1
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
James Lawson
v
Environet Australia Pty Ltd T/A ESP - Environmental & Safety
Professionals
(U2016/11991)
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS NEWCASTLE, 16 FEBRUARY 2017
Unfair dismissal – whether the applicant was dismissed. Application dismissed.
[1] Mr James Lawson had a dispute with his employer, Environet Australia Pty Ltd
(Environet), on 13 September 2016 in relation to his refusal to sign a Safe Work Method
Statement (SWMS). Mr Lawson contends that he was told by Mr Craig Whiting, Operations
Manager, that he was “sacked”. Mr Craig Whiting denies that allegation and says that he
stood Mr Lawson down as a consequence of an outburst by him. Mr Craig Whiting also says
that Mr Lawson refused to return to work after he was stood down.
[2] Mr Lawson claims that Environet unfairly dismissed him. Environet denies that it
dismissed Mr Lawson.
[3] As to the initial matters that must be decided before considering the merits of the
unfair dismissal application,1 there is no dispute between the parties that Mr Lawson filed his
application within the 21 day period required by s.394(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
(the Act), Mr Lawson was protected from unfair dismissal, the Small Business Fair Dismissal
Code does not apply because Environet was not a small business at the relevant time, and Mr
Lawson’s alleged dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy.
[4] I heard Mr Lawson’s unfair dismissal case on 3 February 2017. Mr Lawson gave
evidence in support of his own case. Environet called evidence from Mr Craig Whiting, his
father, Mr David Whiting, director and owner of Environet, and Mr Derek Torrance,
Environet’s NSW Asbestos and Hazardous Materials Manager.
What happened on 13 September 2016?
[5] There is no dispute that Mr David Whiting asked Mr Lawson to sign a SWMS on 13
September 2016, nor is there a dispute that Mr Lawson did not sign the document at the time
he was asked to do so. There is a dispute about whether Mr David Whiting gave Mr Lawson a
1 See s.396 of the Act
[2017] FWC 848
DECISION
E AUSTRALIA FairWork Commission
[2017] FWC 848
2
proper opportunity to read the SWMS before taking it back from him, but it is not necessary
for me to resolve that factual dispute because it does not bear on the question of whether Mr
Lawson was dismissed during his subsequent conversation with Mr Craig Whiting.
[6] Mr Lawson tendered a witness statement in which he gave the following account of
his conversation with Mr Craig Whiting at the time of his alleged dismissal on 13 September
2016:
“… Mr Craig Whiting then said words to the effect ‘you need to sign this statement
right away.’ I said words to the effect ‘Sorry I can’t sign it because I don’t know what
it is for.’ Mr Craig Whiting then responded with words to the effect ‘you will sign
everything that the company tells you to sign.’ I said words to the effect ‘sorry I can’t.
It needs to be signed on the day of the works.’ Mr Craig Whiting then said to me
‘follow me downstairs.’ Mr Whiting then said to me ‘That’s it. I’ve had it, you’re
sacked, pack your belongings from your desk and leave immediately. I’m done.’ I
responded with words to the effect ‘ok I will then.’ I then packed up my personal
belongings and started loading my car.
After packing my belongings, Mr David Whiting approached me and said words to the
effect ‘we need your key James.’ I then gave him my key and left the premises.
Approximately an hour after I left the premises I attempted to access my email and
other provided by the respondent [sic]. I was unable to do so due to the fact that my
access had been cut off.
Nothing said to me by Mr Whiting or any other member of the Management team
indicated that I could return to the workplace.”
[7] Mr Craig Whiting gave a very different account of this conversation. He contends that
the conversation was as follows:
“After David Whiting speaking with the Applicant to request the Applicant sign the
Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS) [sic]. A SWMS is a required document
completed for all jobs. The Applicant would have completed many in their time at
Enviro–net Australia.
Mr D Whiting then placed the SWMS on my desk and requested I follow up with the
Applicant. At this point the Applicant had become highly agitated and moved away
from their desk. I found the Applicant in the office of another employee. I approached
the Applicant to find out why they would not sign the SWMS. The Applicant replied
with ‘I’m not f…… signing that, it’s f….. s…., you’re s…. This place is s…. I’m not
f……. signing it.’ I responded with ‘I am not asking you to sign it, but what is wrong
with the document as to why you won’t?’
