Burrows and Others v Sita Queensland Pty Ltd [1996] QIRC 870 (1997) 154 QGIG 54

54 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 10 January, 1997 ---------- ll################ll#J##############lt#ltf/#####11############## Ql'EE!'-'.SLAND lNDIJSTRlAL RELATIONS COMMiSSJO)'; ,'n.iustnai RelJ.tiuns Act ]900 s. 2':15 - applicaiion for rdnstatcment C,arry Rohert Burr,n1,, 1No. B1237 of 1996) AND Undsav Hiian Richaidson (No. B1238 of 1996) D,ivid George Skinner (Nu. B1239 ufl996) A.ND Sita Queensland Pty Ltd '.!2220_J.DOC 10 January, 1997 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE COMMISSIONER BLOOMFIELD 20 December I996 Rei11~ia1ement - Dismissal - Temiinauon of Employment - Bus Dfr,ers - Redundande~ - Downtum in busine~s due to Brisb!llle to Gold Coast Rail Lmk - R.:dundancy ,ielection proce,~ - Interview Processes !llld Procedure~ _ Rejection by employer of "lllllt•on, first-oft'' principle - Company Policies and Procedures - Union Membership - Arbitrated Matter - Principles e.,,ta!JH;hrd hi Kmrjkk's Case applied - Valid reason to reduce workforce - Re~poadem failed lo meet onus of proof th::it that there wru; valid reason to select each of !he applicants - Each of the three t1:m1inat1011s therefore invalid - Jn any cMe terminations harsh, unju~t or unreasonable - Two applicants rein~ta!ed - Other npplicnnr not reinstated nor compensation awarded. DECISION Bacl.grou11d These are applications lodged by Hughie John WillirunM of the Transport Workers' Union of Australia, Union of Employees (Queensland Branch) (the TWU) which :;eek the reinstatement of Garry Robe.rt Burrow&, Lindsay Brian Richardson and David George Skinner, respectively, to their former po~ition~ I!$ Bus Drivers with Sita Queensland Pty Ltd (known a~ "Coachtran,"). Each of the said employees was allegedly made redundant because the Compuny had experienced a general downrurn in business a~ a consequence of the introduction of the Brisbane to Gold Coast Rail Link. Mr Burrows was terminated on 23 June 1996, Mr Richardson on 24 June 1996 and Mi Skinner on I 8 June i 996. The Company's intention to reduce it~ workforce was flrs1 communicated 10 all route service drivers, Md the TWU, on 7 June l 996. On ,hat da,e a memorandum in the following tenns wru; sent to all of the route service dnvers and the Union:- "Due to the general down turn in busine.~s. Coachtra1u /i.,,; been forced to reduce staffing levels on the Brisbane to Gold Coast Route Service. J re,1re1 to advise, thm as a result of these circumstances. and in the absence of any alternmive pmitfr>nJ ar pre.~ent, or in the .fhreseeablt fumre, thr /osI td'sevcn ful! lime jobs will lake ejJ'cct as ,!f' the '24th June, 1996. Tub,! ,.1.1 fair ,~t pussib!e. we would encmira,:e you lo rt• appi.,- fo, ihe pmitwns available under 1he change of c1rcumstance.i. E:,ciosed fa an Application fin Employment und a Job Descriptwn. We invite you to apply by Friday, 14th lime ai 4. no pm. Ple,m,. hand all appliwtion.~ to Mr TtnJ Clarke or .Mr Dudley Niciw!sun. We wtli interview everyone who appliev and our 1c/ec1irm will be based on the given criteria and as thP Jub De.1crip110n indicates. Plea.wt cmij1rm an appointment with Mr Terry Clarke or Mr Dudley Nicho!-r:on. Thase applicants who are not successful will be made redundant and the standard award guidelineJ relating w rtd1mdann pa)ments will be adhered to. We ha, e alerted the CES tu infi1rm them of rhe situa1ion in the nope that some a.mstance can be given w those made redundant Please comacr Mr Terry C/urire, !,ir Dudley Niclwlsm1 or myself if' you reqi,ire any further cfr,rificatirl/1 or as.'ii:uanre. Thankmf! you Cos Situ". Included in the materlal distrihured to drivers w11, 11 "Job S1>Ccitlc11tion" for route servke; "Minimum An11ou11r.emen1~ for Route Service Dri11er,;'': and what 'was dcs1:libed us "ClihJri:.i to be Con,id1m:d''. Thi. latter ducum,mt required empioy~s 10 eive n shott M,wer to c11rtain p.1in1s. The doeumer,t WllS ~e! OU! !l-1 follow~:- "Critetia to be Comiidered Plea.qe give a ~hort a.nswer (Md e:r.smples where ::ippl!cable) to each of the followlng point/:· l. Knowledge, eiq:ienen~ and Quwifications 011 Conchtranfi Policy and Proccclurlli_~~----- 2. Pu.,scnger Comfort & Safety ] . Fare & Ticketing Procedures 4. Driver Behaviour S. Current l)iivet Authort~a!lon 7. Pw,,::nger As;;i stance The affect of the Comolllly', 1111nouncemem 10 !Ill route service drivel'!l was that there wa~ to be II i.enernl ~pili!ng of :ill poslticn~ with all curreni driver,, includin1 ca,ual tiniployee», belni invited to re-apply fo1 the number of poK1tion1 av11Jlable. lmerviews were to be uinducicu by Mr Terry Cinrlce, the Company's Operations Manager, and Mr Dudley Nichnl~on, the Mllm1.ger of the Comp1my'8 Tweed Heod~ Depot. Although Mr Sita & memorandum indicated that there would be thi: k1ss of seven full,time jobs. one employee wa~ actmdly dl~misoed on 6 June !991i otherwise the number would hnve IY..cn eight employee~ who needed to be made re<l1md...nt. Af,e; the announ.:emcm was made one employee elccu:J to take voluntary redundancy and one other employee wa., also drnmissed. This meant that !he Company neerled to make five employee~ "redunrlant" Mesm Burrows, RichQ!d~on and Skinner ws:re three of :he five chc~n. A, l: turned out el!Ch of the..e three. plus one other, was a member of the TWlJ. The high incidence oftemiinarlon of Union members beCM'Ue 1U11~sue durtn11: the cour~e of the he11tini ji\len !ha! thrre were only nine Union members 'JI;! of a total workforce of thirty.one emplo;ees ;nth;~ a.~o of the Cmi1par;y', opern.tlons. The Ev!dem.:e ln supoort of his contenw:m thm the temuna!lons were either mvalld or hru·Bh, un;u,t or unrea•onahle Mr WatStli1 who repre~ented the three applicP.n!J, called eiich of !hem as well lll' a Mr Cienver, one of the otha dismi~;;ed emplvyce•. Mr Richa.td80ll, whn c0mmenced as an employ'!'e of Sita in Novemlie~ 199;, gave e,idence that he had been !!Sli.ed at h:s ini!iul jvb interview by Mr George :,ita whether he wru,:. member of the Uniw. When he replied 111 the 2222(1 ~ 1.DOC -- 1 of 4 -- 56 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 10 January, 1997 negative Mr Sita wa<; alleged to have said words to the effect "Goo<l for you. I don't like unions.". Mr Richardson also told me that Mr Clarke had informed him on ··numerous occasions" that Mr George Sita did not like unions. Mr Richardson also SJX>kc about an incident in April 1996 where he a1ieged that he had been threatened with termination if he did not transfer his employment. Such threat wa<; alleged to have arisen after ;;ome money went missing and Mr George Sita had confronted him about where it had gone. Mr Richardson was ultimately informed that he would not be transferred or tenninated because the Company had taken legal advice on the issue Mr Skinner, whv comrnenced employment with the Company on 3 January 1996, informed me that he had spoken to M.r Nicholson in about May 1996 about job security following on approach from his previous employer to return to that Company. On the ba-.is of his discussion with Mr Nicholson he took it thar he had a secure future with Sita. On ! 