Campbell v Mount Isa Mines Limited [2001] QIRC 182 (2001) 168 QGIG 243

9 November, 2001 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 243 ######################################################################################################################### QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1999 – s. 74 – application for reinstatement Murray Campbell AND Mount Isa Mines Limited (No. B746 of 2001) COMMISSIONER THOMPSON 30 October 2001 Application for reinstatement – Refusal to undertake work in lead smelter – Concerns of effects of long-term lead exposure – Evidence of medical records in relation to blood lead levels – Alleged anti-management attitude – Dismissal harsh, unjust and unreasonable – Reinstatement or re-employment impracticable – Compensation Ordered. DECISION Background The applicant, Mr Murray Campbell, commenced his employment with Mount Isa Mines Limited (MIM) in 1983 as an apprentice boiler maker and in several broken periods of employment, had worked directly for the respondent for some thirteen (13) years. A decision to terminate his employment on 27 March 2001 was made by the respondent following the refusal of the applicant to undertake work directed in the lead smelter. The reasons given for the refusal were concerns by the applicant as to the levels of lead exposure he would encounter based on previous blood test results. Applicant The applicant was represented by Mr Ben Swan, of The Australian Workers’ Union of Employees, Queensland (AWU), with reliance placed upon the evidence given by Mr Peter Sukroo, Mr Craig Perkins and Mr Campbell. Mr Campbell’s evidence to the Commission was that between 1983 and 1996 he had worked in the area of the lead smelter and on one occasion his blood lead levels had exceeded the maximum required under law and that he was “leaded out”. The use of the term “leaded out” means that a person is precluded from working in the proximity of exposure to lead until the blood lead levels decrease. Between 1996 and 2001, Mr Campbell was employed as a maintenance technician in the copper smelter which is a part of the plant where there is minimal exposure to lead. The company, in late 2000 or early 2001, advised the workforce that both the lead and copper smelter maintenance technicians would be required, at a future date, to work in either smelter at various times. His evidence was that, at a meeting held in either December 2000 or January 2001, which was attended by some forty (40) or fifty (50) employees, having viewed a Pay Television documentary on the studies of long-term health complications that could flow from lead exposure, he raised with Mr Steve Murdoch, at that meeting, his reluctance to work in the lead smelter, and asked if he would be sacked if he did not go across. Mr Murdoch is alleged to have replied “that he would not sack me and that we would talk about it later on”. In February 2001, he undertook a lead smelter induction course, but at the completion of the course, refused to sign the induction certificate due to his concerns in relation to a future exposure to lead. Some two (2) weeks later, after completing a Personal Effectiveness Review (PER), his immediate supervisor, Mr Neil Lloyd, raised the issue of the unsigned induction certificate at which time Mr Campbell gave details to Mr Lloyd of his reservations in working in the area due to having previously being “leaded out”. -- 1 of 6 -- 244 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 9 November, 2001 His evidence was that on 26 March 2001, he was given a job sheet by Mr Lloyd which required him to work in the lead smelter and, on reiterating his previous position in that he would not undertake the task because of concerns in relation to his lead levels, he was instructed to report to Mr Paul Telford, the superintendent for the copper smelter. On meeting with Mr Telford, he gave reasons as to why he felt uncomfortable about working in the lead smelter, and he requested a copy of his medical records that were kept by MIM so that he could get some independent medical advice on the risks associated with working in the lead smelter. Mr Telford directed the applicant to the MIM medical centre where a blood test was performed which was to provide detail of his current blood lead level. However, his medical records were not provided to him as requested. The following day, 27 March 2001, he again refused to go to the lead smelter and, after meetings with both Mr Telford and Mr Murdoch, at which he again requested access to his medical records, he was “dismissed on the spot”. Mr Jim Murdoch, SC, appearing on behalf of the respondent, in cross-examining Mr Campbell, addressed a number of issues which included:– • Previous blood lead levels; • PER; • Failure to seek exemption from the lead smelter; • Smelter flexibility program; • “Leaded out” working for Simon Carves; and • Anti-management attitude. On his meeting with Mr Murdoch on 27 March 2001, at page 44, line 25 of transcript, the follow exchange occurred:– “Murdoch: Telford says that Steve Murdoch and he then requested you to discuss the matter with them? Campbell: Yes. Murdoch: