would call her manager (Mr Brett Ellis), and Mr Mistry should cordon off the area, serve customers through the night counter, press the “panic button” (a duress alarm which notified Woolworths’ Incident Management Team) and contact the police. However Mr Mistry did not immediately call the police, and at no stage pressed the panic button. Ms Jayapahan called Mr Ellis, who then called Mr Mistry and reiterated the instruction to call the police. It was at this point that Mr Mistry called the police.[4]
After Woolworths had conducted an investigation and a show cause process into the incident, it dismissed Mr Mistry effective from 17 October 2016 with three weeks’ pay in lieu of notice. The dismissal letter of that date relevantly stated:
“This letter confirms that your employment with Woolworths Limited (the Company) has been terminated effective today, 17 October 2016.
It was alleged that on 7 October 2016 during a serious incident in store you failed to act in accordance with the Armed Holdup procedure when an offender entered the store and demanded money and cigarettes. Specifically it was alleged that you:
1. Failed to comply with the offenders demands; and
2.Failed to follow the correct notification procedure and engage the emergency duress button after the offender left the store.
As outlined in our letter of 11 October 2016, in investigating this matter it was established that you had failed to comply with Armed Holdup procedure exposing yourself and others to serious risk of harm and demonstrating a poor attitude towards safety in the workplace. Further you have acted in breach of the Woolworths Code of Conduct and failed to demonstrate the behaviours expected of a Woolworths employee. This behaviour is unacceptable and of serious concern to the business, of more concern you have failed to recognise the risk you have exposed yourself and others to through your actions.”
The dismissal letter also noted that Mr Mistry had been issued with a warning letter on 3 October 2016 concerning an earlier failure to follow food safety procedures, and went on to say:
“Tapan, your ongoing poor behaviour and attitude towards safety and failure to follow policy and procedure is of serious concern to the Company. As [a] result, the Company has made a decision to terminate your employment effective today, 17 October 2016.”
The Armed Holdup procedure referred to in the dismissal letter took three forms. Firstly, there was a single-page document entitled “Armed Hold-Up Procedure”. Without further explanation, it then stated in its entirety:
“The Five C’s
· Calm
Remain calm at all times
· Co-operate
Do exactly as the offender instructs
· Communicate
Activate the hold-up alarm and call the Police as soon as it is safe to do so
· Conserve
Conserve the crime scene for fingerprints, etc. Don’t move or touch anything and keep others out of the area
· Complete
Complete the Offender Description Form and provide a statement to Police if required.”
Woolworths also had a more detailed policy concerning “Dealing with Violence in the Workplace”. This dealt with a range of topics including “Dealing with Difficult Customers”, “Shoplifters”, “Robberies/Snatch and Runs”, “Break and Enter”, and “Armed Hold Up”. The “Armed Hold Up” section was an expanded version of the “5 C’s”, and in its entirety read as follows:
“Armed Hold Up:
In the event of an Armed Hold Up – Remember the 5 C’s
CALM:
·Remain calm, obey the offender’s demands and do not make any sudden movements
·Avoid direct eye contact
·Do not talk to the offender unless it is necessary to do so
·Remain quiet, slow your rate of breathing which will help you avoid hyperventilation caused by the adrenalin rush
·Stay out of danger area if you are not directly involved in the incident
COOPERATE:
·Do precisely as you are told, don’t take any risks and obey the offender’s instruction
·Never delay the offender’s departure
COMMUNICATE:
·IF SAFE, note the offender’s dress, physical appearance and the direction and means of their departure
·DON’T chase the offender, let the police do it
·The quicker the offender leaves, the sooner you will be safe
·Activate the “hold-up alarm” and call CMS as soon as the offender has left and it is safe to do so
CONSERVE:
·Seal off the area and preserve the crime scene for fingerprints
·DO NOT touch anything as evidence could be destroyed
COMPLETE:
·Remain at the location until the police allow you to leave
·DO NOT discuss any details with other staff or media representatives
·Complete all required paperwork
REMEMBER: No amount of money is worth a human life!”