3 June 19% Mr Skinner was involved in an accident. in which a pedestrian was injured by his bus, which necessitated the police and ambulance attending the scene of the accident. The accident caused Mr Skinner quite some distress and he was given a certificate for four weeks off work. However, on 14 June Mr Skinner was interviewed by Mr Nicholson, alone, about his application for the available positions Mr Skinner infom1ed me that at rhe conclusion of the interview Mr Nicholson had infonned him that Mr George Sita and Mr Cos Sita would be having a meeting the followrng Sunday. about the redundancies, when a decision would be made On I 8 June Mr Skinner received a phone call from Mr Nicholson who informed him that he had been made redundant. He was told that there was an enveiope with a cheque in it waiting fur wilt:Xtion at the office and that he should bring in any property of Sita when he collecte<l it. Mr Burrows, who commenced with Sita on 27 November 1995, was interviewed by Mr Clarke and Mr Nichol;;on in "mid-June" in connection with his application for the available positions. He alleged that during the course of the interview Mr Clarke had indicated to him that Mr George Sita did not like unions. On 23 June Mr Burrows was infom1ed of his redundancy effective from thar date. Mr Cleaver's evidence dealt with various conversations which he alleged occurred with Mr Clarke during which Mr Ciarkc SJX>kc to him about Mr George Sita's dislike of unions and that it would be in Mr Cleaver's interests for him to relinquish his role as delegate within the Union. Mr Cleaver also told me that during the course of his interview. about the spilled positions, Mr Clarke had indicated to him that 1t had been il "bad career move" to become a union delegate. He also asserted that on 17 or I 8 June i996 he had a conversation with Mr Clarke and Mr Ntcholson whereby they had approached him and said "off the record" that George Sita had given them a list of drivers to be made redundant and his name was on it. He also alleged that the two gentlemen had said to him that they had submitted a list of names to Cos and George (Sita) but that only one person from their list was on the list of people on George's list. During the discussion they had intimated to him, again, that becoming a union delegate had been a bad career move and that he should resign as a union delegate. Mr Cleaver also gave evidence that on or about Wednesday 19 June he had attended the Company's Coomera yard to see Mr George Sita and have him sign a nmice which he wished to place on the Tweed Heads notice board informing employees of his resignation as union delegate. During bis discussion with Mr Sita, Mr Sita is alleged to have said words to the effect that he had liked Mr Cleaver until he got involved in the Union. Each of the applicants also gave evidence aboui the overall role taken by Mr George Sita in the operations of the Company. They each indicated he had regular, high level, involvement in the affairs of the Company. In ~upJX>rt of this certain documentation, signed by Mr George Sita a<; Managing Din:ctor, was also tendered. The Re.<pondent's Evidence Mr Asbury, who appeared for the respondent employer. called four witnesses viz. Mr Cos Sita; a Mr G. Warner, a coach captain with Scenic Coachtrans Queensland; Mr Dudley Nicholson; and Mr Terence Clarke. Mr Cos Sita informed me that the revenue on the route service between Tweed Heads and Brisbane had decreased significantly in the period between March and June i 996. He attributed this decrea.-;e to the introduction of the Gold Coa,;1 to Brisbane Rail Service. He informed me that the Company's response to this decrease in its revenue wa., to approach the Minister for Transport and his Department seeking compensation for the uncompetitive situation which Coachtrans found it-;elf in because of the very low fares that were offered by Queensland Rail. However, the only realistic resJX>nse was to cut the Company's service by 30% to a more economically viable size. Such reduction in services converted to a reduction of eight permanent drivers. A termination, before the announcement was made to employees, through an own-fault accident meant that there was only a oeed to make seven employees redundant. Taking account of a voluntary resignation and another termination this meant that five employees ultimately needed to be made compulsorily redundant. Mr Sita informed me that he discussed with Mr Clarke and Mr Nicholson that the most fair and equitable way to proceed with the redundancies was to interview all employees for the remaining positions. He directed Mr Nicholson to speak to each driver to obtain their views on the fairest and most equitable method to decide the c1iteria for the redundancy process. He was informed several days later by Mr Nicholson that 80% to 90% of the drivers preferred the decision to be made on the driver's ability and suitability to perfom1 the duties as speit out in rhe driver's manual. After receiving this advice Mr Sita sought advice about his wish to declare all positions vacant and to allow each driver to re-apply for the remaining JX>Sitions using "the criteria preferred by the greater majority of the drivers". It appears that the notice of 7 June 1996 was issued after the making of all of these enquiries. It is convenient 10 record that none of the applicants, nor Mr Cleaver, were consulted about the proposed selection criteria. Indeed, it is difficult to see how they, or any other driver, could have been consulted about the selection criteria given that Mr Sita's memorandum of 7 June 1996 supposedly advised employees for the first time of the impending redundancies and the memorandum indicated that the "selection will be base.d on the given criteria and as the