The Applicant responded with ‘I’m not f……… signing that, it’s f….. s…., this place
is s…. you’re s….. I’m not f……. signing it.’
After this outburst from the Applicant, I requested the Applicant come back down
stairs. The Applicant refused, at this point I stated to the Applicant ‘I am going to have
to stand you down for a few days James.’
[2017] FWC 848
3
The Applicant responded with ‘You are sacking me …. You’re f…… sacking me.’
I responded with ‘No James, I am not sacking you. I’m going to stand you down for a
few days. I think it is best for you to have some time off.’
The Applicant responded with ‘I’m sacked, I’m sacked…’
I responded with ‘No James, as I said before I am standing you down for a few days.’
After the outburst, I instructed the Applicant to clear their desk of any personal
possessions. This instruction was in response to ongoing informal and unsubstantiated
claims from the Applicant or other staff taking their possessions and or food stuffs.
I received the delivery of ‘This place is s…. you’re s…..’ as a threat to me and my
employees, so requested the Applicant hand over their copy of the office key until
their return.”
[8] There is an inconsistency between Mr Craig Whiting’s witness statement, where he
asserts he said to Mr Lawson he was being stood down for a “few days”, and Mr Craig
Whiting’s oral evidence, where he claims he said to Mr Lawson, “I’m done, I’m done, I’m
standing you down for a week.”2 However, I am satisfied that nothing much turns on whether
Mr Craig Whiting told Mr Lawson he was being stood down for a few days or a week.3
[9] Mr Craig Whiting maintained in his oral evidence that he did not ask Mr Lawson to
sign the SWMS document; he asked Mr Lawson to explain what was wrong with the
document and why he would not sign it.4
[10] Mr Lawson was asked in his oral evidence whether Mr Craig Whiting asked him what
he thought was wrong with the SWMS document and why he would not sign it.5 Mr
Lawson’s initial response was to say, “He told me in his own words: ‘You’ve got to sign this.
You’ve got to sign whatever the company tells you to sign.’”6 A few questions later Mr
Lawson agreed that Mr Craig Whiting did ask him what he thought was wrong with the
SWMS document and why he would not sign it.7
[11] Mr David Whiting was not present during the discussion between Mr Craig Whiting
and Mr Lawson on 13 September 2016, but Mr David Whiting says that he heard Mr Lawson
say the following words to Mr Craig Whiting during that discussion:8
“I’m effing sacked, I’m out of here, I’m effing sacked, I’m out of here, I’m effing
sacked, I’m out of here.”
2 PN842-847
3 PN849
4 PN823-824
5 PN420-424
6 PN420
7 PN424
8 PN682
[2017] FWC 848
4
[12] Mr Lawson gave evidence that he does not recall swearing during his conversation
with Mr Craig Whiting on 13 September 2016.9
[13] Mr David Whiting also says he overhead Mr Craig Whiting tell Mr Lawson on 13
September 2016 to “pack your stuff”.10
[14] Mr David Whiting denies that he asked Mr Lawson on 13 September 2016 to return
his office key, but is not aware if anybody else asked Mr Lawson to return his office key.11
Mr David Whiting says Mr Lawson handed his office key to him and said, “Here’s the key.”12
Mr Lawson agrees that he handed his office key to Mr David Whiting. I am satisfied that he
did so in accordance with Mr Craig Whiting’s request.
[15] There is no dispute that Mr Lawson received an email from Mr David Whiting later in
the week after he left the workplace on 13 September 2016.13 Neither party tendered a copy of
the email, but there is no dispute that Mr David Whiting asked Mr Lawson in the email to
come into work at midday on Monday, 19 September 2016 for a meeting. Although Mr
Lawson was not aware of the purpose of the meeting, he initially agreed to attend it. Mr
Lawson believed that he was going to get his separation certificate and other “paperwork” at
that meeting.14 Mr David Whiting says he requested Mr Lawson to attend the meeting to
discuss his return to work.15
[16] At 11:03am on 19 September 2016, Mr Lawson sent an email to Mr David Whiting in
the following terms:
“Hi David,
Won’t be able to come to office. Please send separation certificate and any other
documents to this email address.
Thank you.
James”
[17] Mr David Whiting responded by an email sent to Mr Lawson at 11:23am on 19
September 2016 in the following terms:
“Hi James
I’m currently in the office waiting for your visit Schedules for 12 noon today and
confirmed by yourself last week.
