C2008/2220, Transcript of Proceedings [2008] AIRCTrans 210 (15 May 2008)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

---

Workplace Relations Act 1996 18393-1

COMMISSIONER SMITH

C2008/2220

s.170LW - prereform Act - Appl’n for settlement of dispute (certified agreement)
Finance Sector Union of Australia
and
National Australia Bank Limited
(C2008/2220)

MELBOURNE

10.08AM, MONDAY, 14 APRIL 2008

Continued from 3/3/2008

PN21

MR A LESZCZYNSKI: I'm appearing on behalf of Finance Sector Union of Australia.

PN22

MS K IRWIN: I appear on behalf of National Australia Bank Limited, with me today is MR J O'BRIEN and our instructor today is MS M SCOUTAS.

PN23

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Yes, Mr Leszcynski?

PN24

MR LESZCZYNSKI: I apologise initially, this might be a tad on the long side, but I just feel that obviously there's three distinct issues that we've raised, so obviously I suppose I need to sort of address those in opening remarks.

PN25

THE COMMISSIONER: That's all right. You don't need to read your submissions. I've read those. You can just highlight the issues that you think are important.

PN26

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Thank you, Commissioner. I suppose firstly I'd like to raise the issue of one of the FSUs witnesses, in our submission, lodged with the Commission on 14 March. We indicated that we would be tendering a witness statement from and calling a witness, Ms Bev Wilson, who was a sales and service adviser at Oakleigh branch of the National Australia Bank Limited who worked with Ms Sklavenitis.

PN27

Unfortunately, Commissioner, I have to withdraw that we'll be calling Ms Lawson as a witness and obviously then we won't be tendering a statement from her. Late last week Ms Wilson indicated to us that she did not feel comfortable appearing before the Commission and did not wish to be cross-examined by NAB. The reason she gave was that she feared the possible consequences of testifying against NAB and given the circumstances in which she has seen Ms Sklavenitis being treated, she was fearful that something similar may happen to her.

PN28

Now, whether that's the case or not, Commissioner, obviously I can't say and obviously my NAB colleagues may disagree. However, I would like to raise the issue that in case C2006/2938, which was a case between the FSU v NAB relating to paid taxis, something similar did actually occur where staff who had appeared before the Commission found themselves subject to what can be described as bullying and this issue was raised with you, Commissioner, at the time, I believe.

PN29

Now, obviously that isn't an indication that this is what would happen in these circumstances, but I think that, you know, it at least demonstrates that Ms Wilson's fears may not be totally unjustified and, as I said, I would hope that in these circumstances that if Ms Wilson was to appear I know that nothing would happen against her, but again, she has decided not to appear.

PN30

THE COMMISSIONER: Ms Irwin, I take your submissions as read on those points. You don't need to - - -

PN31

MS INGLIS: Yes, Commissioner, thank you.

PN32

MR LESZCZYNSKI: There are three distinct disputes obviously between the FSU and NAB in this, but I suppose the reality is they're all the result of what I suppose we view as the unacceptable treatment of NAB, of their staff, which includes things such as threatening and bullying staff, altering working conditions without genuinely consulting staff or taking into account staff's personal commitments. And, I suppose, we will also prove, they've also deliberately avoided putting anything in writing throughout these matters so that they can alter what they say, was discussed and referred upon when it suits them.

PN33

Now, in this case I think something even worse has happened and I suppose that has been the potential defamation of Ms Sklavenitis by some of the NAB employees. Now, in many conversations between NAB and the FSU and in the initial statements that were supplied to us by NAB, two of NABs witnesses allege that Ms Sklavenitis had assaulted a child without any evidence of this, and that NAB said that this somehow justified their actions, and I suppose from our point of view the reason why they didn't have any evidence of this was that the actual assault did not occur.

PN34

Now, when I indicated to NAB that such statements may be defamatory and that legal opinion on the matter may be sought, NABs witnesses altered their statements, which they are obviously entitled to do. The reality is, however, this does not excuse what has been done in regards to this. The fact is that NAB have relied upon these unsubstantiated and defamatory remarks to somehow justify what they have done.