job description indicates". Mr Sita also informed me that Mr Clarke and Mr Nicholson completed the interviews and at the conclusion of the interviews made recommendations to him. He told me that "based on their recommendations I prepared redundancy letters and made up the pays of five route service drivers''. Mr Gary Warner gavt:: evidence that on 4 August 1996 he wa<; at the Coolangatta AirJX>rt when he was approached by Mr Richardson. Mr Warner infonned me that Mr Richardson had told him that he had been dismissed from Coachtrans and that he had said words to the effect that "the five who were made redundant were going to take George Sita to court because they had heard about another case when a driver sued Coachtrans and won and made a lot of money out of it. We will win a lot of money out of this and come out on top." In his evidence Mr Richardson denied having made this statement indicating that it was not his intention to win a lot of money but rather to win his job back. In any event, little turns on the exchange beiween the two gentlemen which was sonW::: ~ix weeks after Mr Richardson was tem1inated. Mr Nicholson was the then Manager of the Tweed Heads Depot of Sita. Mr Nicholson informed me that be had been approached by Mr Cos Sita to discuss with employees the fairest and most equitable method to determine redundancies and that 80% to 90% of them preferred the decision to be made on the driver's ability and suitability to petform the duties a-; set out in the driver's manual. He also infonned me that he had a'isisted Mr Clarke with all of lhe interviews except three which he carried out at the Tweed Heads DeJX>t when Mr Clarke was not available. Mr Nicholson's evidence was that Mr Burrows had a very negative attitude towards the Company's policies and procedures and that his aggressive manner showed through the interview. A similar comment wa, made about Mr Richardson who it was also said had a very negative altitude towards the Company's policies and procedures. Mr Skinner was interviewed by Mr Nicholson alone, Mr Nicholson informed me that Mr Skinner stated that he did not know much about Company JX>licy and had made no effort to find out. It was also suggested that he had indicated that he became short-tempered by the end of a long day and that he disagreed strongly with the broken shifts on the drivers' roster. Like the other appiicants Mr Skfaner was said to have a very negative attitude towards the Company and its procedures as well as the way in which the Company was deciding who should be made redundant. It was suggested that Mr Skinner believed that it should have been "last-on, first-off'. Mr Nicholson rejected Mr Skinner's evidence that he had mentioned that the 22220__ I .DOC 10 January, 1997 57 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE ------------------decision on who would be made redundant would be made by Mr Geor e Sita and Mr Cos Sita. g ~h~ mute service area staff levels '11,0uid need to be reduced He wa<; tntonned that eight redundancies would be necessary. Th· I M~ Ni~holson also allege~ th~t Mr_S~nner indicated that the Company had doue him a favour m temunatmg h11n m that it helped him make h' reduced to seven hecause of a termination. J,- was ater · d · h d bee d' · up is nun a, lle _a n 1sc_ussmg with his wife whether he should resign or not ~1r Clarke a1s? i~fonned me that Mr Cos Sita had a'>ked Mr Nicholson to d1scuss the cntena of the selection of th.. red d · · due to the effect that the Job had on his personal life. During cross-examination Mr Nichol1,on conceded that at the end of the first mterv1ew conducted. with Mr Burrows, that be and Mr Clarke had a d1scuss1°.n and detennmed to i:nake a recommen~ation that Mr Burrows go 011 the list of persons to be maae redundant. S1mtlar concessions were made m respect ot Mr Cleaver, the sixth person interviewed. and Mr Skinner when th~re were sllll :o be s?n-.:: ten interviews to be conducted. Indeed, Mr ~kinn~r wa,; advised of n1s termination, on 18 June I 996, before all of the mterv1ews were completed. Mr Nichol~on was _also asked a number of questions about the inten,iew process and_ wnat the, mterv1ewers were looking fo,. In addition, he was ~ked quesno?s abou, whether dnver performance should have been taken mW account md_ete~mmg who the most suitable employees were to t.: retame~. On this JX>mt_ he conceded that previous petformance would normally be one of the things one would look for when selecting employees to become dnvers. He also conceded that much of the interviews was not about actual knowled~e about Coachtrans procedures and that some of the questions .1'.ad to do with the employ~es· views on particular a<.pects of the Company s operations. mcludmg its t.Icketing procedures and its dress code . Mr Nicholson's evidence was that in making their recommendations ne11her .he 1101 :"1r Clarke took i~to account employees' previous records of acc1~cm:s . or ~ustome1 complamt,; and whether or not they had been consistently gmlty of s~eding. Mr Nicholson also conceded that not all of the e~pl~yees were mten'1ewed, in panicular a Mr R. Hughes who commt:nced employment after the redundancies had been ann ed b h . . ounc utwo managed to be retamed m employment when the five employees to be made redundant were actually selected. Despit_e Mr ~icholson's protestations that the interviews were conducted on the basis of Ute employee's knowledge of the Company's pol" ·i d prucedures the "redundancy interviewers chec'K-l1·st" Id tc.es an h r · · • , wou suggesl ~- e, wise. 1 he check-hst, apparemiy completed by Mr Clarke and Mr Nichol~on (but ce~amly lhe latter), required the interviewer to fill out a rating in respect ot the following requirement~ which were shown O th check-hst:-• n e "FULFILS REQUIREMENTS OF THE JOB Fo!Jows company instmctions - specifics stops adhered to Alway5 keeps the bus clean Ticketing sell. issue, validalt:, handle money, complete journals. PERSONAL PRESENTATION Confom1s to Company dress standards Clean am! tidy presentation PERSONAL QUALITIES Enthusiasm to keep abreast of changes to Policy and Procedures Co-operation with Management . . . ' · · .... un anctes with each pem1anent route sen1ct:: dnver to find out the drivers' "'ew t· th , · f · ,., · " o e ,airest wav 0 , gome about _t~e process .. ~t:: went on to say that the process decided 0 ; v.as to advise ctnvers m wntmg of the redundanc1·es and t · ·t th I . . • o mvt e em to app Y for the remainmg positions using the drivers' preferred criteria be. o dnvers' abthty and suitability to pcrfonn the duties ,,~ set out 1·n tho D • 100 M I H · · · , "'· · ..., nvers an~a • e 1?d1cated that a letter was then sent to <liivers advising them of the seven reoundancie!