C2006/3034, Transcript of Proceedings [2006] AIRCTrans 1194 (6 November 2006)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 15967-1

COMMISSIONER LAWSON

C2006/3034

NATIONAL UNION OF WORKERS
AND
WOOLCOTT RESEARCH PTY LTD
s.170LW pre-reform Act - Appl'n for settlement of dispute (certified agreement)
(C2006/3034)

SYDNEY

11.09AM, TUESDAY, 24 OCTOBER 2006

PN1

MR A BROWN: I appear today on behalf of the National Union of Workers and I have on my right hand side MR M BURNS who appears as the organiser with the union for the market research industry.

PN2

MR A MAHER: I seek leave to appear on behalf of the company, Woolcott Research. Commissioner, I have with me MS L BASEBY who is the appeal manager and MS J AITKEN who is the assistant manager of the company. If the Commission pleases.

PN3

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks, Mr Maher. Any objection to Mr Maher appearing?

PN4

MR BROWN: No objection, Commissioner.

PN5

THE COMMISSIONER: Leave is granted, Mr Maher.

PN6

MR MAHER: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN7

THE COMMISSIONER: The matter before the Commission by way of a section 170LW application under the pre-reform Act by the NUW to have a dispute resolution procedure conducted in respect of a dispute between the union and Woolcott Research Pty Ltd concerning the impending termination of employment of Ms B Sanders for alleged serious misconduct. The matter is referred under section 28.1.5 of the NUW and AMSRO Market Research Industry Agreement 2005-2008 and relates to provisions of section 32.5 of the agreement. The matter was originally filed by the NUW on 14 September, but the hearing was deferred at the request of the respondent's representatives because of the absence of relevant persons until late October. Mr Brown, it's your application. What do you have to say about it?

PN8

MR BROWN: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, this application is made on behalf of one of our members. Her name is Ms Barbara Sanders who is a quarterly, ongoing employee with Woolcott Market Research Company.

PN9

THE COMMISSIONER: What does that mean?

PN10

MR BROWN: She works as an interviewer for the company conducting surveys on a market research basis. Normally the vast majority of employees are casual, however she has been made a quarterly employee approximately one year ago which simply means that she is given regular hours on a quarterly basis and she is guaranteed those hours rather than a casual employee who is only requested to come in as required. She is more of a permanent position rather than a casual employee.

PN11

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

PN12

MR BROWN: Commissioner, just to give you a little bit of background as we understand it. Ms Sanders has been with the company for approximately 10 years. Through the majority of that time she was a casual employee, a casual interviewer, as is the vast majority of employees working in the market research industry. However, approximately one year ago, or 12 months ago, Ms Sanders was offered the opportunity to become quarterly employee as just stated and she accepted that offer. That offer is made in accordance with the enterprise agreement. Commissioner, as we understand it Ms Sanders has an excellent record with the company in that she hadn't been given any previous formal written warning and as we understand it this is certainly the first such occasion that it has occurred.

PN13

On or about 13 September 2006 Mr Burns, the union organiser for the market research industry, received a telephone call from the representatives of Woolcott, Mr Andrew Maher, and that phone conversation which was a lengthy phone conversation of approximately one hour in length as I understand it detailed a number of issues or allegations against Ms Sanders and Mr Burns of the union responded to those allegations. However, it was made very clear to Mr Burns during that phone conversation that Ms Sander's employment will be terminated. It was also made clear to Mr Burns that she won't be paid any notice period and therefore it will be a summary dismissal.

PN14

The specifics of that phone conversation we can detail if the Commission requires, however at this point unless the Commission requires otherwise I intend to go on to the crux of the matter and the detail of that phone conversation is documented as well I should state.

PN15

MR MAHER: Commissioner?

PN16

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Maher?

PN17

MR MAHER: I'd just like to place it on the record that the conversation was from the outset undertaken on a without prejudice basis was agreed to by both Mark Burns and myself.

PN18

THE COMMISSIONER: That's fine if that was the arrangement. Mr Burns, do you agree with that, that the telephone call was without prejudice?

PN19

MR M BURNS: To be honest I do not recall that terminology used, however
Mr Andrew Maher did say off the record if that means - - -

PN20

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Well, if it was off the record and if you confirm it was off the record and Mr Maher is telling me it was a without prejudice conversation I'm not the slightest bit interested in what went on in that conversation. That's a private discussion between consenting adults. What you do and say to each others your own business. That is not of any real interest to me at all. I guess it's the events that go on from that telephone call that are relevant to this application before me. Mr Brown?

PN21

MR BROWN: Commissioner, I should just add however that the telephone call is relevant on the basis that one, Mr Burns as could be witnessed just then in during that conversation would not have understood what without prejudice means if it were put to him, but more importantly two, this application is made on the basis that it was made very clear during that phone conversation that one of our members will be terminated, her employment will be terminated. It is on that basis that we felt that we owe a duty to our member, as we do, to act upon that advice and therefore try and protect her employment. But, Commissioner - - -

PN22

THE COMMISSIONER: Well this is all 13 September. Was the lady terminated?

PN23

MR BROWN: We made the application that afternoon, Commissioner.

PN24

THE COMMISSIONER: Right. So you made the 170LW application and other events have intervened in the meantime as to why the matter's not before the Commission before this?

PN25

MR BROWN: The events that intervened were simply that the respondents were not available to appear at the Commission for their personal reasons as I understand it.

PN26

THE COMMISSIONER: So Ms Sanders has remained in her employment has she?

PN27

MR BROWN: And it was agreed during that time that she will remain in her employment if we agreed to an adjournment of the matter until this date, correct.

PN28

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN29

MR BROWN: Commissioner - - -

PN30

THE COMMISSIONER: Is Ms Sanders here by the way?

PN31

MR BROWN: Ms Sanders is not here, no.

PN32

THE COMMISSIONER: Can I ask why not? If we are all here to deal with a matter that concerns Ms Sanders' employment and Ms Sanders is not within the Commission's precincts one wonders why.

PN33

MR BROWN: Ms Sanders, if one understands her character, her personality, is very nervous and she is - to be honest we didn't even tell her about this matter. It was actually that the respondent company that advised her that the Commission hearing is taking place. Ms Sanders didn't know that she was going to be terminated. She didn't know the conversation had took place. The only thing she was aware of was the first and final warning and the reason we didn't tell her is because she is a very nervous person. She had been under a lot of stress over the past several months and we were trying to protect her, Commissioner.