The policy did not give any special definition to the expression “Armed Hold Up”. No section of the policy apart from the “Armed Hold Up” section required the employee to comply with an offender’s demands or activate the duress alarm. The “Dealing with Difficult Customers” section of the policy referred to “Dealing with angry, difficult or abusive customers” in the following terms:
“Working in customer service, you may have to deal with difficult, irate or intoxicated customers. Such customers may become aggressive, leaving you feeling threatened, intimated [sic] and vulnerable.”
The section of the policy then went on to say;
“Defusing a situation
·DO stay calm and respectful. Try to calm the angry customer.
·DO listen to the customer. Try to empathise with the customer which will assist you in understanding how you can fix the problem.
·DO NOT argue, get angry or touch the customer.
·If the customer remains angry or you feel increasing uncomfortable, ask for help. Ask your Manager to assist you with the complaint.”
The section of the policy went on to say that “Physical violence is not the only form of abusive behaviour...”. It then indicated a number of responses to abuse, which consisted of telling the customer to stop, telling the customer why the behaviour is inappropriate, asking the customer to leave, report the incident to your Manager, and “If you feel that the abusive person is following/threatening you, contact the Police ...”.
Another policy document entitled “Stop Think Safety - Emergency Response” also included a section on “Armed Robbery/Hold Ups”. This section also included a reference to the “Five C’s” and also required the employee to “Call the Police by telephoning 000 or activate the silent alarm” and to “Obey the instructions of the offender exactly”. Additionally it contained a number of requirements either not referred to in the two other policy documents set out above or expressed in different language. For example it required the employee to “Keep your actions open and deliberate so as not to startle the offender, who may be affected by drugs” and after the robbery to “Serve through the night counter or change to another register to conserve the crime scene”.
Woolworths issues its employees with a safety pack every two months which includes a policy to read and a questionnaire which the employee must complete to demonstrate their understanding of the policy. As the Commissioner found, Mr Mistry completed a questionnaire entitled “Armed Hold-Up Questionnaire” on 22 May 2016 which contained the following questions:
“1. What could you do to defuse a situation when a customer becomes abusive?
2. What should you do if someone is being abusive towards you?
3. In the event of a robbery what are the 4 things you should remember?
4. List the 5Cs and a brief description of each.
5. What 3 procedures can you follow to help avoid armed hold-ups?
6. Who should you contact in the event of an armed hold-up? When should you contact them?
7. Who else should you contact and where should you record the event of an armed hold-up?”
It is not clear which of the policy documents referred to above accompanied this questionnaire in the safety pack. Mr Mistry’s training records show that he undertook some form of “Armed Hold Up Training” activity on two occasions in 2015, but the nature of this training was not identified in the evidence.
The Decision
In his decision, the Commissioner, having set out his findings of primary fact, stated the following factual conclusions:
“[51] The evidence is that Mr Mistry is familiar with both the Armed Robbery/Hold-Ups Procedure and the Armed Hold-Up Survival-5Cs.
[52] I am satisfied that Mr Mistry did not comply with important elements of these procedures. He did not obey the offender’s demands, he tried to outsmart the offender, he did not do precisely as the offender told him to do, he did not activate the alarm, he did not lock the doors and he did not seal off the area and conserve the crime scene. He was also very slow to ring the police and only did this after twice being told to do so.
[53] Mr Mistry acknowledged that he did not follow the Armed Hold-Up Procedure and says this was because there were no ‘arms’ involved in the incident.
[54] Separately I note there is another procedure headed Aggressive or Violent Behaviour’ which deals with a range of circumstances including demonstrators, fights, threats by mail, suspicious packages/bags, and threat – by person. Each of the procedures under these five different headings include at some point calling the police.”
