1
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Adrian Hennigan
v
Xmplar Building Solutions Pty Ltd T/A Xmplar Building Solutions
(U2015/6815)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT KOVACIC MELBOURNE, 12 MAY 2016
Application for relief from unfair dismissal – jurisdictional objection – small business
employer, dismissal was consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code –
application dismissed.
[1] On 4 August 2015 Mr Adrian Hennigan (the Applicant) made an application under
s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) alleging that the termination of his employment by
Xmplar Building Solutions Pty Ltd T/A Xmplar Building Solutions (the Respondent) on
17 July 2015 was unfair.
[2] On 12 October 2015 the Respondent lodged a Form F4 – Objection to Application for
Unfair Dismissal Remedy objecting to the application on the basis that it was a small business
and that Mr Hennigan’s dismissal was consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal
Code (the Code).
[3] The Fair Work Commission (the Commission) subsequently issued Directions on
16 October 2015 requiring the parties to file an outline of submissions and any evidentiary
material they intended to rely on regarding the matter.
[4] The application was heard on 25 November 2015. At the hearing, Ms Ruth Hennigan,
the Applicant’s sister, appeared for Mr Hennigan, while Mr Jamie Ronald appeared with
permission for the Respondent. Mr Hennigan gave evidence on his own behalf, together with
Mr Brian Langan, a friend and former work colleague, while Mr Kevin Devaney, the
Respondent’s sole Director, and his brother and employee of the Respondent, Mr Eoin
Devaney, gave evidence for the Respondent.
[5] The Commission issued further Directions on 27 November 2015 regarding the filing
of closing submissions and submissions in reply. In accordance with those Directions,
Mr Hennigan’s closing submissions in reply were received on 23 December 2015.
[6] For the reasons set out below, I have found that Mr Hennigan’s dismissal was
consistent with the Code and that, as such, his dismissal was fair. Mr Hennigan’s application
is therefore dismissed.
[2016] FWC 2938
DECISION
E AUSTRALIA FairWork Commission
[2016] FWC 2938
2
Background
[7] Mr Hennigan commenced employment with the Respondent on 27 May 2013 as a
Drainer. Mr Hennigan was sponsored by the Respondent and worked in Australia under a
Temporary Work (Skilled) Visa (subclass 457) (457 Visa). Mr Hennigan contended that a
condition of his employment, though not cited in his Letter of Offer of Employment1, was that
the Respondent would nominate him for a permanent residence Employer Nomination
Scheme (subclass 186) visa. This is disputed by the Respondent.
[8] In early September 2014 Mr Hennigan developed dermatitis on his hands as a result of
working with concrete. The Respondent lodged a workers’ compensation claim on behalf of
Mr Hennigan which was accepted by its insurer, Allianz. A return to work plan was
subsequently developed for Mr Hennigan which provided for a graduated return to work, with
Mr Hennigan initially working two days per week. Based on the material before the
Commission, it appears that Mr Hennigan worked more than the reduced hours specified in
the return to work plan.
[9] Mr Hennigan returned to Ireland over Christmas 2014 where he apparently spilt diesel
fuel on his hands aggravating his injury. On his return to Australia, he visited a doctor on
22 January 2015 and was issued with a medical certificate which stated that he was fit to
resume normal duties from that date2. In respect of treatment for Mr Hennigan’s injury, the
medical certificate stated “Requires permanent avoidance of concreting duties. Condition will
flare if concrete dust/raw concrete mix exposure occurs. Return to alternative duties.”
[10] In the absence of the Respondent being able to provide alternative duties to
Mr Hennigan on a continuing basis Mr Eoin Devaney wrote to the rehabilitation provider on
19 February 2015 in the following terms:
“I refer to our previous telephone conversation regarding the employment of Adrian
Hennigan.
As you are aware, the Doctor signed off on 22 January 2015 that Adrian is unable to
continue working with concrete.
As discussed, Adrian has been offered a labouring position in a partner company. This
position is casual with no possibility of becoming permanent. We are unable to offer a
full-time position in the main company as we only have concrete work.
We are working very hard to accommodate Adrian with alternative employment, but
this has met with some resistance from Adrian, is the work does not guarantee
permanent employment and the benefits that come with it.