And Steve Murdoch asked you why you did not report to the lead smelter for work that day? Campbell: Yes. Murdoch: And you said that you were leaded out while working for Simon Carves? Campbell: Also my concerns about my previous blood lead levels. Murdoch: Steve Murdoch told you that your employee file and medical history did not indicate that you had been leaded out? Campbell: That’s right. He showed me my blood tests from the day before and – and a blood lead test from 1995, none of the tests while I worked for the contractor. Murdoch: And told you that the test the previous day was 10? Campbell: Yes, that was the previous day. Murdoch: And you knew – he commented that 10 is a low reading? Campbell: Steve stated that, yes. Murdoch: Well you knew it was a low reading, didn’t you? Campbell: Yes. Murdoch: And Steve told you that he’d give you a couple of minutes to think about the issue? Campbell: Yeah, and I told Steve that the reason why I’m not going to the lead smelter is because of my concerns. Murdoch: They returned some minutes later and Steve again requested you to work in the lead smelter and you again refused? Campbell: Yes. Murdoch: And Steve reiterated what he’s said earlier about the fact that there were no restrictions preventing Murray Campbell – preventing you from working in the lead smelter? Campbell: Yes.”. The evidence-in-chief of both Mr Sukroo and Mr Perkins was that they were each present at the monthly meeting of managers held in January 2001 where Mr Campbell raised with Mr Murdoch his concerns about working in the lead smelter, and of the ramifications should he refuse to carry out work in that area. Their evidence, in effect, corroborated the account given by Mr Campbell during the course of his evidence. Mr Murdoch, SC, in cross-examination, questioned Mr Perkins on his role as a member of the Smelter Improvement Team which dealt with the introduction of the flexibility arrangements regarding employees working in both smelters, and of his own exemption from working in the lead smelter due to his high blood lead level. Respondent Evidence was given on behalf of the respondent by Mr Murdoch, Mr Lloyd, Mr Neil Hastie, Mr Mark Ezzy, Mr Telford, and Mr Tony McPaul. -- 2 of 6 -- 9 November, 2001 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 245 Mr Murdoch, the Manager of the Metallurgical Operations Maintenance, gave evidence that he was responsible for the implementation of a plan to allow flexible employment arrangements that would have employees to work in different areas of the plant from time to time. The plan was implemented, in the first instance, in the concentrators, and as a result of successful outcomes, it was decided to look at developing a workplace flexibility program in all plants including the copper and lead smelters. In April 2000, it was communicated to employees that management was to embark on a workplace flexibility program in the smelters, and in September of that year, every employee in the copper and lead smelters was sent a letter advising of the proposal, and each employee was made aware of their right to nominate for a committee that would, in turn, have the task of making recommendations to management on the implementation of the smelter flexibility program. The committee conducted an in-depth consultation process, including a review of records of all employees to ensure that there were no employment and/or medical issues that would prevent certain employees from working in the different areas. As part of the process, Mr Murdoch, in evidence, referred to a meeting of employees held in early January 2001 where Mr Campbell asked him whether he would be sacked if he refused to work in the lead smelter. In his affidavit of evidence, at paragraph 15, he set out the reply he gave to Mr Campbell’s question:– “I replied that we always address each case individually on its merits and that I could not envisage any reason given the extensive work that had been carried out on the process why anyone would be in that situation. I do not recall Murray stating that he had an issue regarding previous blood lead levels, or that he was concerned about previous fatalities in the Lead Smelter.”. On 27 March 2001, he was advised by Mr Telford that Mr Campbell was refusing to report for work at the lead smelter and, prior to meeting with Mr Campbell, he, along with Mr Hastie, reviewed the employee’s file, and could find no identifiable reason as to why Mr Campbell would not accept a direction to work at the lead smelter. At around 9.15 a.m. on that day, he, along with Mr Telford, met with Mr Campbell in a meeting that was scheduled to ascertain as to why he had refused to work in the lead smelter. A reason was given that Mr Campbell had been “leaded out” whilst working for Simon Carves prior to 1992 and, it was on that basis, that the refusal to work in the lead smelter had been made. It was pointed out to Mr Campbell that blood test results from the previous day (26 March 2001) showed a reading of 10 which was considerably lower that the legislative level of 40 that requires a person to be removed from an area where they may have an