C2005/2404, Transcript of Proceedings [2005] AIRCTrans 752 (29 March 2005)

1800 534 258

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 10920

COMMISSIONER ROBERTS

C2005/2404

s.170LW - application for settlement of dispute (certification of agreement)

Australian Nursing Federation-Australian Capital Territory Branch
and
Anglican Retirement Community Services Brindabella Gardens Nursing Home
(C2005/2404)
Anglican Retirement Services - Brindabella Gardens, Australian Nursing Federation Enterprise Agreement 2002-2004

CANBERRA

10.07AM, WEDNESDAY, 16 MARCH 2005

PN1

MS C DUFF: Secretary of the Australian Nursing Federation.

PN2

THE COMMISSIONER: And you're appearing with?

PN3

MS T THOMAS: For the Australian Nursing Federation.

PN4

MR C FRIZE: Aged and Community Services Association, New South Wales, ACT. I act on behalf of the ARCS, the Anglican Retirement Community Services. With me is the director of nursing, MS S THOMPSON.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: You are not an employee of the company, are you?

PN6

MR FRIZE: I act for the respondent, Commissioner.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, but you are a solicitor?

PN8

MR FRIZE: No, I am an employee of the Aged and Community Services Association.

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: That's okay. There is just a technical point about leave to appear, but that is okay, it doesn't arise.

PN10

MR FRIZE: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Duff?

PN12

MS DUFF: If the Commission pleases. This application made by the Australian Nursing Federation under Section 170LW of the Workplace Relations Act is regarding the matter of suspension of our member, Tammy Reid. The C number is 2005/2404.

PN13

Under dispute settling procedures at clause 9 of the Anglican Retirement Services, Brindabella Gardens and the Australian Nursing Federation enterprise Bargaining Agreement 2002-2004, there is an ability for matters to be brought to the Commission if failure to resolve the matters, and it is unfortunate the ANF thought that this matter had actually been resolved and we believe that the employer has been harsh and unreasonable in their attitude and approach to our member.

PN14

Our member, Tammy Reid, is an assistant in nursing who has been employed at Brindabella Gardens Nursing Home for four years. Until recent events, Tammy has had an unblemished employment history. I will just give you a little bit of background about the aged care sector, if I may, just to put it into context, Commissioner.

PN15

THE COMMISSIONER: I trust at some stage you will tell me what you are seeking me to do as well?

PN16

MS DUFF: Yes - - -

PN17

THE COMMISSIONER: We are getting there, are we? Okay.

PN18

MS DUFF: Yes, I will give you an outline of the background, a chronology of events and what outcome the ANF is seeking.

PN19

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN20

MS DUFF: Now, Brindabella Gardens is a not-for-profit aged care facility that provides care for dependent, frail, aged residents who in most cases, live their final years in the residence. It is an industry that has high demands and expectations on staff and most often has insufficient resources to get the work done. This translates into a very stressful workplace.

PN21

This industry suffers chronically from the inability to attract and retain a sufficient number of skilled nursing staff. There is a huge wage gap, on average above 20 per cent in pay, compared to nursing in other facilities in the public and other private health facilities.

PN22

The industry, and in particular here in the ACT, have been subject to some recent adverse media, and that is arriving out of a report from the Productivity Commission, so the sector is under a lot of pressure to improve performance.

PN23

The classification of assistant in nursing, is the last classification in the nursing structure. The assistant in nursing is not subject to regulation or set standards as other members are regulated by the Nurses Board, so there is no code of conduct and ethic as it applies to other nurses. The skill level and training from assistant in nursing is varied, inconsistent and in some instances, only learnt on the job.

PN24

What I will do now, is go into the chronology of events that have happened to Tammy. Tammy was first suspended on 17 February by the Director of Nursing, Susan Thompson, who is here in the Commission this morning. She was telephoned at home, alleging that she had threatened to break a resident's arm. She was asked to attend a meeting on 23 February. Tammy contacted the ANF and was advised to get written details of the allegation. A letter was received on 18 February, reportedly documenting the allegations of misconduct, and I have a copy of that letter, Commissioner.

PN25

THE COMMISSIONER: And you wish to tender that letter?

PN26

MS DUFF: Yes, I do.

PN27

THE COMMISSIONER: Is there any objection to tender?

PN28

MR FRIZE: Not at all, Commissioner.

PN29

THE COMMISSIONER: I might just have a quick glance at this document.