PN34

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, there's no protection for people who bring matters to the Commission. No matter what your good intentions may be, and intentions of the employer, the simple fact is I'm not going to deal with a matter based on second hand submissions from either you and from the company if it's important that proper evidence be given in respect of this matter. That might be something else again. That might be an application filed under the appropriate heading of the Workplace Relations Act in relation to the termination of her employment, or threatened termination of her employment. This is an LW application filed by your organisation concerning the application of the relevant certified agreement. That's what it's about.

PN35

MR BROWN: Sir, Commissioner, we do have documentary evidence, however of all the matters that we intend to raise today including the warning itself including the documents on which the company seeks to rely which resulted in the actual warning and including some other documents on which the company relies which outlines some other statistical analysis and data on which again the company relies in relation to the waring. And we have sufficient copies for tendering, Commissioner. May I tender those documents?

PN36

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I don't know what it is you want. See, you referred this matter under the dispute settling procedure of the agreement. It is, on the face of it or what you assert, a dispute over the application of the agreement. That's really all I'm interested in. The application of the agreement you have nominated as cause 32.5.

PN37

MR BROWN: Correct, Commissioner.

PN38

THE COMMISSIONER: Clause 32.5 spells out fairly clearly the right of the employer to dismiss any employee without notice for conduct that justifies instant dismissal.

PN39

MR BROWN: That is correct, Commissioner, and it's on that basis that we make the application because we do not believe that the criteria of clause 32.5 have been met and accordingly we do not believe that the respondent company is within the right to summarily dismiss Ms Barbara Sanders from her employment. Well, 32.5 gives the employer the right to terminate a regular, ongoing quarterly employee in either of the following circumstances. 32.5.1 says:

PN40

Where there are serious negligence, misconduct or breach of contract justifying instant dismissal; or -

PN41

And I continue the quote 32.5.2:

PN42

Where within the course of the year there is a course of continuing unsatisfactory performance or conduct.

PN43

And I will leave the quote at that.

PN44

MR BROWN: Correct, Commissioner. We do not believe that that criteria has been satisfied and it's on that basis that we make the application.

PN45

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I don't know what the criteria is. I don't know why she's been terminated. I'm giving you the opportunity of providing me with that information at first instance before I hear from the company. So there's no point in putting documents to that the company's going to rely upon. Where is the alleged breach of the agreement?

PN46

MR BROWN: The alleged breach, Commissioner, is that first of all in our opinion there was no serious negligence or misconduct or breach of contract justifying instant dismissal. The company hasn't put forward such evidence. The evidence on which they rely is a first and final warning in relation to a particular survey that Ms Barbara Sanders conducted. In relation to the second element of that particular clause there is no continuing unsatisfactory performance or conduct, or at the very least it states afterwards:

PN47

Evidence of this shall be that the employee within the immediate prior 12 months has received at least 2 written warnings -

PN48

Which Ms Barbara Sanders hasn't:

PN49

- that performance or conduct need to be approved or in a specific way within stated time periods -

PN50

None of which has been supplied in any event.

PN51

THE COMMISSIONER: Why don't you first provide me with a chronology of what you say were the events that led to the threatened termination because all we have at the present moment is a threatened termination.

PN52

MR BROWN: Thank you, Commissioner, that's what I would like to do. What happened was that on 28 August 2006 Ms Sanders was issued with a first and final warning on the basis of unsatisfactory conduct. The first and final warning makes a number of allegations about Ms Sanders in a particular survey that she was conducting by the telephone. The types of allegations that it makes are miscoding unanswered calls which I will explain in a moment, incorrectly and deliberately coding scale - - -

PN53

THE COMMISSIONER: Just a moment - miscoding unanswered calls?

PN54

MR BROWN: Correct.

PN55

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, yes. Go on.

PN56

MR BROWN: Incorrectly and deliberately coding scale response questions by suggesting responses to respondent which - it is a little bit difficult to understand, Commissioner - or by you determining which code an incompatible response should be entered against. It is not exactly clear what that means, but we have come to some kind of understanding as to what it might mean which will come to in a moment. Failing to read interview questions as scripted including paraphrasing questions into your own words.

PN57

THE COMMISSIONER: Can you just repeat that, failing to what?

PN58

MR BROWN: Failing to read interview questions as scripted. Would the Commissioner like me to tender one of these copies?

PN59

THE COMMISSIONER: That would be very helpful, Mr Brown. This is the first warning, is it?

PN60

MR BROWN: This is the first and final warning.

PN61

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN62

MR BROWN: It's the only one.

PN63

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. I am now handed a document dated
28 August 2006 addressed to Ms Sanders by hand, the headline subject being Unsatisfactory Conduct the author being Ms Baseby, the field manager.

EXHIBIT #B1 FIRST AND FINAL WARNING LETTER TO BARBARA SANDERS DATED 28/08/2006

PN64

MR BROWN: And point 4 which is the last point, Commissioner, making grossly inappropriate comments to a respondent about ethnicity, current world issues, religion, incidence negatively impacting on a Woolcott's client to the respondent's personal appearance and health issues. Commissioner, it would be necessary at this point in time for me to tender a further document which is an observation report made by the person who was observing that particular telephone call who is a supervisor observing that telephone call and which is the grounds upon which the first and final letter of warning was issued.

PN65

THE COMMISSIONER: Observation of what call?

PN66

MR BROWN: It's called an observation report of a specific survey that
Ms Barbara Sanders was conducting in which she was alleged to have made these unsatisfactory or inappropriate comments, et cetera.

PN67

THE COMMISSIONER: So the fourth dot point? This relates to that?

PN68

MR BROWN: All of the dot points related to this observation report, Commissioner. And I'm sorry, but just one more document that I need to tender which again also relates to that particular first and final warning, Commissioner.

PN69

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

EXHIBIT #B2 WOOLCOTT RESEARCH OBSERVATION REPORT CONCERNING BARBARA SANDERS
EXHIBIT #B3 DOCUMENT HEADED RECORD OF HOW BARBARA SANDERS (INTERVIEWER NUMBER 61) FILED NUMBERS IN NIPO ON 15/08/2006

PN70

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr Brown.

