Atkins v Titanium Golf Pty Ltd t/a Club Pelican Golf [2005] QIRC 156 (2005) 180 QGIG 897

[Extract from Queensland Government Industrial Gazette, dated 18 November, 2005, Vol. 180, No.16, pages 897-904] QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1999 – s. 74 – application for reinstatement Kathleen Atkins AND Titanium Golf Pty Ltd t/a Club Pelican Golf (B/2005/901) COMMISSIONER THOMPSON 7 November 2005 Application for reinstatement – Witness evidence – Termination harsh, unjust and unreasonable – Reinstatement or re- employment impracticable – Mitigation of loss – Compensation ordered. DECISION Background An application for reinstatement was filed on 17 June 2005 by Ms Kathleen Atkins (the applicant) in which it was asserted that Titanium Golf Pty Ltd t/a Club Pelican Golf (the respondent) had terminated her employment in a harsh, unjust or unreasonable manner on 3 June 2005. A further amended application was filed on 23 September 2005 which sought to have the Commission make an order in respect of unpaid wages and entitlements withheld from the applicant whilst under suspension from 21 April 2005 until terminated on 3 June 2005. The amended application filed pursuant to s. 278 of the Industrial Relations Act 1999 (the Act) was subsequently dealt with in respect to the wages and entitlements and, as such, not for consideration in these proceedings. Applicant On commencement of the case advanced by the applicant, the Commission heard, played the full record on a Police interview between the applicant and two officers of the Queensland Police Service on 29 April 2005. In terms of evidence before the proceedings, the applicant relied solely on evidence from herself. Atkins On the morning of 21 April 2005, the applicant was requested to attend a meeting with Mr Carlo Salvato and Ms Michelle Flynn from the respondent where she was questioned in respect of the existence of a tin containing money that had been found in the Golf shop the preceding day. Found within the tin had been an envelope which had, along with others, her initials written upon it. In the course of the interview, she advised that the money in question was the proceeds from the sale of a small amount of stock items remaining from a larger sale when the business had been taken over by the new owners. It was her evidence that Senior Management, in the form of Mr Kyle Francis (Golf Manager) and Mr Tony Price (General Manager) had made comments along the lines of “just get rid of it” in reference to the disposal of the remaining stock items. Subsequently, the old stock was segregated and stored in an unlocked cupboard in the Golf shop. Attempts to sell the old stock lines through the till failed as their codes had been removed from the computer inventory. At that time, Mr Francis had suggested that the old stock lines had, for all intents and purposes, been written off, therefore they could be sold for cash and the monies used for staff functions and charity donations. Mr Salvato and Ms Flynn were advised that all Golf staff were aware of the practice and for some time the keys for the tin were held in the cash register and accessible to all. An amount of money raised from the sale was spent on a staff social function in January 2005 which involved shop staff and Senior Management, but not attended by the applicant. A further amount of money was donated to the Tsunami Appeal. Later in the month of January, a process was put in place where only the applicant and two others had direct knowledge as to where the keys would be kept and a running record of deposits and new balances were maintained on an envelope kept in the tin. -- 1 of 11 -- 2 At the time of the meeting on 21 April 2005, the balance was some $680. The witness had been given no warning prior to the meeting that she could be subjected to disciplinary action including the possibility that her employment could be terminated. At the meeting, notes were taken by Ms Flynn to which the applicant at the hearing raised objection to a quote allegedly made by her which said “I’ve really put myself in it haven’t I? I understand that [what] we did was wrong.”. At the conclusion of the interview, she was advised by Ms Flynn that this could become a Police matter and, until all staff were interviewed, she was to be stood down for 24 hours on full pay. On or around 30 April 2005, having not heard from her employer, she contacted them by phone and was informed that as she was about to commence annual leave, the matter would have to wait until her return. The applicant contacted the accounts department on 10 May 2005 to question why her payment for annual leave had not been made, and when Ms Flynn failed to return her call, she put her concerns in writing by requesting payment of wages and annual leave and information relating to her employment status. On 3 June 2005, she received a notice of dismissal which made allegations of misappropriation, which were totally rejected by the applicant. Payment for accrued entitlements and the period between 21 April and 31 May 2005 were paid in early October 2005. In terms of the involvement of the Queensland Police Service, the applicant was visited by two Officers at her home on 29 April 2005 and later attended an interview at Maroochydore Police