1
Fair Work Act 2009
s.365—General protections
Luan Ambrósio de Almeida
v
Sud By Vibo Pty Ltd T/A Sud Food And Wine
(C2023/2433)
COMMISSIONER YILMAZ MELBOURNE, 24 AUGUST 2023
Application to deal with contraventions involving dismissal – jurisdictional objection -
whether Applicant dismissed – application dismissed.
[1] On 2 May 2023, Mr Luan Ambrosio de Almeida lodged an application pursuant to s.365
of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) against SUD by Vibo Pty Ltd T/A SUD Food and Wine
(the Respondent). In his application, Mr de Almeida alleges that he was dismissed because he
exercised a workplace right.
[2] The Respondent objects to the application stating that Mr de Almeida walked out of the
business without notice and contends that there was no dismissal by the Respondent.
[3] Mr de Almeida contends that he was employed as a waiter on 11 October 2022 and on
12 April 2023 he was dismissed when told to leave the business premises after he demanded
his payslips and other alleged entitlements.
[4] Whether Mr de Almeida was dismissed within the meaning of s.386 is in dispute. Mr de
Almeida contends that the Respondent terminated his employment at its initiative within the
meaning of s.386(1)(a) or alternatively if the Commission accepts that he resigned, that the
termination of employment is because of the conduct of the Respondent pursuant to s.386(1)(b)
of the Act.
[5] Mr de Almeida was granted permission to be legally represented and the Respondent
was self-represented.
[6] Mr de Almeida gave witness evidence and Mr Vincenzo Tomaino (owner) gave
evidence for the Respondent.
[2023] FWC 1893
DECISION
AUSTRALIA FairWork Commission
[2023] FWC 1893
2
Was the Applicant Dismissed?
Applicant’s submissions
[7] Mr de Almeida submits that his dismissal is a contravention of his workplace rights in
terms of s.340 - Protection of Workplace Rights because he exercised his rights to demand his
payslips and other entitlements.
[8] Mr de Almeida commenced employment as a waiter on 11 October 2022 and since his
commencement, he alleges to have asked for information about his workplace rights including
access to his payslips, information on annual leave, hours worked, payment of wages and
superannuation. He submits that his requests for information were not resolved. He filed a
general protection involving dismissal application pursuant to s.365 of the Act and alleges that
his employment was terminated by Mr Tomaino or the Respondent on 12 April 2023 following
a disagreement about his workplace rights. Correspondence between Mr de Almeida and Mr
Tomaino between 12-14 April 2023 and other Whatapp messages were submitted in evidence
to support his allegations.
[9] Mr de Almeida objects to the Respondent’s assertion that he resigned by walking off
after the disagreement on 12 April 2023 or chose to leave his employment.
[10] On 11 April 2023 at 4.22pm, Mr Tomaino texted Mr de Almeida with the message “You
have to see me immediately”.1 Mr Tomaino agreed that Mr de Almeida would be available to
meet the following morning at the usual time that he attends for work. On 12 April 2023 Mr
Tomaino and Mr de Almeida had a discussion about the messages sent to the “manager” which
included inquiries regarding payslips and other entitlements. Mr de Almeida states that Mr
Tomaino became angry and said “You do not work in this business anymore. I don’t want you
here anymore. You can leave”.2
[11] Mr de Almeida states that Mr Tomaino did not reply to his question “What about work
next week?”3 He states that Mr Tomaino walked outside, so he turned to the manager who told
him to leave and in response to whether he was working the following week, it is alleged that
he was told he should find another job.4 While giving witness evidence, Mr de Almeida was
inconsistent with his recollection of what Mr Tomaino stated.
[12] Mr de Almeida states that he did not attend work for the rest of the week, even though
he had been rostered for shifts, he was not offered any further shifts and states that in
correspondence following the “dismissal” he reiterated to Mr Tomaino that he was dismissed
and an email from Mr Tomaino, dated 21 April 2023, states that he was being blocked from
everything.
[13] Mr de Almeida submits that his employment was terminated at the initiative of the
employer because the meeting of 12 April 2023 was initiated by Mr Tomaino, he alleges that
the words terminating the employment were clear to him by both Mr Tomaino and his
“manager” and that correspondence post 12 April 2023 is consistent with an understanding by
both parties that the employment had ended and that there was no voluntary resignation.
