1
[2013] FWC 2554
DECISION
Fair Work Act 2009
s.526—Stand down
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal,
Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia & Anor
v
FMP Group (Australia) Pty Ltd
(C2013/3921, C2013/3923)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK MELBOURNE, 26 APRIL 2013
Application to deal with a dispute involving stand down.
Introduction
[1] On 15 April 2013 I issued a decision and delivered short reasons, which are recorded
in transcript,1 in relation to applications by the Communications, Electrical, Electronic,
Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) and
the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known
as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU), to deal with a dispute involving
the stand down of 31 maintenance employees of FMP Group (Australia) Pty Ltd (Employer)
under s.526 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). On 16 April 2013 I made orders giving
effect to my decision.2 These are my full reasons for making the orders.
[2] The CEPU and AMWU have each made an application under s.526 of the FW Act for
the Commission to deal with a dispute between the two unions, some of their members and
the Employer about the operation of Part 3-5 of the FW Act. Given the urgency of the matters
alleged in the applications it was convenient to deal with them concurrently.
[3] The dispute about the operation of Part 3-5 of the FW Act concerns the stand down by
the Employer of 31 of its maintenance employees3 each of whom are members of either the
CEPU or the AMWU (Relevant Employees). The Relevant Employees were stood down by
the Employer during the course of 12 April 2013.4 No party raised any issue concerning the
capacity of the Commission to deal with the dispute by arbitration in accordance with
Division 3 of Part 3-5 of the FW Act.
Factual context
[4] The Employer conducts a business involving the manufacture of automotive break
products at its manufacturing facility at Ballarat in Victoria and it operates a day, afternoon
and night shift at the facility.5 The Relevant Employees are employed to undertake both
breakdown and preventative maintenance at the facility,6 and their employment is covered by
AUSTRALIA FAIR WORK COMMISSION
[2013] FWC 2554
2
the FMP Group (Australia) Pty Limited, Enterprise Agreement 20107 (Current Agreement).
That agreement has passed its nominal expiry date.8
[5] The two unions, as bargaining representatives, have been bargaining with the
Employer for a new agreement. Orders authorising the holding of protected action ballots
were made by the Commission in favour of the CEPU and the AMWU on 20 March 2013.9
Pursuant to the protected action ballot orders, members of the CEPU and the AMWU who are
to be covered by the proposed agreement were balloted and subsequently approved the action
proposed in the ballots.10 On 8 April 2013 the Unions in their capacities as bargaining
representatives each gave notice to the Employer of an intention to organise and take
employee claim action commencing on 12 April 2013.11 Relevantly the notices informed the
Employer that the Relevant Employees were intending to take employee claim action in the
form of “[A]n indefinite ban on filling in paper work, excluding health and safety matters”
(Paper Work Ban) and that the action would begin at 7.00 a.m. on 12 April 2013.12
[6] In anticipation of the commencement of industrial action, the Employer conducted a
briefing with some of its workforce including the Relevant Employees.13 The purpose of the
briefing was to inform the workforce attending of the proposed industrial action, its likely
impact and possible Employer responses to the action. A powerpoint presentation used by the
Employer in the briefings was tendered in evidence.14 It was not disputed that the powerpoint
presentation was used during the briefing. As to the Paper Work Ban, the Employer advised
the Relevant Employees during the briefing that:
As it manufactures a safety product, there are some requirements that cannot be
compromised;
Compliance obligations must be met and product integrity and brand must be
protected;
Noting that health and safety matters are excluded from the proposed ban, there are
other business requirements around record keeping that cannot be foregone.15
[7] Ms Susan Honeyman is the Human Resources Manager of the Employer and gave
evidence that prior to the workforce briefing on 11 April 2013, she had met with the
Maintenance Manager and the senior management team of the Employer to discuss what
might happen if the Paper Work Ban was implemented. Relevantly Ms Honeyman’s evidence
was as follows:
“Prior to the meeting conducted on the 11th, did you meet with your maintenance
manager to discuss what might happen if the paperwork ban was implemented? ---Yes,
we actually started meeting right when the vote paper came through so that we could
see what they were going to be voting on. Between then and when we received
notification of the ban we probably had three or four meetings about that.