Station. The interview was video and audio taped, and her evidence was that the questions asked in the course of the interview were similar to those put in the interview with Mr Salvato and Ms Flynn from the respondent. She was surprised to hear from the Officers that they were investigating losses of around $115,000 dating back to the change of ownership in May 2004. At the conclusion of the interview, the Officers advised her that there was no intention to press charges against her. Consequently, to date, no charges had been laid. Cross-examination Cross-examination of the witness was extensive, touching on matters including:  Pricing of items for sale  Setting up of a tally sheet (page 51, line 50 of transcript): “Prior: Okay. The record of interview indicates that Carlo asked you about why the tally sheet existed and you made the point that you thought all the money wasn’t going in, in other words, meaning that that’s why the tally sheet started. Is that a reasonable representation of what was said between yourself and Carlo? Atkins: Yes.”.  Interview with Mr Salvato and Ms Flynn and comments allegedly made (page 58, line 30 of transcript): “Prior: I put to you that you said both of those things, ‘I’ve really put myself in, haven’t I? I understand what we did was wrong’. You did say both of those things, didn’t you? Atkins: No.”.  Police interview  Stock sold  Sale of personal equipment to a customer  Slush fund (page 77, line 40 of transcript): -- 2 of 11 -- 3 “Prior: Ms Atkins, with all of the – all of the evidence that you’ve given in relation to the slushie fund, the moneys that went into the tin, the contents of the cupboard, you knew that they were – that was the property of your employer, didn’t you? Atkins: Yes. Prior: And you knew that the funds that you were taking for that – for the sale of anything you sold out of the cupboard wasn’t going to your employer, didn’t you? Atkins: Yes. Prior: Didn’t that strike you as strange? Atkins: Not really, no.”. Selling of stock and putting monies aside (page 78, line 22 of transcript): “Prior: I’m not suggesting you were doing it on your own but you were doing that, weren’t you? Atkins: Yes. Prior: And that didn’t strike you as strange? Atkins: I guess so. Prior: It did strike you as strange? Atkins: Well, a bit strange now that you’re saying it. Prior: But you didn’t think to raise it with anybody other than Kyle. Discuss it with anybody else to make sure that it was sanctioned by more senior management? Atkins: No. Kyle was our boss. Prior: But he wasn’t your only boss, was he? Atkins: No. But you don’t go over your boss and half the time, we didn’t know who our boss was, like I said in the tape. I didn’t go – Tony Price was and then – –”. Respondent The respondent relied upon evidence given by Mr Salvato, Ms Flynn and Mr Dale Williamson. An Attendance Notice was issued requiring Senior Constable Andrew Bauer to present to the Commission. Bauer SC Bauer, a serving officer of the Queensland Police Service stationed at the Caloundra Criminal Investigations Branch, gave evidence of conducting an interview with Ms Atkins on 29 April 2005 at the Maroochydore Police Station. SC Bauer, whilst not able to recall exactly what was said at the conclusion of the interview indicated that it was likely that he would have said “I have no intention of pressing charges at this stage. If I had any intention I would have pressed charges on the day.”. On the matter of transcribing the detail of an audio interview he indicated that only occurred if someone was going to be charged. In cross-examination, Mr Ryan on behalf of the applicant raised the issue of the matter being referred to the Crown Prosecutor in Brisbane (page 95, line 2 of transcript): “Ryan: I’ve only got one question. I won’t go over any of the material which the honourable constable went over just before, but there’s been a statement which will come before this Court tomorrow. It’s been sent to the registry and the Court; that’s from Michelle Flynn. On the first – this reads as follows, ‘In or about late May 2005 Carlo Salvato, who is the general manager and I were informed by the police that due to -- 3 of 11 -- 4 Kathleen Atkins’ denial of any involvement in the matter, the matter has now been passed to the Crown Prosecutor in Brisbane’. Can you make any sense of that? Bauer: No, the matter wasn’t passed to the Crown Prosecutor in Brisbane. I did seek advice from the supervisors, or higher ranking police officers as to which way the investigation should take and at that stage I was advised not to lay any charges at that stage, pending again, the location of Kyle Francis.”