In relation to the questionnaire referred to earlier, the Commissioner noted that the first two questions dealt with situations which were not “Armed Hold-Ups” and the third referred to a robbery that was not an armed robbery.[5]
In his consideration of Mr Mistry’s application, the Commissioner first dealt with the question of whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal as required by s.387(a) of the FW Act as follows (footnotes omitted):
“[76] Mr Mistry was aware of the Respondent’s procedures to deal with various types of emergencies.
[77] At the meeting with Mr Ellis on 10 October 2016 Mr Mistry explained that he did not initially follow the Armed Hold-Up Procedure because he did not at first think of the customer as an offender. I accept that at that point in the incident this was a reasonable reaction. However Mr Mistry went on to explain to Mr Ellis that after the customer had threatened to jump the counter he agreed this had heightened the risk and he then thought he should follow the procedure. Mr Mistry told Mr Ellis that at this point he felt it was important to report this because of the threat.
[78] At this meeting on 10 October 2016 whilst Mr Mistry was reasonably explaining there was some ambiguity as the incident evolved he never suggested he was not required to follow Woolworths’ procedures because the customer was not armed in fact he acknowledged he should have done so.
[79] Mr Mistry’s argument in response to the show cause letter and at hearing that he was not required to follow Woolworths’ Armed Robbery/Hold-Ups Procedure and the Armed Hold-Up Survival-5Cs in the situation because the customer was not armed was disingenuous.
[80] This argument that he believed the procedure did not apply to the incident because the person was not armed was an attempt to counter Woolworths’ criticisms of him and to avoid any disciplinary consequence. Woolworths’ expectation that Mr Mistry should have followed at least in general terms the principles in the Armed Robbery/Hold-Ups Procedure and the Armed Hold-Up Survival-5Cs in dealing with this incident which was an attempted robbery was reasonable in the circumstances.
[81] Woolworths’ criticisms of him were not pedantic. Woolworths’ criticism of Mr Mistry’s conduct were limited to important failures to follow the procedure, specifically that Mr Mistry had failed to comply with the offender’s demands and had failed to follow the correct notification procedure and failed to engage the duress button after the offender left the service station.
[82] The evidence is that Mr Mistry did not obey the offender’s demands and in fact he did try to outsmart the offender by saying he could not give him money from the till and could not give him cigarettes when he was able to do both. These actions were not merely a failure to comply with the procedures but involved positive acts by Mr Mistry doing things the procedure said he should not do. In addition Mr Mistry never activated the alarm. Finally Mr Mistry was very slow to ring the police and only did this after twice being told to do so in two separate phone calls by two managers. Mr Mistry’s conduct involved a complete failure to follow the key principles of Woolworths’ procedures of which he was aware.
[83] This conduct by Mr Mistry was a valid reason for his dismissal.”
The Commissioner then dealt with the other matters he was required to consider under s.387, and stated the following overall conclusion:
“[92] During the disciplinary meetings and at the hearing of this matter Mr Mistry would not accept that he did anything wrong. This continued refusal to accept that his actions on the night of 7 October 2016 were seriously wrong, or even wrong at all, has destroyed any confidence Woolworths could have that Mr Mistry had learnt from what occurred and can be relied upon in future.
[93] Considering all of the circumstances the dismissal of Mr Mistry was neither harsh, unjust nor unreasonable. Mr Mistry was not unfairly dismissed.”
Notice of appeal and submissions
Mr Mistry advanced the following grounds of appeal in his Notice of Appeal:
“1) I was not given the opportunity to explain the different versions of the events (ie the statements/reports) were written by Woolworths' staff, not me, and I dont agree to what they have written. The documents have a designated space for my signature but none of them are signed for my approval.
2) No consideration was given to me on how could I react in the moment.
3) No consideration was given to the fact that Woolworths managers have an ongoing issue involving my workplace rights and annual leaves.
4) I was not given the opportunity to respond to the first warning, which is not fair. I was never given that document and should not be relied on. The SDA union representative Mr Krunal was present at the meeting, he is my witness.