What was the purpose of these meetings? What were you seeking to address
particularly?---To discuss how damaging it could be for us if we didn't have the paper
trail attached to the tasks and if our maintenance guys weren't prepared to fill out the
paperwork, would we be able to have them doing their job.
Ultimately, I take it, based on the evidence of R3, that was delivered by you on the
11th - - -?---Yes.
[2013] FWC 2554
3
- - - to the maintenance workers. The determination was that you couldn't have them
doing any work?---That's right, yes. There was too much - too many maintenance
people in a position where they could make a decision on whether or not they did or
didn't fill out the paperwork, and they're not always fully supervised so they have their
job orders, their job requests or their calls and they go off and do them jobs and we
just rely on them to follow the system, and abide by their qualifications and the
system.”16
[8] Mr Tim Farquhar, a maintenance fitter employed by the Employer, gave evidence that
Ms Honeyman told the workforce briefing that he attended, that employees who participated
in the Paper Work Ban would be stood down.17 Similar evidence was given by Mr Brett
Buckwell18 and Mr Simon Jones19, both of whom are employed as electricians by the
Employer, and Mr Craig Spark20, another maintenance fitter employed by the Employer. This
evidence was not challenged by the Employer. It seems clear from the evidence that the
Employer had determined at some point prior to the commencement of the Paper Work Ban,
that it could not allow the Relevant Employees to perform any work while those bans were in
effect. Ms Honeyman gave evidence that the Employer had considered other options which
might avoid a stand down of the Relevant Employees but ultimately the Employer “couldn’t
think of any tasks that people could do that would keep them gainfully employed for a full
shift”.21 In this regard Ms Honeyman gave evidence that the Employer did not undertake an
individual assessment of each Relevant Employee to determine whether any particular
employee could be usefully employed during the Paper Work Ban, rather it determined that
“. . . as a collection, we didn’t have work that would keep people usefully employed if they
weren’t doing their normal job and we weren’t able to let them do their normal job if they
weren’t doing the paperwork part of it.”22
[9] According to Ms Honeyman’s evidence, the Employer was concerned that the Paper
Work Ban would result in the performance of work to a standard below that which the
Employer would accept and that if it accepted the work the Employer may suffer reputational
damage.23 Ms Honeyman agreed that the Paper Work Ban would not have prevented the
Relevant Employees physically undertaking repairs in the event of machinery break down.24
As the Relevant Employees were ultimately not permitted to undertake any work, and
effectively not able to implement the Paper Work Ban, it follows that the Employer could not
know the actual impact of those bans, or its capacity to usefully employ any of the Relevant
Employees because of the ban.
[10] Shifts at the Ballarat site are organised to start and finish at times providing for an
overlap with the next shift.25 The purpose of the overlap is to allow for tool box meetings and
communications to occur during the overlap period.26 Ms Honeyman gave evidence that she
attended the Ballarat site on the morning of 12 April 2013 and at some time after 6.00 a.m.