PN30

MS DUFF: Yes, Commissioner.

EXHIBIT #A1 LETTER FROM ANGLICAN RETIREMENT COMMUNITY SERVICES TO TAMMY REID, DATED 18/02/2005

PN31

MS DUFF: The ANF responded to this letter requesting specific details so our member could answer specific and particular details of what the allegations contained. I will just give you for the record, if it is okay, as another exhibit, the letter from the ANF to Susan Thompson requesting - - -

PN32

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, will there be a further series of documents?

PN33

MS DUFF: Yes, there will be.

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: Perhaps you can hand them all to my associate at one time and we will refer to them one by one.

PN35

MS DUFF: Okay.

PN36

THE COMMISSIONER: Just save her hopping up every ten seconds. Yes, Ms Duff, so I take it we are now referring to your letter of 22 February?

PN37

MS DUFF: Yes, just for the record, we formally requested - because the allegations were in broad general terms, and we couldn't respond to those.

EXHIBIT #A2 LETTER FROM AUSTRALIAN NURSING FEDERATION, TO SUSAN THOMPSON OF ANGLICAN RETIREMENT COMMUNITY SERVICES, DATED 22/02/2005

PN38

MS DUFF: On 28 February, the Australian Nursing Federation and Tammy Reid received a copy of a letter from Susan Thompson, and that is the document we have just given to you, Commissioner, the third document.

EXHIBIT #A3 LETTER FROM ANGLICAN RETIREMENT COMMUNITY SERVICES TO TAMMY REID DATED 28/02/2005

PN39

MS DUFF: This document has some purported details of allegations against our member, Tammy and these matters were dealt with. I won't go into them. Just for the record, these matters were dealt with at a meeting with management on 4 March, and Tammy tabled at that meeting, a written response to all the allegations, and I have also provided that document to the Commission, and that is a letter to Susan Thompson from Tammy Reid, a covering letter and comments attached to that letter replying to all the matters raised in the allegations.

EXHIBIT #A4 LETTER FROM TAMMY REID TO SUSAN THOMPSON, DATED 04/03/2005, TOGETHER WITH AN ATTACHED STATEMENT IN REPLY

PN40

MS DUFF: At that meeting on 4 March, which I attended with Tammy, Tammy's suspension was lifted. Tammy returned to work, her regular hours and shifts, on Monday 6 March, in the hostel sector, not her usual workplace. Then on 9 March, Tammy was again suspended and subsequently a letter with new allegations of bullying and harassment was received on 10 March. I have also provided that documentation to the Commission.

EXHIBIT #A5 LETTER FROM SUSAN THOMPSON TO TAMMY REID, DATED 10/03/2005

PN41

MS DUFF: On receiving this letter, the ANF immediately made application to the AIRC.

PN42

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, there is how many documents handed up? There is a copy of an email, are you coming to that, or is that party to the other one?

PN43

MS DUFF: The email is actually the document I have got that was covering the letter - it was just advising the Australian Nursing Federation that Tammy has been - I think it is a spelling mistake - had been suspended on pay while investigations into the further allegations of intimidation and contacting the people who investigated, and there is a letter and - - -

PN44

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, just to make it easier, I will mark the email.

EXHIBIT #A6 EMAIL FROM MS HANCOCK TO COLLEEN DUFF DATED 09/03/2005

PN45

MS DUFF: Thank you. In respect to the new suspension and details attached to that letter, that was also given to the Commission for the record. That is behind the email.

PN46

THE COMMISSIONER: I have already marked that as exhibit A5 separately.

PN47

MS DUFF: Thank you.

PN48

THE COMMISSIONER: So the upshot is that Ms Reid is again suspended from duty - - -

PN49

MS DUFF: Yes - - -

PN50

THE COMMISSIONER: - - -on pay?

PN51

MS DUFF: Well, that is an issue that I want to talk about, because there has been some threat that because she didn't attend the meeting that was scheduled yesterday, after we had the notification that this matter was going to be dealt with in the Commission, I sought clarification from Ms Thompson, because I wasn't available and couldn't go to the meeting and Ms Thompson has threatened to actually not pay Tammy after this time. I would like to get that clarified.

PN52

THE COMMISSIONER: No doubt a note has been taken by the other side, and that will be responded to.

PN53

MS DUFF: Tammy wasn't aware of the situation at all. The interchange of correspondence occurred between myself and Susan Thompson, but I have been informed this morning that Tammy wasn't privy to any of that information. Now that could have been an oversight on my part, but Ms Thompson didn't advise Tammy of that.

