[2016] FWC 7198
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009

s.418 - Application for an order that industrial action by employees or employers stop etc.

Lendlease Building Pty Ltd T/A Lendlease Building
v
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
(C2016/5890)

COMMISSIONER HUNT

BRISBANE, 7 OCTOBER 2016

Alleged industrial action at Lendlease Building Pty Ltd by subcontractor employees.

Background

[1] An application for an order under s.418 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) was made to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) at 4.37pm on Friday, 30 September 2016 by Lendlease Building Pty Ltd (Lendlease). The application was accompanied by an application for order of substituted service, together with a cover letter from Herbert Smith Freehills, representatives of Lendlease.

[2] The cover letter stated that Lendlease did not press for a hearing over the October long weekend. A public holiday in Queensland occurred on Monday, 3 October 2016.

[3] Furthermore, Lendlease did not request the Commission make an interim order pursuant to s.420 of the Act, on the basis that it would not be in the public interest to do so. Lendlease requested that the application be listed for hearing on 4 October 2016.

[4] On the morning of 4 October 2016, I made an order for substituted service. Having regard to the decision in CEPU v Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd, 1 the matter was listed for hearing before me at 4.00pm on 4 October 2016.

[5] At the hearing, Mr Rohan Doyle of Herbert Smith Freehills appeared for Lendlease. Mr Luke Tiley of Hall Payne Lawyers appeared for the CFMEU. Leave was granted pursuant to s.596 of the Act for both parties to be represented by a lawyer.

[6] At the hearing, Lendlease further made out its submission in relation to the interim order and the public interest test. Lendlease submitted that it would be in the public interest to have the matter dealt with to finality, rather than by an interim order, at a further hearing on 6 October 2016, which would allow the parties sufficient time to prepare and serve material. The CFMEU consented to the approach sought by Lendlease.

[7] Accordingly, I determined that it would not be in the public interest to issue an interim order in circumstances where the parties consented and sought to have the matter dealt with to finality at a hearing to be conducted within a reasonable timeframe. The matter was listed for further hearing on 6 October 2016.

Lendlease sites

[8] Lendlease is contracted to build various large infrastructure projects across Queensland, and indeed, across the country. Lendlease is in negotiation with the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) to agree to terms on an enterprise agreement covering such projects and future projects. The current enterprise agreement reached its nominal expiry date on 31 March 2016.

[9] Across six sites throughout Queensland, Lendlease employs only 25 employees who would be covered by the proposed enterprise agreement, and who have taken protected industrial action since 28 September 2016. Lendlease takes no issue with the protected industrial action of those 25 employees across six sites and the manner in which those employees have conducted themselves.

[10] Across the six sites, Lendlease engages subcontractors to perform work. The work is performed by subcontractor employees. The table below indicates the typical number of Lendlease employees and subcontractor employees at each site, noting that subcontractor employee numbers fluctuate on a daily basis:

Project

Lendlease employees

Subcontractor employees

Growler Airborne Attack Facility Project, Amberley

1

80

James Cook University ‘The Science Place’, Townsville

1

120

Kings Co-op Project, Bowen Hills

4

30

Sunshine Coast University Hospital Project, Birtinya

5

147

Sunshine Plaza redevelopment Project, Maroochydore

3

50

The Yards Project, Fortitude Valley

11

307

[11] Lendlease alleged unprotected industrial action was occurring at the six sites involving up to 450 subcontractor employees, noting that some subcontractor employees still attended for work during the relevant time. It is submitted that the alleged unprotected industrial action had been occurring each work day since 28 September 2016.

Procedural matters

[12] The application sought orders be made by the Commission against:

[13] Lendlease proposed orders be made against the CFMEU for reason it was alleged it was organising the industrial action.

Lendlease witnesses

[14] I accepted into evidence witness statements of 11 Lendlease managers. Of those 11 witnesses, six were present to give evidence and be cross-examined, and a seventh was granted leave to give evidence by telephone.

[15] No witnesses were called for the CFMEU.

Mr Hanrahan’s evidence

[16] Mr Jeremy Hanrahan is the Group Head of Industrial Relations for Lendlease.