Adrian has requested to go back concreting, but that would be clearly wrong for him,
and negligent on our part. We are compassionate towards Adrian’s dilemma and wish
to make the correct decision for both the business and our employee.
1 Legal Submissions on Behalf of the Applicant at Attachment B
2 Ibid at Attachment F
[2016] FWC 2938
3
We are looking for guidance on this issue and hope that you may give us some clear
direction with a positive outcome for all concerned.
Should you require to discuss this further please don’t hesitate to contact me.”3
[11] Mr Hennigan ultimately agreed to the arrangement.
[12] An incident occurred on site on 20 February 2015 between Mr Hennigan and Mr Eoin
Devaney in which Mr Hennigan described Mr Devaney as “nothing but a f…..g tramp”. As a
result, Mr Hennigan was asked to leave the site, which he did, and later that day met with
Messrs Kevin and Eoin Devaney. Also attending that meeting was Mr Nick Taylor, a
consultant working with the Respondent. At the conclusion of that meeting, Mr Hennigan was
issued a first and final warning.
[13] At around the same time or shortly thereafter it appears as though Mr Hennigan asked
Mr Devaney whether he could proceed with his application for permanent residence and in
the absence of any objection from the Respondent proceeded to progress the matter with his
migration agent, spending about $10,000 in the process. While Mr Hennigan deposed that
Mr Eoin Devaney told him to have the money paid for his permanent residency so that he
could apply for it when he became eligible, the Respondent disputes this.
[14] On 30 March 2015, Mr Hennigan’s partner, Ms Katherine Loftus, was added to his
457 Visa4 by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The Respondent had
previously written a general letter stating it had “no issue with Katherine Loftus being added
to Adrian’s 457 visa.”5
[15] On 17 July 2015 on returning from an overseas trip and boarding a bus in Sydney to
return to Canberra, Mr Hennigan sent Mr Kevin Devaney a text message which enquired
about the status of his nomination for permanent residency. Following the exchange of a few
further text messages, Mr Hennigan called Mr Devaney at the latter’s invitation to discuss the
issue. While many aspects of the conversation are disputed, Mr Hennigan deposed that after
Mr Devaney had informed him that there were issues regarding the nomination he said “Right
this is far from over and I’ll be fixing you and Eoin”6. While Mr Devaney deposed in his
witness statement7 that Mr Hennigan had said “If you f..k up my visa and my partner’s visa
you will be sorry. You boys are only f…..g cowboys. I’m going to sort you out …” but under
cross examination conceded that the he was pretty sure the words Mr Hennigan used were
“fix you up.” Mr Devaney interpreted these words as a threat and summarily dismissed
Mr Hennigan during their telephone call. Mr Devaney contacted the Gungahlin police station
at 1.29 pm that afternoon to report the incident.
[16] Mr Devaney sent Mr Hennigan a termination letter on 17 July 2015 which read as
follows:
3 Exhibit R1 at Annexure KD4
4 Legal Submissions on Behalf of the Applicant at Attachment J
5 Ibid at Attachment K
6 Exhibit H1
7 Exhibit R1
[2016] FWC 2938
4
“I am writing to you about the termination of your employment with Xmplar Building
Solutions Pty Ltd
The reasons for your dismissal have been outlined below.
First Offence and Issue of Final Warning – I refer to our meeting at Xmplar Office
on 20/02/2015 which was attended by you and Directors Kevin Devaney and Eoin
Devaney. The meeting was also attended by Senior Consultant, Mr Nick Taylor.
During the meeting we discussed the onsite incident which occurred 20/02/2015 where
you were asked to leave Moncrieff site because you had become aggressive and
verbally abused Eoin Devaney. You were informed by Eoin at the time that this was
unacceptable and asked to leave site immediately.
At this meeting you were informed that your actions were that of serious misconduct
and breach of multiple sections of Xmplar’s OHS management System and Employee
Induction Handbook signed by all employees.
You were informed that this warning was your final warning for actions of this kind
and your next offence would result in termination of your employment with Xmplar
Building Solutions.