PN71

MR BROWN: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner, if I may now refer you to exhibit 1.1. If I may bring you back and I intend to take you through each of those points in order to demonstrate why it is that we do not believe that this first and final warning was appropriate in the circumstances. Point 1:

PN72

Miss-coding unanswered calls in a manner which artificially improved your call statistics with respect to the connected call ratio. This alone potentially constitutes serious misconduct.

PN73

As we understand it the company is alleging that Ms Sanders had inappropriately stated certain matters on her record after the telephone call, for example whether or not someone on the other side picked up the telephone or didn't pick up the telephone or whether or not there was an answering machine or there wasn't an answering machine, et cetera. The company is stating that she made false allegations, for example - - -

PN74

THE COMMISSIONER: False allegations?

PN75

MR BROWN: Yes, on that report that she filled out.

PN76

THE COMMISSIONER: False recording?

PN77

MR BROWN: False recording, Commissioner. And the reason they are saying that Ms Sanders would have done that, the motive behind that would have been to lift her call rate or call ratio which means that it would appear on the record that she had made more calls than what she actually did, or that she had made connection to more people on the other side of the telephone than what actually occurred. The document on which they seek to rely is exhibit B3. On exhibit B3 as an example of what the company is alleging if the Commissioner would please just scroll down with his hand to the line which reads 15/8/06 4.53 pm 21 seconds.

PN78

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN79

MR BROWN: It says to the left of that disconnected and to the right of that it says answering machine. Where it says answering machine that is how it was recorded allegedly by Ms Barbara Sanders. Where it says disconnected is what the company alleges was the actual case when they then telephoned the same telephone number, when the company telephoned the same number to see if it was true. The company is alleging that there is no answering machine at that particular phone number and the phone was disconnected. No evidence other than this log has been put forward. We don't know when the company telephoned that same number and we don't know what time or what day the company telephoned this same number.

PN80

It is possible that there was an answering machine one day or one hour or one time but no answering machine the other. However, if the Commissioner would please scroll down just one below, only four lines below that and it's 15/8/06 at 4.55 pm and 10 seconds. Can the Commissioner see that?

PN81

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN82

MR BROWN: On the left hand side it says refusal, on the right hand side it says answering machine. That creates a bit of confusion for us, Commissioner, with respect because our member, Ms Barbara Sanders, is stating that there was an answering machine when she called that number, the company seems to be suggesting that the person on the other side of that number refused to take the survey, or refused to participate in the survey. But we're not certain how it could be possible that if there was an answering machine that person would have refused to participate in the survey.

PN83

Assuming that the company's correct and she did in fact speak to that person then I'm not sure there would be no conceivable benefit as to why Ms Sanders would put down answering machine rather than refusal because either way the telephone call would be added to that ratio so it would benefit her either way. So there's a discrepancy. I'm just pointing out a few just to cover one or two more, Commissioner, just to demonstrate. If the Commissioner when ready would please scroll down to the next one which is 15/8/06 at 5.01 and 7 seconds pm. On the left hand side it states from the company's perspective completed interview. On the right hand side it states no answer.

PN84

We're not certain how it is that Ms Sanders could have completed her interview if Ms Sanders states that there was no answer on the telephone. In fact Ms Sanders would have been better off writing completed interview than no answer for her ratio so the fact that she put no answer certainly doesn't help her ratio of her telephone calls that day. I'll just give one more example and that will be the final one, Commissioner, just to demonstrate that unfortunately this document is full of these inconsistencies and concerns upon which the company seeks to really. And it's on the second page please, Commissioner. It's on the top part of the page at 15/8/06 at 5.22 pm and 42 seconds.

PN85

It says on the left hand side, Commissioner, completed interview and again it says on the right hand side suspended. We are not certain again how it could be that the interview completed if it was suspended, or if it were completed as the company suggests what would be the motive behind Ms Sanders' writing that it was suspended. It wouldn't be in her interest. What we are suggesting, Commissioner, and I'm not going to take the Commission through it unless it pleases because there's quite a large number is that we don't believe that the company can rely on that document in suggesting that Ms Sanders had been miscoding unanswered calls because that document, as can be seen, in our opinion is seriously unreliable and full of inconsistencies.

PN86

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Brown, has any of this material been taken up with the company directly before you arrived here tody?

PN87

MR BROWN: As I understand, Commissioner, most of these matters were discussed in the one hour telephone conversation betweens Mr Burns and
Mr Maher and it was at that time that Mr Maher said that unfortunately we will be terminating her.

PN88

THE COMMISSIONER: And Ms Sanders doesn't know of this hearing?

PN89

MR BROWN: She is aware of it only in the very recent few days. But as I said it's because the respondent had asked her whether she will be appearing. The union did not tell her because we didn't want to make her any worse than what she already is, Commissioner.

PN90

THE COMMISSIONER: Save me from the commercials please, Mr Brown. Just get on and deal with the facts.

PN91

MR BROWN: Number two, Commissioner on the exhibit B1:

PN92

Incorrectly and deliberately coding scale response questions by suggesting responses to the respondent or by you determining which code an incompatible response should be entered against instead of seeking respondent clarification.

PN93

The only examples that we could discover, Commissioner, are in exhibit B2, the observation report on the second page question 4. Then just below question 4 it's question 4(b) and the allegation made against Ms Sanders by the company is:

PN94

You suggested answers to the respondent instead of reading off the scale, eg. "So that would be quite right?" Respondent "Yes". You coded "Very Likely", eg. "Would that be extremely likely?" Respondent "Yes, very likely". You coded "Extremely likely". You failed to read out all the options on the scale several times.

PN95

Commissioner, the only point that we could find in this whole document, in the observation report, or more importantly the only point referenced by the supervisor in this observation report in the 45 minute conversation between
Ms Sanders and the person that she was conducting the survey with was this one incident. So this allegation of incorrectly and deliberately coding scale response questions, et cetera, over a 45 minute conversation was this one incident which doesn't appear to the union to be too extreme.

PN96

THE COMMISSIONER: A 45 minute conversation between Ms Sanders and the interviewee?

PN97

MR BROWN: And the person which she was conducting, that's correct. That was the allegation made against her.

PN98

THE COMMISSIONER: What, Q4(b)?

PN99

MR BROWN: Q4(b).

PN100

THE COMMISSIONER: Is the basis of the second dot point?

PN101

MR BROWN: Correct. That's as far as we can understand it. I'm sorry, and question 3 as well above, Commissioner:

PN102

Respondent said "Very unappealing" and you recorded "Extremely unappealing".