[17] Lendlease has been engaged in enterprise bargaining negotiations with the CFMEU since April 2016. On 22 September 2016, Lendlease received notice in accordance with the Act of the commencement of industrial action to be taken by CFMEU members and employees of Lendlease in Queensland and the Northern Territory. The nature of the industrial action is:


[18] The day nominated for the industrial action to commence was 28 September 2016, from 6.00am.

Mr Biaggini’s evidence

[19] Mr Luis Biaggini is a Construction Manager at the Sunshine Coast University Hospital Project located at Birtinya. The hospital project has a construction value of around $1.8 billion, and achieved technical completion on 12 August 2016. Commercial acceptance is scheduled for mid-November 2016.

[20] Work is performed on the site between 6.00am and 6.00pm, Monday to Saturday, excluding gazetted public holidays.

[21] On 28 September 2016, Lendlease employees who are members of the CFMEU commenced a lawful strike in the vicinity of the site, including a picket line.

[22] Whereas 147 subcontractor employees had performed work two days before, and 125 subcontractor employees had performed work one day before, only 49 subcontractor employees performed work on 28 September 2016.

[23] Mr Biaggini informed all relevant subcontractors that the site was open and it was safe to perform work. A number of subcontractors confirmed to Mr Biaggini that they had communicated to their employees that they were not authorised to be absent from work, the site was open and operational, and subcontractor employees were not covered by the protected industrial action being taken by Lendlease employees.

[24] On 29 September 2016, 60 subcontractor employees attended for work. On 30 September 2016, the number was 54, and on 4 October 2016, 43 subcontractor employees attended for work. Communications were sent each day to subcontractors similar to the one described in [23].

[25] On 28 September 2016, Mr Biaggini observed a tent being erected just outside of the site and a Lendlease employee carrying a CFMEU flag. Mr Tony Kong, CFMEU Organiser was present at around 5.12am. Mr Kong was also present outside at the site early in the morning of 29 and 30 September 2016.

Mr Green’s evidence

[26] Mr Rodney Green is a Construction Manager at The Yards Project located at Fortitude Valley. The project is a private residential apartment development with a total value of around $118 million.

[27] Work is performed on the site between 6.30am and 6.00pm, Monday to Friday, excluding gazetted public holidays.

[28] On 28 September 2016, Lendlease employees who are members of the CFMEU did not attend for work due to the protected industrial action they had commenced.

[29] Whereas approximately 307 subcontractor employees had performed work each day in the week prior, no subcontractor employees performed work on 28 September 2016.

[30] With the assistance of another manager, Mr Green informed all relevant subcontractors that the site was open and it was safe to perform work. A number of subcontractors confirmed to Mr Green that they had communicated to their employees that they were not authorised to be absent from work, the site was open and operational, and subcontractor employees were not covered by the protected industrial action being taken by Lendlease employees.

[31] Between the period 28 September 2016 and 6 October 2016, no subcontractor employees have attended for work.

[32] On 28 September 2016, Mr Green observed Mr Tony Stott, a CFMEU official standing with approximately five Lendlease employees from the project, together with some other Lendlease employees from other projects. Approximately 250 Lendlease employees and subcontractor employees were assembled on the footpath at around 6.20am.

[33] At approximately 6.31am, Mr Green observed the subcontractor employees walk to land across the road from the project. Mr Green heard somebody from the crowd of employees say that a meeting had been called. Mr Stott followed the crowd. Lendlease employees remained at the Project entry gate.

Mr Henderson’s evidence

[34] Mr Brock Henderson is a Construction Manager at the Kings Co-op Project located in Bowen Hills.

[35] Work is performed on the site between 6.30am and 6.30pm, Monday to Saturday, excluding gazetted public holidays.

[36] On 28 September 2016, four Lendlease employees who are members of the CFMEU did not attend for work due to the protected industrial action they had commenced.

[37] Whereas 30 subcontractor employees typically performed work each day on the project, no subcontractor employees performed work on 28 September 2016.

[38] A Lendlease manager informed all relevant subcontractors that the site was open and it was safe to perform work. A number of subcontractors confirmed to Lendlease that they had communicated to their employees that they were not authorised to be absent from work and the site was open and operational.

[39] Between the period 28 September 2016 and 6 October 2016, no subcontractor employees have attended for work.

[40] At 8.45am on 28 September 2016, Mr Henderson observed four Lendlease employees outside the site gate who were joined by Mt Stott, three other men wearing CFMEU shirts, and Mr Paul Kinnealy, a supervisor from a subcontractor, Heinrich.