exposure to lead. Mr Murdoch’s evidence was that, despite being given numerous opportunities at that meeting to reconsider his position, Mr Campbell continued to refuse what Mr Murdoch considered to be a reasonable direction and, as a consequence of that, he was summarily dismissed and escorted by Mr Telford and Mr Lloyd from the lease. The cross-examination of Mr Murdoch touched on a number of issues including:– • Campbell’s work performance; • Acting in higher positions; • Flexibility work group; • Reference to Pay TV documentary; • Blood lead levels; and • Campbell’s PER and anti-management comments. The evidence of Mr Lloyd, a supervisor at the copper smelter, provided detail on the introduction of the flexibility arrangements between the two (2) smelters. As the direct supervisor of Mr Campbell, and having known him for over fifteen (15) years, his evidence was that on 26 March 2001, it was the first time that he had heard of Mr Campbell’s alleged blood lead problem. He did not believe that Mr Campbell had a blood lead problem, a position formed from viewing the medical details of all employees that were required to take part in the smelter flexibility program, including the records of Mr Campbell. Mr Lloyd felt that if Mr Campbell had genuine health concerns, he had ample opportunity to raise them with management prior to 26 March 2001. Following Mr Campbell’s refusal to work in the lead smelter, Mr Lloyd told Mr Campbell that he should be prepared to talk to Mr Murdoch, to which it is alleged Mr Campbell said “If Steve Murdoch wants to talk to me, he can talk to me in the plant, not in his office where he can brow beat me. He can talk to me with Roy Harris.”. Finally, in his evidence, at paragraph 23 of his affidavit, he stated:– “I told Steve, Paul and Neil that I believed Murray was anti-management and simply did not want to accept that the workplace practices were changing. I told them that I believed that the alleged blood lead problem and fatalities issue were just excuses.”. Evidence from the Employer Services Superintendent, Mr Hastie, was in the form of two (2) affidavits, wherein the first of those he provided evidence that he had reviewed Mr Campbell’s medical file which did not contain any medical evidence that a blood lead problem existed, and further, there was no such evidence that indicated a problem had existed at the time Mr Campbell was employed on site by Simon Carves. The second affidavit covered, in specific terms, the procedures adopted by contractors in relation to workers who exceeded the maximum blood lead levels and, in particular, applied to Simon Carves during the time of Mr Campbell’s employment. In respect of Mr Campbell’s claim that he was “leaded out”, at paragraph 5 of Mr Hastie's second affidavit of evidence, he said:– “In addition to the searches which I conducted on or about 26 and 27 March 2001 and which are detailed in my statement made and filed on 13 August 2001 in this proceeding. I have since searched for any possible records regarding Murray Campbell’s blood lead history. In particular, I -- 3 of 6 -- 246 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 9 November, 2001 have contacted, or am aware that contact was made, ISA’s Industrial hygienists, the ISA medical centre. Simon Carves, EPOCA Constructions, the Lead Smelter office and several long term Lead Smelter employees (both maintenance and production). I am satisfied that I have exhausted all possible avenues with respect to obtaining information regarding Murray Campbell’s blood lead history. Neither the people I have contacted nor the information and files that I have reviewed have revealed to me any evidence of Murray Campbell ever having a blood lead problem.”. Mr Ezzy, the Maintenance Superintendent at the lead smelter, recalled attending a training course on 26 March 2001 at which Mr Campbell told him, during a break, that he could not work in the lead smelter because of his blood lead levels. He stated that he did not believe Mr Campbell’s claim and, in his affidavit at paragraph 5:– “I remember thinking that the real reason was because Murray was from the ‘old school’ as he did not believe that workers in the copper smelter should be required to work in the lead smelter as part of the changes implemented by the smelter flexibility program.”. Mr Telford, the Supply and Contracts Manager at MIM, was the Superintendent at the Copper Smelter Maintenance up to 2 July 2001. In October 2000, he was appointed Chairman of the Smelter Flexibility Program Committee and, in carrying out the functions of that role, chaired meetings and spoke directly with employees within the copper smelter regarding the potential changes. On numerous occasions, he stressed to employees if they had any concerns they should raise them with either himself or other members of the committee and, on that basis, he could not understand that if Mr Campbell had genuine blood lead level concerns why he had not raised them prior to 26 March 2001. On reviewing Mr Campbell’s medical records kept by the company, he was unconvinced that a problem existed. His evidence included his recollection of the