[2013] FWC 4111 |
FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy
Mrs Karen Harris
v
WorkPac Pty Ltd
(U2013/5420)
COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN |
PERTH, 30 JULY 2013 |
Unfair dismissal.
[1] This is an application by Mrs Karen Harris that she was unfairly dismissed from her employment with WorkPac Pty Ltd.
[2] WorkPac Pty Ltd dismissed Mrs Harris for bullying a fellow employee and considered her behaviour gross misconduct.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
[3] On 3 January 2013, Mrs Karen Harris (Applicant) made application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) seeking remedy for alleged unfair dismissal from WorkPac Pty Ltd (Employer) on 20 December 2012.
[4] The application is made pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).
[5] The application was not resolved at conciliation and referred to me for arbitration on 19 February 2013.
[6] On 8 March 2013, I issued procedural directions for a hearing on 21 May 2013.
[7] At the hearing on 21 May 2013, the Applicant was represented by Mr G Pinchen, Principal, A Whole New Approach Pty Ltd. Evidence was given by the Applicant on her own behalf.
[8] The Employer was represented by Ms K Bowe, Head of Industrial Relations, People and Organisational Capability. Evidence was given on behalf of the Employer by Ms Rachel Maye who was, at the time of the dismissal, the Business Centre Administration Manager (BCAM) and who now “job shares” that position. Evidence was also given by Ms Deanne George who, until 4 January 2013, was the Receptionist in the Rockingham Business Centre (RBC) where both Ms Maye and the Applicant worked at the time of Mrs Harris’ dismissal.
[9] At the conclusion of the hearing, I reserved my decision. Having considered the documentary material as a result of the procedural directions, evidence and submissions, this is my decision and reasons for decision.
RELEVANT BACKGROUND
[10] Mrs Harris commenced employment with the Employer on 29 November 2004.
[11] At the time of her dismissal, the Applicant was employed as Recruitment Co-ordinator Team Leader at the RBC.
[12] On 1 November 2010, Ms Rachel Maye commenced as BCAM at the RBC.
[13] On 27 August 2012, Ms Maria Scully commenced at the RBC as the Business Centre Manager (BCM).
[14] In early December 2012, Ms Maye resigned from her position. As part of leaving her employment, Ms Maye participated in an exit interview.
[15] The exit interview was over the telephone with Ms Bulmer in Brisbane. At the exit interview, Ms Maye did not indicate that she kept a “note book” of her interaction with Mrs Harris but gave “excerpts” of what she had written down in her note book.
[16] Ms Maye cannot recall if she mentioned that she kept a note book during her exit interview.
[17] Reference to a note book is not mentioned in Ms Maye’s written witness statement nor was it produced in evidence.
[18] On 19 December 2012, Mrs Harris was advised that she was required to attend a meeting on 20 December 2012 with Ms Bowe and Ms Swift to discuss “serious concerns the management have in relation to allegations relating to your treatment of a fellow team member [Ms Maye]”.
[19] Ms Bowe requested further details of the allegations from Ms Swift and was advised that further information would be forthcoming when Ms Bowe arrived in Perth.
[20] At 8:26 am on 20 December 2012, Mrs Harris received an email from Ms Bowe detailing further information regarding the allegations.
[21] At 9:05 am, Mrs Harris provided a written response to Ms Bowe.
[22] At 11:30 am, Mrs Harris attended the meeting with Ms Bowe and Ms Swift. Mrs Harris had a support person present at the meeting.
[23] Mrs Harris denied all allegations made against her.
[24] At the conclusion of the 11:30 am meeting, the Applicant was advised that her responses would be considered and that she was required to attend a further meeting at 2:00 pm.
[25] At approximately 2:30 pm, Mrs Harris and her support person were called into a meeting.
[26] At the meeting, Mrs Harris was advised that her employment was being terminated immediately for bullying Ms Maye which the Employer considered gross misconduct. The Applicant collected her personal belongings and left the premises.
[27] Mrs Harris was provided with a letter terminating her employment dated 24 December 2012. The relevant parts of the letter are as follows:
“I write in relation to WorkPac’s recent investigation arising from concerns senior management held in relation [to] your behaviour and treatment of a fellow team member. As you are aware an investigation was conducted on Thursday 20 December 2012 and it was found that you were guilty of bullying Rachel Maye.