I will reschedule the meeting at a mutually date [sic] to be fixed.
9 PN419
10 PN746
11 PN675-679
12 PN677
13 PN68-72 & PN686-688
14 PN491
15 PN688
[2017] FWC 848
5
Cheers
David Whiting”
[18] Mr Lawson cancelled the meeting with Mr David Whiting on 19 September 2016
because he did not feel able to “confront” Mr David Whiting.16
[19] Mr David Whiting tried without success to contact Mr Lawson by telephone later in
the week commencing 19 September 2016.
[20] On Sunday, 25 September 2016, Mr Lawson sent the following email to Mr David
Whiting:
“Hi David,
If you have something to discuss with me, please do so via this email, unless please
send my separation certificate, reference and any documents by tomorrow afternoon.
You have had ample time to send these documents.
Thank you
James Lawson”
[21] Mr Lawson did not return to the workplace at any time after 13 September 2016, nor
did he attend a meeting with Mr David Whiting.
[22] Eventually Environet formed the view that Mr Lawson would not be returning to work
at any time. When that became apparent to Environet, it complied with Mr Lawson’s repeated
requests to send a separation certificate to him.17 Neither party tendered a copy of the
separation certificate. Mr Lawson gave evidence that the separation certificate was sent to him
“a long time after” 13 September 2016.18 No evidence was adduced by Environet as to the
date on which the separation certificate was sent to Mr Lawson.19
[23] Mr Lawson’s final payslip from Environet shows that he was paid his monthly salary
on 15 September 2016 in respect of the period from 1 September 2016 to 30 September 2016.
That is, Mr Lawson was paid two weeks in arrears and two weeks in advance. Environet says
that it paid Mr Lawson his full monthly salary on 15 September 2016, two days after Mr
Lawson left the office following his dispute with Mr Craig Whiting on 13 September 2016,
because it believed Mr Lawson would be returning to work in the week commencing 19
September 2016 after he had been stood down on pay. The payslip also shows Mr Lawson as
having a positive accrued annual leave balance as at 15 September 2016. Had Environet
dismissed Mr Lawson on 13 September 2016, it says that it would have complied with its
obligation to pay Mr Lawson his accrued annual leave entitlement at that time.20
16 PN544
17 PN485
18 PN486
19 PN855-856
20 PN808-813
[2017] FWC 848
6
[24] I prefer Mr Craig Whiting’s evidence over the evidence given by Mr Lawson in
relation to their disputed conversation on 13 September 2016, for the following reasons:
(a) First, Mr Craig Whiting’s evidence is consistent with (i) the repeated attempts made
by Mr David Whiting shortly after 13 September 2016 to meet with Mr Lawson and to
get him back to work, (ii) the reluctance to send Mr Lawson a separation certificate,
(iii) the fact that Mr Lawson was paid his full monthly salary (from 1 to 30 September
2016) on 15 September 2016, and was not paid his accrued annual leave entitlements
at that time;
(b) Secondly, the change in Mr Lawson’s evidence referred to in paragraph [10] above is
telling. Initially, Mr Lawson contended that Mr Craig Whiting told him he had to sign
the SWMS document and whatever the company tells him to sign. He then agreed that
Mr Craig Whiting asked him what he thought was wrong with the SWMS document
and why he would not sign it. There is a significant difference between asking an
employee what they think is wrong with a document and why they are not prepared to
sign it, on the one hand, and directing an employee to sign any document put in front
of them and dismissing them on the spot for not doing so, on the other hand. In my
view, it is unlikely that a manager in Mr Craig Whiting’s position would have
communicated these very different messages to Mr Lawson in a single discussion;
(c) Thirdly, although there are some differences between Mr Craig Whiting’s account of
the disputed conversation and the evidence given by Mr David Whiting about the parts
of it he overheard, both of them gave evidence that Mr Lawson repeatedly swore and
was the person who used the word “sacked” during his discussion with Mr Craig
Whiting. I do not accept Mr Lawson’s evidence that he could not recall swearing
during this discussion, for it is inconsistent with the evidence given by Mr Craig
Whiting and Mr David Whiting, and is unlikely to be true, having regard to (i) the fact
that Mr Lawson was plainly very upset at being asked by Mr David Whiting to sign
the SWMS document and (ii) Mr Lawson has, in my assessment, an excitable nature.