. Salvato Mr Salvato, the General Manager of Club Pelican Golf, gave evidence of attending dinner with a number of staff on 20 April 2005, including Mr Williamson, where discussions developed around the amount of stock being ordered for the Pro Shop that was not showing on the books. At around 10.00 p.m., Mr Williamson advised him that a number of staff, including Mr Francis, Ms Atkins and Ms Sharon Kenyon had been selling stock for cash only and putting the monies in a “red tin” for their own personal use. The next morning, he instructed Ms Flynn to contact Ms Atkins to come in for an interview. Later that day, both he and Ms Flynn conducted an interview with Ms Atkins which, according to the witness, was transcribed by Ms Flynn “word for word”. A copy of the interview was attached to his affidavit. Shortly after the interview, he had Ms Flynn contact the police who advised they would investigate the situation. He was present when police visited the Pro Shop premises in late April or early May 2005 and showed them stock that had been hidden in a cupboard underneath the counter and in the storage room. He gave further evidence that a member of the public had told him of being hassled by Ms Atkins to buy a putter which was “going cheap for cash”. The reason the respondent had delayed the termination of the applicant after initially suspending her was due to the police investigation still pending. The Commission raised with Mr Salvato the matter of Mr Francis’ departure from the company (page 103, line 35 of transcript): “Commissioner: So, what would be the reason given to Mr Francis for his termination? Salvato: His reason was he couldn’t explain why it was written off in the stock take. Commissioner: Why what was written off? Salvato: He’d written stock off out of the stock take. We had receipt invoices for the produce coming in, but it wasn’t on the shelf anymore and it was – it wasn’t showing on the stock list. Commissioner: And he was the person who was responsible for that? Salvato: Correct.”. In cross-examination, a range of issues were visited, including:  Information from Mr Williamson  Record of interview with Ms Atkins and the transcribing by Ms Flynn  Duration of the interview  The decision to terminate Ms Atkins. Flynn Ms Flynn stated that she was the Sole Director of her own company and had been retained as a hospitality consultant by the respondent since March 2005. -- 4 of 11 -- 5 On or around 20 April 2005, along with Mr Salvato, she commenced an investigation into allegations raised by Mr Williamson that staff had sold deleted stock for cash, putting the proceeds into a “red tin” otherwise known as a “slushie fund”. At paragraph 5 of her affidavit, she described the investigation process: “5. On or about 21 April 2005, as part of the internal investigation referred to in paragraph 4, CARLO SALVATO and I: 5.1 Collected evidence (ie. All stock hidden in the cupboard that was being sold for cash (‘the Cupboard Stock’) and the ‘Slushie Fund’, etc). 5.2 Performed a stocktake of the Cupboard Stock and the floor stock in the Pro Shop in order to estimate the amount of stock misappropriated. 5.3 Interviewed all staff employed in the Pro Shop within 48 hours of being informed by the Directors of the information outlined in Paragraph 2.”. The stocktake identified a loss to the company of some $6,000 through the use of the “slushie fund”. The interview involving Ms Atkins was transcribed by her and it was her evidence that Ms Atkins made the following admissions:  She was one of only three people who possessed a key to the “slushie fund”  She started to keep a tally sheet of the money in the “slushie fund”  Admitted that “what we did was wrong”. At the conclusion of the interview, she advised Ms Atkins that she would be suspended on full pay until a full investigation had been concluded. On or around 22 April 2005, the police commenced an investigation. SC Bauer informed her that they had interviewed Ms Atkins who had denied any involvement in the matter. Ms Atkins was informed that as she was on annual leave from 2 May to 12 May 2005, the matter would be determined upon her return. An internal audit conducted in early May 2005 identified the exact amount of the misappropriated stock being to the value of $6,710.00. In late May 2005, her evidence was that both she and Mr Salvato were informed by the police that, due to the denial of any involvement, the matter had been referred to the Crown Prosecutor in Brisbane. On or around 31 May 2005, a letter was forwarded to Ms Atkins terminating her employment on the grounds of gross misconduct and requesting that she make arrangements for the repayment of the stock losses. In relation to the transcribed interview with Ms Atkins, the witness stated that the record of what was said “would be extremely close to verbatim”. On failing to make mention of the word “police” in the transcript, the witness acknowledged that her notes may not have been verbatim. Cross-examination of Ms Flynn went to matters including:  Reason for suspending Ms Atkins’ employment  Investigation process  Witness connection with Titanium  Interview with Ms Atkins and the notes taken by the witness -- 5 of 11 -- 6  Total stock loss  Referring the matter to the Crown Prosecutor  Termination of Ms Atkins (page 155, line 25 of transcript): “Ryan: I see. Thank you very much. Now, in terms of the – the termination of the – so, I take it – you said before – before the Commission that it was – the report from the police was crucial? Flynn: Yes. Ryan: Right. To terminate the services – – ? Flynn: Yes. Ryan: – – of Kathleen. That report never came through? Flynn: No. Ryan: But likewise the decision was to terminate the services of Kathleen, correct? Flynn: After we didn’t – and kept getting put off from the police, Titanium’s owners requested the legal team, their lawyers be advised of this situation and what action they recommended they take and then that’s the road then we went down. And if we were waiting for the police, I think we’d still be waiting, unless I rang them in September to find out the outcome. There’s an outcome that supposedly never went anywhere. So, lucky we didn’t wait.”