PN54

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, thank you. But I take it, by that stage, it would have been reasonable, would it not, for the retirement home to presume that you were acting for Ms Reid in this matter?

PN55

MS DUFF: Yes, it was. So, in response to the new allegations of bullying and intimidation contained in exhibit A5, ANF asserts that this document is flawed in substance and in fact. It is a really difficult document to read. There is a litany of 25 points and most of those are just objective information, I assume, written by Ms Thompson.

PN56

In response to the first and second point in exhibit A5, the first suspension, they are more or less intimating that Tammy has breached her conditions of her first suspension, but as I put before, her first suspension had actually been lifted. The first suspension and subsequent investigation notified by the employer, was contained in the letter of 18 February, which is exhibit A1, and the investigation completed before 28 February, which the contents of A3 demonstrate, so the first suspension was lifted on 4 March. So for all intents and purposes, the matter had been dealt with. It was probably unwise for Tammy to contact her friend after the event, but in any case, I will continue to put the case.

PN57

In exhibit A5, it alleges that text messages were received from Tammy on the evening of 4 March - this was after we had had our meeting on the 4th - that were described by Sue Brearley, who I assume is a registered nurse in the facility. This email was described, and the text message wasn't to Sue Brearley.

PN58

THE COMMISSIONER: What number is this?

PN59

MS DUFF: This is in exhibit A5 - - -

PN60

THE COMMISSIONER: I am aware of that. There are a lot of numbered points. Which one is it? Point 10 is it? It appears to be number 10.

PN61

MS DUFF: It actually is referred to in several of the points, Commissioner.

PN62

THE COMMISSIONER: What was alleged these text messages said?

PN63

MS DUFF: Okay. Sue Brearley has described the text message as hostile and loaded with emotional blackmail and that one recipient, namely Michelle Gollard, was frightened and upset by the message. Yet, another text message, the recipient of whom was Judy Lopez, did not consider the messages hostile or unfriendly, as I understand that Tammy texted these two messages to nurses.

PN64

To put some context around this, the assistants in nursing named in the latest allegation, namely Michelle Gollard and Judy Lopez, socialize with Tammy outside of working hours, and they share experiences together, and they work in this stressful work environment. So it is not uncommon amongst friends, it is not unusual to offload feelings and express strong emotions.

PN65

THE COMMISSIONER: Interesting to know what the frog has got to do with it, won't it? At point 11?

PN66

MS DUFF: Yes - - -

PN67

THE COMMISSIONER: Maybe we will come to the mysterious affair of the frog - - -

PN68

MS DUFF: It is quite bizarre, but there is an explanation.

PN69

THE COMMISSIONER: I hope so, something that lets me know what is going on.

PN70

MS DUFF: Yes, well I suppose that that is a real question, Commissioner, because what are the real issues here? It is most unfortunate that what is a stressful workplace, isolated incidents have been misconstrued and not been managed well at all. The genesis of the past and present allegations is suspect and serious to say the least. If Tammy is too outspoken and confronting and a dominant personality in her behaviour, what methods are usual in the workplace for harnessing these, to achieve positive outcomes? What performance management system is in place? Are staff meetings conducted regularly to resolve problems as they arise? What training is provided on communication, interpersonal skills and dealing with conflict? Is Tammy herself a victim of bullying by management? What recourse has she, in her subordinate position at the bottom of the pecking order?

PN71

The outcome that the ANF seeks of the Commission today is that, (1) Tammy's suspension be immediately lifted and she return to work and receive her full pay for the suspension period, (2) that independent mediation of the work team be facilitated as soon as possible and (3) Tammy continue to work in the hostel pending the outcome of the mediation.

PN72

THE COMMISSIONER: Who would do the mediation?

PN73

MS DUFF: There are facilities in the ACT, Commissioner, and I understand that Brindabella Gardens have a contract with employee assistant services who do this facilitation and that facility of the company, et cetera, is available for staff now, so they will already have a contract, that is my understanding, from what Susan Thompson told me is available. If the Commission pleases, if at any time after the hearing, if you wish to go into private conference, I am sure that Tammy might like to explain a few things, particularly about the frog, et cetera.

PN74

THE COMMISSIONER: Perhaps you can call the frog to give evidence, it might short circuit the whole thing?