I confirm that as a result of the above finding your employment was terminated due to gross misconduct...WorkPac is entitled to dismiss you without notice or without paying notice in lieu. Out of respect for your length of service, WorkPac have decided to pay you 5 weeks’...”
...As your employment has been terminated due to gross misconduct...you will not be paid any outstanding commissions...”
RELEVANT STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
[28] It is not in dispute that Mrs Harris is protected from unfair dismissal pursuant to s.382 of the FW Act and that the application was made within the statutory timeframe in paragraph 394(2)(a) of the FW Act.
[29] Section 385 of the FW Act sets out the meaning of unfair dismissal as follows:
● 385 What is an unfair dismissal
A person has been unfairly dismissed if FWC is satisfied that:
(a) the person has been dismissed; and
(b) the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable; and
(c) …
(d) …
[30] The criteria for whether a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable can be found at s.387 of the FW Act and is as follows:
● 387 Criteria for considering harshness etc.
In considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, 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 FWA considers relevant.
APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION
[31] The Applicant submits:
● the Employer dismissed her for bullying and harassing Ms Maye;
● the onus is upon the Employer to establish that the conduct complained of occurred and that it was sufficiently serious to justify Mrs Harris’ dismissal;
● that she did not bully or harass Ms Maye;
● the allegations are fictitious, vexatious and without basis;
● the allegations “are extremely vague, to the point that many of the alleged incidents cannot be recalled by the Applicant. The only specific examples relate back to July and October 2011, over 12 months before any complaint was lodged”;
● the complaints of bullying and harassment were only made after Ms Maye tendered her resignation;
● there was no impartial investigation and the process followed in the investigation was flawed;
● that Mrs Harris was denied natural justice in not being given the appropriate opportunity to prepare and respond to the allegations; and
● the Employer’s response to the allegations, by dismissing Mrs Harris, was disproportionate and failed to take into account her eight (8) years of dedicated service with no prior warnings. Finally, that several of the allegations related to a period over 12 months old when Mrs Harris husband was terminally ill.
EMPLOYER’S SUBMISSION
[32] The Employer submits that:
● Ms Maye made allegations against Mrs Harris before tendering her resignation;
● Ms Maye resigned from her employment “due to the treatment she received from the Applicant and that treatment came to the Respondent’s attention through an exit interview with Ms Maye”;
● that the allegations were sufficiently serious “so as to conduct an investigation that was impartial and conducted promptly, confidentially and objectively in accordance with the respondent’s harassment, Unlawful Discrimination and Workplace Bullying Policy”;
● the investigation was impartial and conducted objectively by Ms Bowe who is based in Brisbane “and therefore not involved in the day to day contact with the parties involved in the investigation”;
● the behaviours complained of by Ms Maye did occur;
● it is commonly accepted that bullying is behaviour that intimidates, offends, degrades or humiliates another. Mrs Harris was found by the Employer, to be “constantly aggressive towards her [Ms Maye], dismissive of her, embarrassed her, humiliated her and belittled her to the point she felt she had no option [but] to resign”;
● it takes “bullying in the workplace incredibly serious and once satisfied bullying had/was occurring was required to take steps to ensure the health and safety of all employees”;
● it considered all other options, but in light of the seriousness of the behaviour, it was determined that Mrs Harris’ employment had to be terminated due to gross misconduct;
● Mrs Harris was afforded procedural fairness;
● rejects the assertion that the allegations were vague;
● the Applicant was given a reasonable time to respond and consider the allegations;
● the Applicant was not denied procedural fairness;
● it considered the Applicant’s length of service and, in doing so, gave Mrs Harris five (5) weeks’ notice although not required to do so for termination due to gross misconduct; and
● the Applicant’s behaviour complained about by Ms Maye occurred both before and after the death of Mrs Harris’ husband.