PN103

One word or the other. If I may now turn the Commissioner's attention to point 3 of exhibit B1 where it states:

PN104

Failing to lead interview questions as scripted including paraphrasing questions into your own words.

PN105

Perhaps, Commissioner, my friend might be able to highlight for us at the appropriate time what the company is referring to because we couldn't find any allegation of paraphrasing in the observation report, but that might just be our negligence.

PN106

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, one would have thought you had plenty of opportunity before me to tender it now to find that out, Mr Brown.

PN107

MR BROWN: Well, we couldn't actually because unfortunately the respondent was on holidays and the respondent manager was on holidays before that. But in any event there doesn't appear to be any paraphrasing comment made in this report. And finally I refer you, Commissioner, to the last dot point in the first and final warning:

PN108

Making grossly inappropriate comments to a respondent about ethnicity, current world issues, religion, incidence negatively impacting on a Woolcott's client, the respondent's personal appearance and health issues.

PN109

Commissioner, if I may then refer you to exhibit B2 question 6 it states:

PN110

You again initiated a long conversation about problems with luggage on planes, drugs and the safety of travelling. "Who would go to Bali with all the bombing and terrorist?"

PN111

She allegedly asked.

PN112

This is hardly impartial and neutral and can again influence the respondent's answers according to the company.

PN113

I read on:

PN114

This is a survey about travel and you are making broad and extreme comments that can advise the survey. You also said, "The terrorists are picking on innocent and bullying. If they cared about religion they wouldn't be doing it no matter what side you're on, Israel or not".

PN115

Then it goes on to say:

PN116

Again this is not neutral and can be seen as offensive and sensitive and is not sticking to the script of the survey. This is not acceptable behaviour.

PN117

Commissioner, we do not resile from the fact that there's some sort of conversation going on beyond the survey requirements, but we don't know the context of that discussion. It may well have been the person, the interviewee, who would have been discussing those issues as well otherwise why would a conversation have continued for 45 minutes?

PN118

THE COMMISSIONER: I don't know, you tell me. Presumably there's a record of this conversation. Presumably these are quotes from the conversation?

PN119

MR BROWN: That's as we understand it.

PN120

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, the answer is listen to the entire conversation.

PN121

MR BROWN: Yes, Commissioner.

PN122

THE COMMISSIONER: You don't need me to answer your questions.

PN123

MR BROWN: No.

PN124

THE COMMISSIONER: It's pretty simple. The company's relied upon one side of the conversation. If the other side of the conversation relevant then listen to it.

PN125

MR BROWN: Yes, Commissioner. It then goes on to say:

PN126

The respondent made a comment about an incident on a P & O cruise -

PN127

And this was a survey about P & O cruises as we understand it.

PN128

The respondent made a comment about an incident on a P & O cruise and how terrible and awful it was and you said -

PN129

Ie. Ms Sanders:

PN130

"I'm not allowed to comment, but yes". Several times you have stated that you have to remain neutral, but you are simply not doing it.

PN131

Commissioner, we submit that Ms Sanders here is not saying anything about
P & O cruises, she is referring to a matter concerning Ms Diane Brimble who was in the news on a regular occasion at the time for having passed away on a P & O cruise. She was talking about the incident and not P & O cruises itself. That was terrible. There's nothing in here to allege it was otherwise. It then goes on at the next page which is possible the only grounds in our opinion where the company would have a right to be warning Ms Sanders at least to such an extreme with a first and final. It then says:

PN132

You then said, "They let them back into the cabin to clean up the evidence and they were in charge? I wonder how much he got paid to let them back in". The respondent then said, "If it hadn't been for this stuff I might still go cruising" to which you remark, "Yes, it looks it might have done a lot of damage". This is totally unacceptable. To make comments to a respondent of this nature is bad, but considering they were about the client they are much worse and more serious.

PN133

It's not exactly certain whether or not they were about the client, but nevertheless that is about the extent of the evidence on which the company seeks to rely or issuing Ms Sanders a first and final warning. To us it appears clear that there was quite a long and extensive conversation between interviewee and Ms Sanders including a number of issues and yes there is no doubt that Ms Sanders should probably not have engaged in such a conversation, however it is arguable whether after her length of service and her general excellent record for a conversation that doesn't appear to be as extreme, certainly not anywhere near as extreme in our opinion as the first and final warning would suggest, that she should have received the first and final warning.

PN134

If any of the allegations against Ms Sanders in the first and final warning might be sufficient for a formal warning it's probably point 4. The others, as we have suggested and gone through, by any stretch of the imagination in our view don't appear extreme whatsoever. But the company had every opportunity to counsel Ms Barbara Sanders on this particular one phone conversation over a period of over 10 years and bring to her attention the inappropriateness of it if they thought it was inappropriate and deal with it in a way different to a first and final warning. It was from that incident, Commissioner, that one more incident allegedly occurred and on which basis the company then made the decision that they were going to terminate Ms Barbara Sanders.

PN135

The incident was where Ms Sanders allegedly had stated in front of a co-worker - and if I may hide some of the wording, Commissioner - where she said, "F'ing bitch". The company alleges, Commissioner, that that statement was made about Ms Lani Baseby, the manager here at the Commission today. At least that is the allegation made by a Ms Christine Sier who is the employee that allegedly heard that comment being made by Ms Sanders. Ms Sanders says that yes she did make such a comment, however a number of things need to be stated.

PN136

THE COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry, Ms Sanders is alleged to have made this comment to this person or about this person?

PN137

MR BROWN: No, just under her breath, Commissioner.

PN138

THE COMMISSIONER: But to this person, or this person just observed it?

PN139

MR BROWN: This person observed it, Commissioner.

PN140

THE COMMISSIONER: And who was she referring to?

PN141

MR BROWN: That is the question, Commissioner. This person who heard that statement being made, her name is Ms Christine Sier, alleges in her report that she gave to the company that Ms Sanders had made that comment about Ms Lani Baseby, however she doesn't actually say that. She simply says that:

PN142

Barbara walked into the staff room and loudly called you an "f'ing bitch".