My assessment in this regard is based on my observation of Mr Lawson in the witness
box,21 coupled with the fact that Mr Lawson had a number of recent disputes with
other Environet employees about operational matters with which he did not agree;22
and
(d) Fourthly, Mr Craig Whiting gave direct and responsive answers to the questions asked
of him in the witness box. He seems to have a genuine level of sympathy towards Mr
Lawson, notwithstanding the disagreements they had in the workplace and the fact that
Mr Lawson has pursued his unfair dismissal claim against Environet and made
personal attacks on Mr Craig Whiting and Mr David Whiting in the proceedings.23 In
contrast, Mr Lawson was argumentative throughout most of his evidence and his
evidence seems to have been coloured by the very strong view he has taken about
what he perceives to be the injustice of the way he was treated by Environet.
21 See, for example, PN330, PN343, PN419, PN452-3, & PN558-561
22 PN826
23 See, for example, PN330 & PN338
[2017] FWC 848
7
[25] The fact that Mr Lawson was asked to, and did, take his personal belongings and
return his key on 13 September 2016, as well as have his access to company emails and
digital profiles cut off on that date, provides some support for his version of events, including
his contention that he was told by Mr Craig Whiting that he was “sacked”. However, Mr
Craig Whiting has, in my view, provided an explanation, which I accept, in relation to those
matters and that explanation is consistent with Mr Craig Whiting’s position that he did not,
and did not intend to, dismiss Mr Lawson or tell him he was sacked on 13 September 2016.
[26] Accordingly, I find, on the balance of probabilities, that on 13 September 2016 Mr
Craig Whiting told Mr Lawson he was being stood down for a “few days” or “a week”, not
that he was “sacked”. I also find that the balance of the discussion between Mr Craig Whiting
and Mr Lawson on 13 September 2016 took place in words to the effect of those contended
by Mr Craig Whiting.
Meaning of dismissal
[27] Subsection 386(1) of the Act governs when a person has been dismissed:
“A person has been dismissed if:
(a) the person’s employment with his or her employer has been terminated on the
employer’s initiative; or
(b) the person has resigned from his or her employment, but was forced to do so
because of conduct, or a course of conduct, engaged in by his or her employer.”
[28] A Full Bench of the Commission considered s.386 in Barkla v G4S Custodial Services
Pty Ltd:24
“[23] It is necessary in the first instance to consider the communications of the
employer to the employee to determine whether any of these communications
constitutes an express termination...
[24] It is then necessary to consider whether any action of the employer amounted to
termination of employment. It should be noted in this case that Mr Barkla did not
resign from his employment. Rather he alleges that the employer’s conduct amounted
to dismissal. There is considerable law on whether a resignation is forced by conduct
of the employer or that the employer’s conduct amounts to a constructive dismissal
either at common law or within the statutory definitions. In our view this law is helpful
in the present context because it articulates the nature of employer conduct which will
bring an employment contract to an end. This is what Mr Barkla has argued in this
case. In O’Meara v Stanley Works Pty Ltd a Full Bench of the Australian Industrial
Relations Commission discussed the relevant case law and outlined the legal
considerations in the following terms:
…
‘[23] In our view the full statement of reasons in Mohazab which we have set
out together with the further explanation by Moore J in Rheinberger and the
24 [2011] FWAFB 3769
http://www.fwc.gov.au/decisionssigned/html/2011fwafb3769.htm
[2017] FWC 848
8
decisions of Full Benches of this Commission in Pawel and ABB
Engineering require that there to be some action on the part of the employer
which is either intended to bring the employment to an end or has the probable
result of bringing the employment relationship to an end. It is not simply a
question of whether ”the act of the employer [resulted] directly or
consequentially in the termination of the employment.” Decisions which adopt
the shorter formulation of the reasons for decision should be treated with some
caution as they may not give full weight to the decision in Mohazab. In
determining whether a termination was at the initiative of the employer an
objective analysis of the employer’s conduct is required to determine whether
it was of such a nature that resignation was the probable result or that the
appellant had no effective or real choice but to resign.” [emphasis added]’
[29] The reasoning in O’Meara was treated as fully applicable to s.386(1) of the Act by the
Full Bench in Ryan v ISS Integrated Facility Services Pty Ltd.25
[30] There is a clear distinction between the termination of an employment relationship and
the discharge of a contract of employment.26A wrongful dismissal of an employee by an
employer, or a unilateral resignation by an employee other than in accordance with the terms
of the applicable employment contract, will bring the employment relationship to an end but
will not automatically discharge the employment contract.27
[31] The question of whether an employee has been dismissed within the meaning of s.386
of the Act focuses on the termination of the employment relationship, not the contract of
employment.28 For that reason, the application of common law principles relating to the
termination of an employment contract may not be irrelevant to the inquiry, but may not yield
the correct answer to the question of whether the employee has been dismissed within the
meaning of s.386 of the Act.29
Was Lawson dismissed?