- and inviting th0 m to appiv ~ th · · positions. .... ., or e remarnmg Mr Clarke informed me that the selection process involved each empl~yee wmpletm~ "an . Appli~ation for Employmem Form" and th~ questionnaire on the Select1on Cnteria" which they were advised about on 7 June 1996 (see abo:e). Each driver had an interview of at lea-.t thirty to forty mmutes duration generally conducted by both Me,m <'larL- d Ntcholson. · · - .... e an M1: Clar~e also infonned me that he had been instructed bv Mr Sita to treat dnvers man equal d ·a1 · · · • . . . an imparti manner dunng the interviews with rbe pnm~ obJective l:emg to gauge driv~r knowledge of Company procedures and ba-.ed_ on our ~sessmem of dnvers to make recommendations about ""?o were the best smted drivers for the remaining ""Sitions " M Cl k re1•erated ·h • h · · ,..., · · · r ar e . ' ' a, t e select1ons, and re{;ommendations, were based on driver :owledg~ of procedu~s and pol~cy_ at_ interview time. No consideration wa.~ ad to pr~vious warnings or d1sc1plmary actions against employees and neither Mr N1cholson nor Mr Clarke were privy to files containing these records at the ume of the interviews. ' I was also mld that there were nineteen employees who were recommended as bemg ~u_nable for the available JX>sitions. There were ei ht ;mployees :hose su:tab1hly Messrs Clarke and Nicholson were unsure ab~ut and tber~ ~--re fi:e employees who they believed were "least suitable" for the remammg JX>s1t10ns. Each of the applicants fell into this latter category. Mr Clarke confinned the rea<:ons given by Mr N. -h , . M B S . ' 1c 01son a~ to why , essrs urrows, kinner and Richardson were not recommended for cintmued employment. The evidence statemems of Mr Clarke also indicated t at he had made the rt::cornmendation to Mr Sita about who ld t..... .,1 redundant. wou ix maue . In contra,t to, Mr Nicholson, Mr Clarke a~sened that the rating given to ;~:c~ emp~oy~ w..is not done until _the compietion of all of the interviews. rt er, e did not support Mr Nicholson's comment that certain of the employees we1e selected for redtmdancy virtually ,.. ~oon t' · . • d d · . . u., · as ne lfllt!rviews were con ucte , mslead md1cating that no such decisions were mad ·1 after all of the interviews were completed. In a<Jdirion Mr Cl k . de_ unt1d •hat the · t · h · , ar e m 1cate , . I~ e~1ew s eet'i we~e not written up until he returned to hii. motel each mgh, v.hen he v.,rotc his comments in at the bottom of each interview ~hee\ He also ~~serted that ,the ~ating~ (see above) were not seen by him unt1. !he last day after the mst mterv1ew'' although he thought that these were fi,led m by Mr Nicholson after each interview, Both du1in<> his exam.inat' · h. t· . Cl k "' , i?n-m-c ie and m cross-examination Mr ar e ~serted that ne ?ad paid no regard to any employee's previous expenen_e and that sclect10n of ernplovees for redundanc . of he and M N. h I , , y arose a.~ a resuu r. ic o son s consideration of their applications and from the comments which they made at interview In this regard he m . t . d h · . . · · am aine t at certam comment~ wntten on mdividual employet::s' interview sheets did not Teamwork with other Staff rnvolve him paymg regard to experience but rather that the showed through at the mterview. experience Customer Service timetabies Assist pa,;sengers queries on other services, AhT -i 11Y to handle minor customer complaims RATING I 2 .1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10". Mr T"ren~ r-1 k Operati ~ M ..,e '--' ar e _was the final witness called. Mr Clarke is the was Cal~~., • ,:inage!_ of Sita Queem;land Pty Ltd. He informed me that he 1996 an: :o ".7tmg with the Managing Director, Mr Cos Sita, on 3 June a.~ m onncd that because of the general downturn in business in - In a suppiemcntary statement Mr Clarke sought to clarify the numbers ~e:;ployees actually engaged on Company rosters and how ~any of the~ • pennanent employees and how many casual<; These f"' rt design · t " l 'f ·, h · · , e ,o s were eo o c an y t e actual number of permanent and ca.,ual em I , ~mployed by the Company prior to the redundancies. Mr Clarke f:sOe)rtedees t,iat there w "th· · ..., d . " h ere iny~one, permanent dnvers supplemented by five casual ~v-e1s w o oix:rated the Company's thirty-one shifts. Despite this assertio~ h- conceded dun_ng cross-examination that a number of the e I .d to be " ,, . mp ovees sai th permanent were Ill fact being paid a ca-;uaJ loading. Notwit!;standing e payment of such loading Mr Clarke continued to assert that th~y were ~nn~ent ~mployecs and ~hat the payment was an error. It was also Mr Clarke s evidence that the situation in October was that th d · · ere were seventeen pennanent nvers and ten casual drivers working on the route service roster 22220_ I .DOC -- 2 of 4 -- 58 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 10 January, 1997 Mr Clarke {as did Mr Nicholson) ~jected Mr Cleaver'.s evidence that there had been an "off the record" chat about it beini a bad career move to become involved with the Union, I should record at thifi point that the croi.Hxamination of Mr Clarke, and before him Mr Nicholson, was exteni;ive. In writini thi• decision it has been unnecessary to canvass all of the matenal which was covered in evidence but I record that notwithstandins the comporative brevity of the summary of evidence (above) I have nonetheless considered all of the evidence durins the course of my deliber11tions. In po.rticulnr I have considered and repeatedly reviewed the evidence of Mems Clarke and Nicholson. Suhmwlons S~bmi1 &i2n Q tb; A12Pli llllt. Mr Watson put to me very solidly that I ahould not accept the evidenc.c of Messrs Nicholson and Clarke one of whom had admitted to havini lied on Oath and the other who 1hould be found to have lied on Oath. Jn preuina such submission Mr Watson referred to the various inconsistencies between the evidence aiven by Menn; Clarke and Nicholson as well u to the positions adopted by them 11t variou~ stages during cros,-ex.amination. In addition, it was put to me that Mr ChU'ke had showed a preparedness to chonge his story to suit what he perceived to be the interests of the respondent and that I needed to take this into account in my assesament of witneAs credibility, Further. Mr Watson t('!Qk is!