[41] At 11.30am, Mr Henderson observed the elevated work platform had been moved to the entry of the project, and had been fully extended with CFMEU flags attached. Mr Henderson called Mr Kinnealy to come back to the project to attend to the elevated work platform. Mr Henderson then informed Mt Stott that the elevated work platform would need to be lowered and parked. Mr Stott agreed with Mr Henderson. The platform was shortly thereafter picked up by relevant hire company.

Mr Whyte’s evidence

[42] Mr Greg Whyte is a Senior Project Engineer at the James Cook University ‘The Science Place’ Project located in Townsville. The project is scheduled for completion by January 2017, with a value of approximately $64 million.

[43] Work is performed on the site between 6.30am and 6.00pm, Monday to Friday, 6.30am to 2.00pm on Saturdays, excluding gazetted public holidays.

[44] On 28 September 2016, one Lendlease employee who is a member of the CFMEU did not attend for work due to the protected industrial action he had commenced.

[45] Whereas 120 subcontractor employees typically perform work each day on the project, 94 subcontractor employees performed work on 28 September 2016.

[46] A Lendlease manager informed all relevant subcontractors that the site was open and reminded the subcontractors of their contractual obligations and requirements to comply with relevant industrial legislation, and the federal and state codes of practice.

[47] On 29 September 2016, 103 subcontractor employees attended for work. On 30 September 2016, the number was 113, and on 4 October 2016, 120 subcontractor employees attended for work.

Mr Brett’s evidence

[48] Mr Gary Brett is a Site Manager at the James Cook University ‘The Science Place’ Project.

[49] At 5.28am on 28 September 2016, Mr Brett saw Mr Mick Robinson, CFMEU organiser and Mr Terry Cronin, Lendlease employee placing CFMEU flags and signs against the site temporary fencing.

[50] From 6.00am and ongoing, Mr Brett’s uncontested evidence is that he saw Mr Robinson confronting all workers approaching the project gate. Mr Brett heard Mr Robinson inform all subcontractor employees who approached the entry words to the effect, “We are here for a protected action against Lendlease, as negotiations with Lendlease and the union have broken down.”

[51] It is Mr Brett’s evidence that most of the subcontractor employees entered the project, however some left the site immediately and some remained outside the gate.

[52] Mr Robinson had conversations with subcontractor employees from RISSAFETY Pty Ltd and Schindler Lifts. Mr Brett attests to Mr Chris Lane from Metalrig being ‘confronted’ by Mr Robinson, however Mr Brett did not attend the Commission and therefore it is not understood what is meant by ‘confronted’. It would seem that Mr Lane had reported to Mr Brett his concerns, but there is no direct evidence of the manner in which Robinson spoke with Mr Lane.

Mr Park’s evidence

[53] Mr Kim Park is a Construction Manager at the Growler Airborne Attack Facility Project located in Amberley. The project is scheduled for completion by October 2017.

[54] Work is performed on the site between 6.30am and 6.00pm, Monday to Friday excluding gazetted public holidays.

[55] On 28 September 2016, one Lendlease employee who is a member of the CFMEU did not attend for work due to the protected industrial action he had commenced.

[56] Whereas 80 subcontractor employees were scheduled to perform on the project on 28 September 2016, only 29 did attend and perform work.

[57] Mr Park informed all relevant subcontractors that the site was open and reminded the subcontractors of their contractual obligations and requirements to comply with relevant industrial legislation, and the federal and state codes of practice. A number of subcontractors confirmed to Mr Park that they had communicated to their employees that they were not authorised to be absent from work, the site was open and operational, and subcontractor employees were not covered by the protected industrial action being taken by Lendlease employees.

[58] On 29 September 2016, 32 subcontractor employees attended for work. On 30 September 2016, the number was 30, and on 4 October 2016, 39 subcontractor employees attended for work.

Mr Ferrari’s evidence

[59] Mr Julian Ferrari is a Construction Manager at the Sunshine Plaza Redevelopment Project located in Maroochydore.

[60] Work is performed on the site between 6.30am and 6.30pm, Monday to Friday, 6.30am to 2.30pm on Saturdays, excluding gazetted public holidays.

