Browne v Wattyl Paints [1995] QIRC 676 (1996) 151 QGIG 115

114 QUEE SLAND GOVER :MEi T INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE IS January, 1996 5 January, 1996} QUEENSLAND GOVERN ME T INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 11 5 #####11#11############################################### QI ' El- ~'iLA "ID 11\D l,S rRJAI Rf · I A rl ONS COM\11 S<ilON /11dustr111l Relario11\ Acr 199() s 295 application for reinscatemcnt G. Browne AND Watt) I Paints (/lo 853-1 of /1/95) COM MI SS I0/1.1 R DI MPSl ·Y 12 December 1995 \pphcation for Reinstatement Oisrm~sal - L,tension of Time I xten,ion Granted Customer Complaints Counsclhnj! Session Alleged Threat 10 Cu, tomer - Demeanour of Wuness Procedural Faime,s - Dismissal ll arsh, Unfair Jnd llnjust - RcmsLatcment Order Con,idered - Pan,es to Confer and Rep<>n back to Commission DECISIO l\t the comm encement of these proceedm!_!), I heard frnm the apphcnnt as a wi tness. then submission, \\Cn: made on l>chalf of the apphc:mt and 1.he re,rondent "1th re,pec1 to the ( 'omm1ss1on C\erc1sing Its discretion puNuant to the prnvis,ons of , 295 and ~rant the applicant an e,tens,on of time gi\en that some four months has elapsed bct\~ecn the date of 1cnnm,111on of emplo) mcnt and the filing of this claim On the question of the c,tcnsion of 1imc I concluded as follo\\s:- " In a matter such as th b the Commissmn must m the first m,tance wl..e mto cons1dcra11011 the Matute under "hrch the · application 1s made In this case it is s 295. The Commission has taken O\ er the ) car, a wise cour~e. and in thl\ regard the fundamental principle it has adopted 1s that each mailer should be dealt \\ith on a ca~c b) case basis guided b) 1he general principles of the Act. In giving this mallcr consideration I \\ould refer 10 a dcc1,1011 of (hrcf Commissioner llall 111 Bumeu veriut Dan·d Crmg & <ompm11 In this maucr I note that the apphcan1 was m receipt of protcssronal advice \11thm the 21 da) pcrul<l. m this mauer Mr I rench uses the argument that the applicant was a\,arc 1.hat a remed) \\3S available. ho1,c\·er. I'm not pcrsu,1dcd b) that ,irgument as the applicant\\~ not J\1arc of the time lim11 I <lo ha\C a vie\1 similar to that of Chief Comm1\\1oncr I lall 111 /Jamt•u versus Cra11: & rompa11_1 and I ha\ c ea ken mto ~ons1tlera11on t11c length ol sen 1c..: b) the applicant to the cmplO)Cr and thmk 1h atjust1ce and farnress \1m1ld not tic sencd 11 I \\ere to den) 1.hc applicant an opportun11y 10 put his ca,e. /\ccordingl) the apphcation for the c,tension of ume is 1,rantcd •• In 1981! his son moved lo Queensland and the applicant an d his wife decided 10 follO\\ He mfonned h,s cmplo)cr ol 111, intention and spoke 10 a Mr Ian Evans \1ho ult1malely contacted Wattyl's 'iydne) ollice 10 see 11 a p<>s1tio11 could be ob1aincd for Mr 8 rm\l1c I he applicant attests that the employer did sJy the) would create a posi tr on on the (iold Coast. again ,is an area ,upcr. 1sor and he held lhat position from 1988 to arou nd March 1991 In December 1992 the applicant took time off work to h,ne an operation pcrfonned on hi, I.nee. He took three \\Cel..s sic !.. leave plus four \\Ceks annual leave. I he .1pplic,1111 claims that he \\iJS informed h) his superior of the cmpln)'cr., concerns that 1here \\as likcl) to be a drop in -;ales a, a result nf his absence and that there \\:IS a need fo r !um to make up any shortfall and rf the ~hortlall 111 sales \\as not rectified b} the end of the fin.incial )ear his posnion \\as 111 JCOpard)-. On drscus,mg 1he mailer and giv ing it cons1tlcra1ion he \\:IS of a vie\\ that come June 1991 he \\OUl d not be capable of makm~ up 1hc sho n fall 111 sa les. I k advised the employer that he did 1101 think he could meet these demands and foll<l\ling d1sc11ss 1on , on thi s ma11er he "a, olkred 1hc posi tmn of depot supen 1,or and accepted 11. In hb C\ idence \l r BrO\\nc auesh that on taking the depot super.1sor posi ti on his sa la l) was , ignrfi canl l) reduced Firstly hi s sal:11) a:; an area ,upcn rsor 1, claimed to b.: S15.000 per :rnnum plu, a car. \I here as the salary a11achi 11 p. lo dcpol supcn rsor is $ 28.000 11i1h no car In his e\ rdcnce the applicant claim, 1ha1 "h\011 he slancd a, depot supen 1sor the -, rade depot Uh·ision "1 anager. Mr Minaar. did come to tl1c depot and e,pl.1in \\hat ,,a., required ol the depot supen·rsor and the o ther emp loyees This , ,a s done in t11c fonn of a depot semrnar /\t this lime the apph~.1n1 ac"110\\ ledge, cnt 1c1sm given his inability to operate tlrc computer, and foll<ming this d1,euss1011 another depot ~upcn i,or \\ilS sent 10 <;0111hp0n for a cla) to give lhc applicant a cra:;h course on the operation of tl1c computer The applicant claim, that concern had ,rbo been raised h} some of the arc.i supcn isors ahou1 s1ock shonagcs fhc applican1 allcsh that there'"'' onl} one oth..:r 111c1dcn1 and 11 ill\oh,cd anotl1cr sale, rep hy the name ol I on~ I orcn ✓ I le (the applicant) had cause lo n:pon Loren, for 1al..111g Mod. \I ithout pay111g for it at the tune it \\JS actuall> taken. I orcn, ,,a, quc,uonetl b) his ,upcnor on this mailer and on return to the 'iouthpon depot had sa id to the applicant. ··1t ma} take me a long time hu1 I \\111 ge1 111) rc,cngc ." It ,s claimed b) the applican t quite emphatically thm at no stage were there \1:tmmgs th:n could be con,tnrcd in Jll) \\J) 10 ha,e threatened his Job . rhc \\llncss was ,ho1\n a memo d,1tcd 21! Nmcmhcr 1994. 'f hc memo ,, in h\O pan.~ The first 1s a series of u111c1,m. 1c . reluctance lo use computer. show little interest in the· h,mds on" aspect, of the depot. arrr\C IJte. lca\e customer-. wanmg. \\ashed car \1hrlc customer \\3S lcfi 11,titing. moming ddivc1) dncsn ·1 l!cl a1,a} on lime. depnl nrns ou1 of c,scnual items. the "push '),tern" 1s not correct!) monitored resulting in stock shonagcs. depot morale is lo\\. some stafl arc contcmplJting lea, 111g because of the lack of competent supcr\ision lhe applicant III this mailer 1s Grcgof) Rrownc ant! at 1hc time his emp loyment was tcnninatcd he \\,,, the depot supcn isor at the Southpon depo1 of\\ attyl Paints. 1 hen the penultunate paragraph of' pan one of tl1c memo is a., foll1ms:- llis C\ 1dcncc is such that he commenced \\ork 1, 1th \\ att) I 111 Tasmania III September 1980 a, an area supcn·isor \\ llh a tcrritor) sellrng 10 the trade (painters. decorators. builder,) He remained in this position until 1988 "C. on,1denng 1ha1 I am not in,ohcd 111 lhc Dcpo1 opcra1mn on a d,1} to da) hasis and that I had to rel} on s1,h1ec111e and oficn "1del)- , aT) 111g 111fonna11on from :1 nurnher ol ~ources. 111clud1ng \Jles manaj!ers. sale, rcprescntati\e,. customers. depot 17679 I IXX' ◄ -- 1 of 3 -- 116 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT TNDL~STRIAL GAZETTE (5 January, 1996 • J • tl 1·1-r 11 1 t 10 cstahlish personnel and yoursel[ I foun_c 1t ra 1cr_ L.l __ ,c ' whether some Qf[he complaints were rnst1t1cd. Then the last paragraph of part mw is as follows - "Irrespective or whether certain complaints arc or arc not justified. I am concerned about the numb~r and nature of ·complaints that have been lodged concerning ~our_self and the depot operntion, and hereby put on record tnc tollomn~ comments regarding your rule and the depot (lpera11on 111 general.". Part two of the memo lists a series of matkrs to he nddre.ssed with respect to the efficient management of the depot and mcludes the duties expected to be carried out. the hours of_ wor~ and the manner in which those hours arc to he wnrked. the stnct cntrnccmc~1t of deadlines and trainmg required for other staff. There is a spc_ctfic section that refers to a customer complaint. the applicant acknowledging that was made. and the need to keep customers. Finallv the second part of the memo states that this will he a lirst and final, warning and that the employer would not . expect a recurrertce of any of the complaints or "ilua1ions dealt with 111 this memo. The applicant's evidence is that on 28 '\!ovembcr. Mr Minaar attended the Southport depot and for about the first hour he held discussions with other -;taff members. The applicc111t also claim:-: that lie was given a memo to read and then he had a mcctmg \Vllh Mr Minaar who advised that he (Minaar) had gone through the qucst10ns with the other staff and a.s far as the arplic,ml was cor;cerncd that \Vas the end of'the story. The applicant claims the memn wns not left with him. On Fridav. 2 December. there was an incident between the applicant aml 'a customer. the details of which can be dealt ,vi,t'.1 lakr. Then as a result of this incident he contacted Mr Mmaar di~d sug!