-ue with the failure of the reipondent to call Mr Gwric Sita to rebut certain evidence iiven by the applicants and to help clarify the e:4tent of hb Involvement in the redundancy decision male.Ing process. In this l'Ciatd I was referred to the rule in Jones v Dunkel/ ( 1958- 19~9) 101 CLR 298 and uked to draw the appropriate adverse inference. Mr Watson alao took me to a number of decisions which dealt with the question of whether a termination said to be bued on the operational requirements could nonetheleili be found to be invalid, In particular. Mr Wat~on took me to a decision of Marshall J in Ktrr v Jaroma Pry l.Jd Decision No. 470/96, unreported, 7 October 1996 in which His Honour considered whether the applicants in that case had been terminated for a valid reason. In doing 110 Mr Watson put to me that I was required to undertake a review of the termination to detonnine whether there was, objectively speaking, •·sound. defensible, reasonti" for the termination in the in,;tant case (sec Stlvachandrari v Pmron PiaJtto Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 371 ). ln this ICjllfd Mr Watson submitted that, based upon the actual number of full-time drivers. there was no operational reason to tenninatc the employment of any pcrmnnent employee but that if I found that there w~ a need for the Company to reduce stalf it could have been eff~ted by a reduction in the number of casual employees or thllt, based on the actual number of full-time employees, a les11er number of redundancies was required (see pa&e 348 of tran11cript). Mr Watson went on to submit that even if the Union had been involved in the aclection proceu that had not stopped the Court (in another circumstance) in 8~Jm'c/i. \! Georg,mki ( l 992) AILR 186 from aoina on and conJiidcring wbether or not. viewed objectively, a termination in a particular circum11tance wu nonethe!e~11 harsh unju11t or unrea.,onable. In addition, Mr Wamon also too1' me to the considerable dcflciencie1 which he ~aid existed in the whole application and interview proce!is ,ubmittins that the "Selection Criteria Sheet" which all of the employee~ wefl! required to fill out "was vaiue, ienerul and ambiauou., Each of lhe qucations, in!iiofllJ' iu they were queliticms., were very broad, very open-ended.''. In oodition, both Mr Clarke 1111d Mr Nicholson 11eC1med to have very purticulDI th\nii in mind about what th*Y wanted u ant.won. Mr Wat,on ab;o took rnc to various pnges of transcript In which he indicated that the employer witnesi;es h!ld conceded to certain deficiencies in the interview proce,.a and to where it was ~hown that much of the interview proces~ was not about the knowledi(' of Coachtrans' policies or procedures at all and thot, in reality, prior experience of employees had been taken into account In particular, Mr Wati.on i,ubmittcd that aithouih the selection procedure waa fundamentally flawed in the first in~tance the Company had compounded the error by not following the procedure which it establi$ihed. ln thii, regnrd it was 11uage~ted that the evidence showed there was an inconsistency in trentment between employees, that the overall process had not been objective and that the tenninations were said to have been ju~tified sub11tantially on the basis that the applicants had demonstrated negative attitudes durins the interview process. Mr Watson submitted that it appeared on the evidence that notwithstanding their assenions to the contrary both Messrs Clarke and Nicholson did in some way or oth&r tllke into account prior perfonnance, He submitted that none of the applicants was told that this would be the case and that, based upon the principle lo.id down in Kenefick v Au.~tralian Submarint Corporation Pry Lid (1996) 65 IR 366 at 371 they were denied a proper opportunity to respond to allegations regarding their performance. Such denial made the terminations invalid within the meanini of the le1islation. In concludini, Mr Watson submitted that the overwhelming inference which could be drawn from the case was that there must have been some other aaenda operalina in the detenninntion of who was to be made redundant. lt was submitted that a number of factors in the case suggested that union member5hlp wa.. thAt a2enda and, at the very least, was taken into account. Th, Re&pondpnt' Ms: A~bury submitted that the case was a very simple and straiJht- forward situation which happened in numerous busine1oses on any given day of the week viz. that there was a downturn in busine~s which necessitated making certain employ~es redundant. Jt was submitted that the reduction in the Company's services, as a consequence of the introduction of the Gold CoMt to Brisbane Rail Link, created an operational requirement to reduce the employer's workforce. In acknowledaing that the principles set out in Ktmtfick applied in the instant case Ms Asbury conceded that there were two decisions to be made, the first being whether the operational requirements of the business necessit4ted redundancies, and the second being which of the employees would be made redundant. It was submined that the Company had met its obligations in determining who was to be made redundant. The Company notified the employees and the Union of the need to reduce the numbers of employees. The Company iave the Union an opportunity to respond and to get it~ views on the critena to be utiiised but that it only had received a response that "last-on, first-off'' was the appropriate mechanism, This was, it was submitted, riihtly rejected as a valid basis upon which to select persons for redundnncy. Ma Asbury took exception to Mr Watson's araument that casual employees should automatically have been retrenched before permanent employees. It was Jubmittcd that whilst that rniiht be appropriate in some industries it was not a valid ariument in the instant case given that there were a number of casual, on the list who had long periods of service; that there were a number of casuais who were occupying permanent poaitions on the roster; and that the dates of iervice of all employees were clustered very clo,;e together. Further. it WaA not pos.5ible to distinJubh the drivers on the normal ba.5il of analyliilt of aldlh!, qualifications and experience since they were all drive11 and they ali knew and drove the ,ame route5. In this regard it wa., 11ubmitted that "what the Compan) did decide was that they all have to deal with the public and they all have to apply our procedures and implement our poilciea. Thtlt i• the mo111 si¥Oiflcant factor from our consideration. Tho11e a.re the thinili that the Company decided to look at.". It was ,ubmitted that in evaluatina the drivers lt did not matter whether people were cuual, or permanent&. All that mattered was that there was a cenain number of !ipot, on the new roster and that everyone was given an equal opportunity to apply for them. In ,tvina people that opportunity it was i.uaaested that the Company had not trawled through their records and looked at their past perfonnance, •'how many accidents they have had, how many rudenei;s to customer complaints that there have been. We are not going to do that. What we are goini to do Is put everybody on an equal footini."