.  Reconciliation process (page 159, line 30 of transcript): “Ryan: So, it comes back down to it, in terms of the stock reconciliation sheets, you, as part of, I suppose, the investigation, if you like – –? Flynn: Mmm-mmm. Ryan: – – and to the future employment or otherwise of Kathleen Atkins and others, there was no need to show her any of this material? Is that right? There was no need to show her for an explanation? Flynn: No. That’s right. Ryan: There was no need for that at all? Flynn: No.”. Williamson The witness, a trainee golf professional employed by the respondent, gave evidence of his attendance at a Christmas party in late 2004 or early 2005. At the time of the party, he had assumed that the function had been funded by the employer, however a week later he was informed that the payment had been made from the proceeds of the sales paid into the “red tin”. He could not recall which person had informed of the source of income for the party, but thought it could have been anyone of three, including Mr Francis and Ms Atkins. He noticed that they would take stock from the cupboard and sell it for cash. After Mr Francis left his position, Mr Williamson stated that he became concerned about how the “red tin” had come about and decided to inform management. -- 6 of 11 -- 7 Submissions Applicant The applicant submitted that the dismissal was, pursuant to s. 73(1)(a) of the Act, harsh, unjust and unreasonable, and if the Commission was to find in favour of the applicant, the options of re-employment or reinstatement would be, in the circumstances, impracticable. The evidence before the Commission clearly established the circumstances surrounding the suspension and subsequent termination of the applicant as being unreasonable. The termination was effected by way of correspondence, dated 31 May 2005, and retrospective to 21 April 2005, without ever providing the applicant the opportunity to offer a proper explanation based on all of the material relied upon. The unwarranted dismissal had caused the applicant economic loss and mental distress, leaving her unable to seek fresh employment until the allegations of theft had been cleared up. The treatment endured by the applicant in not receiving her monetary entitlements following her dismissal until October 2005 reflected both the harshness and unfairness of the termination. In terms of the allegations against the applicant, she had understood that, in respect of the sale of stock and placing the monies in the “slushie fund”, approval for such actions had emanated from higher levels of management. The testimony of the applicant showed her to be a witness of credit and the cross-examination process had not hampered or reduced that credibility. The evidence of both Mr Salvato and Ms Flynn contained certain flaws which, in the view of the applicant, would allow the Commission to place little value upon crucial elements of their evidence, in particular, the record of interview undertaken with Ms Atkins. It was submitted that the respondent had failed to meet the basic requirements in order to reach a proper decision of the conduct of the applicant which later resulted in her termination. Authorities relied upon supportive of the applicant included:  Howell v John Bennell’s Discount Fuel (2001) QIR Comm 64  Bi-Lo Pty Ltd v Hopper (1992) 53 IR 224  Sangwin v Imogen Pty Ltd (unreported) SA 95/116IR  Christie v Austotle Management Pty Ltd 159 QGIG 108  Trevanion v Tricare Limited 157 QGIG 57  Cullen v Gold Coast Nursing Home 157 QGIG 128. In summary, the applicant sought the maximum compensation under the Act, being that of the wages the employer would have been liable to pay the employee for the 6 months immediately after the dismissal at the rate of remuneration received immediately prior to the dismissal. The annual salary of the applicant at the time was $32,750. Respondent Ms Prior, on behalf of the respondent, stated that the applicant had been terminated for “gross misconduct” alleging that the applicant, and others, had misappropriated funds belonging to the employer. It was submitted that the term “misappropriate” did not necessarily imply that somebody had used funds improperly for their own benefit, with the term being defined in the Australian edition of the Collins English Dictionary as “to appropriate for wrong or dishonest use”. -- 7 of 11 -- 8 In terms of the evidence before the Commission, there was a transcript of the interview between the applicant, Mr Salvato and Ms Flynn which was questioned in terms of being taken down verbatim, but acknowledged in cross- examination by the applicant as being a fair representation. The Commission also had access to the audio tape of the police interview with the applicant. The story from the applicant in each of the interviews was much the same in that there had been goods removed from the mainstream stock, sold for cash, with the monies going into the “red tin”. At page 180, line 25 of transcript, Ms Prior said: “Now, it’s perfectly clear from the statement of Ms Atkins here in the Commission, plus the record of interview with Mr Salvato and Ms Flynn and also what Ms Atkins had to say to the police, that Ms Atkins was instructed by Kyle Francis to act in the manner in which she did and that was, if she sold goods from the cupboard, she put the money in the tin and she made additions to the total of the amount that was being kept in the tin.”