PN35

Now, to get to the three issues. The first issue relates to staff not being - relates to Mrs Sklavenitis not being able to perform all her work in her rostered hours. Now, this issue was initially raised by Mrs Sklavenitis at the time and on numerous occasions afterwards and by myself with Ms Irwin in a meeting held on 29 January 2008. The dispute resolution procedure was thus followed prior to the lodging of the section 180LW with the Commission in February 2008. Briefly Mrs Sklavenitis was on sick leave in July 2007 and she was contacted by her branch manager, Ms Dinatale, and told that she needed to attend a training course.

PN36

Obviously Mrs Sklavenitis indicated that she didn't feel that that was appropriate. She was recovering from surgery. She couldn't write properly and she didn't feel up to it. Mrs Sklavenitis was basically directed to attend and it was indicated that if she did not attend then there may be negative consequences for her down the track. Given those circumstances Mrs Sklavenitis did actually end up attending the training sessions. When she raised the issue of payment she was told that policy was that she would not be paid, you know, NABs policy was "we do not pay overtime", so she was not paid overtime.

PN37

Mrs Sklavenitis did not request to do this training. She was directed to do it and she did not agree to take time off in lieu. Now, we believe that this breaches clause 23.1 of the NAB EBA which states, "NAB agrees that work loads should be capable of being completed in ordinary working hours." By requiring Mrs Sklavenitis to work outside these hours NAB breached this clause.

PN38

THE COMMISSIONER: Just a moment, please. I was just looking for a copy of the agreement. What clause?

PN39

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Clause 23.1 of the NAB EBA.

PN40

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you.

PN41

MR LESZCZYNSKI: So, yes, by requiring Mrs Sklavenitis to work outside these hours NAB breached this clause. However, when staff are required to work outside their ordinary working hours and are directed to do so, it is quite clear what should happen and that is, they should be paid overtime for this. Clause 18.1 of the NAB EBA states:

PN42

Only employees in group 1 or 2 roles are eligible to be paid overtime. Overtime is paid where work is performed that is additional to the employees' ordinary hours of work and which is authorised by the employee's people leader.

PN43

Now, an employee in group 1 consists of employees in grades K to O and an employee in group 2 consists of employees in grades I to J. Mrs Sklavenitis is a K level employee and is thus entitled to be paid overtime when she was directed to do so. In terms of what she is entitled to be paid, it's on week days, employees and groups 1 and 2 under clause 18.1 of the NAB EBA are entitled to a loading of 50 per cent for the first three hours and 100 per cent for each additional hour after that. Mrs Sklavenitis was directed to work this overtime and as such it was authorised and as she was a K level employee she should be paid for this.

PN44

We understand that in some circumstances under the provisions of the NAB award staff may agree to have time off in lieu for any overtime worked. Instead of being paid for this overtime, this is something however that the employee must agree to. But this was not the case in these circumstances. Mrs Sklavenitis did not agree to take time off in lieu for these hours she worked outside her ordinary hours. NAB has not and cannot produce any evidence to support this, but quite clearly Mrs Sklavenitis did not agree to it. So what we are - - -

PN45

THE COMMISSIONER: Does the agreement cover TOIL or the award?

PN46

MR LESZCZYNSKI: The award covers the provisions of time off in lieu, yes.

PN47

THE COMMISSIONER: And the agreement is to be read in conjunction with the award, is it?

PN48

MR LESZCZYNSKI: It is indeed, Commissioner. As Georgia was required to attend three hours of training for seven sessions, though we'd concede that it possibly may have only been six training sessions. Mrs Sklavenitis cannot recall the exact number. She should be paid overtime in tune with what is in the award. The second issue is also raised by Mrs Sklavenitis at the time and on numerous occasions afterwards and this was the changing of her hours and the fact that the changing occurred while the dispute was in the process and as a result it should not have gone ahead because there had not been agreement on the changes in hours.

PN49

Now, the dispute was also raised by myself and Ms Irwin at a meeting on 29 January. Thus the dispute resolution procedure was followed prior to the FSU lodging this matter with the Commission in February. Now, the dispute resolution procedure clause states:

PN50

Without prejudice to any party involved in a dispute work should continue as normal pending the resolution of the matter.