PN75

MS DUFF: Yes, the frog might solve it. That is all that I have at this point, thank you Commissioner.

PN76

THE COMMISSIONER: Don't worry, I have these occasional attacks of whimsy, it was provoked by that reference.

PN77

MS DUFF: Thank you.

PN78

THE COMMISSIONER: Now Ms Duff, before you sit, you have made submissions to me as to what you think should happen, certainly based purely on submissions from the bar table, I wouldn't be able to issue any orders, so do you intend at a later stage to run - well, not a proper case, but to run a full case including witness evidence, if such should be required?

PN79

MS DUFF: Yes, there are some options. What I am hoping for, and is this a reasonable approach, and what the ANF has suggested, I believe, is a reasonable approach, because if one goes to test the voracity of these allegations, either in this tribunal or another one, because we are looking at our other options, we are hoping today that the employer will see fit to try and resolve this matter in the fairest and simplest way possible. Now, when we attended the meeting on 4 March, I actually did suggest that we have some mediation at that point, and it probably would have been useful to keep following this up to see that the staff that were involved in these incidents were given support and skilled in how to deal with it. Because what we were left to deal with is the damage that had arisen, not only damage to Tammy but to her friends in the workgroup, because some of those other people are also members of the Australian Nursing Federation.

PN80

THE COMMISSIONER: That brings me back to the earlier point about what you want from me. If you are still at the stage of assessing your options as to where you might go, and I don't know where else it might go, I am not an expert on the ACT system, then do you want to run a case before me prior to assessing those options? That does possibly give rise to estoppel issues in other proceedings.

PN81

MS DUFF: Yes, it does.

PN82

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you understand the principle of estoppel?

PN83

MS DUFF: Yes. Since Tammy has not been given the correct advice as to the correct approach - - -

PN84

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, estoppel really is you can be held not to be able to have two bites of the cherry to run a case one place, and then run a case somewhere else.

PN85

MS DUFF: Yes, I am aware of that.

PN86

THE COMMISSIONER: That is really what it is about. I think at this stage, what I would like to do, is I will hear from the other side and you can reserve your rights to come back on the case again.

PN87

MS DUFF: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN88

THE COMMISSIONER: Is that okay with you?

PN89

MS DUFF: Yes, that is fine.

PN90

MR FRIZE: Commissioner, thank you. I'd like to contemplate some aspects of the incidents which occurred. My colleague from the ANF has given a reasonable chronological account of what has transpired, but this application is made by the union linking previous misconduct, serious misconduct, which we thought had been investigated thoroughly with the union involvement, which was referred to by Ms Duff. The first suspension was concerning the allegations that
Tammy Reid was hostile, rude, intimidating, aggressive, angry and frightened residents and staff. Now that line was investigated thoroughly and was in fact discussed, I understand, albeit I wasn't present, but it was discussed with an attempt to conciliate or to resolve it with the assistance of the ANF - - -

PN91

THE COMMISSIONER: And do you say that earlier incident or series of incidents was resolved and doesn't form a part of this?

PN92

MR FRIZE: It was resolved up to the point, as Ms Duff said, they had their meeting, they had argued on behalf of their member, and there was an agreement to lift the suspension, the first suspension, that was agreed upon. It was also agreed upon that the company would give Ms Reid another opportunity, an extended opportunity to respond to these serious allegations regarding the first suspension. They were due to come back to the employer on 10 March, I understand, but also as part and parcel of the process, Ms Reid was clearly instructed, and I understand Ms Duff may have been there when it was done so, it was certainly referred to in the letter tendered by Ms Duff, number one, to remove any suggestion of harassment and intimidation and you are advised that you will face disciplinary action if you or your representative makes contact with any witness, staff member et cetera, the last part of the letter dated 18 February.

PN93

Certainly, attempts were made by Ms Duff to cooperate, and finally agree to remove Ms Reid from what had been a normal working day there, until the company made the decision as to what the final outcome would be regarding these very serious matters in an aged care facility. Now that instruction, that direction clearly given by the company to Ms Reid, was totally ignored by Ms Reid within a few hours. She clearly, and Ms Duff has made admission, there has been contact. The contacts were sent by text messages to two people. One was Michelle Gollard and the second was Judy Lopez. Initially, Michelle Gollard was clearly frightened and deeply upset by the messages received. She clearly knew who the sender was. She talked to the Director of Nursing who was present and indicated her fear and alarm her distress caused, the harassment was quite
clear - - -

PN94

THE COMMISSIONER: Is somebody ever going to tell me what was in these text messages that caused the alleged alarm - - -

PN95

MR FRIZE: ..... reading it in the cold light of day, but this was given shortly after a fairly heated discussion, when allegations were made:

PN96

Purged. I feel better, I threw up all fake false and untrue shit. Glad to be rid of all the false untrue and fake friendliness. I have two-faced frogs-

PN97

- some reference which the two parties recognise:

PN98

Want it? I will throw it away. Life will be dull with you lot. Me, I'll make my own fun down south. Maybe you know, maybe you don't. Did I give you all your photos back? I hope so.