commenced asking Relevant Employees on Day Shift individually whether they intended to
participate in the Paper Work Ban.27 Relevant Employees on the Night Shift were spoken to
towards the end of their shift on the morning of 12 April 2012, while Afternoon Shift
Relevant Employees were spoken to by Ms Honeyman at the beginning of their respective
shifts later on 12 April 2013.28 Each Relevant Employee who was asked whether they
intended to participate in the Paper Work Ban advised the Employer that they would
participate. These employees were also given a document titled “Memorandum” and dated
12 April 201329 (Stand Down Notice), advising the employees that the “nature of this ban has
placed the Company in a position of being unable to make suitable work available to trades
(mechanical and electrical) employees for the duration of this ban” and that the employee
[2013] FWC 2554
4
would “be ‘stood down from employment’ for the duration of the ban” without pay. The
employees were then stood down with immediate effect and told to leave the site.30
[11] Maintenance employees are required to complete certain documents when undertaking
preventative or repair maintenance. These documents are titled “Maintenance Request”31,
which is used for repair maintenance32 and FMP Work Order”33, which is used for
preventative maintenance.34 The Paper Work Ban is directed to the completion of these
documents. Information entered on the documents by the maintenance employee attending to
a fault or general maintenance of equipment is subsequently entered onto the Employer’s
computer system.35 This forms part of the maintenance record of the equipment.
[12] The maintenance record of equipment does not appear to be regularly reviewed by
maintenance employees before attending to any maintenance work, although it may be
reviewed in connection with a piece of equipment that is continually breaking down.36 The
documents are also used to conduct original equipment audits, other audits and to keep a
record of equipment reliability, capability, traceability, preventative maintenance,
breakdowns, MOC, licensing, permits and programming.37 There is some evidence that
maintenance record documents are not always completed either because the operator of
equipment requiring repair does not provide a maintenance request document to the
maintenance employee38, the past practice was to make a diary note39 or the maintenance
employee simply does not complete the documents.40
[13] Ms Honeyman gave evidence that the Employer’s system requires maintenance
employees to complete the documents but did not seriously dispute the fact that on some
occasions “they don’t get filled in”.41 The Employer regarded the purpose for which the data
in the documents is kept to be very important and a failure to maintain the maintenance record
as “untenable”42. Therefore the Employer took the position that “no work . . . will be
permitted while a paperwork ban is in place”.43
Stand down provision of the FW Act and Employer’s right to stand down
[14] The Employer relies upon s.524 of the FW Act as the basis for its stand down of
Relevant Employees. Section 524 permits an employer to stand down an employee during any
period in which the employee cannot usefully be employed in certain limited circumstances.
Section 524(1) provides:
“(1) An employer may, under this subsection, stand down an employee during a
period in which the employee cannot usefully be employed because of one of the
following circumstances:
(a) industrial action (other than industrial action organised or engaged in by the
employer);
(b) a breakdown of machinery or equipment, if the employer cannot reasonably be
held responsible for the breakdown;
(c) a stoppage of work for any cause for which the employer cannot reasonably be
held responsible.”
[15] The consequence of a stand down of an employee for a period under s.524(1) is that
the employer is not required to make any payment to the employee for the period.44
[2013] FWC 2554
5
[16] An employer is not permitted to stand down an employee under s.524(1) if:
an enterprise agreement, or a contract of employment, applies to the employer and
the employee; and
the agreement or contract provides for the employer to stand down the employee
during that period if the employee cannot usefully be employed during that period
because of that circumstance.45
[17] In such a case, the employer will need to rely upon the terms of the enterprise
agreement or contract of employment to effect a stand down of an employee. The Current
Agreement does not expressly provide for the standing down of employees, however by
clause 4, all provisions of the Metal, Engineering and Associated Industries Award 1998 -
Part 1 as in force on 1 March 2006 (Incorporated Award) are incorporated as terms of the
Current Agreement. Clause 4.6 of the Incorporated Award provides as follows:
“The employer has the right to deduct payment for any day the employee cannot be
usefully employed because of any strike or through any breakdown in machinery or
any stoppage of work by any cause for which the employer cannot reasonably be held
responsible.”