PN51

Now, while this matter has been in dispute, NAB have not continued to work as normal pending the resolution of the other two issues. Prior to the grievance with NAB over Mrs Sklavenitis' transfer to the NAB Hawthorn branch - - -

PN52

THE COMMISSIONER: What date do you say that was? 29 January, do you, when you say - - -

PN53

MR LESZCZYNSKI: No, no, that relates to a meeting with Ms Irwin. Again, Commissioner, it was some time in August. We've had some trouble, Mrs Sklavenitis has had trouble recalling the exact date on which that conversation took place.

PN54

THE COMMISSIONER: When do you say that the dispute arose that required work to continue as normal?

PN55

MR LESZCZYNSKI: The dispute occurred in September which was - I suppose there was two disputes, but the predominant one, which was the dispute about the moving of Mrs Sklavenitis to Hawthorn branch, that occurred -was first raised in Mrs Sklavenitis' performance appraisal in September. So prior to that the issue of having Mrs Sklavenitis' hours changed arose.

PN56

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

PN57

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Mrs Sklavenitis was told by NAB that she would no longer be able to work seven shifts. It was either six or eight a fortnight. When she indicated she wanted to continue to work seven, she was told this was not possible. Mrs Sklavenitis indicated that due to her family commitments, which is obviously at the heart of the next issue, she was only able to work six a fortnight, even though she didn't want to change her seven shifts a fortnight to six. However, there was no agreement reached on when these change in hours would occur and which shift would be cut.

PN58

This is quite clearly demonstrated by the fact that there was no documentation outlined in what had been agreed upon. We have asked NAB to provide such documentation if they had it on a number of occasions. They have been unable to do so because no such agreement was reached. As there was no agreement on when and how these changes in hours would occur when a dispute arose, Mrs Sklavenitis proposed transfer and her unpaid training, NABs cutting of Mrs Sklavenitis' hours clearly contravenes clause 47 of the agreement. Work did not continue as normal pending resolution of the matters in dispute, as her shifts were changed from seven to six a fortnight on 12 November 2007.

PN59

Again, the relief we seek is quite simple. For three months, which is 13 weeks, while Mrs Sklavenitis was on sick leave, she was only paid six shifts a fortnight instead of seven. As such Mrs Sklavenitis should be paid for the six and a half shifts she was entitled to have received for sick pay. The fact that Mrs Sklavenitis paid in accordance with the NAB EBA from December 21, was cut to 75 per cent, is irrelevant, as it does not affect her entitlement to be paid for those shifts that were cut. For those shifts that she had been cut by NAB prior to 21 December, she should be paid at the regular rate for those shifts she had cut. After that date she should be paid at 75 per cent.

PN60

The third and final issue is under - - -

PN61

THE COMMISSIONER: Let me understand that.

PN62

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Yes.

PN63

THE COMMISSIONER: You say that sick leave commenced on 5 November?

PN64

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Yes.

PN65

THE COMMISSIONER: And that should have been on the basis of seven shifts?

PN66

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Yes.

PN67

THE COMMISSIONER: And then on 21 December, that was reduced to 75 per cent and that should have been 75 per cent of seven shifts?

PN68

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Yes.

PN69

THE COMMISSIONER: I follow.

PN70

MR LESZCZYNSKI: The last issue, I suppose, in many ways the most complicated issue relates to work and personal commitments and the undertakings and the provisions of the EBA that relate to that. Now, under clause 2.5 of the NAB EBA states:

PN71

We actively promote the health and wellbeing of our employees with balance between personal or work life.

PN72

Section (d) then states that the intent is:

PN73

To work to ensure employees balance their work and personal commitments to their satisfaction.

PN74

And clause 22 states that:

PN75

NAB is committed to ensure that employees balance their work and personal commitments.

PN76

Now, NAB have tried to characterise the issue as a contractual one, that the issue is about NABs right under staff's contract of employment to transfer them to other branches where required. NAB have claimed that as a result that this is not a dispute over the application of the agreement. It is a contractual one and as a result they believe that the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

PN77

The reality is, however, that the dispute is over whether NAB ensure that their employee was able to balance her work and personal commitments. This was identified as being in dispute in the FSUs initial section 170LW application to have a dispute resolution process conducted lodged on 7 February. This was also one of the issues identified in the FSUs submission filed in the Commission on
14 March.