PN99

A few minutes later - - -

PN100

THE COMMISSIONER: Is this is all one text message?

PN101

MR FRIZE: This is one text message from this lady, this Ms Reid to Ms Michelle Gollard, shortly after the meeting, when she had been clearly told not to get in touch with the witnesses.

PN102

So you have obviously got a transcript there?

PN103

MR FRIZE: Yes, I have.

PN104

THE COMMISSIONER: Can you pass it up to me to have a look?

PN105

MR FRIZE: Certainly.

PN106

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you object to me having a look at this transcript?

PN107

MS DUFF: No, I might actually like a copy as well, please.

PN108

THE COMMISSIONER: I think you are entitled to a copy, if I am having a look. It is not, at this stage, being entered into evidence, I take it?

PN109

MR FRIZE: Sir, this application - - -

PN110

THE COMMISSIONER: Can I just have a read of these?

PN111

MR FRIZE: Sorry, Commissioner.

PN112

THE COMMISSIONER: I didn't know one could send a text message as long as this one. Okay. I've read the alleged text messages. I am handing it back to the respondent now. It is not in evidence yet.

PN113

MR FRIZE: To summarise, perhaps, Commissioner, to try and assist, a lot of the comments made by Ms Duff are correct in regards to the series of events in the chronology. The seriousness of the first suspension has been considered, the response was due ..... 10 March, however these acts which we allege took place shortly after the meeting where the parties had tried to reach some resolution. The decision was clearly given not to contact the witnesses. The company had indicated it would respond to the serious allegations which were the subject of the meeting on 4 March. So this second suspension, in fact, is not related directly to the events outlined in detail by Ms Duff.

Those issues were investigated and finalized by the company's decision, however, with this complete breach of the company directions, the effects of these text messages were clearly visible to the Director of Nursing, to the extent that Ms Michelle Gollard had to go home sick. Clearly she was frightened, clearly she was upset and the harassment officer, Ms Brearley, also witnessed and heard part of these conversations. The messages can be confirmed, we will have the telephone records available, but clearly the messages themselves came from
Ms Reid, and as far as we are concerned, she completely violated the instruction given by the company to in fact, not contact, which is standard procedure in serious matters , not to contact the witnesses. She clearly did that.

PN114

In regards to the comment made by Ms Duff in regards to the second suspension, we have a standard course - when it is a serious matter - given instructions that the lady, Ms Reid, should be suspended until the matter is fully investigated, until she has an opportunity to respond, and was directed to attend the meeting on 15 March, which was yesterday. This direction was countermanded by the union. Under normal circumstances, we suspend people on pay for reasons to protect all the parties involved, which is standard procedure, of which Ms Duff is well aware of. And the intention was to give Ms Reid an opportunity to respond to these later serious allegations. She had a direction to attend the meeting, which was countermanded by the union. This is why the Director of Nursing will say that she was not there and Ms Reid will not be entitled to payment for that day, because she did not attend the instructed meeting. However, we are prepared to discuss some matters and the salary matter.

Far more important to us is the fact that we were about to hand down a decision in regard to hostile, rude and intimidating behaviour and anger directed to residents, aged frail residents, as well as staff. That matter was to be decided on 10 March, to some degree, superseded and torpedoed by the present events. Now, we have an additional matter of Ms Reid ignoring direct instructions, which the ANF are well aware of, as standard procedure. We feel very strongly, if anything, we believe these latest events, which are allegations, but nevertheless, if proven, would reinforce whatever views we had regarding the first series of allegations, to which we were due to respond. If the Commission pleases.

PN115

THE COMMISSIONER: Where does it leave us, though?