[18] During the course of submissions, Ms Henderson, appearing for the Employer,
submitted that the Employer relied upon clause 4.6 of the Incorporated Award as an
alternative source of power the Employer could rely upon to stand down the Relevant
Employees.46 Specifically Ms Henderson argued that the stoppage of work that resulted from
the Paper Work Ban was a stoppage for which the Employer could not be held responsible.47
[19] On the face of the provision it seems clear that clause 4.6 confers a narrower right to
stand down an employee than s.524(1). The reference to ‘industrial action’ in s.524(1)(a)
carries the meaning ascribed to that phrase by s.19 of the FW Act. The Paper Work Ban falls
within the described conduct in s.19(1)(a) and (b). Relevantly, clause 4.6 confines the right to
stand down an employee to periods when the employee cannot be usefully employed because
of a “strike” or “or any stoppage of work by any cause for which the employer cannot
reasonably be held responsible”.
[20] I do not regard the Paper Work Ban as fitting comfortably within either of these
circumstances. Self evidently the ban was not a strike, which in common industrial parlance
would mean a complete withdrawal of labour and a refusal by employees to perform any work
at all. Further, the stoppage of work that resulted from the standing down of Relevant
Employees on 12 April 2013 occurred not because the Relevant Employees refused to
perform the work, but rather because the Employer would not permit maintenance employees
to carry out maintenance work “while a paper work ban is in place”.48 The stoppage of
maintenance work was caused by the Employer and occurred after it had implemented the
stand downs.
[21] The Employer did not assert a right under any contract of employment with any
Relevant Employee which might have permitted the employer to stand down an employee.
[22] I therefore find that the only source of power that the Employer could rely upon to
justify the standing down of the Relevant Employees on 12 April 2013 is s.524(1).
[2013] FWC 2554
6
[23] Ms Maloney, appearing for the Unions, submitted that in order for the right under
s.524(1) to be enlivened the circumstances listed in paragraphs (a) to (c) must actually be
occurring. Ms Maloney submitted that at the time the Employer stood down the Relevant
Employees, the employees were not engaging in industrial action, and that whether such
action would occur amounted to mere speculation on the Employer’s part. Ms Maloney
submitted that the Employer cannot rely upon s.524(1) to stand down an employee when
industrial action is only threatened but not yet occurring.49
[24] Ms Maloney also made submissions to the effect that the Relevant Employees could
be usefully employed by the Employer during any period that the Paper Work Ban was in
place and that the evidence supported such a conclusion. Ms Henderson strongly disputed this
submission and sought to elicit evidence about the importance of the maintenance records and
the significant risks faced by the Employer if it allowed the Relevant Employees to carry out
maintenance work whilst adhering to the Paper Work Ban. For reasons that will become
apparent, I have found it unnecessary to resolve this conflicting evidence or to decide the
issue of whether any Relevant Employee could be usefully employed by the Employer during
any period that such employee or any Relevant Employee was adhering to the Paper Work
Ban.
[25] Turning back to Ms Maloney’s first submission in [23] above, Ms Henderson
submitted that the Employer was entitled to stand down the Relevant Employees because:
the Relevant Employees had commenced Industrial Action (s.524(1)(a)) (or at least
intended to do so during the course of their shifts);50 and/or
the Paper Work Ban amounted to a stoppage of work for any cause for which the
employer could not reasonably be held responsible (s.524(1)(c)).51
[26] Ms Henderson argued that it was enough to enliven the industrial action circumstance
in s.524(1)(a) for the Relevant Employees to have commenced their shift with the intention to
implement the Paper Work Ban. Ms Henderson’s argument and the evidence upon which she
relied in encapsulated in the following exchange:
“MS HENDERSON: - - - in which the employee cannot be usefully employed because
of one of the following circumstances. The respondent obviously relies on the fact that
industrial action was underway and we put it to you that there was evidence that
industrial action was underway. It is the evidence of Ms Honeyman that only after the
shift, particularly on the 12th, had started did she ask any employee whether it was
their intention to comply with the paperwork ban, after the commencement of their
shift. I also have evidence from - - -
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The problem I have with that submission is that she
also, in answer to a direct question from Ms Maloney, said that industrial action hadn’t
yet commenced.