PN78

As the dispute is over whether NAB ensure that their employee was able to balance her work and personal commitments, the dispute has an existing clause 2.5 part (d) and clause 22 of the NAB EBA, all of which deal with this issue. Given the nexus between the dispute and the sections of the agreement, the FSU submits that the dispute is indeed one over the application of the NAB EBA in line with the decision in CPSU v Seven Network, PR933766, 2003.

PN79

THE COMMISSIONER: Just a moment, PR?

PN80

MR LESZCZYNSKI: 933766 in 2003.

PN81

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN82

MR LESZCZYNSKI: NAB have - - -

PN83

THE COMMISSIONER: Was that a Full Bench decision or a single member decision, Federal Court? No, is that one of ours?

PN84

MR LESZCZYNSKI: No. Yes, I think - I feel sure it was a Full Bench decision, Commissioner, because it had been appealed on a number of occasions. Now NAB has construed - - -

PN85

THE COMMISSIONER: Isn't there a Federal Court decision that deals with aspirational clauses and agreements, if I can loosely call them that? You're not aware of one?

PN86

MR LESZCZYNSKI: I'm not aware of it, but maybe Ms Irwin may be aware of them and she may indicate those to you.

PN87

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, thank you.

PN88

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Now, NAB have construed the dispute incorrectly, as the dispute is over whether they've ensured their employee was balance her work and personal commitments. Alternatively the AIRC may find the NAB construed the dispute too narrowly, which may be contrary to the notion that certified agreements are intended to facilitate the harmonious working relationship of parties during the operation of the agreement and this was identified in SDA v Big W Discount Department Stores, which was PR924554, 2002.

PN89

Lastly the dispute is also over how clauses 2.5, section (d) and clause 22 of the NAB EBA operate in Mrs Sklavenitis' matter. Again, accordingly as per CEPU v Telstra Corporation, which is PR933892, 2003, the dispute is also one over the application of the agreement as it relates to how the NAB EBA applies in these circumstances. NABs proposed transfer of Mrs Sklavenitis did not and does not ensure that their employee could balance her personal and work life and did not promote her health and wellbeing and in fact does quite the opposite.

PN90

In a statement submitted by NAB in support of their case in the FSU v NAB case, which was C2006/2938, which was the case I referred to earlier over which you yourself, Commissioner, was presiding, NAB used Ms Julia Burke, a partner at EQUUS Partners as an expert witness. Ms Burke stated in section 3.2 of her witness expert opinion that clause 22 of the NAB EBA is consistent with a common understanding of an employer's obligations to negotiate with employees about their working agreement and working arrangements to ensure business and personal needs are met.

PN91

In this case they have not done this. At no point did NAB negotiate about the moving of Mrs Sklavenitis from NAB Oakleigh branch to NAB Hawthorn branch. Instead they presented her with a fait accompli. She was told she had no choice other than to accept the move. Now during September 2007 Mrs Sklavenitis was advised in her yearly appraisal by her branch manager, Ms Dinatale, that she was being transferred from the Oakleigh branch to the Hawthorn branch for business reasons as she was required to train new staff. No other reason was given to Mrs Sklavenitis for her transfer. She was not told that the reason for her transfer was due to any incidents that occurred outside the bank.

PN92

There was no consultation with Mrs Sklavenitis about this. She was simply told she had to go. She indicated at the appraisal and on subsequent numerous occasions that this transfer would negatively impact on her ability to meet her personal commitments, particularly her ability to take her children to and from school and other commitments with her children. At no time did NAB indicate that they had taken these into account when deciding to move her to Hawthorn branch. NAB informed her if the added travelling time would cause her problems, her hours could be cut, even though the loss of income this would entail would cause problems and increased transportation costs would also negatively impact on her personal commitments.

PN93

NAB were not prepared to pay for this additional travelling time. They were also aware that their offer of giving her additional hours to make up for this wasn't possible due to the same family responsibilities that she had raised. Mrs Sklavenitis did not agree the transfer was in her best interests. It was not mutually agreed upon and she maintained that the transfer would negatively impact her personal commitments and health.