[32] This is an unfortunate case in many ways. I accept that Mr Lawson truly believes he
was dismissed on 13 September 2016. His oral evidence supports such a belief, as does his
email to Mr David Whiting sent at 11:03am on 19 September 2016. I also accept that
Environet, through its owner, Mr David Whiting, and Mr Craig Whiting, Operations
Manager, believe that Mr Lawson was stood down on pay on 13 September 2016 and he
would return to work in the following week after he had calmed down. The oral evidence
given by Mr David Whiting and Mr Craig Whiting supports such a belief, as does the email
from Mr David Whiting to Mr Lawson sent at 11:23am on 19 September 2016 and the fact
that Mr Lawson was paid his full monthly salary on 15 September 2016.
25 [2014] FWCFB 8451 at [15]
26 Visscher v Giudice (2009) 239 CLR 361 at [53]
27 Automatic Fire Sprinklers Pty Ltd v Watson (1946) 72 CLR 435 at 454
28 Searle v Moly Mines Ltd (2008) 174 IR 21 at [22]-[23]
29 Ibid at [39]; GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Gauci [2008] AIRCFB 439 at [19]
http://www.fwc.gov.au/decisionssigned/html/2014fwcfb8451.htm
[2017] FWC 848
9
[33] However, the question of whether Mr Lawson was dismissed within the meaning of
s.386 of the Act is not to be determined by reference to the subjective beliefs of Mr Lawson or
any person on behalf of Environet.30
[34] In light of my earlier findings that Mr Craig Whiting did not tell Mr Lawson that he
was sacked, and instead told him that he was being stood down, none of the communications
between Mr Lawson and Mr Craig Whiting on 13 September 2016 or at any other time,
whether considered in isolation or collectively, expressly terminated Mr Lawson’s
employment with Environet.
[35] It is next necessary to consider whether any action of Environet amounted to a
termination of Mr Lawson’s employment. In this regard, Mr Lawson relies on the fact that Mr
Craig Whiting told him on 13 September 2016 that he was “done” and then proceeded to
require him to take his personal possessions from the office, return his office key, and shut off
his access to Environet’s email system and digital profiles. Mr Lawson contends that any
reasonable person in his position would have concluded that Environet no longer wanted to
employ him and no longer intended to be bound by their employment contract.31
[36] The factors relied on by Mr Lawson must be viewed in context. First, it is important to
bear in mind that Mr Craig Whiting said to Mr Lawson “I’m done, I’m done”. He did not say
“you’re done”. Mr Craig Whiting said that he was “done” after he had repeatedly asked Mr
Lawson to explain why he was not willing to sign the SWMS document, Mr Lawson refused
to provide an explanation and instead repeatedly swore at Mr Craig Whiting, after which Mr
Craig Whiting told Mr Lawson he would be stood down and Mr Lawson responded by saying
“I’m sacked. I’m sacked”.
[37] Secondly, past events in the workplace, together with what was said by Mr Lawson on
13 September 2016, provided a rational and reasonable explanation for Environet’s decision
to require Mr Lawson to take his personal possessions, return his key and shut off his access
to the Environet email system and all Environet digital profiles during the period in which he
was stood down on pay. In particular, there had been disputes in the past between Mr Lawson
and other employees in the workplace about personal items being taken or stolen from Mr
Lawson and Mr Lawson’s work computer allegedly being “hacked”.32 Environet wanted to
avoid the risk of there being such disputes when Mr Lawson returned from his period of being
stood down on pay.33 Further, in light of the language used by Mr Lawson on 13 September
2016 and his anger towards Mr Craig Whiting and Environet, the decision was made to
require Mr Lawson to return his office key and have his access to company emails and digital
profiles shut off during his period of being stood down on pay, particularly in view of the
sensitive files and information Environet has from various government departments.34 These
steps were taken to protect Environet in the event that Mr Lawson took any action to damage
Environet during the period in which he was stood down.