Second Offence of Serious Misconduct – I refer to the incident which occurred at
11.07am on 17/07/2015 when you phoned Kevin Devaney to discuss the possibility of
Xmplar Building Solutions nominating you for Permanent Residency Visa. When you
were informed by Kevin that Xmplar Building Solutions cannot offer you the visa
nomination, you became very aggressive, verbally abusive and threatening. At the end
of the phone call Kevin verbally informed you that for talking to him like that your
employment has ended.
We consider that your actions constitute serious misconduct warranting immediate
summary dismissal.
You will be paid any accrued entitlements and outstanding remuneration, including
superannuation, up to and including the date of this letter.”8
The statutory framework
[17] The Commission exercises its powers in relation to an application for an unfair
dismissal remedy pursuant to Part 3-2 of the Act. The relevant provisions from Part 3-2 of the
Act are set out below.
“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
8 Ibid at Annexure KD7
[2016] FWC 2938
5
(c) the dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal
Code; and
(d) the dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy.
Note: For the definition of consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code:
see section 388.
387 Criteria for considering harshness etc.
In considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust or
unreasonable, the FWC must take into account:
(a) whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the
person’s capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and
welfare of other employees); and
(b) whether the person was notified of that reason; and
(c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason
related to the capacity or conduct of the person; and
(d) any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a
support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal;
and
(e) if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person—
whether the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory
performance before the dismissal; and
(f) the degree to which the size of the employer’s enterprise would be
likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal;
and
(g) the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource
management specialists or expertise in the enterprise would be likely to
impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and
(h) any other matters that the FWC considers relevant.
388 The Small Business Fair Dismissal Code
(1) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, declare a Small Business Fair
Dismissal Code.
(2) A person’s dismissal was consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal
Code if:
(a) immediately before the time of the dismissal or at the time the person
was given notice of the dismissal (whichever happened first), the
person’s employer was a small business employer; and
(b) the employer complied with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code in
relation to the dismissal.
[18] The Code declared by the Minister pursuant to s.388(1) of the Act is as follows:
“Summary Dismissal
It is fair for an employer to dismiss an employee without notice or warning when the
employer believes on reasonable grounds that the employee’s conduct is sufficiently
[2016] FWC 2938
6
serious to justify immediate dismissal. Serious misconduct includes theft, fraud,
violence and serious breaches of occupational health and safety procedures. For a
dismissal to be deemed fair it is sufficient, though not essential, that an allegation of
theft, fraud or violence be reported to the police. Of course, the employer must have
reasonable grounds for making the report.
Other Dismissal
In other cases, the small business employer must give the employee a reason why he
or she is at risk of being dismissed. The reason must be a valid reason based on the
employee’s conduct or capacity to do the job.
The employee must be warned verbally or preferably in writing, that he or she risks
being dismissed if there is no improvement.
The small business employer must provide the employee with an opportunity to
respond to the warning and give the employee a reasonable chance to rectify the
problem, having regard to the employee’s response. Rectifying the problem might
involve the employer providing additional training and ensuring the employee knows
the employer’s job expectations.
Procedural Matters
In discussions with an employee in circumstances where dismissal is possible, the
employee can have another person present to assist. However, the other person cannot
be a lawyer acting in a professional capacity.
A small business employer will be required to provide evidence of compliance with
the Code if the employee makes a claim for unfair dismissal to Fair Work Australia,
including evidence that a warning has been given (except in cases of summary
dismissal). Evidence may include a completed checklist, copies of written warning(s),
a statement of termination or signed witness statements.”
Was the Applicant’s dismissal consistent with the Code?
[19] In this case, it was not disputed that the Respondent was a small business employer as
per s.23 of the Act. Accordingly, the threshold issue to be determined is whether
Mr Hennigan’s dismissal was consistent with the Code. If it was, by virtue of s.385(c) of the
Act the dismissal was not unfair and Mr Hennigan’s application will be dismissed. If,
however, I find that Mr Hennigan’s dismissal was not consistent with the Code, then I will
need to consider whether his dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. I will deal with the
threshold issue first.