CONSIDERATION OF STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
Was there a valid reason for the Applicant’s dismissal? - s.387(a)
[33] I have adopted the definition of a valid reason stated by North J in Selvachandran v Peterson Plastics Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 371 at 373 in the following terms:
“In its context in s.170DE(1), the adjective “valid” should be given the meaning of sound, defensible or well founded. A reason which is capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced could never be a valid reason for the purposes of s.170DE(1). At the same time the reasons must be valid in the context of the employee’s capacity or conduct or based upon the operational requirements of the employer’s business. Further, in considering whether a reason is valid, it must be remembered that the requirement applies in the practical sphere of the relationship between an employer and an employee where each has rights and privileges and duties and obligations conferred and imposed on them. The provisions must ‘be applied in a practical, commonsense way to ensure that the employer and employee are treated fairly’.”
[34] The witness statement tendered in proceedings by Ms Maye states that, “It was clear from almost the beginning [of her employment] that Mrs Harris did not like me and has singled me out to be treated differently from others” 1. Ms Maye continues in her witness statement that her working relationship with Mrs Harris was difficult both in the way Ms Maye felt she was being treated by Mrs Harris and also how Mrs Harris conducted herself in the workplace.
[35] Ms Maye describes Mrs Harris’ behaviour towards her in terms of “awful”, “dismissive”, “being embarrassing”, “barking answers”, “humiliation”, “embarrassed”, “aggressive” and “belittled”. 2
[36] Moving from a general description of Mrs Harris’ behaviour, Ms Maye gave evidence of particular incidents. Further, Ms Maye kept a record of Mrs Harris’ behaviour towards her from July 2011 and “made a number of complaints” to the then BCM.
[37] Towards the end of her employment, Mrs Harris made a complaint about Ms Maye’s work performance. Ms Maye’s response to Mrs Harris’ complaint is that, “I feel that Mrs Harris only made the complaint about me to get me into trouble. I feel like Mrs Harris had it in for me” 3.
[38] Ms Maye also raised her complaints about Mrs Harris with the Regional Manager, Mr Karl Stockman.
[39] Ms Maye resigned and following an exit interview, the Employer conducted an investigation into the complaints by Ms Maye against the Applicant.
[40] While I am satisfied that the working relationship between Ms Maye and Mrs Harris had its difficulties, the only documentation I have from the Employer in resisting the claim by Mrs Harris of unfair dismissal is a “Harassment, Unlawful Discrimination & Workforce Bullying Policy” (Policy). While the Policy is succinct, its value or success lies in promoting good behaviour, preventing bad behaviour and pursuing unacceptable behaviour. I have no submission or evidence which indicates that the Employer does not consider workplace bullying and harassment serious. Further, the Employer has set out what is inappropriate behaviour. However, it would appear that the Employer did not act on Ms Maye’s complaints until she resigned from her employment - that, of itself, is inappropriate.
[41] It is only when employers enquire into complaints, do employees feel confident in making complaints. Once employees have made complaints, employers can then determine the validity of such complaints. If complaints are well grounded and the behaviour by an employee inappropriate, action should be taken against the perpetrator; this action should be proportionate to the behaviour. Where complaints are not sound, and there will be such circumstances, the complainant should also be informed swiftly and counselled in proportion to the scale of the accusations made. In such cases, managers and supervisors are left with the task of healing or repairing working relationships - which will be, in some circumstances, an unenviable task.
[42] In this case, Ms Maye took the first important step of making a complaint verbally. I was not provided with any grievance policy which requires grievances/complaints to be put in writing.
[43] Irrespective of whether there is a grievance policy, I did not receive from the Employer: any written record of what Ms Maye complained about to both the BCM and RM; how those complaints were recorded by the Employer and what action was taken by the Employer in following up the complaints of Ms Maye. What I do have from Ms Maye is a witness statement which states that nothing was done until she stated her reasons for resigning in an exit interview.
[44] In examination in chief, Ms Maye’s evidence is:
“...I’d spoken to Gus Garston on several occasions. He was our business centre manager at one point. I’d spoken to Carl Stockman, who was our regional manager on several occasions. I’d also spoken to, without making official complaints to IR on a couple of different occasions, yes.” 4
[45] In cross examination, Ms Maye’s evidence was:
“The branch manager, Gus, said that he would talk to Karen on my behalf.
Did he do that?---I don’t know.