-!,estcd the; discu-;s this incident. I k claims that Mr \.1111aar ~. resp-onse was thc1t as a depot managers. mcctm~ was schcdukd fu1 Wednesday, 7 December. that he come up before the meeting t<• discuss the matter. However. on Tuesday, 6 Dccemhcr. Mr i\frnaar contacted Mr Browne tc, advise he was coming to Southport to sec him, which he did. Mr Brovvne's account ofthi~ meeting wa,, that he was given the memo dated 28 1':ovember and no\\' cxh1hit L however. it is not in the same furrnat as he recalls he :,;aw IL ('II 28 November and in general suggests that \\hat I referred to a.s part two of the memo had been added. The Incident of 2 December A customer of the Wattyl dq)(ll at Southport is a husiness under the name Rite Price Distributor~ and it is opcr a1cd by a Mr Jlow~ctt who had come to the depot to obtain Wattyl products some of whtch \\'lTe not available. As a result or a pr..:vious complaint arrangements had hecn made to give this customer better service h) allocattn!_:'. 01:e of the depot employees. a Mr Sen yard. to attend to Mr I !('.\\lett s requirements on a priority basis. and on this ()CU~s1011 Mr Senyard \\as doing that however. because of the 1111ava1lahll1t.) o1 the product required by Mr Ihm ktL he was protesting. In g.iving Jfr, evidence Mr Browne·s \ersion of this C\ent is that he coul~d hear obscenities and proceeded to the area where ScnyarJ and !Icnvlctt wcn:. On arnv ,11 he c !aims that lvtr Ilowlctt la) s the blame for his (HO\vlctt's) probkm on Mr Browne. I low!ctt sugges~" that Bnnvne is trying to send him broke. that 1, t'.' Bn) 1s11e '., manaoernent that has created all his troubles and that on . tlm occasion he wa~ not lea\ ing the shop until he had got nd of tl:_e problem Mr Browne thc!t claims that he advised I lo,, ktt:. I wouldn't do that if I was you.". "'Now that \\a•, the threat l made .. --------------- In his e\idcncc in chief' Mr Browne was 4uestiu11cd on ,vhat was mean• bv this threat and his reply is such that he had put up with this problem. for half an Imm. I ic feels that Sen yard had pui_ up with tt for <1hout (inc hour and he wasn't prepared to put up with 1t any more and wanted Ho\\lctt tn leave. There was no ph 1 sical threat. Shortly afterwards l lowlctt left. About one hour after tbe incident Mr Browne \\as contacted by a Mr Bill Philiips (General Manager) and questioned on tile mcidcnt:_ /\t the conclusion of tl:at discussion he \\ilS !cfi with the \ JC\\ that 11 required he would he contacted. Mr Browne·-, evidence is such that when Mr M inaar arri~e? at the depot on 6 December he handed O\ er some paperwork (..:xh1b1t I) and was "ivcn time to digest its contents. \\'hen Mr Muwar returned there wa: a short exchange as to the level of agrccme11t_ o,~. t!1c documents contents. It is then contended that Mr Mmaar said: I m not here to discuss it Gcoff hut is your car out~ide. I'm tu sec you get i11 it and !cave.". Under cross-examination Mr Bnmnc did acknowledge that he had clashed with other employees and that there may have heen some tensions. However, Mr Browne ch1irns that with respect to the incident of 2 December he was fairly cairn. This issm.· \\ilS pursued at some length by Mr French for the rcsron<lcnt with Mr Browne maintaining. that at all times he was perfectly calm. The first \vitne,-, called for the respondent was /\ntlH,n) Lorenz. I !is statement is worthless a~ it is all hearsay evidence and must be disregarded, however. Mr Lorenz \\'3S capable <if giving a reasonable and bclicnible account of what lead to the disagreement between hirmclf and Mr Browne, The next witness for the respondent\\ as a Mr Mark Morley, His eyidcnce is not of assistance tu the matter l must determine. the Director of Rite Price Ik-1ributnr:e. Mr llowlctt was called to give C\'idcncc. I !is evidence in chief ca11 briefly he (.kscribed as fo:lo\Vs. On 2 December he called at the Southport depot, _was unable to obtain fac products required. I le was engaged is a convcrsat;on with Mr Senyard \vhen he and Scnvard were mtcrrupted h, Mr Bnmne walking between them. ignorinr I lo\\ictl and ask111g S~inard. ··what·s he war,t''" Then follows a forther verbal cxcl;auge in which Mr Browne is ~aid tu ha\ c liscd foul :anguagc t_o describe Mr Howlett. Thi: \\ itncss '."ay:, that Browne cont1nu~d his ,ihuse in front of customers. I le was dcarl) ,igitatcd and he tncd to calm him down. Follo,\ing this incident he did report the matter to Mr Phillips Under crn.