The Applicant’s case
[20] Mr Hennigan submitted that in the absence of threatening language, which he
contended was the case, there were no reasonable grounds upon which Mr Devaney could
base his belief that he had been threatened by Mr Hennigan. Mr Hennigan highlighted the
difference between Mr Devaney’s witness statement in which he attributed the words “I’ll sort
you out” to Mr Hennigan and his oral evidence in which he attested that Mr Hennigan had
[2016] FWC 2938
7
said “I’ll fix you up”, contending that as a result Mr Devaney’s account cannot be relied upon.
In short, Mr Hennigan submitted that it cannot be accepted that Mr Devaney held a reasonable
belief that he had threatened him.
[21] As noted above, Mr Hennigan deposed in his witness statement that he said to
Mr Devaney on 17 July 2015 “Right this is far from over and I’ll be fixing you and Eoin”. In
his oral evidence, Mr Hennigan attested that he said “I’ll fix you up”, adding that this was not
meant to threaten Mr Devaney but rather to indicate that he would be going down a legal path.
More particularly, Mr Hennigan attested that the legal path he had in mind was contacting
either the Department of Immigration and Border Protection and/or the Commission.
However, Mr Hennigan also acknowledged in his oral evidence that the term “fix you up”
might be taken as a threat, adding that this would depend on the tone used when the term is
said and that an Irish person would not take it as a threat. Mr Hennigan also attested that as he
was sitting on a packed bus he remained calm and did not raise his voice throughout his
conversation with Mr Devaney. Beyond this, Mr Hennigan accepted that it was not
appropriate for an employee to call their employer “a f…..g tramp” and disputed
Mr Devaney’s version of their telephone conversation of 17 July 2015.
[22] Mr Langan deposed in his witness statement9 that he was seated next to Mr Hennigan
on the bus when Mr Hennigan called Mr Devaney. Mr Langan’s version of the telephone
conversation was consistent with Mr Hennigan’s version but was not as detailed. In his oral
evidence, Mr Langan attested that:
the telephone conversation started off with some small talk;
he could not hear all of the conversation;
the term “I’ll fix you up” is a common Irish term, with the interpretation put on the
term depending on the context in which it is used;
Mr Hennigan kept quiet given that they were both on a packed bus;
he interpreted the term “I’ll fix you up” as meaning they would end up before the
Commission, adding that he did not interpret it as a threat;
Mr Devaney became aggressive after Mr Hennigan used the words “I’ll fix you up”,
responding with words to the effect “come down to the office, we’ll see how big you
are …”;
he discussed the telephone conversation with Mr Hennigan after it had concluded;
and
he did not write down his recollection of the conversation after it had ended.
[23] Mr Langan disputed aspects of Mr Devaney’s version of the conversation, e.g. he
disputed that Mr Hennigan had used the words “f…..g cowboys”.
The Respondent’s case
[24] The Respondent submitted, inter alia, that:
relying on the Full Bench decision in Pinawin v Domingo10 (Pinawin), the test was
whether the Respondent considered there were reasonable grounds for
9 Exhibit H2
10 (2012) 219 IR 128
[2016] FWC 2938
8
Mr Hennigan’s dismissal, adding that this was a considerably different test to
whether Mr Hennigan or the Commission holds that view;
Mr Devaney’s evidence was that he believed that Mr Hennigan had threatened him
and that he thought the threat was serious misconduct;
it was clear upon the evidence that Mr Devaney’s belief was reasonable;
it was not unreasonable for Mr Devaney to understand the words “I’ll fix you up” to
be of a threatening nature;
the only question to be considered is whether the use of such words may have
reasonably been understood as threatening;
in circumstances where Mr Devaney felt threatened and the matter was reported to
the police, the dismissal was deemed fair by the Code;
in circumstances where Mr Devaney considered the words to be of a threatening
nature it was not necessary for him to ask Mr Hennigan for an explanation of what
he meant by the words “I’ll fix you up”; and
Mr Hennigan had conflated the concept of reasonableness in the context of the
application of the Code with the concept of reasonableness in a merits context,
adding that it was not permissible to do so.