5) The judge has failed to consider the fact that the incident was not an "Armed Holdup". Hence the policy of dealing with difficult customer should be considered, which I have followed.
6) The judge disregards the investigating Police officers' report. The offender is charged with minor stealing and not robbery.”
Mr Mistry’s notice of appeal stated that it would be in the public interest to grant permission to appeal for the following reasons:
“WOOLWORTHS FUEL has no clear policy regarding dealing with a member of the public posing as a customer who calmly asks for money and does not possess any arms/weapons.
The policy to press the "Armed Holdup Alarm" inadequate.
Never a mock drill is conducted for training of the "Armed holdup procedure".
Never are any training videos shown.Staff training is inadequate and not frequent.
Regular incidents of violence, abusive customers, throwing merchandise at staff, stealing etc have been reported at the Beckenham site. The company has not taken any safety measures (eg safety screens) for the safety of the staff.
No security guards for the safety of customers.Woolworths has arranged for a security person to safeguard the site only after this incident.”
Mr Mistry, who was self-represented, declined to provide written submissions in support of his appeal in accordance with the Commission’s directions, and advised he would rely on his notice of appeal. His oral submissions were limited.
Woolworths submitted with respect to grounds 1 and 2 and 6 that they did not disclose any significant error of fact. In relation to appeal ground 3, which apparently concerned separate proceedings initiated by Mr Mistry against Woolworths in the Federal Circuit Court, Woolworths submitted that the Commissioner had correctly treated such proceedings as irrelevant to the matter before him. In relation to ground 4, Woolworths submitted that Mr Mistry could not in his appeal rely on potential evidence which he had the opportunity to adduce at first instance but did not, and no appealable error could be demonstrated on that basis.
In relation to appeal ground 5, Woolworths acknowledged that Mr Mistry had contended before the Commissioner that the “Dealing with Difficult Customers” policy should have been treated as applicable to the incident, but the Commissioner had considered and rejected this contention. The Commissioner found that Mr Mistry had never suggested that he was not required to follow Woolworths’ procedures on the basis that the customer in the incident was not armed, and did in fact acknowledge that he should have done so.
Consideration
For the reasons which follow, it is only necessary for us to deal with Mr Mistry’s fifth appeal ground.
An essential ingredient of the Commissioner’s conclusion that there was a valid reason for Mr Mistry’s dismissal was that, by failing to comply with the offender’s demand to give him money from the till and by failing to activate the duress button, Mr Mistry failed to comply in a significant way with the “5 C’s” set out in the “Armed Hold-Up Procedure” and the procedures set out in the “Armed Robbery/Hold Ups” section of the “Stop Think Safety - Emergency Response”. However, in doing so, we consider that the Commissioner never properly engaged with Mr Mistry’s case that those policies did not apply to the incident.
It is clear that Mr Mistry has a strongly arguable case that the policies did not apply to the incident. As earlier stated, the Commissioner made the critical finding in relation to the incident that the customer did not display any weapon, never stated he had any weapon, never tried to use any object as a weapon, and was never violent. In those circumstances, the incident could not have constituted an attempted “armed holdup” or “armed robbery” according to the ordinary meaning of those terms. The policies in question used those expressions as identifying when the “5 C’s” and other procedures applied without attempting to define them. The policies certainly do not indicate that the expressions “armed holdup” or “armed robbery” had a special meaning which extended beyond incidents involving the actual or threatened use of a weapon. However, the Commissioner failed to engage with the obvious discrepancy between the terms of the policies and the findings he had made in relation to the nature of the incident in which Mr Mistry was involved in on 7 October 2016.