[38] In view of the statement by Mr Craig Whiting to Mr Lawson that he was being “stood
down” (not “sacked”), together with the explanation for the factors on which Mr Lawson
30 Searle v Moly Mines Ltd (2008) 174 IR 21 at [38]
31 Elgammal v BlackRange Wealth Management Pty Ltd [2011] FWAFB 4038 at [13]
32 PN340-343
33 PN798
34 PN843
[2017] FWC 848
10
relies, as set out in the previous two paragraphs, and the repeated attempts to have Mr Lawson
return to the workplace after 13 September 2016, I am satisfied that there was no action on the
part of Environet which was either intended to bring Mr Lawson’s employment to an end or
had the probable result of bringing the employment relationship to an end. A reasonable
person in Mr Lawson’s position would not, in my view, have concluded from Environet’s
conduct that it no no longer intended to be bound by their employment contract or no longer
wanted to employ him.
[39] No argument was made by or on behalf of Mr Lawson that he resigned, but was forced
to do so because of conduct, or a course of conduct, engaged in by Environet. Even if such an
argument had been made, I would have rejected it because Mr Lawson was not forced to
resign. It was clear that Environet wanted Mr Lawson back at work and he had multiple
opportunities to speak to Mr David Whiting after 13 September 2016, but he refused to speak
to Mr David Whiting. It is also significant that Mr Lawson did not remain ready, willing or
able to work for Environet at any time after 13 September 2016.35
[40] As part of my assessment of whether Mr Lawson’s employment was terminated at
Environet’s initiative, I am satisfied that it is relevant, although not determinative,36 in the
circumstances of this case to consider the application of common law principles relating to
termination of the contract of employment.
[41] Environet had the right to stand Mr Lawson down on full pay until the following week
after his dispute with Mr Craig Whiting on 13 September 2016.37 However, Mr Lawson’s
refusal to attend a meeting with Mr David Whiting or return to work at any time thereafter
meant that he was in breach of his obligation to remain ready, willing and able to perform
work. Further, his ongoing refusal to attend work, coupled with his repeated requests for
Environet to send him a separation certificate, demonstrated, objectively, that he no longer
intended to be bound by his employment contract with Environet. It follows that Mr Lawson
repudiated his contract of employment and I consider that Environet eventually accepted that
repudiation by sending Mr Lawson his separation certificate. Even though it was the employer
that brought the contract to an end by accepting the employee’s repudiation, it is to be
regarded as a termination at the initiative of the employee because it was the employee’s
repudiation which, accepted by the employer, brought the employment to an end.38 That
analysis supports my view that the employment relationship was not terminated on
Environet’s initiative.
[42] Environet argued that Mr Lawson is deemed to have abandoned his employment
pursuant to clause 21 of the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award
2010. In Bienias v Iplex Pipelines Australia Pty Ltd,39 the Full Bench held (at [49]) that clause
21 is of no effect because it is a term that is neither a permitted nor a required term of a
modern award. Accordingly, I reject this argument.
35 cf Balaclava Pastoral Co Pty Ltd v Nurcombe [2017] FWCFB 429 at [37]
36 See the principles in paragraphs [30]-[31] above
37 I Neil and D Chin, The Modern Contract of Employment (2012), at [10.20]
38 Dover-Ray v Real Insurance Pty Ltd [2010] FWAFB 2670; (2010) 194 IR 22 at [26]
39 [2017] FWCFB 38
[2017] FWC 848
11
Conclusion
[43] Because Mr Lawson was not dismissed by Environet within the meaning of s.386 of
the Act, I must dismiss his unfair dismissal application and I do so.40
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
Mr J Shaw, lawyer from Turner Freeman Lawyers on behalf of the Applicant
Mr M Lowrey, on behalf of the Respondent
Hearing details:
2017.
Newcastle:
February, 3.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
Price code C, PR590142
40 s.385(a) of the Act
OF THE THE EN WORKS WORK COMMISSION THE SEAL