PN94

It is also not the case that there were any serious performance issues. At no point did NAB notify Mrs Sklavenitis that her performance was unsatisfactory. There was nothing communicated to her around this. She did not receive an unsatisfactory performance mark in her 2007 appraisal and she was not placed on a PIP. On our initial application for the matter to be conciliated the FSU indicated that one of the issues in dispute related to section (g) of the NAB EBA which dealt with organisational change, redundancy, redeployment and retrenchment and our conjecture that Mrs Sklavenitis' position at Oakleigh may have become redundant. However upon further investigation this does not appear to have been the case.

PN95

However, it should also be noted that Mrs Sklavenitis' position was only advertised as a full time position, not a part time position. This suggests that a possible reason for trying to transfer Mrs Sklavenitis was that they wanted a full time person in the role and Mrs Sklavenitis was only able to work part time and thus this was the reason for doing this as opposed to the position becoming redundant. Regardless, this doesn't change what the dispute in this issue is about, whether NAB took into account Mrs Sklavenitis' family responsibilities, which they didn't, and whether they allowed her to balance her work and personal commitments in line with clause 2.5 section (d) and clause 22 of the NAB EBA, which they didn't.

PN96

At no point did they seriously explore the options of Mrs Sklavenitis working in a branch that allowed her to meet her personal commitments. In terms of the relief we seek on the issue, this has become very complicated. Initially Mrs Sklavenitis wished to remain at the Oakleigh branch, but as the matter has progressed on without it being resolved, it's taken its toll on Mrs Sklavenitis' health to the point at which she has had to take over three months' sick leave and has lodged a Comcare claim.

PN97

As such she is unable to continue to work in Oakleigh or - - -

PN98

THE COMMISSIONER: Why?

PN99

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Why?

PN100

THE COMMISSIONER: Why not at Oakleigh?

PN101

MR LESZCZYNSKI: She cannot continue to work at Oakleigh or at any branch because that is where Ms Scoutas, the Regional Executive, is in charge and I suppose the issues, as the case has progressed, the working relationship between Mrs Sklavenitis and Ms Scoutas, we believe, has got to the point where Mrs Sklavenitis would not be able to work in a branch under Ms Scoutas. Now, previously Mrs Sklavenitis indicated she was willing to work at either Chadstone, Bentleigh, Malvern, Carnegie or Caulfield.

PN102

Mrs Sklavenitis has subsequently become aware of a number of problems that have occurred at Chadstone Branch which makes that unsuitable. We thus ask for one of two things. Either that NAB pay Mrs Sklavenitis a lump sum severance payment equivalent to what she, as an employee with 18 years of service to the bank, would be entitled where she could be retrenched. Such a payment should be based on seven days a fortnight that Mrs Sklavenitis worked prior to the dispute arising. This is not unreasonable, we believe, given that Mrs Sklavenitis' position is no longer available at Oakleigh due to the aforementioned actions and of course the dispute.

PN103

Alternatively Mrs Sklavenitis would be prepared to look at a position the same as her current one within a NAB branch that is not in Ms Scoutas' area that would allow her to balance her work and personal commitments in the same manner as her previous position at the NAB Oakleigh branch. Such a position obviously should not entail any loss in the hours she worked at the Oakleigh branch or result in any major significant increases in her travelling time expenses.

PN104

THE COMMISSIONER: Could I just indicate to you that in unfair dismissal matters we hear a lot of submissions from employers that the working relationship has broken down. It's an easy thing to say. I would be no less vigilant in a comment from an employee as I would in a comment from an employer.

PN105

MR LESZCZYNSKI: I take that on board, Commissioner, and that issue will be addressed to an extent in the questions that will be put to our witnesses. I take on board your comment, Commissioner.

PN106

THE COMMISSIONER: I understand.

PN107

MR LESZCZYNSKI: And that sums up my opening to you.

PN108

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Ms Irwin, do you wish to open?

PN109

MS IRWIN: I hadn't intended to open.

PN110

THE COMMISSIONER: That's all right, you don't have to.

PN111

MS IRWIN: However, I feel that in the circumstances of Mr Leszcynski's comments that I should put at least some points on record. Commissioner, as stated, this is a dispute over the three issues raised by the FSU and characterised by them as being (a) NAB not ensuring that work loads are capable of being completed in ordinary hours, (b) they have not continued with work as normal during a dispute and (c) NAB not ensuring that their employee was able to balance their work and family commitments. Certainly, Commissioner, NAB strongly believes that it has appropriately applied the terms of the NAB agreement in respect of these three issues.