[61] On 28 September 2016, three Lendlease employees who are members of the CFMEU did not attend for work due to the protected industrial action they had commenced.

[62] Whereas 50 subcontractor employees typically perform work each day on the project, 23 subcontractor employees performed work on 28 September 2016.

[63] Mr Ferrari informed all relevant subcontractors that the site was open and reminded the subcontractors of their contractual obligations and requirements to comply with relevant industrial legislation, and the federal and state codes of practice.

[64] On 29 September 2016, 20 subcontractor employees attended for work. On 30 September 2016, the number was again 20, and on 4 October 2016, 12 subcontractor employees attended for work.

Mr Liversidge’s evidence

[65] Mr Steve Liversidge is a Site Manager at the Growler Airborne Attack Facility Project.

[66] At approximately 6.00am on 28 September 2016, Mr Liversidge drove to the contractor’s gate on Hansen Road, Amberley. He noticed a gazebo and banners with CFMEU marking set up behind two vehicles.

[67] Mr Liversidge approached Mr Barry Higgins, a CFMEU organiser, together with Mr Jade Ingham, CFMEU Assistant Secretary. Mr Ingham said to Mr Liversidge words to the effect, “Are you here to sign the agreement?” Mr Liversidge understood this to mean the Lendlease agreement being negotiated.

[68] Mr Liversidge noticed subcontractor employees standing in the carpark. They were wearing their respective company uniforms. As Mr Liversidge drove away from the carpark, he observed Mr Ingham motioning the subcontractor employees together in the north-west corner of the car park.

Legislative context

[69] The application has been made pursuant to s.418 of the Act. Section 418 provides:

[70] The meaning of industrial action is contained at s.19 of the Act:

Submissions of Lendlease

[71] It was submitted by Lendlease that the refusal of approximately 450 subcontractor employees across six construction sites to attend for work is not protected industrial action and is industrial action described in s.19(1)(b) and (c) of the Act.

[72] The action of the 450 subcontractor employees cannot be said to be action that is approved action the type described in s.19(2)(a), nor could it be argued that s.19(2)(c) applied, except where conceded by Lendlease that alternative arrangements had been made by subcontractors with respect to a small number of subcontractor employees.

[73] It was submitted that industrial action is happening, and accordingly the Commission must make an order pursuant to s.418(1)(a). Further, industrial action is likely to continue in support of the protected industrial action being taken by 25 Lendlease employees, and there is no known timeframe as to when those negotiations will conclude.

[74] Lendlease considers that the orchestration of 450 employees across six sites taking unprotected industrial action is not an accident, and is being organised by the CFMEU, its officers, delegates and employees. It is unfathomable that 450 individuals had decided without suggestion not to attend for work on 28 September 2016 and beyond. Nor could it be said to have been at the lawful urging of 25 Lendlease employees at the sites; particularly where some sites only have one Lendlease employee.

[75] It was put by Lendlease that if the Commission finds that there is no direct evidence of the industrial action being organised by the CFMEU or CFMEU representatives, there should be a finding based on inference that it is being organised. Reference was made to a decision of Barker J in ABCC v CFMEU [2010] FCA 784 at [42]:

[76] Without evidence of six CFMEU officials nominated as being in the vicinity of the six sites during the relevant period, the Commission should draw a Jones v Dunkel  2 inference that the evidence of the relevant officials would not have assisted the respondent’s position.

[77] With respect to the duration of the order to be made by the Commission, the draft order proposed by Lendlease sought a period of six months. In closing submissions, it was put that an appropriate length for an order binding the subcontractor employees and the CFMEU and representatives should be around 12 weeks; that is, until the end of the year.

Submissions of the CFMEU

[78] The CFMEU helpfully prepared written submissions and spoke to the submissions during the hearing.

[79] The CFMEU submitted that while many workers have not attended for work across the six sites, many have been redeployed to perform work at other sites, and therefore they cannot be said to have taken industrial action.

[80] With respect to whether industrial action has been organised by the CFMEU and its representatives, this is rejected by the CFMEU. It was contended that it is important not to confuse the CFMEU’s right to be present in support of its members taking protected industrial action – the 25 Lendlease employees – and find that the CFMEU is organising unprotected industrial action of subcontractor employees.