. However, what needs to be considered is whether a reasonable person would consider that such an instruction was the appropriate thing to do. It has never been suggested that the applicant personally benefited from the scheme and it is acknowledged that she did not attend the Christmas party referred to in Mr Williamson’s evidence. On the issue of process, there was an initial discussion held as part of the investigation and, whilst the matter was further investigated, no additional information to be relied upon by the respondent to effect the dismissal came to light, therefore it was unnecessary to further interview the applicant. Procedural fairness had, in the circumstances, been applied to the investigation of the respondent. The respondent did not accept that the termination of the applicant was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, even though the employer failed to make payment of entitlement until around October 2005. On the issue of compensation, it was argued that the applicant had failed to mitigate any loss she may have suffered and, therefore, even if the Commission was to find against the respondent, the only compensation that could be considered would be that of the appropriate notice period. The Commission was urged to dismiss the application. Conclusion The factual evidence that led to the termination of the applicant was, in the main, not subject to dispute between the parties. The applicant, and others, had separated a range of stock from the floor stock and sold the removed stock for “cash only”, placing the proceeds into the “red tin” and eventually utilising the monies for firstly a Christmas party (not attended by the applicant) and also a donation to the Tsunami appeal. The applicant at no time sought to “dress up” what had occurred and, in interviews with Mr Salvato, Ms Flynn and the Police, provided frank and forthright information in response to questions put to her. The police officer conducting the investigation gave evidence to the Commission that charges had not been laid against the applicant. The applicant’s defence was that she simply followed instructions given by management and was of a mind not to do otherwise. The respondent argued that the applicant was a senior sales assistant and should, therefore, have realised that her conduct was inappropriate. That matter was dealt with in an exchange between the Commission and Mr Salvato in the course of his evidence (page 126, line 42 of transcript): “Commissioner: Just in relation to this Ms Atkins, you say she held a senior position within the company, within the pro shop? Salvato: Yeah. -- 8 of 11 -- 9 Commissioner: What was that position, what would it be classified as? Salvato: Senior sales assistant, that's what I classified her as. Commissioner: What was she paid as? Salvato: Sales assistant, yeah. Commissioner: As a normal sales assistant? Salvato: Yep, Mmm-hmm. Commissioner: Then how can she be a senior sales assistant – – ? Salvato: In our eyes she was a senior because – – Commissioner: Except when it came to paying her? Salvato: We gave her responsibilities to - to lock up, but everyone locked up.”. The Commission, for reasons better known to the parties, was not presented with evidence from Mr Francis, or other former employees who were directly involved in the selling of separated stock and only had, in reality, the evidence of the applicant to give a first hand account of the practice. Ms Atkins presented as a witness of credit, who appeared to genuinely answer all questions put during her time in the witness box and whose demeanour did not raise a question with the Commission. I accept that she followed the instructions given by Mr Francis and on her own initiative took steps to safeguard and account for monies that were placed into the “red tin” by limiting access to the keys and entering progressive amounts on an envelope kept in that tin. Her actions were not untoward in the sense that she had, in a deliberate manner, set out to personally gain at the expense of the employer. It was on the evidence categorically clear that she did not personally benefit in any respect from what had occurred in the Pro Shop and, in fact, Mr Williamson, who took over three months to bring to the attention of his employer his knowledge of the conduct in the Pro Shop, was the one person before the Commission who derived a benefit, being that he attended the Christmas party. In terms of the investigation carried out by the employer, they were successful in almost every aspect in “getting it wrong”. Ms Atkins was summoned on her day off to attend immediately for a meeting without any pre-warning as to reasons for the meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting, she was suspended on full pay which, in effect, turned out to be “suspension without pay” and left in that position until 31 May 2005 when