meetings held with Mr Campbell, Mr Murdoch, and himself, on 27 March 2001, and supported the account given in evidence by Mr Murdoch. On the summary dismissal of Mr Campbell, he told the Commission that he escorted him from the lease. The last witness for the respondent was Mr McPaul, the General Manager of Metallurgical Operations at MIM. He gave evidence that until April 2001, he chaired a fair treatment hearing in respect of Mr Campbell as it related to his dismissal on 27 March 2001, for failing to obey an instruction to work in the lead smelter. During the course of hearing, he formed the view that the decision to dismiss Mr Campbell was fair and in accordance with MIM policy based on the following reasons:– • There was no evidence whatsoever that Murray Campbell had at any time during his various periods of employment on the lease at Mt Isa been “leaded out” or experienced any other blood lead problem; • There was nothing in Murray Campbell’s terms and conditions of employment which prevented him from working in the lead smelter at Mt Isa; • Given the extensive consultation process which took place during the development and implementation of the smelter flexibility program, Murray Campbell had ample opportunity to raise any genuine concerns which he had in respect of being required to work in the lead smelter with not only me, but also other members of management and members of the smelter flexibility program committee; and • Given that Murray had acted on staff on a number of occasions, he would have been well aware of the changes being implemented by the smelter flexibility program and the importance of raising any queries held by employees in relation to those changes.”. On 9 April 2001, after further investigation, he advised Mr Campbell that it was not his intention to overturn the decision to dismiss him. Final Submissions Applicant Mr Swan covered the matters of importance in sequence, including Mr Campbell’s employment history, blood lead level concerns, company process on introduction of flexible work arrangements for the smelters, personal effectiveness review, and the summary dismissal. According to Mr Swan, the evidence was that between January 1990 and December 1993, when Mr Campbell was employed by Simon Carves working in the lead smelter at MIM, his blood level thresholds were, at that time, significantly higher than at the time of his dismissal in March 2001. Those levels were in the forties (40), fifties (50) and sixties (60), which are now levels beyond what is the current threshold at which a person is “leaded out”. Following Mr Campbell’s viewing of a Pay Television documentary which reported on scientific uncertainty as to the long term affects of high lead exposure to humans, Mr Campbell formed legitimate views that further exposure to lead would have effects on his long term health. His evidence was that he raised with MIM management, through Mr Murdoch and Mr Lloyd, his concerns, and in the case of Mr Murdoch, raised the question of his possible sacking for refusing to work in the lead smelter. It was reasonable for Mr Campbell to assume that Mr Murdoch’s comments that “he would not be sacked and that they would talk about it” meant that his refusal to work in the lead smelter would not necessarily lead to his dismissal in the way that it occurred. The failure of Mr Campbell to sign his lead smelter induction form, and the discussion with Mr Lloyd over that issue at the time of his PER, confirms that Mr Campbell certainly had strong opposition to working in the lead smelter, sometime prior to his refusal. Mr Campbell had made a number of unsuccessful efforts to obtain his medical file from MIM, with the only information being made available to him being his blood lead level results at the commencement of his last term of employment which was in August 1995, and the test results from 26 March 2001. -- 4 of 6 -- 9 November, 2001 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 247 In reference to the harshness, unjustness and unreasonableness of the dismissal, Mr Swan relied upon the authorities of Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410 at 467 and Bostik v Gorgevski (No. 1) (1992) 36 FCR 20 at 28:– “. . . ordinary non technical words which are intended to apply to an infinite variety of situations where employment is terminated. We do not think any redefinition or paraphrase of the expression is desirable. We agree with the learned trial judge’s view that a court must decide whether the decision of the employer to dismiss was, viewed objectively, harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Relevant to this are the circumstances which led to the decision to dismiss and also the effect of that decision on the employee. Any harsh effect on the individual employee is clearly relevant but of course, not conclusive. Other matters have to be considered such as the gravity of the employee’s misconduct.”