[81] The CFMEU submitted that it is not for the Commission to ‘draw the dots’ to determine, without direct evidence, that industrial action is being organised. There needs to have been a positive action by the CFMEU and its representatives. Mere attendance at, or participation in a meeting called for purposes other than stopping work does not constitute organisation, even if the meeting does lead to industrial action.

[82] In Lendlease v CFMEU 3, Richards SDP said the following:

[83] The Commission should treat inferential evidence with caution where such an inference has been rebutted by competing evidence. The CFMEU should not be criticised for the absence of rebuttal evidence, given the urgency with which the matter has come before the Commission and the potential consequences to individuals of findings adverse to those witnesses.

[84] It was submitted that if an order is to be made, it should be clear within the order that industrial action does not include an instance where an employer has redeployed an employee to another site, or the employee has directions from their employer relevant to their non-attendance.

[85] If the Commission is minded to make orders with respect to the conduct of some CFMEU officials at one or more sites, this should not flow across all of the sites and bind all CFMEU officials, employees etc. It was submitted that the activity that has occurred should not be viewed as one event.

[86] As to the duration of any order, the appropriate length of an order in these circumstances might be considered to be approximately two months; akin to a week-long dispute and determined in the Full Bench decision in United Voice v Foster’s Australia Limited 4. It must be noted that the duration of the order in this case was determined to be a period of three months, and not two. I make no criticism of Mr Tiley with respect to this submission and note that it was made in error.

Consideration

[87] Having heard the evidence of the witnesses and the submissions from the parties, I am satisfied on the weight of the evidence before me that unprotected industrial action commenced on the six sites on 28 September 2016 involving approximately 450 subcontractor employees, and was continuing on 6 October 2016.

[88] Work as it is ordinarily performed had not resumed at the conclusion of the hearing. There was no evidence before me that work would be resumed by the relevant employees. This is particularly so as I am satisfied that the industrial action is being taken in support of the protected industrial action lawfully being taken by Lendlease employees. There remains no known date as to when that lawful industrial action will cease.

[89] For the purposes of s.418 of the Act, industrial action was therefore happening. I note that having satisfied myself that the industrial action was happening, I must make the order; the decision to make the order is not discretionary.

[90] At the closing of submissions, I informed the parties that I anticipated that I would make an order to stop, not engage in and not organise industrial action against the employees subject to the application. I stated I would give consideration to the necessary length of the order, and would also consider whether to make the order against the CFMEU the subject of the application.

[91] An order [PR586082] was issued by me on 6 October 2016, to come into effect at 6.30pm on 6 October 2016, and to cease to have effect at 5.00pm on 31 December 2016.

Order against the CFMEU

[92] I am satisfied on the evidence before me that the CFMEU and its officials or employees were ‘organising’ industrial action in the circumstances required for an order to be made under s.418(1)(c) to have been met.

[93] The mere presence of the CFMEU officials at the six sites is not sufficient for an order to be made, particularly so in these circumstances given the CFMEU officials have a right to be present at the sites in support of the 25 Lendlease employees and CFMEU members taking protected industrial action.

[94] The fact that at some of the sites a tent was erected and CFMEU flags and banners were in close proximity to the gates of the site is not demonstrative of industrial action being organised. That kind of activity would be expected where there is protected industrial action underway.

[95] It is not often that respondents to s.418 applications will attend the Commission and give evidence in proceedings. Where only an applicant’s witnesses give evidence, and there is opportunity for respondent witnesses to give evidence and they choose not to, the Commission must decide applications on the material before it.

[96] I am satisfied that 450 subcontractor employees across six worksites spread across Queensland did not all have a meeting of the minds at around 6.30am on a single day and decide that they individually did not wish to cross a CFMEU established picket line. The pattern of behaviour across all six sites is remarkably similar.

[97] Even without direct evidence of ‘organisation’ being undertaken, I would find that the ‘surrounding circumstances’, as per Richards SDP in Lendlease v CFMEU 5, have been met on this occasion to draw the relevant inference that the size and breadth of the industrial action was organised by the CFMEU and its officials and employees.