MS HENDERSON: I think measured with the fact that the shift had started in every
instance bar two, which she differentiated in her evidence, and indeed on the evidence
of Simon Jones and Brett Buckwell clearly in their statements, that they had
commenced their shift before they were asked the question as to whether they intended
to participate in the paperwork ban. I think it is clear that the shift had started and
[2013] FWC 2554
7
employees who were going to participate in the industrial action had stated
unequivocally that they were going to participate in that ban.
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Yes.
MS HENDERSON: I think on that basis, it’s clear that the industrial action had
started, and that is the evidence that we have before us. If there's any question as to
whether the employees who were witnesses had commenced their shift for the day, I
draw your attention particularly to A5, paragraph 10, where Brett Buckwell says:
On 12 April at 6.57 am, the start of the rostered shift hours, I along with most
of the other maintenance employees was in Nigel Ward's office for our normal
start-of-shift briefing. At this time Susan Honeyman gave me a copy of the
memorandum.
Now, employees understood full well the consequence of responding that they
intended to participate in the overtime ban which, as of 7 am was to commence, and
they understood when they gave her the answer at or around this time that they were
participating in that ban, that that's the effect that had been given. They were indeed
creating a situation where they would not be completing all the requisite information
required for the performance of their job. The other example, again stated in the
witness statements particularly in Simon Jones’s witness statement, A3, states at item
10, “On 12 April at 6.55 am in the maintenance manager’s office, Susan Honeyman
gave me a copy of a memorandum entitled, “Protected action”.
So again, it was clear to employees who were given this memorandum that they were
being given the memorandum in relation to the protected action. Indeed the
memorandum itself reads:
This notice relates to the indefinite ban of filling in paperwork, excluding
safety and wage related matters. This ban impacts on all maintenance,
mechanical and electrical employees of the FMP Group. There is also potential
to impact on some other employees covered by the enterprise bargaining
agreement. Due to the nature of this ban, the company has considered all
options available to continue to provide you with useful and meaningful work.
If you are to initiate this ban, the nature of this ban has placed the company in a
position of being unable to make suitable work available to trades, mechanical
and electrical employees for the duration of the ban.
All of this information is operating on the basis that the industrial action has
commenced. I think it’s clear, as I said, from the evidence that the industrial action had
commenced and therefore the company was within its rights, under section 524 of the
Act, to implement a stand down . . .”52
[27] The evidence of the four Relevant Employees who were called by Ms Maloney was
that when they attended for their shift and before they had commenced any maintenance
duties:
they were asked by Ms Honeyman whether they intended to participate to in the
Paper Work Ban;
[2013] FWC 2554
8
they each said that they would participate;
they were handed the Stand Down Notice, told they were stood down and asked to
leave the premises.53
[28] This evidence was not challenged by the Employer, nor were the observations in the
evidence given by the four Relevant Employees, that the other Relevant Employees were
processed in the same fashion. Their evidence is consistent with that given by
Ms Honeyman.54 Ms Honeyman also accepted that no Relevant Employee had refused to fill
in any paper at the time they were stood down. That evidence, given in cross-examination
appears below:
“In relation to the industrial action, at the time you stood down the employees had they
commenced the taking of industrial action?---They’d commenced their shift.
Had they commenced taking industrial action?---We asked them if it was their
intention to do so and they all replied, “Yes”. So, in our opinion, yes, they had
commenced it.
What time did the afternoon shift start?---2.57 pm.
When did you notify them that they were being stood down?---5 past 3.
Had anyone refused to fill out any paperwork?---When each person was asked, “Is it
your intention to participate in the paperwork ban?” they all replied, “Yes”.