Did he give you any feedback?---Not that I remember.
Did you find that unusual?---No.
You didn’t expect feedback?---No.” 5
[46] However, notwithstanding this lack of feedback, the evidence of Ms Maye was that the bullying and humiliation continued. Ms Maye’s evidence was that she commenced complaining 18 months prior to handing in her resignation 6. Notwithstanding the complaints, the alleged bullying and humiliation continued7.
[47] Ms Maye’s specific examples of bullying and humiliation in evidence were approximately 17 months prior to her resigning 8. While Ms Maye acknowledges that she did not raise the complaints with the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), I consider these were understandable reasons. Finally, in cross examination, Ms Maye concedes that the Branch Manager, Regional Manager and the Industrial Relations Department failed her9.
[48] Mrs Harris commenced in November 2004.
[49] When Ms Maye commenced employment with the Employer, Mrs Harris was working in the Rockingham Branch. About three (3) months after Ms Maye commenced employment, Mrs Harris’ husband was diagnosed with testicular cancer. On 19 August 2011, Mrs Harris’ husband passed away.
[50] In her evidence, Mrs Harris, understandably, gives evidence that this period of her husband’s illness and subsequent passing was extremely difficult and traumatic for her and her family.
[51] After her husband’s death, Mrs Harris returned to work in October 2011.
[52] In early 2012, Mrs Harris gives evidence that Ms Maye came to her upset alleging that the Branch Manager was harassing her and speaking to her inappropriately. On that occasion, Mrs Harris advised Ms Maye that she should take the issue up with the Regional Manager. While Ms Maye denies the characterisation of the conversation, she does not dispute that Mrs Harris advised her to raise the matter with the Regional Manager.
[53] The Branch Manager ceased employment shortly afterwards. I was not advised of the reasons for the Branch Manager leaving his employment. However, if, and I stress, if termination of his employment was for reasons associated with Ms Maye’s complaints, this episode illustrates, on that occasion, the Employer acted swiftly following her complaint and demonstrates that a finding of inappropriate behaviour would not be tolerated in the workplace. That appears not to have occurred in the case of Ms Maye’s complaints regarding Mrs Harris.
[54] In the second half of 2012, the Employer appointed new Branch and Regional Managers.
[55] The evidence of Mrs Harris is that after the commencement of the new Branch and Regional Managers, Ms Maye moved from full-time to part-time employment.
[56] The evidence of Mrs Harris is that the new Managers were dissatisfied with Ms Maye’s part-time employment arrangement and wished to return to the previous arrangement of the position being one of full-time employment. Further that Ms Maye was making errors.
[57] To manage the situation, Mrs Harris was advised that the Branch/Regional Managers intended to “performance manage” Ms Maye out of employment. In doing so, they requested Mrs Harris to provide them with errors in Ms Maye’s work. Mrs Harris provided errors of Ms Maye’s work to Ms Swift, Branch Manager.
[58] In her written evidence, Mrs Harris provided an email which she forwarded to the Employer on 2 January 2013 after her employment had been terminated. The email reads, in part, as follows:
“...I want to tell you firstly that I feel I was badly (and unfairly) treated by the company and secondly to tell you the whole story and to clear my name as being “terminated immediately for gross misconduct”...The first I heard of my “gross misconduct” was by way of letter from Amanda Swift the day prior to my meeting with IR and her...
I can go on and give you examples of the BCAM [Ms Maye] but to be honest I would not waste my time at this point. My belief is she was disgruntled after being chatted to and she quit the business on the strength of this, and the fact for business reasons her January leave she had applied for was knocked back due to a lack of coverage. The general feeling from the BCAM and the RM at this point was one of elation as their feelings of the BCAM was we had to tread gently with her performance managing as they were concerned she would go the WC way and state “stress leave” costing the company further pain and the inability to move her on.
At this point the BCAM conducted her exit interview, and quite frankly hung me out to dry. The allegations she made were petty and unfounded and reading between the lines, the basic gist of it all was that I didn’t want to be her friend.”
[59] In view of the conflicting evidence and lack of contemporaneous evidence, where does the Commission start?