. Mr Campbell had, as a result of his dismissal, lost a long-term employment association with MIM, with his dismissal causing him financial hardship and directly affecting his prospects of attaining further work at his trade in Mount Isa. The gravity of the misconduct for refusing to work in the lead smelter until he had the opportunity to have his medical records viewed by an independent medical person did not, according to Mr Swan, warrant his summary dismissal, and the penalty was a disproportionate punishment for the offence. Mr Campbell has the skills and qualifications to be either reinstated or re-employed in another position within MIM similar to that previously held. However, if both reinstatement or re-employment is considered impracticable, then a payment of compensation should be made. Respondent Mr Murdoch’s SC, final submissions appeared under the following headings:– • Introduction; • Outline of relevant facts; • Legal conclusions; • Unfair dismissal – Role of Commission; • Failure to follow a lawful and reasonable instruction; • Factual conclusions; • No evidence of applicant exceeding blood lead level removal rate; • Applicant did not raise alleged lead blood concerns until 26 March 2001; • Applicant’s blood lead concerns not reasonably or truly held; • Applicant had ample opportunity to raise concerns with management or smelter flexibility committee; • Respondent’s direction to undertake assigned work legal and reasonable; • Work assigned was integral to the respondent’s operations; • Respondent had no option but to dismiss the applicant; and • Reinstatement impractical. In summary, Mr Murdoch relied upon the proper processes adopted by MIM in facilitating the flexibility process and the failure of Mr Campbell to raise any of his concerns until 26-27 March 2001. There was no evidence of the applicant ever having exceeded the prevailing blood lead removal levels at any time in the past, and his blood lead test results on 26 March 2001 was ten (10) μg/dL which certainly was not a blood level to support his actions in refusing to work in the lead smelter. The respondent gave the applicant a number of opportunities to comply with the direction to undertake the work assigned to him, and with his continued refusal, had little option at the end but to summarily dismiss him. It was submitted that the applicant had not made a case to be entitled to the relief being sought from the Commission. However, if the Commission was to determine that the termination had been harsh, unjust or unreasonable then, in the circumstances, reinstatement would be most impracticable. Conclusion These proceedings were not of a complicated nature. Put simply, Mr Campbell was summarily dismissed for refusing to work in the lead smelter for the reason that he alleged that concerns existed for his health following high blood lead levels that he had had going back to 1990-1992 when he was employed by Simon Carves on work in the MIM lead smelter. The company, on the other hand, justified the dismissal based on the belief that the applicant had refused, what they considered to be a lawful and reasonable directive to carry out work in the lead smelter. It was not disputed that the company had put in place a procedure to facilitate the introduction of a more flexible work arrangement between the copper and lead smelters, and that the procedure, in principal, was not one that the Commission would criticise in that it allowed for broad participation from the workforce with a committee comprising of employees and management being given the task of making recommendations as to how the final changes would proceed. There was a broad level of communication involved in the process, with numerous meetings held at which the workforce was briefed on the progress that was being made by the committee. At one of these meetings, in January 2001, it was not disputed that Mr Campbell raised a question with Mr Murdoch as to whether he would be sacked if he refused to work in the lead smelter. However, there was not agreement that the reason behind the comment was the concerns of Mr Campbell as to his previously being “leaded out” and of the long-term effects of exposure to levels of lead that could occur with him working in the smelter. The evidence from the respondent’s witnesses was that the applicant had every opportunity, from September 2000 to 26 March 2001, to formally raise his concerns, and by not doing so, did not engender a belief that there were genuine concerns for his health. On the issue of the blood lead levels of Mr Campbell, the only evidence of substance before the Commission related to tests taken in August 1995 and on 26 March 2001, which showed levels of fourteen (14) μg/dL and ten (10) μg/dL respectively, which were both substantially below the current threshold of forty (40) μg/dL. -- 5 of 6 -- 248 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 9 November, 2001 I am of the view that an employee with Mr Campbell’s knowledge and experience could have taken what would have been considered more reasonable steps well before 26 March 2001 to not only raise formally with MIM his concerns with his blood lead levels, but also seek to obtain information from Simon Carves in respect of his previous employment medical details. His lack of action was, in my view, a fundamental cause of the predicament in which he