[2023] FWC 1893
3
[14] Should the Commission conclude that there was no dismissal at the initiative of the
employer, Mr de Almeida contends that by blocking him from the “communication group” or
as a contact that there was no prospect of further work and this amounted to a dismissal by the
employer.
Respondent’s submissions
[15] The Respondent was represented by its owner Mr Tomaino. The Form F8A was
submitted and while further submissions were filed and served, the additional documents could
not be opened except for the Respondent’s outline of submissions. These files were submitted
in the .pages file format (a format used by the Apple program, Pages) which is not a format
explicitly specified in rule 14 of the Fair Work Rules 2013 or otherwise approved by the General
Manager of the Fair Work Commission. The Respondent did not resubmit the materials in a
readable format either prior to or on the day of the hearing, and Mr Tomaino determined to rely
on his form F8A, Outline of submissions and his witness evidence under oath.
[16] Mr Tomaino gave evidence that there was no dismissal by the Respondent and submits
that Mr de Almeida was displeased with a conversation between them and walked away on the
day that he was scheduled to work. He strongly denies that he made any threats or stated that
Mr de Almeida “no longer works at the establishment.”5
[17] Mr Tomaino states that the establishment is a small business operated by him. He states
that all business operational decisions are made by him. While he acknowledged that he had a
long serving employee that was identified as a “manager” by the staff, the person had no
authority to make operational decisions. The “manager’s” additional duties included setting the
rosters and was deferred to regarding service in the restaurant by waiting staff.
[18] Mr Tomaino gave evidence that Mr de Almeida was reminded on many occasions that
business operational matters were to be discussed with him directly. It was said that Mr
Tomaino wished to discuss Mr de Almeida’s argumentative behaviour with co-workers on the
previous day, so he instructed Mr de Almeida to attend a meeting. Mr Tomaino gave evidence
that the matter of wage grievances was raised on the Monday (10 April 2023) between Mr de
Almeida and the “manager” when Mr Tomaino determined that the matter should be directly
discussed. On the Tuesday he says that he instructed Mr de Almeida that such matters are to be
directed to him personally. In response to alleged incorrect calculations, he pointed out that he
used the tax calculators.
[19] Mr Tomaino states that on 12 April 2023, at 10.30am Mr de Almeida was scheduled to
commence his shift and attended the restaurant as agreed. He states that he raised his concern
that Mr de Almeida argued with staff the previous day, but instead of a discussion Mr de
Almeida “got animated’ pointing out it was everyone else’s fault.6 He states that the discussion
diminished when Mr de Almeida became argumentative and cried. The matter of calculations
was again raised. He reiterated that he does not calculate the tax, but rather uses the tax
calculator, but they remained in disagreement. Mr de Almeida reiterated that he was wrong so
Mr Tomaino directed him to obtain advice from Fair Work and walked away to set up the
outside furniture. He states he could not cope with the confrontation, there was no rational
discussion.7
[2023] FWC 1893
4
[20] Mr Tomaino states that he walked away because Mr de Almeida became emotional,
failing to communicate clearly. He was aware that Mr de Almeida turned to the “manager”, and
he described hearing a “verbal tirade, yelling, screaming and crying”.8 He described Mr de
Almeida’s behaviour as highly emotional, argumentative and deflective of any criticism, so he
instructed him to contact “Fair Work” to resolve his concerns. During oral evidence he states
that he directed Mr de Almeida to go to Fair Work because they didn’t agree, “If you don’t
agree and he refused to listen to reason, he said, well, you need to go and speak to somebody.”9
He denies conveying to Mr de Almeida that his employment was terminated in any way.
[21] Mr Tomaino states that having noticed that Mr de Almeida went to the back of the
restaurant and appeared to have left at around 11.30am, he asked the “manager” “where is
Luan?” and the response was “I dunno I think he is gone”.10 He gave evidence that by walking
out on the scheduled shift, he was inconvenienced further as he was already short staffed.
[22] Mr Tomaino relies on the emails and messages presented by Mr de Almeida in support
of his oral evidence and states that they confirm that there was no dismissal. He further states
that he was unaware of the detail of the WhatsApp messages between Mr de Almeida and the
“manager” until Mr de Almeida filed and served his outline of submissions. He further
confirmed that he does not use WhatsApp as his platform for staff communication. He gave
evidence that he is in the restaurant every day, so staff speak to him direct instead of relying on
any other form of communication,
[23] Mr Tomaino states that within hours of walking out on his shift, Mr de Almeida sent an
email “declaring [he be paid] his rewards, monies, holidays, his rights and the failures” [of the
Respondent].11 He states that from the emails addressed to him and WhatsApp messages, he
understood that Mr de Almeida had no intention of returning.12
[24] Mr Tomaino denies any contravention of the general protection provisions as alleged.