· Ms Asbury osserted thnt every employee had an equal opportunity of perf01T11ing well in the interview and that they were assessed on their knowledge of procedure~ and their attitude to policy. It wwi i.ubmitted that, 1n the circumitances, this was not an unreasonable approach. 22220_1.DOC 10 January, J997 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 59 Ms Asbury took me, in particular, to the position of Mr Skinner whose evidence wa<; that he was physically unable to carry bags etcetera and that he had been granted a disability pension, since his tennination, on the basis that he was not able to work In such circumstances I was urged not to reinstate Mr Skinner nor to award him any compensation on the basis that he had not Jost any earnings a,;; a result of his retrenchment. _In my ~iew each of the applicants, and Mr Cleaver, presented as honest c~dtble witnesses. The same cannot be said for Messrs Clarke and Nicholson. Mr Ntcholson admitted to lying on Oath and he also presented most uncomfortabl~ at_ various times when he was being subjected to ngorous cross•exammauon by Mr Watson. I was generally not satisfied with many of his an~we~ and, taking this into account, I wn not sati!lficd that J ~an re_ly upon his evidence that each of the applicants presented poorly at the interview and that they were negative towards the Company's policies and procedures. These were, after aJJ, the reasons that each WM said to have been selected for redundancy. In concluding her submissions Ms Asbury put to me that on the particular facts of the case, there was no other mechanism that the Companv could have adopted to select the persons to be made redundant. Sh~ ~ggested th~t what the Company had done was to try to avoid the problem m the Kmejick case where pac;t perl'ormance was taken into consideration and there _were questions _about whether employees had be.en able to respond to allegat10ns about their performance. The Company in this case had demk<l to retam the best people for the j?~ and, in doing so, they took no account of length of service. Such dcc1s10n left them with a significant number of people who could not be distinguished on any other basis than their knowledge of procedures and their attitude to policy. . Similarly, I was most unimpressed with Mr Clarke as a witness. 1 asree ":tth M_r _Wa~son' s submissions that Mr Clarke was inclined to alter or amend hts positt~n if h~ _felt that the circumstances required it in order to defend the Company s pos1uon and the decisions ta.ken. _Where there has been a conflict between the evidence of the three applicants, and Mr Cleaver, with that of Messrs Clarke and Nicholson (e~cept as to one matter below involving Mr Skinner) I prefer to ~cepr the evidence of the applicants and Mr Cleaver. Finally Ms Asbury put to me ''if the Commission finds that there were some in~o?sistencies in ~e application of the procedure and that that renders the dec1s1ons to di_snuss the particular employees harsh, unjust or unreasonable, then m our submission the Commission should award compensation and not reinstatement as to order reinstatement would be effectively .to ere.ate the same probiem which the Company had in the first place. that 1s that it had too many permanent employees for its needs.". . A:ccordingly, I also cannot accept the evidence of Mr Clarke that the mterview pnY'.,ess was conducted objectively and that the decisions which were taken were also taken objectively. In ~is ~egard I am satisfied that the decision to recommend Mr Burrows ~or te~rrunatton was taken immediately after his interview. His was the first mterv~ew conducted, The taking of such decision at that point in the mterviev. process certainly points to the fuct that the interviews could not have been conducted objectively and that there WM, as suigested by Mr Watson, some other ag~nda which was running. I am not prepared to say ~hat tha~ agenda was union membership but the inference, nonetheless hano-, Decision , It is clear from the evidence presented, and this wa, largely un1.:hallen~~ by Mr Watson, that the Company experienced a considerable downturn m its passenger and revenue volumes and that such downturn was of the order of 30%. " I am satisfied that such a significant downturn in passenger volume, and c,Jnsequent!y revenue, created an operational requirement which necessitated that tht' Company reduce its workforce. Consequentlv r am satisfied pursuant to s. ~91 ( I)(b )(ii) that the decision to termin~te a number of e~ploye.es was oased on the operational requirements of the employer's u.;dertaktng. estabhshment or service. .such a finding does not t~?so fauo mean that the termination of the three applicants wa~ valid. It is dear from Kene_fick that the respondent carries the onus of showing that there :as a valid reason for the selection of each of the applicants (65 fR 366 at 37.J). I am not satisfied that the respondent has established that there was a vahd reason for the selection of each of the three applicant<;. -· The Company attempted to set in place a selection process which was de~tgned to select those drivers who demonstrated the best abilitv and suitability to ~lform the duties a, spelt out in the Drivers Manual. Whilst !: theory 1mg~t have been sound and defensible the actual processes ., pted were, m my considered view, flawed from the outset. The Selection Cmena Form" which the employees were required to complete :~g wnh their _actual ~pplication for employment form, wa<; very vague and k l~ous anct provided no objective assessment of an employee's nov.ledge _of the Company's policies and procedures. It is clear from the ~ross--cxammat10n of Mr Nicholson that a wide variety of answers would ~ve been acceptable and the very general nature of some of the answers w tch could have been given, and which would have been accepted provide no proper has1.