subsequently found himself. The manner in which MIM and, in particular, Mr Murdoch, dealt with Mr Campbell’s refusal was, in the view of the Commission, heavy handed when one considers the case of another employee, Mr Trevor Dempsey, who also refused to work in the lead smelter with this particular incident touched on in the evidence of Mr Perkins and, in somewhat more detail, by Mr Murdoch, who said at page 67, line 30, of transcript:– “. . . And the point in fact was that Trevor had some – some personal discomfort with removing the full extent of his mo and the – Trevor had gone a long way to try and satisfy the occupational health and safety requirements with regards to the clean-shaveness in his interpretation which was basically to shave down to the point where the contact point on the respirator does not interfere. We have a long history with – with this sort of debate or – or the interpretation because when does – when does a moustache become a moustache become a moustache, and basically the – the registered manager at the time, or the company standard or policy at the time, was – you know – you’re either in or out – clean shave or don’t clean shave. At no point in time did Trevor did not want to go and work there. He was quite happy to go and work there, however he had a personal issue with an aesthetic part of his face which was clean shaven or not, and he was fairly well distressed at the time that we spoke to him about it – in fact heavily distressed – and was really physically and – visually distressed about it, and we elected to not send him back out in the workplace but send him home, calm him down, have a think about it, come back the next day. Subsequent to that Trevor came back and said, ‘I don’t have a problem.’ He then proceeded to the lead smelter on the next shut, fully clean shaven and proceeded to work in accordance with the directions we gave him.”. (emphasis added) The refusal of Mr Dempsey to work in the lead smelter was followed by what could be best described as a “cooling off” period in that he was sent home and given time to reconsider, whereas Mr Campbell was given, in the end, somewhere around ten (10) minutes to make his final decision. Whilst I think there was every reason for the company to question the sincerity of Mr Campbell’s claim over his blood lead levels, their response, in my view, in summarily dismissing him, and having him immediately escorted from the lease, was not only harsh but also unreasonable. The evidence of Mr Murdoch and Mr Lloyd on Mr Campbell’s work performance brought in to question a view that they were less than happy with both his attitude and his ability to work with management, and this may have precipitated the way in which they dealt with his refusal to work in the lead smelter as opposed to how the position of Mr Dempsey was considered. After consideration of all of the evidence and the authorities provided to the Commission, I find that the termination of Mr Campbell was harsh, unjust and unreasonable, in the circumstances. Therefore, he is entitled to have access to remedies in accordance with ss. 77 and 78 of the Act. Mr Swan argued that either reinstatement or re-employment, because of the size of MIM, was a remedy that should be considered in a positive frame, by the Commission, whilst Mr Murdoch, SC, in his final submissions, in paragraphs 141 to 148 (inclusive) provided extensive reasoning as to why such options where not practicable. Mr Murdoch’s, SC, summation of the evidence, in particular as it related to Mr Campbell’s views on management and his unwillingness to cooperate with higher levels of management, should convince the Commission, in the circumstances, that reinstatement for Mr Campbell to his previous position is not appropriate, and for the same reasons, nor is his re-employment a viable option. I find, in all of the circumstances, that it is impracticable for the Commission to order the reinstatement or re-employment of Mr Campbell, and that a more reasonable option would be the consideration of awarding of some form of financial compensation. At the time of his dismissal, Mr Campbell was being paid an annual salary of $53,740, and since the termination, and at least up to the time of hearing, had been unable to find work and was receiving an amount of social security of some $454 per fortnight. I accept that, in attempting to mitigate his losses, it has been most difficult, if not impossible, to find work in his trade, in Mount Isa, whilst the matter of his dismissal had still to be finalised. After consideration of all of the circumstances, I order that MIM pay Mr Campbell an amount of $14,468.46 gross being three and a half months pay as compensation for having his employment terminated in a harsh, unjust and unreasonable manner. Payment is to be made twenty-two (22) days after the release of this decision. I order accordingly. J.M. THOMPSON, Commissioner. Released: 30 October 2001 Appearances:– Mr B. Swan, of The Australian Workers’ Union of Employees, Queensland, for the Applicant. Mr J. Murdoch, SC, instructed by Mr D. O’Brien of MIM Holdings Limited, for the Respondent. -- 6 of 6 --