But had they actually refused to fill in any paperwork?---No.”55
[29] Further, the fact that the Relevant Employees were not engaging in industrial action at
the time that they were stood down by the Employer was not challenged by the Employer in
the proceedings.56
[30] It seem abundantly clear from the evidence that the Relevant Employees had not
refused to perform any work at the time that the Employer stood down the Relevant
Employees, although each had expressed an intention to do so. Although I do not agree with
Ms Maloney’s submission that whether such action would occur amounted to mere
speculation on the Employer’s part, and find that industrial action by Relevant Employees
was both threatened and probable, industrial action was not occurring at the time each
Relevant Employee was stood down.
[31] Section 524(1) is intended to relieve an employer of the obligation to pay wages to
employees who cannot be usefully employed in certain limited circumstances. The
consequences of a stand down can be severe for an employee as the employee may be
deprived of wages for a lengthy period. Whether a particular employee can be usefully
employed is a question of fact to be determined having regard to the circumstances that face
the employer. The circumstances and their effect on the capacity of an employer to usefully
employ a particular employee cannot be known in advance of the circumstance arising,
although educated guesses may be made. Section 524(1) is unlikely to have been intended to
operate so as to deprive an employee of wages and to relieve an employer of the obligation to
pay wages before one of the circumstances in s.524(1)(a)-(c) has arisen. Indeed the structure
and language of s.524(1) shows that there needs to be a temporal connection between one of
[2013] FWC 2554
9
the circumstances arising and the standing down of an employee because the employee cannot
usefully be employed. The words “because of” in s.524(1) are used to indicate a causal link
between the occurrence of a circumstance and the absence of useful employment. In that
sense, the alleged absence of useful employment for the Relevant Employees cannot be said
to have been caused by industrial action, as no industrial action had taken place at the time the
Relevant Employees were stood down.
[32] It follows, in my view, that in order for an employer to validly exercise its right under
s.524(1)(a), the employee who is to be the subject of a stand down must, at the time of being
stood down, be engaging in the industrial action/have previously engaged in industrial action
which causes the unavailability of useful employment, or have his or her capacity to be
usefully employed affected by the industrial action of others that is happening or has happen.
It cannot be said that the Relevant Employees could not usefully be employed during a period
unless that period is affected by actual industrial action taken by then. Consequently, in my
view, the Employer did not have a proper basis to stand down the Relevant Employees under
s.524(1)(a). Given that finding, it is unnecessary for me to consider whether the Relevant
Employees could usefully be employed in the event that the industrial action eventuated.
[33] Given, the structure and language of s.524(1), I do not accept the Ms Henderson’s
submission that the Paper Work Ban could amount to a stoppage of work for which the
Employer cannot be reasonably be held responsible within the meaning of s.524(1)(c). True it
is that s.524(1)(c) refers to a stoppage of work for “any cause”, however once it is established
that the Paper Work Ban would be industrial action and therefore caught by s.524(1)(a), it
seems overly artificial to suggest that the ban is also caught be s.524(1)(c). Even if I am
wrong about the proper construction of s.524(1)(c), the stoppage of work that resulted from
the standing down of Relevant Employees on 12 April 2013 occurred not because the
Relevant Employees refused to perform the work, but rather because the Employer would not
permit maintenance employees to carry out maintenance work “while a paper work ban is in
place”.57 The stoppage of maintenance work was caused by the Employer and occurred after it
had implemented the stand down. Consequently it cannot be said that the stoppage of work
was for a cause for which the Employer cannot be reasonably be held responsible.
[34] In any event, even if the Paper Work Ban would be caught by s.524(1)(c), it had not
begun and cannot be the cause of the absence of useful employment.
[35] In dealing with this dispute by making the orders in PR535742 and PR535743, I have
given consideration to fairness between the parties concerned. I accept that the Employer was
in a difficult position faced with the prospect of industrial action which it genuinely regarded
as having the effect of allowing the performance by maintenance employees of maintenance
work as untenable. Nevertheless, the Employer was not without options. It could have waited
for the Relevant Employees to begin refusing to complete paper work. It could have initiated
employer response action. It could have withheld payments for partial work bans under in
accordance with s.471. Conversely, the Relevant Employees proposed to engage in employee
claim action, and before they did so, they were stood down. In the circumstances fairness
between the parties favoured the making of the Orders.