PN116

MR FRIZE: Well, it leaves us acting quite clearly with respect to the Commission. The first matter is due to have an answer from the company. They are prepared to give that answer, but I think we should pursue the second issue, which is merely the suspension, that this lady should be asked to answer the allegations made, and then there will be a decision made by the company. I certainly feel very strongly, from what I have seen, the company has almost inevitably got the situation where, if these matters are proven, this lady should not be in our aged care facility.

PN117

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you understand the stage I think we are at, is the union is now asking me to substitute my judgment for yours.

PN118

MR FRIZE: Sounds like it.

PN119

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, that is what it comes down to. But this is an application pursuant to the grievance procedures in the agreement, relating to the suspension. As I understand it, the union seeks me to issue an order that the suspension was improper, and that Ms Reid should resume normal duties. Now, for me to decide that, I can't decide on the basis of the two sides standing up and flinging counter-accusations about the matter. We will have to have a proper investigation, a proper case run. So there is nothing pejorative in the way I am putting this. Do you persist in the action of the suspension?

PN120

MR FRIZE: We do, Commissioner. We feel strongly about the second suspension, the allegations made. We do believe that the relationship we've enjoyed with the ANF - in fact, the first meeting was an attempt to professionally resolve the matter, was in some respects aborted by the behaviour that we allege, of this employee, and therefore, we feel that that matter should be pursued and a decision made. The company was due to make a decision with regard to the first allegations, then we would have the second lot, I think that - with respect, Commissioner, we will, of course, take any guidance from the Commission, but we would like to pursue this matter in the normal way that it would be normally handled. Perhaps a short meeting with the ANF or even an off- record discussion with yourself - - -

PN121

THE COMMISSIONER: I would think, and I am guessing here, just based on experience that what the ANF fears is the outcome of your investigation will be the termination of employment - - -

PN122

MR FRIZE: That could well be, Commissioner - - -

PN123

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - of Ms Reid. I see some nodding from Ms Duff, so apparently I have guessed correctly. These sorts of actions, pursuant to the disciplinary procedures are designed to head off termination of employment normally in these circumstances. I think there should be conferences and conciliation of the matter. Initially I think that perhaps that the two parties should have further talks without me and then I will involve myself if the parties wish me to. But if either side wishes the matter determined, we are going to set down a program for the doing of that. If I was to move to determination, do the parties want that case run today? Well that is something you can think about in your conference together. Time is reasonably limited today. It appears that to support the allegations on both sides, there would have to be a number of witnesses, so perhaps you can think about that. We are adjourned.

<SHORT ADJOURNMENT [10.42AM]
<RESUMED [12.00PM]

PN124

THE COMMISSIONER: During the break, the parties have conferred together and I have conferred with both parties jointly and with the applicant party separately. It has been agreed that this matter will be adjourned until 2 pm on Wednesday 23 March 2005 in Canberra, on the basis that the parties will use this week's delay to sort out their final positions in relation to the employment issue, and I note an undertaking given in conference by the respondent that in the intervening period between now and 2pm on Wednesday 23 March 2005, the employment of Ms Reid will not be in any danger in that there is no way that she will be terminated during that period and she will remain suspended from duty on full pay, pending the next hearing. Is that the way both parties understand the issue?

PN125

MR FRIZE: It is, Commissioner.

PN126

MS DUFF: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN127

THE COMMISSIONER: We are adjourned until 2 pm Wednesday 23 March 2005.

<ADJOURNED UNTIL WEDNESDAY 23 MARCH 2005 [12.01PM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #A1 LETTER FROM ANGLICAN RETIREMENT COMMUNITY SERVICES TO TAMMY REID, DATED 18/02/2005 PN30
EXHIBIT #A2 LETTER FROM AUSTRALIAN NURSING FEDERATION, TO SUSAN THOMPSON OF ANGLICAN RETIREMENT COMMUNITY SERVICES, DATED 22/02/2005 PN37
EXHIBIT #A3 LETTER FROM ANGLICAN RETIREMENT COMMUNITY SERVICES TO TAMMY REID DATED 28/02/2005 PN38
EXHIBIT #A4 LETTER FROM TAMMY REID TO SUSAN THOMPSON, DATED 04/03/2005, TOGETHER WITH AN ATTACHED STATEMENT IN REPLY PN39
EXHIBIT #A5 LETTER FROM SUSAN THOMPSON TO TAMMY REID, DATED 10/03/2005 PN40
EXHIBIT #A6 EMAIL FROM MS HANCOCK TO COLLEEN DUFF DATED 09/03/2005 PN44