PN143

So she didn't say Lani is a what have you, that was her ..... Commissioner, this is what we say in response to that. First of all nothing written had been given to
Ms Sanders about this incident to date. So if the company thought it was such a serious concern and it was completely legitimate and it was about the manager then how come she still hasn't received anything in writing in relation to that comment? The second thing is where the comment was made was actually where Ms Barbara Sanders was entering the tea room. If Ms Sanders had been entering the tea room from Ms Baseby's office, or if Ms Sanders had been entering the tea room from the interview room it will all be from the same area.

PN144

In other words what I'm trying to say, Commissioner, is that Ms Christine Sier wouldn't know why Ms Sanders would be making that comment. In other words Ms Sier would not have known where Barbara Sanders had been coming from.

PN145

THE COMMISSIONER: Have you bothered to ask her?

PN146

MR BROWN: We have. She states that she was not making the comment about Ms Baseby. She states that she had some conversation with her sister and was making a comment about her sister ….. the company's allegations and assumption, according to this letter submitted by Ms Christine Sier, that
Ms Sanders had actually made the comment about Ms Baseby. There is no evidence of that, certainly nothing we have been provided, and certainly not, in terms of what Ms Sanders is telling us.

PN147

THE COMMISSIONER: It would make a very interesting termination of employment arbitration when all these various people in the witness box are giving evidence under oath.

PN148

MR BROWN: It certainly would.

PN149

THE COMMISSIONER: And this is all second-hand information to me, Mr Brown. I just wonder where it's taking us.

PN150

MR BROWN: Well, where it's taking us, Commissioner, is that the company at the moment - there seems to be a personality issue between the manager and our member, Ms Sanders, who is also the union delegate there.

PN151

THE COMMISSIONER: So what?

PN152

MR BROWN: Exactly. We don't necessarily believe that because of that she should be terminated. We don't believe that the issues which we believe the company is grappling with to try and find something against Ms Sanders, terminate her, are sufficient for termination. We don't believe for the various reasons I have already outlined, first and final warnings should have been issued as a first and final warning, taking into account the circumstances and the fact that she'd been with the company for over ten years. And secondly, on this second allegation which I haven't even put in writing yet, and on the basis on which they called or telephoned Mr Burns, saying that "we have no choice now but to terminate her", we don't believe that there is any - - -

PN153

THE COMMISSIONER: Is there a termination letter?

PN154

MR BROWN: No, only a termination conversation on the telephone, Commissioner. However, we do have in our correspondence from the company stating that they will not terminate her during - until such time as at least we have had this hearing in the Commission, and that certainly does exist, because we asked for a commitment before we agreed to deferring or adjourning this particular hearing and we did ask in writing that she won't be terminated during that time, and that is in writing.

PN155

THE COMMISSIONER: So if the company was to provide her with a letter of termination today, that last point of yours would be satisfied, if there is a termination.

PN156

MR BROWN: Correct, Commissioner. That is the extent of our submissions, Commissioner, unless you have any questions, Commissioner.

PN157

THE COMMISSIONER: What you're really saying is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

PN158

MR BROWN: Correct, Commissioner.

PN159

THE COMMISSIONER: What is it that the union are seeking in these proceedings?

PN160

MR BROWN: We are seeking for the Commissioner to perhaps recommend that should the company move down the path of summarily dismissing Ms Sanders, that they would in fact be breaching clause 32.5 of the enterprise agreement, and we're seeking the assistance of the Commission in trying to conciliate this matter so that we may find a resolution.

PN161

THE COMMISSIONER: I find that very difficult to conciliate a matter where at least one of the principal players is not even here, no matter what the lady's mental or physical condition may be. It's not my practice to conciliate matters by remote control.

PN162

MR BROWN: I understand, Commissioner. That was a poor call on our part, Commissioner.

PN163

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay. Thank you, Mr Brown.

PN164

MR BROWN: Thank you.

PN165

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, Mr Maher, I presume there is another side of the story and I would now like to hear that.

PN166

MR MAHER: Thank you, Commissioner. It's probably worthwhile, Commissioner, to point out at the outset - and I think I did forward this correspondence to your associate around the time that we were seeking the adjournment, I confirmed in a letter to Mr Brown that no decision - I don't know if you do have it on the file - you do.

PN167

THE COMMISSIONER: I have a copy of the letter.

PN168

MR MAHER: Yes, my email of - - -

PN169

THE COMMISSIONER: Your email.

PN170

MR MAHER: Yes, the 22nd. I indicate to Mr Brown that:

PN171

I am instructed by my client that no decision has been made by Woolcott Research to terminate the employment of Barbara Sanders.

PN172

That's the first point. So we certainly didn't say that we were just putting it off until the conclusion of the hearing. Perhaps what my friend is referring to is that we did receive a complaint from Christine Sier, and I might add, also a complaint against Christine Sier from Ms Sanders, and at the time Ms Baseby was away so we sent a duplicate letter to both parties indicating that until Ms Baseby returned from her leave both formal written complaints would have to be sort of held in abeyance. We simply requested that they don't interfere with each other and exacerbate the situation. I think I have a copy of the letter.

PN173

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. No, just put all the main players back into context for me.

PN174

MR MAHER: Yes, sorry. Ms Sier - - -

PN175

THE COMMISSIONER: Who is the second complaint from?

PN176

MR MAHER: Ms Sier, who was the woman who also overheard - or allegedly overheard the comment about Ms Baseby that my friend was just referring to at the tail end of his submissions.

PN177

THE COMMISSIONER: What about her?

PN178

MR MAHER: Ms Sier made a complaint about more general behaviour which led up to a little bit of a fracas between her and Ms Sanders and both of them made a complaint about the same incident. However, Ms Sanders subsequently withdrew her complaint whereas Ms Sier's remained on foot. At that time, because we had an obligation to investigate written complaints, we had to indicate to both of them that until Ms Baseby returned from leave no action would be taken in terms of the investigation and obviously they'd both get a chance to present their side to it.

PN179

That's one issue. But I think what is most useful to say from the outset is that we confirm that no decision had been made to terminate so perhaps from that point of view the application - - -

PN180

THE COMMISSIONER: Is there a decision to terminate her employment or not? Let's not beat around the bush.

PN181

MR MAHER: No. No, Commissioner.

PN182

THE COMMISSIONER: Still no decision made?

PN183

MR MAHER: No.

PN184

THE COMMISSIONER: Has the company's investigation been completed?