In response, Mr Tomaino states that he provided payslips, that Mr de Almeida refused to accept
responsibility for any of his conduct, he also challenges the allegation that the workplace was
toxic and in defence of the allegation refers to the general practice whereby Mr de Almeida
accessed free meals from the restaurant both while at work and otherwise. On the matter of
payslips he recalled a discussion with Mr de Almeida in February where his records were
criticised as being inadequate compared to the hotel where Mr de Almeida previously worked.
Mr Tomaino adds that more than 75% of his staff have been employed for more than 4 years.
He expressed exasperation that Mr de Almeida repeatedly contended that he was not paid his
entitlements, even though he states that no errors were made on his pay. Mr Tomaino states that
Mr de Almeida was employed as a casual, while Mr de Almeida contends that he was employed
part-time.
The relevant statutory provisions
[25] Mr de Almeida lodged a general protections involving dismissal dispute with the
Commission pursuant to s.365 of the Act. Section 365 applications concern dismissal disputes.
Relevantly, the provision provides:
Application for the FWC to deal with a dismissal dispute
If:
[2023] FWC 1893
5
(a) a person has been dismissed; and
(b) the person, or an industrial association that is entitled to represent the
industrial interests of the person, alleges that the person
was dismissed in contravention of this Part;
the person, or the industrial association, may apply to the FWC for the
FWC to deal with the dispute.
[26] Section 365 requires that the person that alleges the dismissal is a contravention of the
Act must be “dismissed”. The Act further defines dismissed. The relevant provision is s.386:
Meaning of dismissed
(1) 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.
(2) However, a person has not been dismissed if:
(a) the person was employed under a contract of employment for a
specified period of time, for a specified task, or for the duration of
a specified season, and the employment has terminated at the end
of the period, on completion of the task, or at the end of the season;
or
(b) the person was an employee:
(i) to whom a training arrangement applied; and
(ii) whose employment was for a specified period of time or was,
for any reason, limited to the duration of the training
arrangement;
and the employment has terminated at the end of the training
arrangement; or
(c) the person was demoted in employment but:
(i) the demotion does not involve a significant reduction in his or
her remuneration or duties; and
(ii) he or she remains employed with the employer that effected
the demotion.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply to a person employed under a contract of a kind
referred to in paragraph (2)(a) if a substantial purpose of the employment of the
person under a contract of that kind is, or was at the time of the person’s
employment, to avoid the employer’s obligations under this Part.
[27] Section 365 requires that should an application be made, it must be by a person that is
dismissed and the person alleges the dismissal is in contravention of the Act.
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s12.html#conduct
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s12.html#training_arrangement
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s12.html#training_arrangement
[2023] FWC 1893
6
Consideration
[28] To make a general protections dismissal application the person must have been
dismissed as defined by s.386 of the Act. Before exercising its powers under s.36813 of the Act,
the Commission must be satisfied that the person was dismissed in fact.14.
[29] The relevant provision in this matter is the application of subsection 386 (1) of the Act.
There is no dispute that the exclusions in subsections 386 (2) and (3) do not apply. Both
subsections of s.386 (1) relate to the employment coming to an end at the employer’s initiative.
[30] Mr de Almeida contends that he was aware of his dismissal on 12 April 2023 when
angrily advised by Mr Tomaino that “You do not work in this business anymore. I don’t want
you here anymore. You can leave”.15 He states that his awareness of the dismissal was
reinforced by Mr Tomaino ignoring his question “What about work next week?”16 He further
states that the meeting was initiated by Mr Tomaino by directing that he attend a meeting with
him, and the “manager” confirmed the dismissal.
[31] Mr de Almeida was unclear in his oral evidence if Mr Tomaino actually said the words
that he provided in his witness statement. However, he stated that he was told by Mr Tomaino
that “you no longer work here anymore” when they met on 12 April 2023. There was
inconsistency over what was actually said between the witness statement, oral evidence and the
tendered material.