[60] In my view, the commencing point must always be to determine whether the alleged conduct did occur. If the conduct complained of did occur, did it have the effect, as alleged by the recipient employee, or not. The answer to that question essentially is arrived at by an examination of all the circumstances including the impression gained at the hearing.
[61] The particular instances referred to in the exit interview and put to the Applicant in the disciplinary investigation were as follows:
“ every dealing Karen [Mrs Harris] has with Rachel [Ms Maye], Karen is aggressive towards Rachel;
[62] Specific examples in relation to the above “points of concern” (which was the subject heading of the email), are also provided on the following dates:
[63] I do not intend to go into the particulars of each incident but to summarise by saying that the Applicant and Ms Maye gave different evidence as to what occurred during those particular events.
[64] Notwithstanding the different evidence as to what actually occurred, it is notable that neither Ms Maye nor the Employer could provide any contemporaneous documentation on the incidents. Ms Maye states that she kept a “note book” but that was not tendered in evidence. Ms Maye states she made verbal complaints to the BCM and the RM - I received no evidence of a written record of those verbal complaints. Further, I received no written record of the disciplinary investigation setting out the reasons why the Employer formed the view that Mrs Harris was “guilty of bullying” Ms Maye, and that her employment was terminated “due to gross misconduct”. 11
[65] Finally, it is notable that five (5) of the seven (7) particular incidents are 17 months old at the time of the Applicant’s termination. Secondly, the last particular incident occurred six (6) months earlier in which Ms Maye claims that Mrs Harris shouted out “get out of the f***ing file”. 12
[66] I am satisfied that there were certainly differences between Ms Maye and the Applicant. However, having evaluated all the circumstances, I am not satisfied that the alleged conduct of Mrs Harris as set out in the disciplinary investigation occurred.
[67] In my view, the Commission has to be watchful that particular incidents (especially where the protagonists disagree) are deemed as causing such feelings as being “humiliated”, “dismissive” and “embarrassing”.
[68] In reaching the conclusion which I have in relation to Mrs Harris’ conduct, I am not dismissing Ms Maye’s complaint as unimportant or inconsequential. However, it would be wrong to ignore the fact that five (5) of the seven (7) particular incidents occurred when Mrs Harris’ husband was in a coma, unable to breathe and unsure whether he would live. To her credit, Mrs Harris gives evidence, “I acknowledge that during this time I may have been a bit short or oversensitive at work”. 13
[69] Ms George gave evidence on behalf of the Applicant. Ms George was employed with the Employer from 11 April 2011 until 4 January 2013. Ms George’s evidence was generally supportive of the Applicant in her interaction with Mrs Harris.
[70] Notwithstanding the similarity of evidence of the Applicant and Ms George, Ms George honestly gave evidence that she did not make any complaints about how Mrs Harris treated Ms Maye. Further, with respect to how Mrs Harris conducted herself in the workplace, she gave the following evidence:
“...because I could see it with other people but personally to myself it didn’t affect me much and obviously it did affect other people and I could see that. But personally it didn’t bother myself, personally affected me”. 14
[71] Again, honestly, Ms George concedes that swearing was common in the workplace. 15
[72] Finally, in cross examination, Ms George gives the following evidence:
“When you saw this happening to Ms Maye, did you think, “Perhaps I’d better contact the CEO as the policy states?”?---I certainly didn’t, no. Obviously I knew it was affecting her but didn’t know to quite such an extent that how much it did affect her.
Would you say Ms Maye is a little bit sensitive?---She’s a sensitive person, yes.” 16
[73] While the Commission does not and should not endorse the view that “anything goes” at the workplace, it is also important not to confirm as bullying and gross misconduct behaviour, as in this case, which is not pursued with any vigour and relates to incidents which occurred some time ago. In my view, the Commission should guard against creating a workplace environment of excessive sensitivity to every misplaced word or conduct. The workplace comprises of persons of different ages, workplace experience and personalities - not divine angels. Employers are required to pursue inappropriate behaviour but need to be mindful that every employee who claims to have been hurt, embarrassed or humiliated does not automatically mean the offending employee is “guilty of bullying” and “gross misconduct”.
[74] I now turn to the remaining criteria.