The Commissioner’s conclusion that Mr Mistry’s argument that he was not required to follow the policies relied on by Woolworths on the basis that the customer was not armed was “disingenuous” because it was “an attempt to counter Woolworths’ criticisms of him and to avoid any disciplinary consequence”[6] was, with respect, a non sequitur. Mr Mistry was entitled to contend that he should not have been dismissed on the basis of a breach of particular policies which, on their face, did not apply to the 7 October 2016 incident. There was nothing “disingenuous” in that argument, which was entirely legitimate having regard to the terms of the policies, and it needed to be assessed on its merits. The obvious difficulty in the way in which the relevant policies were expressed was highlighted in the following exchange between the Commissioner and the representative of Woolworths in the hearing below:
“THE COMMISSIONER: I just have one question Ms Hollway, which is central to some of Mr Mistry's concerns. The procedure which Woolworths refer to on a number of occasions, is variously headed holdup or armed/holdup. Mr Mistry today, and in his materials, has taken issue with the word 'armed' because in this case, the person wasn't armed. What's your view about all of that?
MS HOLLWAY: Commissioner, I believe that we would take that on notice and probably look at removing the word 'armed' from the heading on the top of the page. Probably just call it a holdup procedure rather than an armed holdup procedure.”[7]
It is obviously not possible to construct a valid reason for the dismissal on the basis of a retrospective redrafting of the relevant policies.
The Commissioner’s further conclusion that Woolworths’ “expectation” that Mr Mistry should have followed “in general terms the principles” of the “5 C’s” and the “Armed Robbery/Hold Ups” procedures was “reasonable in the circumstances”[8] was not supported by any finding of fact made by the Commissioner. There was no evidence identified by the Commissioner that Woolworths had ever communicated any such expectation - that is, that the Armed Hold Ups procedures should be applied to incidents which did not involve an armed holdup - to Mr Mistry. Woolworths did not refer to any such evidence in its submissions, nor can we identify any such evidence in the record of the proceedings.
Although he did not expressly say so, the Commissioner may have inferred the communication of such an expectation in relation to the “Armed Hold-Up Questionnaire” which Mr Mistry completed in May 2016 as part of a safety pack which he had issued. If so, we do not consider that he was entitled to draw such an inference on the basis of the evidence before him. The policy which accompanied this safety pack was not identified, and there is no reason to think that it was any different to the policies which were placed into evidence and which we have earlier summarised. The fact that the questionnaire, despite its title, asked questions about situations other than armed hold-ups could not logically lead to the inference that the person undertaking the questionnaire would necessarily understand that the armed hold-ups policy was to apply to those other situations. Indeed, the first two questions in the questionnaire related to difficult and abusive customers, but it was never suggested by Woolworths that the armed hold-up procedures applied to such customers. It is apparent rather that these two questions related to the “Dealing with angry, difficult or abusive customers” section of the “Dealing with Difficult Customers” policy, and the better inference is that the entirety of this policy, not just the section on armed hold-ups, was supplied in the safety pack and was the subject of the questionnaire.
Further, it could not be said that it was reasonable for Woolworths to expect that employees would apply the “5 C’s” and the “Armed Robbery/Hold Ups” to situations which did not involve the actual, threatened or possible use of arms on the basis that it was so obvious that it went without saying. It may be accepted that these were important procedures designed to protect the safety of employees and other customers. But it is essential that health and safety procedures set out clearly the circumstances in which they apply. This is not a matter which can reasonably be left to the judgment of individual employees in circumstances as they arise, particularly where the employee is unexpectedly placed in a stressful situation because of the sudden actions of a customer. Nor could it reasonably be expected that Mr Mistry would necessarily understand that he was to hand over the contents of the till to a customer who was not visibly armed and did not give any indication or sign he was armed merely because the customer requested that this occur.
For these reasons, we consider that the Commissioner failed to deal with the fundamental issues which arose in the matter, namely whether Woolworths’ policies concerning armed hold-ups had any application to the 7 October 2016 incident and accordingly whether any failure to comply with such policies could constitute a valid reason for dismissal. This failure to deal with Mr Mistry’s case meant that the Commissioner failed to take into account a material consideration, manifested an injustice to Mr Mistry, and constituted appealable error. We therefore consider that it would be in the public interest to grant permission to appeal and that the appeal should be upheld.