[25] Mr Kevin Devaney deposed in his witness statement11, among other things, that:
sometime after the meeting of 20 February 2015 Mr Hennigan approached him and
asked if he could begin the process of applying for his company nominated
permanent residency visa;
he responded by indicating that he saw no issue with this and told Mr Hennigan to
begin the process by contacting his migration agent to see what was required of the
Respondent, adding that he denied ever telling Mr Hennigan to spend his money on a
permanent residency application or pay fees associated with an application;
in late June 2015 he spoke to Mr Hennigan regarding his permanent residency visa
application, explaining that he had received a call from Mr Hennigan’s migration
agent indicating that it appeared that the Respondent would not meet the strict
training criteria section of the permanent residency visa application;
Mr Hennigan had said during their telephone conversation of 17 July 2015 “If you
f..k up my visa and my partner’s visa you will be sorry. You boys are only f…..g
cowboys. I’m going to sort you out …”;
he dismissed Mr Hennigan over the telephone;
he was genuinely concerned that Mr Hennigan would come to the office or otherwise
seek to assault him; and
he reported the matter to the police12, who advised him to call them if Mr Hennigan
came to the office.
[26] Key aspects of Mr Kevin Devaney’s oral evidence were that:
he had dismissed Mr Hennigan for gross misconduct, adding that in doing so he took
into account the similar previous incident of 20 February 2015;
during their telephone conversation of 17 July 2015 Mr Hennigan’s voice was not
raised, nor was Mr Hennigan shouting, however his voice had an aggressive tone to
it;
11 Exhibit R1
12 Mr Devaney provided phone records to support his evidence – see Exhibit R1 at Annexure KD6
[2016] FWC 2938
9
during that conversation he let Mr Hennigan go on as he could not get a word in,
adding that Mr Hennigan had lost his temper and was way out of line;
he took the words “I’ll fix you up” as a threat;
the phrase “I’ll fix you up” is a common term in Ireland and can be used in different
contexts, with the meaning attributed to the term depending the context in which it
used;
his version of the conversation with Mr Hennigan was how it happened;
he was pretty sure that Mr Hennigan had used the words “I’ll fix you up” as opposed
to “I’ll sort you out”, though he conceded that Mr Hennigan may have used both
terms;
he did not ask Mr Hennigan what he meant by the term “I’ll fix you up”;
he did not contact the police immediately as he was aware that Mr Hennigan was on
a bus returning to Canberra and he wanted to use that time to contemplate what he
should do, adding that the more he thought about it the more unsure he was as to
whether or not Mr Hennigan might turn up at the office;
he was not thinking about the Code when he contacted the police; and
he did not speak to anyone else before he contacted the police.
[27] Mr Eoin Devaney deposed in his witness statement13 that he was in the office with
Mr Kevin Devaney on 17 July 2015 when the latter received a telephone call from
Mr Hennigan, adding that after a while his brother put the telephone on loudspeaker. Mr Eoin
Devaney further deposed that as Mr Hennigan sounded agitated he went to listen to the call.
In his witness statement, Mr Eoin Devaney described the telephone conversation in similar
terms to Mr Kevin Devaney. Finally, Mr Eoin Devaney deposed that after the telephone call
had concluded he and his brother agreed that Mr Kevin Devaney ought to report the matter to
the police, adding that he had no doubt that the threat was serious and that he did not know
what Mr Hennigan was going to do once he arrived in Canberra.
[28] In his oral evidence, Mr Eoin Devaney attested that he had listened into the telephone
conversation between his brother and Mr Hennigan.
Consideration of the issues
[29] The summary dismissal aspect of the Code was considered by the Full Bench in
Jeremy Ryman v Thrash Pty Ltd t/a Wisharts Automotive Services14(Ryman) which
determined that it operated in the following way:
“[41] In summary, drawing on the conclusions stated above and the ratio in Pinawin,
we consider that the “Summary dismissal” section of the Code operates in the
following way:
(1) If a small business employer has dismissed an employee without notice
- that is, with immediate effect - on the ground that the employee has
committed serious misconduct that falls within the definition in
reg.1.07, then it is necessary for the Commission to consider whether
the dismissal was consistent with the “Summary dismissal” section of
13 Exhibit R2
14 [2015] FWCFB 5264
[2016] FWC 2938
10
the Code. All other types of dismissals by small business employers are
to be considered under the “Other dismissal” section of the Code.