Notification of the reason for termination of employment - s.387(b)
[75] The Applicant was notified of the reason of the termination of her employment verbally on 20 December 2012. This reason for termination was confirmed in writing by the Employer on 24 December 2012. The reason has been considered in paragraphs [33] to [73].
Opportunity to respond - s.387(c)
[76] I am satisfied, despite the speed in which the investigation took place, that Mrs Harris had the opportunity to respond. In her response, Mrs Harris denied the allegations.
Support person - s.387(d)
[77] There is no dispute that the Applicant attended both disciplinary meetings with a support person present.
Unsatisfactory performance - s.387(e)
[78] The Applicant’s dismissal did not relate to her performance.
Size of the enterprise - s.387(f); and
Human resources - s.387(g)
[79] The Employer employs approximately 6,000 employees and has a specialist Human Resources department. There are clear failures of the then line management which led to Ms Maye’s complaints not being resolved both formally and speedily until after her exit interview.
[80] In contrast, in the disciplinary process Mrs Harris was notified of the specific allegation of bullying at 8:26 am on 20 December 2012, attended a meeting at 11:00 am, the Employer considered her responses to the allegation and she was dismissed at approximately 2:30 pm.
[81] While events can unfold quickly, it does not mean that an employee has been treated unfairly. However, in these circumstances, it was essentially one person’s feelings regarding another person’s behaviour - behaviour, which was in the main, 17 months old and denied. In my view, a more thoughtful approach was essential.
Other matters - s.387(h)
[82] I have not considered any other matters in reaching this decision except to agree with the Employer that the testimonials provided by the Applicant are irrelevant and should not be taken into consideration. However, I disagree with the Employer’s submission that the death of Mrs Harris’ husband is not relevant. The terminal illness and death of one’s spouse is a significant lifecycle event, and is specifically acknowledged in industrial instruments. Besides that, it is part of the humanity in Human Resources.
CONCLUSION
[83] Having considered the submissions and tendered evidence, I am satisfied that Mrs Harris’ dismissal was unfair in accordance with the criteria in s.387 of the FW Act.
[84] Having found that Mrs Harris was unfairly dismissed from her employment, it is necessary to consider the appropriate remedy for that unfairness.
[85] Mrs Harris is not seeking reinstatement, and in any event, I am satisfied for the reasons set out above that it would be inappropriate. Consequently, I consider an award of compensation is appropriate.
COMPENSATION
[86] The relevant parts of s.392 of the FW Act are as follows:
Compensation
(1) An order for the payment of compensation to a person must be an order that the person’s employer at the time of the dismissal pay compensation to the person in lieu of reinstatement.
Criteria for deciding amounts
(2) In determining an amount for the purposes of an order under subsection (1), the FWC must take into account all the circumstances of the case including:
(a) the effect of the order on the viability of the employer’s enterprise; and
(b) the length of the person’s service with the employer; and
(c) the remuneration that the person would have received, or would have been likely to receive, if the person had not been dismissed; and
(d) the efforts of the person (if any) to mitigate the loss suffered by the person because of the dismissal; and
(e) the amount of any remuneration earned by the person from employment or other work during the period between the dismissal and the making of the order for compensation; and
(f) the amount of any income reasonably likely to be so earned by the person during the period between the making of the order for compensation and the actual compensation; and
(g) any other matter that the FWC considers relevant.
[87] An order for compensation will be made after I have heard from both parties. My Associate will contact both parties regarding the hearing. A hearing does not preclude Mrs Harris, her representative and the Employer communicating without reference to the Fair Work Commission, on a consent order. In the absence of an agreed position, the Commission will make an appropriate order.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
Mr G Pinchen for the Applicant.
Ms K Bowe on behalf of the Respondent.
Hearing details:
2013:
Perth,
21 May.
1 Exhibit R5
2 Exhibit R5
3 Exhibit R5
4 Transcript PN198
5 Transcript PN222-PN226
6 Transcript PN235
7 Transcript PN242
8 Transcript PN291
9 Transcript PN312-PN314
10 Exhibit A3(b)
11 Exhibit A3(c)
12 Exibit A3(b)
13 Exhibit A3
14 Transcript PN415
15 Transcript PN445
16 Transcript PN419-PN420
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, PR538206>