[98] There is evidence of Mr Brett at [50] that Mr Robertson confronted all workers approaching the project gate at the ‘Science Project’ in Townsville. Some subcontractor employees chose to enter the site gate to perform their ordinary work; many did not. It would be an intimidating path to traverse to seek to commence work, and have a CFMEU organiser ‘informing’ or ‘confronting’ such workers that there was protected action being undertaken. While there is no direct evidence as to what discussions occurred between those workers and Mr Robertson where those workers did not enter the site gates, the inference is that those workers, on the first occasion being informed by Mr Robertson that there was industrial action being taken, then sought to not attend for work.

[99] If not for Mr Robertson seeking to ‘inform’ these workers of the industrial action being undertaken, I conclude on the evidence before me that at least some of those employees are likely to have entered the site and performed work. Instead, some left immediately and some remained near the gate and did not enter site.

[100] Further, Mr Liveridge’s evidence with respect to the Growler project at Amberley is that Mr Ingham motioned to subcontractor employees to assemble in the north-west corner of the car park. On this day, only 29 out of 80 subcontractor employees attended for work. While Mr Liveridge did not see for how long the meeting was assembled, or know what was said, the inference that is drawn and I accept is that Mr Ingham spoke with assembled subcontractor employees at this time. Following this meeting, a large number of employees chose not to attend for work.

[101] I have not limited the making of the orders against the CFMEU and its officials to only Mr Robertson and Mr Ingham. As I have stated earlier, given the size and breadth of the organisation of the industrial action, it is necessary to make an order against all CFMEU officers, delegates, employees and agents of the CFMEU who come into contact with or have any responsibility for CFMEU members who are employed by Lendlease, or any of the subcontractors, and who are employed in Queensland or the Northern Territory.

[102] I have not inserted into the order the words sought by the CFMEU at [84]. If a subcontractor employee has recently been deployed to another site during the period between 28 September 2016 and the issuing of the order, and the subcontractor wishes the employee to return to the Lendlease site, the subcontractor should make it clear to the employee their requirement to return to the Lendlease site, and not the alternate site. Similarly, if a subcontractor has excused an employee from attendance at work during this period because productive work cannot be undertaken due to the industrial action of others, the subcontractor should make it clear to the employee that they are required to attend for work from the day nominated by the subcontractor.

Duration of the order

[103] With respect to the Sunshine Coast University Hospital Project site, there have been an extensive number of orders made by the Commission in recent years for industrial action to stop, not occur and not be organised. The most recent order was made by me and effective up until 12 August 2016.

[104] This project is due for commercial completion in mid-November 2016. It is important to ensure stability on the project, taking into consideration the earlier orders made by the Commission and the relative short period of time between the cessation of the last order made and the commencement of further industrial action.

[105] It is correct that the Commission should make orders to ensure only the minimum relief necessary to do justice between the parties should occur.

[106] Having regard to the submissions of the parties and the historical background of the site, I determined the order should be made for the period sought by Lendlease; that is up until the end of the calendar year.

[107] The duration of this order should ensure completion of the Sunshine Coast University Hospital Project free from unprotected industrial action. The size of the project, and the importance of the project on a social and community perspective (that being the construction of a large hospital outside of the state’s capital city) warranted the making of the order for the period sought by Lendlease.

[108] The duration of the order extends beyond what is considered necessary to ensure the Hospital site is complete. The ‘Science Place’ project in Townsville is due for completion in January 2017, and the duration of the order should, as far as practicable, see this particular project through until completion free from unprotected industrial action.

[109] The duration of an order made by the Commission cannot shield from unprotected industrial action all of the six projects for the estimated length until completion of works. Nor is it appropriate to do so. While it is uncertain how long the Lendlease and CFMEU negotiations may continue for a new agreement, it is necessary to provide an appropriate period of industrial stability to the six sites where it is apparent that the industrial action being taken the subject of this decision is directly linked to the protected industrial action being taken by Lendlease employees.

[110] The length of the order that I have determined is appropriate in all of the circumstances to ensure some industrial stability, principally at the Hospital site, together with the ‘Science Place’ site in Townsville. Should there be any further unprotected industrial action found to be occurring beyond 1 January 2017, it is open to Lendlease to make further application for an order.

Seal of the Fair Work Commission with member’s signature.

COMMISSIONER

 1   CEPU v Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd [2013] FCAFC 148 at 135-136

 2   Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; 101 CLR 298

 3   [2014] FWC 7800

 4   [2014] FWCFB 4104

 5   [2014] FWC 7800

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR586192>