correspondence from the employer terminated her employment retrospective from 21 April 2005. In between that time, she had taken annual leave (in May) for which she was not paid until October 2005, and it appeared from the submissions of the applicant that simply to access her accrued entitlements was, in itself, an event. The respondent, from the evidence of Ms Flynn, had decided very early on in the piece to rely upon the police laying charges against Ms Atkins as the basis for her to be terminated. After what was, to the respondent, an inordinate period of time, no such charges were laid and they terminated the applicant as previously mentioned. Finding The Commission has, in each area of conflicting evidence between the parties, preferred the evidence given by the applicant and, in particular, the crucial element of the interview transcribed by Ms Flynn where the applicant denies having made comments to the effect: -- 9 of 11 -- 10  “I’ve really put myself in it haven’t I”; and  “I understand what we did was wrong”. On consideration of the evidence, material and submissions before the proceedings, it has, in my view, been established that on the balance of probabilities, the decision to terminate the applicant was harsh, unjust and unreasonable, not only for reasons relating to the lack of procedural fairness, but also the substantive allegation of gross misconduct and misappropriation relied upon by the respondent which, in the course of the hearing, was found to be lacking in substance. Remedy The Commission, in determining the appropriate remedy, must firstly consider whether the options of either reinstatement or re-employment, as provided for in accordance with s. 78 of the Act, are appropriate, in the circumstances. The applicant submitted that either of the above options would be impracticable and, without any comment to the contrary by the respondent, I am inclined to be of a view that the trust required as a basis for a sound working relationship is, for both parties, long gone. That leaves the Commission to look to s. 79 of the Act to determine whether an order for compensation should be made in favour of the applicant. The applicant had sought the maximum award available under s. 79(2)(a), being that of six months’ salary. The respondent argued that the applicant had failed to provide evidence that she had attempted to mitigate her loss and, accordingly, any award should be at the lower end of the scale, being no more than the appropriate notice period. The evidence of the applicant was that she had refrained from seeking employment whilst the allegation of misappropriation was “hanging” over her. She had thought, to obtain employment prior to this matter being settled would, in essence, be unfair to an employer. It is well established that a reasonable attempt must be made to mitigate one’s loss after the employment arrangement has been ceased. In the matter of Johanna Richele Lucas and Steven Paul Lather trading as Radcliffe, Lather and Buckland (B494 of 1996), the then Chief Commissioner Hall stated: “It was contended that the applicant did not act reasonably in mitigation of her loss. In the absence of argument I assume that in reaching a decision consistent with ‘equity, good conscience and substantial merits of the case’ (s. 92(1)), the Commission in deciding upon an amount of compensation should have regard to whether or not an applicant has acted reasonably with a view to mitigating damages. I note that in Bechara v. Gregory Harrison Healy and Co. (1996) 65 IR 382 at 390 Madgwick J took substantially the same view.”. In M. J. Lawrance and Brothers Leagues Club, Ipswich (B1068 of 1994, Bougoure C expressed a view on the duty to mitigate loss: “In this case the applicant found difficulty obtaining alternative employment in the Ipswich area allegedly due to the circumstances of his dismissal and the improper allegations made against him. The applicant does have a duty to mitigate his loss by obtaining alternative employment and in this case it would be reasonable to require the applicant to search for employment over a wider area than Ipswich. Ultimately he obtained suitable employment at Middlemount in Central Queensland.”. The failure of the applicant to attempt at any level to mitigate her loss must have some reasonable bearing upon the quantum of compensation to be awarded. Whilst acknowledging that the unsubstantiated allegations did have an adverse effect on the applicant, in the absence of acceptable evidence as to the level of that effect, it is the decision of the Commission that an award of eight weeks’ salary (based on her then annual salary of $32,750) be made in favour of the applicant. The respondent is ordered to pay a gross amount of $5,038.46, less the appropriate taxation to be deducted in accordance with the Australian Taxation Office provisions. Payment is to be made 22 days after the release of this decision. -- 10 of 11 -- 11 I order accordingly. J.M. THOMPSON, Commissioner. Hearing Details: 2005 11 and 12 October Appearances: Mr J. Ryan, of Ryans Solicitors, for the Applicant. Ms K. Prior, of Prior and Associates, instructed by Grants Lawyers, for the Respondent. Released: 7 November 2005 Government Printer, Queensland The State of Queensland 2005. -- 11 of 11 --