~s-cxamination t-.fr lion lctt admits to having a comersalion with Lorenz p:·ior to 2 Dcc,~n:ber and speculati11g about the rernoYal Pr getting rid ,Jf Mr Bnm nc ,md dunng this_ pro~ess there were many questions he appeared 1.0 answer b) shontrng from the hip and changing his responses.. The fowl witness for the respondents is Mr B. MinaaL and he is the manaQ.er. trade depot di,ision. Jn essence hi~ c\ idc:1cc 1s _that shorth ,;ner Mr Browne ·s appointment a.s depot supervisor, comrlaims \\ere received ahout the manner in \vhich _the dcp~)t_ \Vas being administered. The'.><: compla1nts came for d1v1:,i~nal reprcscntati\es (uutsidc salespersons) and a t1l(:cting wa~ orgamsed in Apnl 11)()3 to addre~,s these matters. Jn :fovcmher, 1994, the depot representatives (insi~c salcsper~ous) lodged a number of wmplainb about Mr Brc;\'!1C s attitude to customers and Liic admini:;tration of the depot. I hese issues ~,ere dcail \\ith on 28 November. Mr Mirniar 111 his '.ilatemcnt refers to hb discussion with Mr Bro\\ne that da; as a counselling sc.-,sion. 5 January, 1996] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE 117 Following this meeting or session a memorandum was prepared and it was his intention to present this lo Mr Browne as soon as was practicable. However his presence was required jn Mt Isa thus delaying the delivery of the memo to Mr Browne then, before he coll/d deliver the memo he became aware of the 111cident of 2 December between Browne and Howlett. the depot supervisors job and incidents that transpired since the applicant taking that job up are sufficient for any employer to have concerns. Those concerns culminate and arc addressed at the meeting on 28 November and it is contended that Mr Browne clearly understood the nature and purpose of those discussions and that his position as an employee with Wattyl was in jeopardy should there be a repeat of previous or similar circumstances. On 6 December he visited the Southport depot to discuss the incident with Browne and at the same iimc delivered the memo dated 28 November to Brmvne. On arrival he gave Mr Browne time Lo consider the contents of that memo and when the issues ,vcre discussed ,\fr Minaar accepts that Browne did 11ol necesc.arily agree with all of the comments. Mr Minaar then raised the issue of 2 December and informed of the allegations made by Mr Howlett in fairly precise terms. I Jc is of the view that Browne did not at any stage deny the allegation that foul language had been used in his discussion with Mr I lowktt M, \1inaar then claims that he advised Browne that in view of the number of complaints that had been lodged about his attitude towards customers and that he had only recently been cmmsc!led. the Company had no option but to tenninatc Browne's employment. It is claimed that Browne shook Minaar·s hand. said. ..no hard feelings'•. requested time to say goodbye to his colieagues, pa111ission to do so was granted. Browne took a little time to do so before getting into his car and leaving. In his c,·idence in chief Mr Minaar makes it very clear that as a result of his meeting with Mr Browne on 28 November and the preparation of the memo of the same date that there was no intention 011 his pan or that of the Company to terminate Mr Browne's employment. Then under cross-examination Mr Minaar admits to the fact that he did not investigate the allegations by 110\~lett, page 158. Imes 47- 48 and pa12e i 66. lines 43-55. Sl :Bi\11SSIO:'iS On behalf of the applicant Mr O'Brien submits that there has to be a valid reason to tcm1inatc ones employment and ihc history of Mr Browne's employment with Wattyl is free of critical incident and the !act that he was offered a wh in ()ucensland from hi.s Tasmanian b:ise is a valedictory vote of confidence in his ability On taking up his post as depot supervisor if there were problems he was never warned. At the best prohlcms may have been discussed and at the wprst there were only a couple of complaints. one from a lady who complained about service and then Ho\\lctt's altercation. In support of the applicants co11tentio11 it is suggested that there arc two aspects of this or any matter before the Commission that need to be taken into consideration. One is substantive. the other is procedural. In this regard it is contended on behalf of the applicant that the Commission has ovGr the preceding 12 to 15 months. even where there is justification on substantive grounds and the employer gets it wrong in terms of process . the tcnnination is illegal. Mr O'Brien acknowledges the limits that arc placed on this argument. Then with respect to who used what language. it is contended that it is one persons word against another. This view is also held by the rec;rondent. For the respondent .