PN185

MR MAHER: No, not as yet because - we indicated in a further letter to Ms Sanders that because the NUW had made - and I didn't realise that she hadn't been informed of it by the union, and I assume that she went to the union and asked them to pursue this for her - but we indicated to her that - it says that until this application is heard - we'd advised her that a complaint had been received. I only have one copy, Commissioner, but I'm happy for your associate to make a copy for the file. As I wasn't aware of what the substance of the union's application was today I haven't been able to prepare, sort of answer documentation and I only have single copies.

PN186

But what we did indicate is that:

PN187

The National Union of Workers has made an application to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission with respect to your employment with Woolcott Research. Until this application is heard on 24 October -

PN188

so today:

PN189

- we have undertaken not to take any further disciplinary action although reserve the right to take any action we deem appropriate in the future.

PN190

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, what are you quoting from now?

PN191

MR MAHER: Sorry, this is the letter that we sent to Ms Sanders advising her that a complaint had been received about her - and this is what I suspect, that my friend might have been conflating the two emails and saying that we have undertaken not to terminate her until the conclusion of this hearing, whereas what we have said is we won't take any further action even with respect to the complaints until we have resolved this issue, which was basically us coming to the Commission and saying that no decision has been made to terminate so a lot of this is very much - it's a bit of a pre-emptive strike, I suppose, by the union.

PN192

The reason - I mean, I had hoped that today could still be productive in finding a way forward but that would have required Ms Sanders to actually be present so I was a little disappointed that we won't have the opportunity to actually address some of these issues with the key players, which is the assistant drill manager, field manager, and Ms Sanders and the union on the day. So that's perhaps hamstrung us a little bit, but certainly with respect to the union's opening submission, no decision has been made to terminate.

PN193

However, if what the union's application is now with respect to - and I should also say that that breaks the nexus with the relevant clause in the enterprise agreement as well, because as we have made no decision to terminate we certainly haven't decided to terminate her summarily. So again it's a little bit of a red herring under the circumstances. However, while we think that perhaps the jurisdictional issues are perhaps a little bit questionable, because of the nature of Ms Sanders' position as both an interviewer and a shop steward or union delegate, it may not be inappropriate since the further submissions have been made, if the Commission pleases, we do down into conciliation and see if we can see a way forward so we can effectively, where, if necessary, discipline our staff but without the apparent motive being the fact that these people are active in the NUW, because the company has had a constructive relationship with the union over a number of years.

PN194

I don't know whether at this stage in the absence of some of the key players that the Commission would like me to address in further detail the warning letter provided to Ms Sanders.

PN195

THE COMMISSIONER: I think you should because what is on the public record is what the union's view is of that letter to Ms Sanders and I'm sure the company has a view about it.

PN196

MR MAHER: It certainly does, Commissioner.

PN197

THE COMMISSIONER: And the union has challenged your credibility, or the credibility of your client and your client's records.

PN198

MR MAHER: Yes.

PN199

THE COMMISSIONER: So I think in fairness for the public record you need to respond to the points that have been raised by Mr Brown.

PN200

MR MAHER: Certainly. I'm more than happy to do so, Commissioner. And while I do it I also might call on Ms Aitken who has a far more hands on understanding of some of the issues that certainly arise with this reasonably complicated concept of miscoding answers.

PN201

Just to give a little bit of background to the warning and the observations. Observations of the market research industry - actually I go back a step. All the companies that are members of AMSRO(?) ..... which is the industry body that is effectively party to the agreement and is the umbrella employer body for this industry and for this multi-business agreement, are all covered by a quality assurance set of protocols called the International Body Control Association Protocols, I think, IQCA. And IQCA has a set of very, very strict requirements with respect to the undertaking of interviews and a number of - if you haven't worked inside market research, a number of these requirements, in practical application, can seem petty.

PN202

If someone says, "Well, I feel reasonably satisfied with this" and you say, "They were very satisfied", it might seem harmless but these as a sort of - as a
quasi-science, these surveys are set up in such a way that they really need to be done exactly as they're written and it's almost a mantra within market research companies that you must read it exactly as written. So the starting point for some of these - what appear to be very, very small digressions is that it's absolutely sort of - it's categorical in the industry that you must read the surveys as they're written. So that's the starting point.

PN203

The second point is with these observations they're not capriciously, there is actually a requirement by virtue of the IQCA accreditation that a certain percentage of interviews must be observed and also a certain number of validated, which is a call-back subsequent. The Commission was inquiring into the record of the conversation, observations are effectively an on-the-fly situation. They're not recorded in this industry generally, interview. Basically you have a supervisor who can either sit remotely and listen to both sides of it at a listening station or, alternative, can actually just sit behind the interviewer and make observations about their technique, and will have - can see the screen and can hear what's being asked, and can hear what the interviewer is saying.

PN204

THE COMMISSIONER: So, where's the company record of this conversation, or one of the conversations which is so acutely relied upon?

PN205

MR MAHER: The company record is actually exactly my friend from the NUW was relying upon. That was actually the typed-up report - there are two reports, which we're more than happy to tender to the Commission. Again, I only have one copy of it but perhaps if - Commissioner, if I could just tender that.

PN206

THE COMMISSIONER: One would have thought that if you were going to rely upon this information that you have accurate records.

PN207

MR MAHER: Commissioner, I would say that we actually have not only an accurate but a contemporaneous record of what went on which I might add was annexed to the warning letter that was provided to the staff member. So not only do we have something that was recorded by hand at the time of the interview, but it was provided along with the warning itself, so that is, as I understand it - - -

PN208

THE COMMISSIONER: So you're saying that B3, the attachment to B3 - - -

PN209

MR MAHER: The observation report telephone - - -

PN210

THE COMMISSIONER: Sorry, the observation - the attachment to exhibit B2 was a contemporaneous record?

PN211

MR MAHER: That's exactly right. It was handwritten by the supervisor who was making observation at the time. So we'd suggest that you probably won't find a more accurate record of what was said beyond a transcript, obviously, of the conversation perhaps.

PN212

THE COMMISSIONER: Apart from the fact that Ms Sanders might have another view.

PN213

MR MAHER: And Ms Sanders was given the opportunity to provide a contrary view immediately afterwards but instead was heard to make a comment like, "That's sounds like a fireable offence" when talking to her about the content of the interview.