[32] Mr Tomaino strongly denies that he conveyed a dismissal at both the meeting of 12
April 2023 and in the days following. Mr Tomaino’s oral evidence is corroborated by the email
correspondence of 12, 13 and 14 April 2023,17 and WhatsApp messages of 12, 13, 17 and 21
April 2023.18 In the final WhatsApp message from Mr Tomaino he states he will not deal with
Mr de Almeida anymore and he will block Mr de Almeida. This followed his message where
he refuses to deal with Mr de Almeida directly after his numerous requests for information and
payment of money. Mr de Almeida alleged that he was following up procedures advised by
“Fair Work,” and following the deadline he placed on Mr Tomaino to provide the information
he requested in his initial email of 12 April 2023. Mr Tomaino’s evidence was consistent on
the point that he did not tell Mr de Almeida that he was dismissed nor no longer worked at the
restaurant or any other words that had the effect of dismissal. On balance the evidence supports
the position that Mr de Almeida was not told his employment was dismissed. Rather as the
dispute over wage calculations could not be resolved, Mr Tomaino advised Mr de Almeida to
go to Fair Work to get advice about his wages.
[33] While it is not contested that Mr Tomaino directed that Mr de Almeida to attend a
meeting, it can hardly be argued that a direction to attend a meeting to discuss conduct,
behaviour or even any individual concerns amounts to a dismissal at the initiative of the
employer. Such an instruction may be lawful and reasonable management action. I do not
consider Mr Tomaino’s direction to attend a meeting amounted to or supports the contention
that Mr de Almeida was dismissed.
[34] Mr de Almeida further relies on alleged statements from the “manager” and conflates
the role. I am not satisfied that anything that the “manager” said amounted to a dismissal. Mr
[2023] FWC 1893
7
de Almeida accepted that Mr Tomaino was the owner, he employed him and was there every
day of the week. He accepts that he was told that any matters pertaining to pay were to be
directed to him. He acknowledged that the “manager” did not have the authority to determine
pay and the like, even though he raised his displeasure over his wage calculations with the
“manager”. The WhatsApp messages corroborate that Mr de Almeida vented to the “manager”
and perhaps appealed to him with an expectation that the “manager” may be able to influence
the owner, but clearly the messages provide no evidence of any authority held by the
“manager”.19 In oral evidence, Mr de Almeida was asked to describe the responsibilities of the
“manager”, I am not satisfied that due to the inconsistency of his evidence that the “manager”
was in fact a position in authority over recruitment, management of pay and conditions or
termination of employment. At best the role related to service requirements in the restaurant
and rostering. I am satisfied that Mr de Almeida knew that the “manager” had no control over
his terms and conditions and his employment and that such matters rested with Mr Tomaino.
[35] In addition Mr de Almeida’s contends that by being blocked from further
communication, this amounted to a dismissal. However, the evidence demonstrates that Mr
Tomaino was the decision maker in terms of staffing matters. WhatsApp was not the normal
course of communication for rostering and certainly not in relation to ongoing employment
commitment. If Mr de Almeida was a part-time employee as he contends, then he would have
had ordinary hours set and would not be so reliant on weekly rosters to identify if he is employed
or not. Further, the evidence does not demonstrate that all communication regarding rosters was
through WhatsApp, there was no evidence of a WhatsApp roster group. The evidence shows
that Mr de Almeida utilised WhatsApp as a form of direct communication to the manager which
consisted mainly of complaints about his alleged underpayments. I do observe that Mr de
Almeida continued to contact the “manager” even after he was instructed not to. The facts in
this matter are distinguishable from the decision in Alex Zucco v Mariana Chedid(t/a Brulee
Patisserie).20
[36] Of further relevance to the evidence that Mr de Almeida was not dismissed at the
meeting in the morning of 12 April 2023 and the decision to not return to the workplace, I
observe that Mr de Almeida states in his WhatsApp messages of 12 April at 12.47pm in
response to being reminded that communication must be through Mr Tomaino and not the
“manager”, that the problems will be gone if only his rights are solved and only then will they
be free of each other.21 This WhatsApp message follows on from earlier messages from Mr de
Almeida to the “manager” on 11 April 2023 where he states “this is the last time that I’m saying
this as I’m not getting any answer… I will need to ask for help from people of the Fair Work.”22
Again on 17 April 2023, Mr Almeida at 10.55am states “I need my rights to be claimed, and u
don’t need to see me and talk to me anymore”.23
[37] I observe that Mr de Almeida did not allege that he was dismissed until 6.08pm in email
on 12 April 2023, whereas 6 WhatsApp messages he sent prior make no reference to a dismissal
by the employer. The detailed email of the evening of 12 April 2023 sets out various documents
and information sought, allegations of underpayments (missing wages, superannuation, notice
of 58 hours and annual leave of 76.69 hours) to be paid by 19 February 2023. Being a
typographical error, it is obvious that Mr de Almeida meant 19 April 2023.24 The importance
of the date is a deadline, as Mr de Almeida states in email at 4.17pm and again at 6.36pm on
13 April 2023 that if the deadline is not met it “will not be possible to negotiate with [Mr
[2023] FWC 1893
8
Tomaino] anymore as [he is] completely wrong without provide me my rights after all days of
payment.”25
[38] In any event, in an email on 13 April 2023 at 1.44pm after receipt of Mr Tomaino’s
email of 11.00am where he disputes any dismissal and clarified his understanding of the
discussion, Mr de Almeida does not make any attempt to save his job in light of having been
rostered the next 2 days, instead he reiterates his understanding of his dismissal not by Mr
Tomaino but by the “manager” and reports that he is looking for other jobs.