PN112

First of all, Commissioner, beyond that I'd just like to comment on
Mr Leszcynski's use of the term "bullying". Bullying is a very inflammatory term, Commissioner. It's not been a term that's been utilised in Mr Leszcynski's submissions and so we do take quite serious umbrage at him suggesting that NAB has bullied Mrs Sklavenitis in terms of this matter. I'd also like to comment on Mr Leszcynski's comments that NAB deliberately did not put the arrangement regarding the move to Hawthorn in writing as to enable it to in some way continue to change its mind. Commissioner, we operate on a trust basis and the fact that we've not put such an arrangement in writing from our perspective does not indicate that it did not happen.

PN113

Commissioner, in terms of the biased statements provided to the Commission from Ms Cathy Carroll, Ms Mary Scoutas and Ms Christina Dinatale, decision was taken to submit and revise statements removing specific references to the incident that we've been told occurred outside of the work places involving Mrs Sklavenitis and the reason for doing that, Commissioner, was so that this hearing did not become specifically about whether that incident did or did not occur. So it was also done out of, I guess, some kind of courtesy or sensitiveness to Mrs Sklavenitis and her position.

PN114

In addition to that, Commissioner, I'd just like to say that we would seek to rely on the outline of submissions that has already been provided to the Commission on 28 March and, Commissioner, assuming I'll get the opportunity to make some closing submissions.

PN115

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, of course.

PN116

MS IRWIN: That's all from me for now, if it please the Commission.

PN117

THE COMMISSIONER: Would I be right in saying the three issues, the question of the transfer, it's said that the evidence will be that that was non consensual and said to be for operational reasons? I think that's what's being put.

PN118

MS IRWIN: I believe that's what the FSU is putting, yes, Commissioner.

PN119

THE COMMISSIONER: The payment of overtime is said to arise from the proper application of the agreement and the interaction of the award.

PN120

MS IRWIN: I believe that's the FSUs position.

PN121

THE COMMISSIONER: And in the work and family responsibilities is the issue around - well, it goes to the transfer question and the number of shifts.

PN122

MS IRWIN: I believe that to be the case.

PN123

THE COMMISSIONER: Right, and then of course the final issue is whether what area of employment and that may or may not be a matter that arises out of the proper application of the agreement.

PN124

MS IRWIN: Indeed.

PN125

THE COMMISSIONER: All right, thank you. Call your evidence.

PN126

MR LESZCZYNSKI: I'd like to call Mrs Georgia Sklavenitis, Commissioner.

<GEORGIA SKLAVENITIS, SWORN [10.36AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR LESZCZYNSKI

PN127

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Mrs Sklavenitis, can you please tell the Commission your full name?---Georgia Sklavenitis.

PN128

What is your address?---(Address supplied.)

PN129

Are you an employee of National Australia Bank Limited?---Yes, I am.

PN130

Have you prepared a statement for the purpose of this proceedings?---Yes, I have.

PN131

Is that the document that you have with you?---Yes, it is.

PN132

Is your statement of 32 paragraphs in length?---Yes. I think it is. Yes, it is.

PN133

Is that statement true and correct to the best of your knowledge?---Yes, it is.

PN134

I tender that statement, Commissioner.

EXHIBIT #FSU1 STATEMENT OF GEORGIA SKLAVENITIS

PN135

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Commissioner, I haven't previously provided that to you but Mrs Sklavenitis has a copy for the - - -

PN136

THE COMMISSIONER: I see.

PN137

MR LESZCZYNSKI: In our submission, the outline would be in there, but we didn't actually provide the - - -

PN138

THE COMMISSIONER: Provide the witness statement. Have you given it to Ms Irwin?

PN139

MR LESZCZYNSKI: I have, but I'll also give - - -

PN140

THE COMMISSIONER: You want 10 minutes?

PN141

MS IRWIN: Commissioner, I only received that statement this morning when I came to work. Thank you.

PN142

THE COMMISSIONER: Have you had a chance to read it?

**** GEORGIA SKLAVENITIS XN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN143

MS IRWIN: Not in any great detail, Commissioner.