\1r French accepts rhat there shouid be substantive and procedural fairness. however. with respect to the latter it was unnecessary given that Mr Bn)\\ ne did not deny the allegations put to him by Mr Minaar with respect to the incident of 2 December 1995. However. in all other regards the history that led to \Vith respect to the incident on 2 December, it is conlcnclcd that the environment in which it transpired. ie., supplier/cmtomer relationship, is sufficient reason for any Watt)- l employee to ensure that their behaviour with a customer is not offensive. I IoweYer. in the Browne, Howlett clash on 2 December. Howlett left feeling threatened. It is suggested that we should bear in mind lhat this incident occurs less than a week ;11tcr a serious counselling session. In all of the circumstances the cn1pluyer~ actions ,vcrc reLlsmiable. In the event that the Commission finds in favour oftht: applicant and should compensation be considered then we must bear in mind the time that it has taken for this matter to he processed for which no blame can be levelled at the employer. CONCU 1 SIONS Taking into consideration the evidence and submissions, in particular the evidence of Mr Minaar in so far as he had no predetermined position to terminate Browne ·s employment on 6 December when he visited the Southport depot. I can only conclude that what has brought about the dismissal of Mr Browne is the incident oi'2 December. the clash between Browne and llowlett. In cxamimng that issue, it would be reasonable to assume that Howlett is agitated as he is at the depot lo pick up product earlier ordered and some of it is not available. At this point he is discussing the matter with Mr Scnyard and Browne is some distance away but hears what he refcm.:d Lo as shouting and approaches Mr I lowlctt and Scnyard. It would also be rea~onablc lo assume that Mr Bnnvne's approach may not have been 1t1 polite terms given a previous complaint made by IImvlett that cast some douhts on Browne's management at the depot. It would appear to me on the balance of prohahilities that there wa;; an exchange where both Browne and Howlett used profanities. Lxactl) what was ::,aid and by whom may never be revealed although it could have. had either the applicant or the respondent called Mr ScnyanJ. I have taken into consideration the evidence of Mr Browne under cross-cxaminalion by Mr French for the re::,pondent \vhen he asserts that at all times he remained calm. This in my opinion seems difficult to believe particularly when cun~ideration is given lo hi-; admission to having clashes with other employees which in my opinion appears to have occurred in an environment where relationships were far better than that which existed between Browne and Howlelt. I am also mindful of Mr Howlett ·s evidcncc and his demeanour as a witness. There was the manner in ,vhich he just slouched into the witness chair. there was his grunt when he was chastised by me for the manner in which he answered questions put to him. there is his acknowledgment to his discussion with I orcn7 to get rid of Browne and there is his af,!itation and cnncem about not receiving product when it is required when a previous complaint had been lodged about the same problem Taking into account all of the circumstances I am of the opinion that Mr I lmvlett would in general terms not be an easy person to get along with and if his manner on 2 December was anything like his demeanour as a \\.itncss. then Mr Browne could be excused for using profanities. In any event I am nol too sun:: that Mr I fowlett has said he \Yas offended hy the use of particular language. His complaint goes more to the manner in which he was treated. and more particularly his vie\\ that he \Yas threatened. 