[39] A dismissal does not take effect until an employee is aware that they have been
dismissed or has at least had a reasonable opportunity to become so aware.26 Whether an
employee has had a reasonable opportunity to become aware will necessarily turn on all the
facts of the matter.27 In this case the facts show that Mr de Almeida did not allege that he was
dismissed until 6.08pm, while the meeting concluded before 11.30am on the same day. Even if
Mr de Almeida incorrectly concluded that he was dismissed and never intended for his
employment to come to an end, he had an opportunity to accept that there was a
misunderstanding following the email from Mr Tomaino at 11.00am on 13 April 2023 where it
concludes with “Clearly you have decided you are not going to return.”28 Instead, Mr de
Almeida at 1.44pm on 13 April 2023 responds with “I don’t think it was what you told me
yesterday” “I’m already searching for other jobs…” because he was told by the “manager” to
find another job. And concludes with “I just want to claim my rights of being paid properly for
my whole working period in SUD, as a recommendation of Fair Work.”29 This evidence
demonstrates that Mr de Almeida came to a considered conclusion, it was not in the heat of the
moment, and it was not the action of the employer that resulted in the termination of
employment.
[40] A dismissal at the employer’s initiative is where the employer’s actions directly and
consequently result in the termination of the employment relationship, and had the employer
not taken such action, the employee would have remained in employment.30 I do not on the
facts conclude on balance that the employer’s actions resulted in a termination of employment.
Mr de Almeida’s decision to correspond by both email and WhatsApp over an extended period
of time confirmed his view that he was dismissed despite the evidence to the contrary and the
correspondence indicated that he would not be returning.
[41] Mr de Almeida submits that should the Commission find that the termination of
employment was not a dismissal at the initiative of the employer, that the conclusion is that it
was a constructive dismissal. The principle from the authorities is that the employer’s conduct
is key to effect the resignation of the employee, and to such an extent that the employee had no
choice but to resign.31
[42] The question of whether the employee had no real choice but to resign is not a matter
where the employee did not agree with the circumstances, rather the action of the employer
must be such that the employee did not have any real choice but to resign; had the action of the
employer not occurred, the employee would not have resigned. It is important to consider the
facts objectively, where an employee does not like the circumstances, is uncomfortable, finds
it difficult or distressing, such characterisations alone would not satisfy the principles in
Mohazab.32
[2023] FWC 1893
9
[43] Other relevant authorities regarding constructive dismissal concern situations where an
employer can treat the resignation as an unambiguous resignation. Where a resignation occurs
in the heat of the moment or under extreme pressures or circumstances, it is advisable that
employers take steps to confirm that the resignation was intended.33
[44] On the facts I am not satisfied that Mr de Almeida had no option but to resign. As stated
in paragraph [39], the decision is not in the heat of the moment, even if there was a
misunderstanding and the situation could have ended differently. Mr de Almeida had choices,
there was no evidence of extreme pressure, nor is there evidence that the “resignation” was
unambiguous. Mr de Almeida walked away from the meeting, presumably had time to reflect
and cool his temper; he reached a considered conclusion that he would not return and this is
articulated in the emails and numerous WhatsApp messages.