(2) In assessing whether the “Summary dismissal” section of the Code was
complied with, it is necessary to determine first whether the employer
genuinely held a belief that the employee’s conduct was sufficiently
serious to justify immediate dismissal, and second whether the
employer’s belief was, objectively speaking, based on reasonable
grounds. Whether the employer has carried out a reasonable
investigation into the matter will be relevant to the second element.”
[30] As it was not disputed that Mr Hennigan had been summarily dismissed, the initial
issue identified in Ryman is satisfied. As such, the “Summary dismissal” section of the Code
applies.
[31] As stated in Ryman, “In assessing whether the “Summary dismissal” section of the
Code was complied with, it is necessary to determine first whether the employer genuinely
held a belief that the employee’s conduct was sufficiently serious to justify immediate
dismissal, and second whether the employer’s belief was, objectively speaking, based on
reasonable grounds. Whether the employer has carried out a reasonable investigation into the
matter will be relevant to the second element.” I turn now to consider those issues.
[32] In this case, the issue of whether or not the dismissal was consistent with the Code
rests almost entirely on the interpretation placed on the term “I’ll fix you up”. Based on the
material before the Commission, it is not disputed that the term is a term commonly used in
Ireland and that the meaning attributed to the term depends on the context in which it is used.
As noted above, Mr Kevin Devaney interpreted the term as a threat, whereas Mr Hennigan
attested that he meant it to indicate that he would pursue the Respondent legally in respect of
his permanent residency visa application. Mr Hennigan’s evidence in this regard is supported
by Mr Langan’s evidence. However, I consider Mr Hennigan’s explanation somewhat
implausible for several reasons. For instance, if he had meant the term in a legal sense why
would he have not said something along lines of “see you in court”. Further, there was no
material before the Commission that would support the contention that the term was
commonly understood in Ireland to indicate or foreshadow the initiation of legal
action/proceedings. From an objective perspective, most people would in my view associate
the term as either someone indicating that they were was going to repay money or
alternatively that they meant it as a threat. This supports a finding that it was reasonable for
Mr Delaney to interpret the term as a threat and one which warranted summary dismissal,
particularly when he had regard to the first and final warning previously issued to
Mr Hennigan on 20 February 2015.
[33] As to whether the Respondent in this case carried out a reasonable investigation into
the matter, other than asking Mr Hennigan what he meant when he said “I’ll fix you up”, there
was little for Mr Devaney to investigate given that he was involved in the telephone
conversation with Mr Hennigan. In those circumstances, the absence of any further
investigation does not diminish the reasonableness of Mr Devaney’s belief that
Mr Hennigan’s conduct was sufficiently serious to justify immediate dismissal.
[34] The above analysis supports a finding that Mr Hennigan’s dismissal was consistent
with the Code, i.e. that his dismissal was fair.
[2016] FWC 2938
11
[35] In view of that finding, I do not need to consider whether Mr Hennigan’s dismissal
was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
[36] As an aside, I would observe that, on balance, I consider it more likely than not that
Mr Devaney did give Mr Hennigan an understanding that he would support his application for
permanent residency. However, in the context of considering whether his dismissal was
consistent with the Code, that consideration is not relevant. Further, against that background
and in circumstances where Mr Hennigan had spent almost $10,000 in preparation for his
permanent residency application, it is understandable that he was upset when told by
Mr Devaney that he was unable to support an application. However, again that is not a
relevant consideration in determining whether or not his dismissal was consistent with the
Code.
Conclusion
[37] For all the above reasons, I find that Mr Hennigan’s dismissal was consistent with the
Code and that, as such, his dismissal was fair.
[38] An order dismissing Mr Hennigan’s application will be issued in conjunction with this
decision.
Appearances:
R. Hennigan for the Applicant.
J. Roland for the Respondent.
Hearing details:
2015.
Canberra:
November 25.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
Price code C, PR580205
THE FAIR WORK COMMISSION AUSTRALIA. DEPUNPRESIDENT SEAL THE