It is necessary therefore for Mr Mistry’s application to be re-determined. We do not consider that we should undertake that task ourselves based on the evidence and submissions received to date, for three reasons. First, we do not consider that the parties were given a full and proper opportunity to run their respective evidentiary cases concerning what we have characterised as the fundamental issue concerning the applicability of the armed hold-up policies to the 7 October 2016 incident. With respect to Mr Mistry, this is illustrated by the fact that he was prevented by the Commissioner from cross-examining a witness concerning his contention that it was the “Dealing with Difficult Customers” procedure which was applicable to the incident:
“MR MISTRY: We have one more procedure in place. It's called Dealing with Difficult Customers. Are you aware of this procedure?
THE COMMISSIONER: With the greatest respect, Mr Mistry, are you suggesting that policy applied to the situation you were in?
MR MISTRY: Yes, sir.
THE COMMISSIONER: So you class someone demanding money or cigarettes as just a difficult customer?
MR MISTRY: Yes, sir.
THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I think that's an under-statement. I don't think on any rational view of what occurred, you could persuade me that your responsibility in these circumstances was to fall back to applying the how you deal with difficult customers' policy. I don't think it's relevant Mr Mistry.”[9]
Similarly, the cross-examination of Mr Mistry by Woolworths concerning his understanding of what he should do in the event a non-armed robbery incident was cut off by the Commissioner on the basis that it was not relevant.[10] For the reasons we have stated, we respectfully disagree; this was plainly relevant to the central issue. The parties should therefore be given an opportunity to seek the admission of further evidence concerning that central issue.
Second, the Commissioner did not admit the CCTV recording of the incident into evidence because it had not been served by Woolworths on Mr Mistry in advance of the hearing in accordance with the Commission’s directions.[11] We consider that a proper determination of Mr Mistry’s application would require that the CCTV recording be placed in evidence, notwithstanding Woolworths’ failure in that respect.
Third, separate from the issue of compliance with the armed hold-up policy, the Commissioner made a finding that Mr Mistry failed to comply with, or was at least tardy in complying with, directions given by his manager Ms Jayapahan subsequent to the incident. It is conceivable that Woolworths might seek, in the event that it failed on the central issue concerning non-compliance with the armed hold-up policy, to advance an alternative case that this failure on Mr Mistry’s part, coupled with the earlier warning, constituted a valid reason for his dismissal. We consider that Woolworths should be given the opportunity to advance such an alternative case should it wish to do so,
In the circumstances therefore, we consider that the appropriate course is to remit Mr Mistry’s application for re-determination to a single member of the Commission on the basis of the evidence and submissions received to date and such further evidence and submissions which the member determines to admit.
Orders
We order as follows:
(1) Permission to appeal is granted.
(2) The appeal is upheld.
(3) The Decision ([2017] FWC 3097) is quashed.
(4)Mr Mistry’s unfair dismissal remedy application (U2016/13165) is remitted to Commissioner Cribb for re-determination on the basis of the evidence and submissions received to date and such further evidence and submissions which the Commissioner may determine to admit.
VICE PRESIDENT
Appearances:
T. Mistry on his own behalf.
A. Talbert on behalf of Woolworths Ltd t/a Woolworths Fuel.
Hearing details:
2017.
Sydney:
8 August.
[1] [2017] FWC 3097
[2] An order dismissing the application (PR593537) accompanied the Decision.
[3] Decision at [4]-[24]
[4] Decision at [25]-[35]
[5] Decision at [50]
[6] Decision at [79]-[80]
[7] Transcript 2 March 2017 PNs 549-550
[8] Decision at [80]
[9] Transcript 2 March 2017 PNs 266-301
[10] Transcript 2 March 2017 PNs 176-189
[11] Transcript 2 March 2017 PNs 85-95
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, PR594867>
0
1
0