[45] One further point needs to be raised in this matter. An analysis of the WhatsApp
messages between Mr de Almeida and the “manager” reveals that the conclusions on incorrect
pay may not be as concluded by Mr de Almeida. I observe that instead of assessing taxation
based on the ATO tax schedules (or calculator as described by Mr Tomaino) Mr de Almeida
simply calculated tax at 12 or 15% which is incorrect on weekly earnings. Mr de Almeida
alleges that he was part time, yet his rostered hours of work suggest a more flexible working
arrangement, particularly as his availability was based on his university commitments and he
appeals to the “manager” to roster him over other employees because he needs the money more.
I also observe that Mr de Almeida calculates annual leave accruals on all hours worked
regardless of the weekly hours worked, some examples include 46.5, 51.83, 43, 49, 10.5 or 38
hours; this is incorrect as annual leave accrual for part-time employees is calculated on ordinary
hours. The claim that annual leave accrual amounts to 76.69 hours for 5 months of work is not
logical, nor is the claim for 1 week of notice at 58 hours. I further observe that the messages
reveal that Mr de Almeida was certain in his calculations and that he formed the strong view
that Mr Tomaino was wrong and that he did not want to listen to him. From this evidence, it is
not difficult to conclude that the discussion on 12 April 2023 regarding the facts in dispute were
unlikely to be resolved. This failure to resolve the dispute between the Parties does not detract
from my conclusion that Mr de Almeida was not dismissed by the Respondent.
Conclusion
[46] Having considered the evidence I am satisfied that Mr de Almeida was not dismissed
within the meaning of s.386 (1)(a) or (b) of the Act. Therefore, the application was not made
within the jurisdiction of s.365, and s.368 of the Act is not enlivened. On this basis the
application is dismissed pursuant to s.587 (1) (a) of the Act.
[47] An order34 to that effect will be issued with this decision.
[2023] FWC 1893
10
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
Ms L Miller for the Applicant
Mr V Tomaino for the Respondent
Hearing details:
Monday 31 July 2023
Melbourne (By Video using Microsoft Teams)
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
PR764778
1 LA-3 attached to Applicant’s witness statement.
2 Exhibit A1 Applicant’s unsigned witness statement at [17].
3 Ibid at [19].
4 Op Cit [21] – [23].
5 Respondent’s Form F8A at 2.2 and 2.4 and Respondent’s outline of submissions at 1a and 1b.
6 Transcript.
7 Transcript.
8 Respondent’s Form F8A at 4.1 and oral evidence.
9 Transcript.
10 Respondent’s outline of submissions at 5d.
11 Respondent’s outline of submissions at 5c.
12 Transcript.
13 Dealing with a dismissal dispute other than by arbitration.
14 Coles Supply Chain Pty Ltd v Milford (2020) 279 FCR 591, 54.
15 Applicant’s unsigned witness statement at [17].
16 Ibid [19].
17 Replacement LA-4 to Applicant’s witness statement (resubmitted on the day of hearing).
18 LA-4 as submitted and attached to Applicant’s witness statement.
19 LA-2 attached to the Applicant’s witness statement.
20 [2022] FWC 3272.
21 LA-4 as submitted and attached to Applicant’s witness statement.
OF THE FA WORK COMMISSION THE SE
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2022fwc3272.htm
[2023] FWC 1893
11
22 LA-2 at 15.56 to Applicant’s witness statement.
23 OpCit.
24 Replacement LA-4 to Applicant’s witness statement (resubmitted on the day of hearing).
25 Ibid.
26 Ayub v NSW Trains [2016] FWCFB 5500, [36].
27 Foyster v Bunnings Group Ltd [2017] FWCFB 3923, [17].
28 Replacement LA-4 to Applicant’s witness statement (resubmitted on the day of hearing).
29 Ibid.
30 Mohazab v Dick Smith Electronics Pty Ltd (No 2) (1995) 62 IR 200, 205.
31 See Mohazab v Dick Smith Electronics Pty Ltd (No 2) (1995) 62 IR 200; 39 AILR 3-234 at 205 (IR) per Lee, Moore and
Marshall JJ and O’Meara v Stanley Works Pty Ltd (2006) 58 AILR 100-528 AIRC 496 at [19] – [23].
32 Ibid.
33 Ngo v Link Printing Pty Ltd Print R7005 (AIRCFB, McIntyre VP, Marsh SDP, Harrison C, 7 July 1999).
34 PR764779.
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2016fwcfb5500.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2017fwcfb3923.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/decisionssigned/html/r7005.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awardsandorders/pdf/pr764779.pdf