PN214

With respect to the miscoding issue, they're interrelated in as much as over a period of time there have been certainly notes made by supervisors and provided to the field management team about the concerns with anomalies in Ms Sanders Coding, which go back a few months. In themselves each one of them sent alone could be the product of just, say, maybe lazy coding, for example. And the union, because they haven't requested copies of these, haven't even seen them so I don't want to into too much detail unless we're going to sit down and have a detailed discussion about this miscoding issue.

PN215

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, quite frankly you can do that without me.

PN216

MR MAHER: Yes. I was thinking that's probably not the best use of the Commission's time. But just for the purposes of the record and this can only be borne out if this went to an unfair dismissal subsequently by virtue of the termination occurring, obviously these would obviously have to be tendered as evidence.

PN217

THE COMMISSIONER: So you have relevant records of these prior - - -

PN218

MR MAHER: We have computer records.

PN219

THE COMMISSIONER: - - - observers' concerns.

PN220

MR MAHER: No, this is just the coding - the issue of coding where the relationship between say a no-answer code and an answering machine for a normal person might be two no answers to one answering machine and we have two to seven. It's much bigger numbers than that. It might be sort of 200 to 300 and if you look at all the other interviewers, it's just unheard of. The anomalies are so extreme that they jump out of the page and it happens time and time again.

PN221

THE COMMISSIONER: The company has records of Ms Sanders' anomalies?

PN222

MR MAHER: That's right. And in a second I might get Ms Aitken to explain how the anomalies can be interpreted as opposed to just being sort of accidental. The relevant - on the day, again these anomalies were observed and that's what led the supervisor of that shift to undertake an observation to sort of effectively just sit in and find out what was going on.

PN223

THE COMMISSIONER: What day are we talking about? 13 September?

PN224

MR MAHER: 15 August.

PN225

THE COMMISSIONER: Right.

PN226

MR MAHER: The warning letter was provided subsequently but there was a meeting on the day with the supervisor and a team leader that was present. Then there was also a meeting with Lani, the field manager, where all these issues were discussed, the observation report was again shown to Ms Sanders who had refused to sign it the first time but had read it on the day of the observation. And then she was told that she would be receiving a formal letter and the actual letter was received some days later, in the next week. But that's what actually triggered on that day an observation being undertaken - was a further set of anomalies.

PN227

In terms of the seriousness of the issues raised in the first and final warning, the company's view really is that the anomalies themselves are serious issues because they're effectively done to make you look like you're doing a job a little bit more successfully than perhaps you are. But the real key issue is - and it's because of the nature of the work is these deviations from the script, the inappropriate comments. The client was, as the union indicated, P & O, who requested survey work be undertaken at the time and leading up to the enquiry into Ms Brimbles' death, obviously something which had fairly potentially serious commercial consequences for the company.

PN228

Even the fact that we have our own staff member making - I mean, clearly adverse comments about our client's operations, security guards and employees of P & O, to the general public, it's a very, very serious issue. I mean, you really - we have a duty to our clients and we have commercial obligations and to have our interviewers badmouth our clients when they're trying to undertake sensitive work is a fairly serious issue and we feel could amount to serious misconduct. Though, as we state in the warning letter, the reason that we didn't proceed any further was this interviewer has had quite a long casual history with us; and secondly, has had - she's had bad observations before but she's also had good observations before, and so it did seem at the time - it did seem disproportionate by virtue of the fact that she hasn't necessarily been a particularly poor employee over that period to proceed to formally terminate her employment at that time, so that's why the decision was made to give this final warning which would just turn into a normal warning after six months.

PN229

I really don't know if it is necessary - I think if the Commission - I don't think a sort of a dot - a point by point comparison is necessary. I think that it's fairly evident, contrary to what my friend said, that if you actually look at the sort of summary of behaviour that is set out in the formal warning, and compare it with the observation made in the two appended documents, both the typewritten one and the observation cover sheet - - -

PN230

THE COMMISSIONER: I think ..... being taken to the content of the cover sheet and everyone has been talking so I haven't absorbed what's in the cover sheet. What does the cover sheet say and who is the observer?

PN231

MR MAHER: The observer is a supervisor called Brett Archer, supervisor in the phone room. When I say - talking about the cover sheet, I mean as I have them they're all one document. I don't know whether that was tendered - you have the observation, handwritten observation report, Commissioner, with the typed section, and then it's backed up by some specifics with question 2(a), question 2(b). I would assume, and I have taken instructions on this, that this is based on handwritten notes that have been typed up at the time though.

PN232

So, Commissioner, if you would like me to go through point by point with the four dot points set out in the letter and try and take you to the appropriate part in the observation report I'm more than happy to do it, but my view really was that it was reasonably self-apparent by what was actually set out in the observation report. I don't think it is misrepresented in any way by the four dot points. Really, it's the second two dot points because the first two dot points really deal with this miscoding issue that's borne out in a second set of documentation which are computer printouts with response rates and the like.

PN233

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Maher, I asked you a question earlier on whether the company's investigations are complete at this stage. I think you have also said at a different time that you believe that this application by the union is somewhat of a pre-emptive strike. When does the company expect its investigations to be concluded now that presumably all of the players are back on deck?

PN234

MR MAHER: I would imagine, Commissioner, that it will be concluded reasonably shortly.

PN235

THE COMMISSIONER: What does that mean? Two days, two months, two years? It could mean all manner of things to different people.

PN236

MR MAHER: Commissioner, my instructions are basically that the investigation is more or less complete in terms of speaking to other people but because we gave an undertaking to Ms Sanders that we wouldn't be taking any more steps until this matter today was resolved, we will need to speak to her and get her side of it and obviously put the other information to her in order to reach a finding with respect to Ms Sier's complaint. Whether or not that will result in other disciplinary measures remains to be seen because there is a little bit of a "he said, she said" situation and while witnesses corroborate certain parts of it, people were sufficiently close to hear certain things said. So it is still to some degree up in the air as to whether this will lead to any further disciplinary action.

PN237

THE COMMISSIONER: Don't let me stop you from completing that investigation because it seems to me that until such time as that investigation or the related investigations are completed and the company draws its conclusions and then decides on the nature of the discipline for Ms Sanders, if any, then this application certainly is a premature one.

PN238

MR MAHER: Yes. That's our view, Commissioner. However, with respect - - -

PN239

THE COMMISSIONER: And I'm not going to guess what the outcome might be of your investigation. I'm not going to gaze into the crystal ball, what might be, what might occur. It's up to the company to make decisions and the union can react accordingly.