17679 __ 1DOC -- 2 of 3 -- 118 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT IND US TRIAL GAZETTE [5 Janua ry , 1996 When Mr Minaar interviewed Mr Browne on 6 December it would appear that he questioned Mr Browne with respect to the use of particular language and came to the conclusion to terminate Mr Browne's employment on Mr Browne 's admission to having used ce rtain language, however, during this discussion Mr Minaar acknowledges that Mr Browne denies that what he said was intended in any way to threaten Mr Howlett. The use of profanities. expletives or crude expressions is some thing tha t in my opin ion both Browne and I lowlett cou ld hand le in the envi ronment in which they both worked. From the evidence before me I lowlett's comp laint is not about the language that may have been used, H ow le tt 's comp laint may be about treatment as a customer, however, it is more about a pe.rceived threat. If Howlett had been threatened e it her physica ll y or had his business been threatened by the actions or statements of Mr Browne then that in my opinion is serious and summa ry dism issal would be jus tified. The threat again st Mr Howlett of any natu re was not investigated. The threat may have been of concern to the employer, however. the emp loyer can not be satis fi ed given that there was no investigation of the question of threat, that threat o f any description was actually made by Mr Brovme aga in st Mr llowlell or his Company. I a lso have concerns with what seems to be an on the spur of the m ome nl decis ion by Mr Minaar to terminate Mr Browne 's employm ent gi ve n th at he di d not have a predetermined op inion when he attended the Southport depot on 6 December. He must have therefore come to his conc lusion during his d iscussion with Mr Browne. This being so Mr Minaar is placed in a pos ition where he docs not properly investigate the a ll ega tions against Mr Browne. then given the speed with which it occurs. Mr Browne is not given fair and reasonable time to respond. The circumstances are such that he cou ld not obtain advice or be adequately represen ted. In all of the c ircumstances I have come to a view that the dismissal of Mr Browne was harsh, unfair and unju st and would under these ci rcums tances order that he be reinstated to his fo rm er position. H owever. I am mindful of the delay that has transpired between dismissal and this dec ision. On the one hand there was the delay by Mr Browne in making his appl ication and for that delay the employe r cannot be held responsible. On the other hand neithe r th e applicant nor the respondent can be held responsib le for the overall de lay in which these matters take to be heard and decision issued. I am also mindfu l of the length of service that Mr Browne has had with Wattyl, his age and prospect of securing anotl1c r job with a similar income. In C22 of 1994. at tirst instance the Commission determined that the applicant had been unfairly dismissed and that reinstatement was not practicable and that compensation shou ld be awarded. His Honour McKenzie J. in his Judgement found that in applying the test of " the option" reinstatemen t. re-employment or compensation. are seen as being inappropriate. '·the statutory test is not whether they were practicab le ". Given this decis ion the emp loyer should exam ine the circumstances of this case and determine its response to the order ultimately made . Under all of the circumstances the only formal order I make at th is point in time is that the pa rties confer with a view to examining job prosp ec ts at Wattyl or in the alternative an agreed level of compensation. Such a conference shou ld be held within two weeks of this decision be ing rel eased with the parties being required to report to me as soon as practicable, given that it might take a bit of time to exp lore the prospect of a job for Mr Browne. H. DEMPSEY, Commissioner. Appearances :- Mr P. O'Brien of O'Brien and Associates fo r the app li cant. Mr L. French of the Queensland Confederation of Industry L im ited, Union of Employers, with h im Mr P. Minaar for the respondent. Opera ti ve Date: NIA Decision - Reinstatement Released: 13 December 1995 ####################################################### I 76 79_ I. DOC 5 January, 1996] QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE l 19 -- 3 of 3 --