~ for comparison a~ to why one employee might h~ve been selected ahead of another. In addition I am not r· fi d · M ' sa IS e upon my review of the evidence that essrs Clarke and Nicholson did not pay regard to individual employees' paSI experience, performance and other extraneous factors in making the,1 · r assessment A · · . · ~ . s. _ gam, their answers m cross-examination, despite their ssertmns to tht: contrary .. ed h h . h _ , convmc me t at t ey dtd not objectively assess ~ 1 . employee agamst common criteria. In particuiar the selection of the PP icants "or redund b d . ' ne iv l. ancy ase , tn part, on what was said to bt their so:th e atr1tu_de towards the Company's policies and procedures i" not ~m 10 ,10 ~ _wh_ich can be mea,;ured and tested as could, for exampl;, an p. :}ee s dnvmg record or number of passenger complaint,. In reaching , , I · ob' . . . m) cone us10n that the selection wa, not based upon ~ect1ve cntena but th t ·1 . h" account m i , .. ,· a I was, ~tner, tghly subjective, I have taken into Cl k y .n,pre,-smns of the witnesses generally and in particular Messrs ar e and Nicholson. m~~ . e Simil3i:ly, th_e deci~ion to tenninate Mr Skinner when there were a num~r of ~nt~rv,ews still to be conducted does not lead me to accept that ob1ect1ve cntena were involved. . In th~- circu~tances the Company has failed to meet the onus placed on 1t to establish that each of the applicants wa'i selected for a valid rcASon. In ?1aking such decision, which stands on its own merits in any event J cannot ignore the position of Mr R. Hughes. Mr Hughes was enaaged a~r the ~edund_ancies were announced and, although not interviewed, he was contmued in em?loyment after the three applicants were tenninated. One wonders why_ this would be so in any event but putdng that 11Sidc J mui;t observe that if Mr Hughes had been interviewed o~jectively, and found 10 have been_ at a standard less than any or all of the applicani., he may have been tennmated and that one of the applicanrs may not have neede.d to have been made redundant. I ai_n also not satisfied oo the evidence that the Company needed to make ~ve of its pe_rmanent workforce redundant. There wai. a variety of exhibits .endered dunng the course of the hearing and considerable quostionini 88 a re~ult, about the composition of the Company's workforce Jt ;, cie~ that poor to the redu?dancies being effected there were thirty-one routes on which there were_ full-time and casual employees engaged. Jt is clear that after the redundancies and other tenninations were effected them were twenty-three such routes. What is ~ot c_Iear is the number of full-time and cuual employees who were required in order to service that route system. . Mr Watson. provided an analysis (at p. 348) of the different number, involved dependmg upon whose evidence was accepted. It is worthwhile to n?te that 3:11 of the evidence came the respondent. Jt was most cont\uini and did not, with respect, clearly confirm the need for five redundancies. In any e~ent, in my view, the Company should have distingujshed ~•ween full-time and casual employees when detennining how to restructure it~ torkfor~. To ~tennine otherwise would mean that there would be no d1s<1nct1on in certamty of employment betw~n permanents d I em·•lo N h . an ca1ua y yees. ow ere, wtthin my knowledge, is there equal itand' accor~ed. to c~uals and full•time employees, This Commissio~~! Term~nation Change and Redundancy Decision exempts casual emplovees from_ its c~verage and the lndu1trial Relations Act /990 provides for 11 ~cial cons1derat10~1, and \different tre:atment, for casual employeei; (aee s, 290(3) and Regulauon 96 o, the IndustnaJ Relations Regulation). , _ In additio~, I_ ~ not satisfied. b&ed upon my consideration of the evidence, that md1V1dual employe.es' past performance Wlli not taken into 22220JDOC -- 3 of 4 -- 60 QUEENSl AND GOVERNMENT !NIHJSTRIAL CiAZE'JTE 10 fanuary, 1997 acwum in deciding who wuuld be k:m1inme,.t Tile in1erv1ew recor<l sheet I above) reeks of a11 asses,ment of pa<! perfonrnmce and, notv1ithstamiin:;, Mr Clarke's a.\sertions tn the contrary I certain of the lntcrv~ev.: shc1':ls c-0mpletcd by hirn ap~areJ to absolutely point to hira having tu.ken acl·ount of past performance rnther tlrn11 any matenal which may have come to liglu in lhc tnterviev,' proces,, In aU of H:ie circurnst.an~es ! hav;.; deknniueJ tnat the ttni;.fr,atkms w..:te in.vahd. ;,lolwithst;inding that finding l shculd !e<C<Xtl that l wot:id. ,;o,1c,hde,s, have dcterntlneJ that the tcnnluations ;.verc harsh, LmJu:st or unrc&.onabk withm the meaning of s. 291. ( 2)1 a) thus making the lenmna1ions mvaltd in any e-vent. Such tleci,;:,l0n l.v0uld have ~en arrived ::iJ hecause:- • n,e interview and selection pmce,s wa.s tainted and tht'. outcomes cJ.1mot 1:-,e relied upon • T'hc actual :)dection process. invulvc<l a subje..::tive a\sessrnent of :1 nmge ,~f matters inciuding the 11!t1tu(fos po5sessed by each of the :-i.ppHcants nt the interview \t:hkh had nothing to do '.t'ith their knowledge of the Company', μoiicie,; MJ pruccdi.lrcs. l! ¥.as wrung f01 the Company !o rely upon such subjective criteria in detem1ining who to terminate. • An employee who commenced after the redunJ:u,c1es wern announced was retained ahead of the three applicants. • If any permanent employees needed to be dismissed after tht, '.'a~ual.s were tcnnfnated the Cff1ployer should hs1ve ~omJncnced Jb;u,sions with Llie employee,. (;.md ,he TWl'J abo;,it v.a)c, to rnitigatc t.he adven~~ affects of any tenui.nalions o.u the EinμJoy~s concerned {~ the "Termination of' Employment,, Introduction r,:f Chan,r;;rs, Redundan:.·_,/" J)eCI~icn). Had such discusc;ions tak,~n place it ma)' ha·.-e h,,;e;~ tlw.1 certain of the terrninated employec,s 1nay have re1na!ned in en1ploy1nent but a~ casuab. ;her~ i,, . ..it the:.',:!/ :ea.st, a ",,ndl" that union :oc:nbeJstup was a fa1cto1 taken into accuunt in Lfote1u1]ning who wouid be tenuinnr.