PN240

MR MAHER: Commissioner, I would suggest that that's the correct view to take on the formal application because we really haven't got to the point where we think that there's really something actionable from the union's perspective unless they wanted to run this entire application with respect to a written warning, which there have been countless applications run by unions with respect to written warnings, so that's possible.

PN241

But what the company feels is probably more productive, and again had Ms Sanders been here I think it could have been quite productive, was also to address a group of wider issues with respect to her conduct because we have had an employee who has gone from being apparently a reasonably happy employee to someone who feels that she is being targeted by the company and therefore is very, very combative and is also unnecessarily provocative with respect to just small directions and the like.

PN242

What we feel would be very useful, because we do face the issue also that we have two union delegates of which Ms Sanders is one, and we would certainly like at least a protocol or certain measures put in place which was very much the context of the conversation that I did have with Mr Burns that I had hoped would not be repeated on the basis that it was to be without prejudice but it seems to have brought us here. But the focus of my intention to make a call to Mr Burns was to see if we could work out some manner of going forward where issues of union representation and union activity in the workplace could be to some degree separated from any misdeed on behalf of the - on the part of the union delegate because, as I indicated before in the Commission, we do have a good relationship with the union and I believe I personally have a good relationship as someone who acts fairly frequently in this industry with the union, and that was very much my intention to call, and I think that today in discussions with the Commission's assistance I would be keen, even in the absence of Ms Sanders, to see if we could find a way forward where we could aside disciplinary issues that could be dealt with perhaps in an unfair dismissal if she did feel that she was unfairly dismissed if she was dismissed at some stage down the track, but certainly just in the general workplace relationship between the union's representatives in the workplace and the management, we could have quite productive discussions I think today if we did go off the record but in terms of the formal application I just don't think there's really any legs in it at this point in time, if the Commission pleases.

PN243

THE COMMISSIONER: It seems to me that you have some issues that you ought to be discussing with Mr Brown and his colleague, that doesn't necessarily involve me, and that those discussions ought to take place before this matter progresses anywhere because, quite frankly, I'm not interested in getting involved in the minutiae of the company's investigation. That's for the company to complete its investigation of Ms Sanders, to consider Ms Sanders' grievances, to consider the complaint by the other employee, Ms Sier, to obtain corroboration for whatever side of the story is relevant, complete the investigation and make a decision as to Ms Sanders' discipline or otherwise.

PN244

All of that ought to proceed without Commission involvement. If it in fact results in Ms Sanders being disciplined in a manner then there's obviously an option for the union to come back to the employer about that intended action and/or their notifying appropriately a termination of employment application, which will be dealt with at the time. But I don't see that this application over the application of the agreement has anywhere to go at this time. There are too many unanswered questions. Mr Brown needs to be persuaded by the information that you have and that you rely upon. The company needs to complete its investigations, and who knows where that all might lead? But I don't read into that that necessarily involves the Commission at this time.

PN245

Mr Brown, you have heard some responses from the company and the company obviously does have some detailed information which I expect that the company is prepared to share with you, and you're in a position then where you really need to then test that with your member, and as she's not here that doesn't help. And no matter what the lady's involvement in this matter is, she can't hide from it. She has to involve herself. She has to engage with you and engage with the company, so the investigations can be completed, and take on the chin whatever is the outcome, and have her say about her own grievances. But until all those things are followed through and there's rational discussion away from the Commission, I don't see that the Commission has any further role to play at this time. I'm prepared to leave the file open and invite you to report to me in a month's time what's developed, if anything, or to seek a re-listing of the matter, should that be the union's request or Ms Sanders' intent.

PN246

But I think Ms Sanders has to be informed by you, Mr Brown, that she can't hide in the back seat. If she's making allegations against people, if she's using language about people, then she just has to have the guts to front up and say so, and to hear what other people perhaps have to say about her. And perhaps Ms Sanders then needs to look very carefully about where she goes, whether she continues with this employer, whether she chooses to pursue some other career, I don't know, or to consider her position in the face of a potential termination of employment. It's all pretty sobering stuff. Do you have any responses to what
Mr Maher has said or to anything the Commission has now placed on the public record?

PN247

MR BROWN: Commissioner, yes, it certainly is very sobering which is really why the union has brought this matter to the Commission. This is an - - -

PN248

THE COMMISSIONER: But you brought the matter to the Commission without a whole lot of actual material. You have made certain suppositions but you actually haven't examined the material the company has.

PN249

MR BROWN: That material, Commissioner, was never presented to us. The only material we had was that the material on which the company relied to make its - - -

PN250

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, the company has said it has material available and upon which it has relied. Perhaps you ought to be investigating that a bit more thoroughly.

PN251

MR BROWN: We have never resiled from looking at the material the company might want to put forward, Commissioner. The only response that I would make is that certainly we would like to accept or request the Commission's option of leaving the file open until such time as perhaps this matter has been discussed and hopefully resolved and then if we can report back that would be very much appreciated in respect of the union.

PN252

I should put on the record that we are hopeful, and we intend to, and we are here because we want to, find some resolution to this matter. The only reason we're here is because, in our opinion, we would never have had that chance. It would have been an employment[sic] for a termination of employment and it would have been an application on grounds of termination of employment, not on grounds of whether or not the investigation should take place, how and when. In our view, it was never going to take place beyond that discussion that had already taken place between Mr Burns and Mr Maher.

PN253

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, you have brought some time for Ms Sanders. You have brought more time for Ms Sanders now. So I suggest you go away from here and conduct whatever examination of the company records is necessary, interview people face to face, engage with the company in looking at the matters jointly, and notifying me at some point in time within the next month what is the outcome.

PN254

MR BROWN: Thank you, senior. We would like to do that.

PN255

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. I'll adjourn these proceedings now to a time and date to be fixed, and I invite the applicant to inform me of any outcome of any investigations conducted beyond today. That concludes the matter for the time being.

<ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY [12.22PM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

EXHIBIT #B1 FIRST AND FINAL WARNING LETTER TO BARBARA SANDERS DATED 28/08/2006 PN63
EXHIBIT #B2 WOOLCOTT RESEARCH OBSERVATION REPORT CONCERNING BARBARA SANDERS PN69
EXHIBIT #B3 DOCUMENT HEADED RECORD OF HOW BARBARA SANDERS (INTERVIEWER NUMBER 61) FILED NUMBERS IN NIPO ON 15/08/2006 PN69