PN144

THE COMMISSIONER: Is there any further evidence-in-chief you wanted to draw from that statement?

PN145

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Look, I suppose, to an extent I was just going to go briefly to what is said in that statement, but if the Commissioner did not think that that was needed, then I'm happy - - -

PN146

THE COMMISSIONER: We'll adjourn for 20 minutes so that I can read the statement and Ms Irwin can finish reading it.

<SHORT ADJOURNMENT [10.38AM]
<RESUMED [11.09AM]

PN147

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Prior to the adjournment, Commissioner, I should have obviously apologised and explained. Obviously with Ms Wilson not being able to attend the witness statement of Mrs Sklavenitis did need to be amended to sort of take out some references. Obviously our intention had been to get the witness statement to NAB a lot earlier, but for those reasons it made it very difficult.

PN148

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN149

MR LESZCZYNSKI: I'll now commence asking Mrs Sklavenitis some questions.

PN150

Mrs Sklavenitis, can you describe the medical issues you had in July 2007 and how they were dealt with?---In July 2007 I had an operation on my right hand for carpal tunnel syndrome and the bank approved four weeks of sick leave.

PN151

And what contact did you have with NAB while you were on sick leave?---Apart from some of the work mates ringing to see how I was I had no contact really except for my manager, Christina Dinatale ringing me in the second week of my sick leave and telling me I had been nominated to go on a training course, even though she knew that I was on sick leave.

PN152

THE COMMISSIONER: I've already read it, so you don't have to deal with anything that's contained in the witness statement.

PN153

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Okay. I suppose, I'm happy to then sort of skip those. I suppose there are just a couple of other questions and if that's - - -

**** GEORGIA SKLAVENITIS XN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN154

THE COMMISSIONER: If there's something that's not bought out in the witness statement that you'd seek leave to further expand upon, that's fine.

PN155

MR LESZCZYNSKI: I suppose the other thing is, one of my questions was going to be around the change from eight shifts to six. With the witness statement there were also two attachments, attachment A and attachment B, which related to the pay slips, one prior to the change and one after the change.

PN156

MS IRWIN: Excuse, Commissioner, I haven't previously seen the attachments.

PN157

THE COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry. Seven shifts to six, did you say?

PN158

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Yes. So I suppose just two other questions for Mrs Sklavenitis.

PN159

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN160

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Can you explain to me, what transpired in the café prior to your meeting of 6 December?---I met with my union representative, Paul Mangan, at the café down the road from the Camberwell FSC and we were out in the court yard having a coffee. Paul had not met, I don't think, any member of the NAB before and he was sitting facing the doorway and I had my back to the doorway and he said to me, "Georgia, is that them?" and I turned around and it was them and before they sat down they looked at me and they packed up their stuff and they walked inside. As we were leaving the café again, Paul acknowledged them, again they ignored me.

PN161

So did Ms Scoutas not acknowledge your presence in any way?---No.

PN162

Lastly, do you feel that throughout this incident that NAB have bullied you?
---Yes, I do.

PN163

THE COMMISSIONER: Well - - -

PN164

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Okay, Commissioner, I withdraw the question.

PN165

THE COMMISSIONER: No, no. I don't mind you asking questions, but you can't ask leading questions.

**** GEORGIA SKLAVENITIS XN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN166

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Did NAB bully you in this case?---I feel that they were making decisions on my behalf, yes.

PN167

That's all, Commissioner.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS IRWIN [11.13AM]

PN168

MS IRWIN: Mrs Sklavenitis, it is our evidence that Ms Scoutas gave you the option of attending the sessions with Rick Meehan after your return from sick leave. That's correct, isn't it?---No, it's not.

PN169

So Ms Scoutas did not contact you before you went on sick leave?---No. No, I had no contact - - -

PN170

And told you about that?---I had no contact with Ms Scoutas regarding any form of training whilst I would be away on sick leave at all.

PN171

Commissioner, our evidence will - - -

PN172

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I understand. You put - it's appropriate that you put the evidence that you're going to call so that this witness can make some comments.