[36] Although it is unnecessary for me to reach a concluded view on the question of
whether the Relevant Employees could be usefully employed during the period the Paper
Work Ban operated, I do for the assistance of the parties express a prelininary view based on
the evidence before me. I would unlikely have found that the Relevant Employees could not
[2013] FWC 2554
10
usefully be employed, within the meaning of s.524(1), because of their participation in the
Paper Work Ban. The Employer would need to lead significantly more evidence about the
actual impact of the industrial action on its business, and in particular focusing on the
proposition that, prima facie, the Relevant Employees can undertake maintenance work
notwithstanding the Paper Work Ban and such work would seem to confer some benefit upon
the Employer.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
J. Maloney for the “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries
Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) and the
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied
Services Union of Australia.
E. Henderson with S. Honeyman for FMP Group (Australia) Pty Ltd.
Hearing details:
2013.
Melbourne:
April 15
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
Price code C, PR536028
R ORK CO .. MISSION AU TRALIA
[2013] FWC 2554
11
1 Transcript PN 677 - 683
2 PR535742 and PR535743
3 Transcript PN 444 - 445
4 Transcript PN 423 -428 and PN513 - 522
5 See Witness Statements of Spark [2] (Exhibit A1), Jones [2] - [4] (Exhibit A 3) Bucknell [2] - [4] (Exhibit A5) and
Farquhar [2] (Exhibit A6)
6 See for example Witness Statement of Farquhar [2] (Exhibit A6)
7 AE886487
8 Clause 3
9 PR535000 and PR5350002
10 Exhibit A8 at [4], Exhibit A1 at [3], Exhibit A3 at [5], Exhibit A5 at [5] and Exhibit A6 at [4]
11 Exhibits A2 and A4
12 See for example Exhibit A4
13 Transcript PN421
14 Exhibit R3
15 Exhibit R3, p 6
16 Transcript PN440-443; see also PN504-505
17 Exhibit A6 at [6]
18 Exhibit A5 at [7]
19 Exhibit A3 at [7]
20 Exhibit A1 at [4]
21 Transcript PN447
22 Transcript PN506
23 Transcript PN507-508
24 Transcript PN510 and PN 479-480
25 Transcript PN416-419
26 Transcript PN420
27 Transcript PN423-426
28 Transcript PN512-522
29 Exhibit A2; See also PN30-31, Exhibit A1 at [8], Exhibit A2 at [12], Exhibit A5 at [10]
30 Exhibit A1 at [8], Exhibit A2 at [10], Exhibit A5 at [10], and Exhibit A6 at [8]
31 Exhibit R1
32 Exhibit A1 at [6]
33 Exhibit R2
34 Transcript PN94
35 Transcript PN121 and PN290-291
36 Transcript PN122-124 and PN292-293
37 Transcript PN125-145, PN53-65 and Exhibit R3 at p 7
38 Transcript PN148-151
39 Transcript PN240
40 Transcript PN 349
41 Transcript PN477
42 Exhibit R3 at p 7
43 Exhibit R3 at p 7
44 Section 524(3) FW Act
[2013] FWC 2554
12
45 Section 524(2) FW Act
46 Transcript PN638
47 PN630-634
48 Exhibit R3 at p 7
49 Transcript PN557-562 and Exhibit A8 at [15]
50 Transcript PN613
51 Transcript PN633-634
52 Transcript PN613-622
53 Exhibit A1 at [8], Exhibit A2 at [10], Exhibit A5 at [10], and Exhibit A6 at [8]
54 Transcript PN423-428
55 Transcript PN497-502
56 Transcript PN406-407
57 Exhibit R3 at p 7