~d runct who woulct Ix: ret,J.im:d. M~ Asbu1' suh1J1it!ed to me that ! should not reinstate 1hc rip!llicams for a \'.ariety nf re;...s,;-;ns:.. One of tho:~.c ·was fh:-ii i! v,1uuld put the Company in the po,ition of having lO Jetennrnc. again. wh;cll employee, to make mdundm-.t. The other reason was that 1t would be wroag for me to reinstate the ~1np.Joyeec: !n circurn,;tances \vhere their ~,;ppervfaors had bec-n caHed Ha!s during thi: CGllJSt:'. of Iv'h Vi/atson's ::;ubrnis~:ions, I n:ject lh,t bttt.:r sL1b1ubsion 1mmcd1atdy. Th;,; impaz·, vf it, if l accepted ii, would be that the Commissmn woukl be directly encourai:,:ing empiover& who v,1shed to avoid relnstru:emerrr to he. on Oarh, Such a proposition ic.; untenal1\e Th<.: tesponse to the fiist a~pect of Ms A,oury's suhmis,mm is that it fails to take account of the fact that hecausc the termi11at1ons are mval1d w1thrn the meaning of the fogisbtion I am required to c0nsider whether I ,!muld make the apprnpria:c orders which l conside:· noces;;ary to pu! 1:.1;; employescs m the same position m, if they had rml been disimssed. Th,; only qualifirntlon is !hat rnmstatement must nut be impractkRble, I dJ .not con~ider that thb i.) u situation Vlher4..: n.:.Jnslatcmen; wvulJ be 1mprac1ical:lle, The employer has, in my view, wrongly selected the appiica..nrs fo, re.J.undanc) aud they arc entitled to be rdnstatcd not withstanding that H may create wme difflcnily for !he employer. The difficulty has not t>een caused or created t,y the employees. !t ori:;,iPate, bec:auS<: of L'ic ~rnployer' s faulty ;;eleclic,n proc~s:; and the employe,cs ,hould not be the one:; v..ho are pcnaH~d rui a re.suit J detennine rhnt !\1r Burroi;,,s i'r to he rdnstatt;d a,;; Bu~ nnver with S!ta Qe~rnsland P:y L:d wltt e'foct f:)1:1 2: Jui:c )')96 ,vilhuut l•Js, A any ~nti.tl~n.ents rn: cre<lit~ f1on.1 that date The employer is 10 p,w 1\1r Burrows tht rem,.mcrmion l0st by him rnlculat,~d on :he basis of fr,e shlfts c,Kh ·;;c.~k. but taking into accoLnt any c.1rning, or oilier benefit,, recei·ve.<l by t,lr Bmrow~ betwee!l Ilic llate vf !ern1ma1io11 and the datr of his recommencement. ln this regard, Mr Buffows is to s•,,v~~li an affiJavit in wh1cJ1 he i~ to ~t uul Ute ,unuunts receh,r.d hy him. fmn1 such areas as socwl securny and paid ernployment (during the period in cpesticm), Mr Burrow, is also to make restitution, by way nf cakulation against' the amuunt ov, ing, of tlie fih.:mies pa..id 10 him i.m termination 1n respect of nollce and/or anrwai kave. l rnake an ldentica! deris.km and order lil re:::pc::t of fvfr Rkhardson sr1vc an,J ..:x..::ept rhat his reinstater~nt date JS t~; he 24 Ju11e I 996 The position 0f Mr Skinner is somewhat different. At the time that the redundancies were effected Mr Ski11n0r W'!S or, \Verk,'.rs' Compen~;1tbn a, a ;:·e~ull of the thstress he suffered \vhcn he \\.'J.S invulvt:'d in the a,d<lent \vjrh the pedesnian on l3 June 1996, Ylllual,ly immediateiy after that he went on to a disahilily penswn because of hi, rl\euma•oid arthritis. He h:is had no vther e1nplcy1nent. and appwcnt~_y ha::i r;"-)t soughi any~ since tht.: knnination. The ability of an ln<lustrial Comm1:;sioner to order remst.:Jtement is c,lear'y discre!ionary Tr,c provic.ion, o' s. 297 make thm discretion plain. I have detGnnlneJ. ~Jt..::r \1.:r) care!u~ com~,id'..:rt.1riun, ;~ot ~o ()fdcr U1e 1ei:nsl:uernent of i\,h Sk.inner. Such decision ha-.. fhJt lxen affived Ji. Eghtly but has been bn.,ed upon the foilowrng factors.- ~ M1 Skinn~r ha,.-, been on a Jj5,abiHly pcn~ion smt:e shortly after hi\ 1.ermmation. !I) He h~s nvr sought other ernployrnent !\!though he claim, that he wishes to r2smne hi, employr1ec1t with Sha bh: O\.Vn eviJeno..: suggesb that hi.;; re.turn woukl .nm t,,c without '.ts D'"'!fl complicntlnns in a n-~i:-dicill sef!.se. • ! accept Mr Nic!iohon's evidence that Mr Skinner did infom1 him thnl. hr, trnni1ntio11 Ind hdped make his mind up [:bout wnlinuing in th;.; work.L{)1cc (bet..:aust:; vf his 1nedi...:al diHic.uhy d11J the ~train thac that placed him under) $ lf the :~kcuon ...;ritena which r,,,.1r Sk.frmer urgeJ the Company to adopt had have been adopted, vu. "k,,t-on. fast-off , 1'-!r Skmner Vil"'Uld have beep one r:if the group of five made redundant SiJniiarly, I have detcnnined, .1K,twithslanding the fa.U that .l. r~garJ Mi Skmncr' s termination as bemg invalid, nm to exercise my d1scrcnon to order !h3t he be p:iid rompen,ation. Mr Sbnner was nn Worker,' Cornp,cns'.ltion fm part uf the period and \\-"J.s in ret::.ipt of a dlsabihty pt'.nsiou for the balance of tht; perkx.i Th~· ret:,etpt of the dt~abihty pen~wu suggesls an mab,iity 10 work (!his is supportr.<l hy the fact tMt Mr Sidnm,r hu.< not ,ought 3.iter~ative en1pl-0yrr1cnt) ;_1nd. in rny view. !¥1!"· Skinner h~ ,.;uffi::red no lc~s in the crdinazy scns•c uf ,h:ct word. !n dnwnrnning the ;imoums uf c0mpe!lsation to he paid to Mr Bum,ws '.md ~:lr Richardsun I hnv2 tabc into account the cmpicycr',, complain, that tht-y iaiied lv fully 1nitlgat.: their lo::,s by not ;;;.ocking casuaJ ernployrneflt with Si,a after they wer,;: made redundant. In !his regard I nm conscious of rhe P\ddenr-e rif ?vfr Cleaver (whkh 1 acl':epn rhat W-.: rnade a celi to the emplQ;1er not long after his t,~nn~nDtion tc rnake enquirie-::, about CtL,~al c-111plvyn1•.:nt anJ that he has heard nothing :~incc. This i:, <le.,,_pne other \ncv,) ~a_°'uals bemg engaged. Having regard W 1he employer's failure to justify the sdection of the varlo~Js person~ whn ,.,vere rnadt' rerlundant, arid the residua] ,;:,uspi\-:Jnn that [lnother age:1d~1 w1:.s in upc:r:uiion 1 I have d~cidcd net to penalise either of tlie applicant, (Burrow, and Riclmrd,un; directly for their failure to attempt mitigation through this Company To a degree the ernpioyee~ have heec. "penalised" in :1r1y e 1 /enr because of my discounting of additional ::;.hifb and we.e-h-~nd pr.;;nah:ie.~ in dctem1ir:ing the m;-munt of compensation !O be paid. Ally calwlatmn of lo,t rernuni;;ration involves some bal.im:iug and I ha\e ahempted to b~ as fail "-> possible K, the employees and the ,;mployer, respedively The :m1oun1, nf lo>t remuneration ultimately cakt1la!e-0 10 te ,wrng to Me,,rs Bunovls and R:chanhon are to Ix: paid m them wnhin twenty-two days of the Jcilvery of their affi<lavi1s io the employer. The Commi'sskm d;:tem,ine, and DP:iers ~crnrdingly A.L. BLOf)MHELD, Comimssi.oner 22220 1.D()C 10 fanu:n y, 1997 QUEENSLANI> GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETfE i\11 ~ \\:u.s:1,-: l.)t the Transport \Vorkers·· Union of Austrdin. ~jr1ion of Employees 1Queenslaw1 Branch) for !he three nppiicant,. O~x,nli','e D'.ll,: Bl237 /% 23 Junc 1996; Bl2:l8/':i6 Bl2niX ~ NiA 24 June 1996, Decis1rm Rcinswte:nient -- 4 of 4 --