PN173

MS IRWIN: It's also correct, isn't it, Mrs Sklavenitis, that you attended those sessions at the time you did, that you elected to attend those sessions at the time that you did?---No, I didn't. I did it forcibly. I felt that I had no choice. I mean, you know, being told that, you know, "You won't be looked at for future promotions if you don't attend" - - -

PN174

THE COMMISSIONER: Who told you that?---My branch manager, Christina Dinatale.

PN175

Thank you?---I felt that, well, I needed to do this because it would affect my job.

PN176

MS IRWIN: Thank you, Mrs Sklavenitis. Mrs Sklavenitis, did you take time off in lieu for attending those sessions?---No, I didn't.

PN177

But you have previously taken time off in lieu, haven't you, Mrs Sklavenitis? For example, around the Lend Smarter Creditor Training?---No, I have not.

**** GEORGIA SKLAVENITIS XXN MS IRWIN
PN178

You took time off in lieu of those sessions?---No, I did not.

PN179

Did you ask to be paid overtime instead of taking time off in lieu?---There was never a discussion. As far as I know, I did question my branch manager, Christina Dinatale, "If you expect me to go on these training courses on my days off, how am I going to be paid for them?" And it was basically said that, "You know I don't pay overtime. It's going to affect our bonuses at the end of the year."

PN180

Well, Mrs Sklavenitis, it's certainly our evidence that you did not ask or inform Ms Dinatale that you wished to be paid overtime, that's correct, isn't it?---No, it's not correct.

PN181

Mrs Sklavenitis, it's our evidence that you did not raise the matter of payment for the time spent at the training sessions with your people leader, that you just took the time off in lieu as you required it. That's actually what happened, isn't it?
---No, it's not.

PN182

Also, Mrs Sklavenitis, it's our evidence that there were in fact four sessions that you attended with Mr Rick Meehan of approximately two hours in duration?---My mistake was that I never kept a record of what these dates were, so if you're stating that it's four sessions, I mean, I will lie if I tell you it was more than seven, if it was less than four, I do not know.

PN183

Thank you, Mrs Sklavenitis. It's also our evidence, Mrs Sklavenitis, that when you were asked in about August 2007 whether you'd be interested in working either four days per week or three that you'd indicated a preference for three days per week?---I was never asked whether I wanted to work four days or three days. I was told I had to choose because I was - myself and my work mate were the only ones in the area working a seven day fortnight and Mary Scoutas was not happy with that and she wanted that changed.

PN184

Did your days of work actually change at that time, Mrs Sklavenitis?---No.

PN185

Do you know if Mrs Wilson's hours of work changed at that time?---No. As far as I know mine have now changed. Mrs Wilson's have not.

PN186

It is also our evidence that you informed Mrs Dinatale, you agreed to move to the Hawthorn branch after being provided with three options as to being Hawthorn, Burwood or Camberwell?---That is not true.

**** GEORGIA SKLAVENITIS XXN MS IRWIN
PN187

In fact, Mrs Sklavenitis, you were in fact given time to think about it, that decision, a weekend in fact, according to our evidence, and after that informed Mrs Dinatale that you conceded to move to the Hawthorn branch, that's correct, isn't it?---I was told to come back the next day.

PN188

Mrs Sklavenitis, after you informed Mrs Dinatale that you were prepared to move to Hawthorn, Ms Scoutas spoke to you on 13 September. I believe that you were actually at the Camberwell FSE attending training on that day about the days that you wanted to work and you indicated that you were hoping to work three days per week, that's correct, isn't it?---I was - I said that I would work three days a week, given that they were forcing me to take this move, but I did not indicate what days they would be.

PN189

It's our evidence, though, that Ms Scoutas also stated in this discussion that your changed roster would commence at the time that you made the move to the Hawthorn branch?---No. I did not know when I was moving.

PN190

It's also our evidence that there was a discussion about the days that were required from you at the Hawthorn branch?---Not in that meeting, no.

PN191

Is that correct?---No.

PN192

It's also our evidence, Mrs Sklavenitis, that the rationale behind the move, namely the impact of your personal circumstances on your work performance was discussed between yourself and Ms Scoutas, that's correct, isn't it?---I have never been asked by management to ever explain myself regarding any personal issues ever. As far as I was concerned this was a business decision.

PN193

Okay. Mrs Sklavenitis, the question was not whether or not you were asked to explain, but whether or not there was in fact a discussion about the circumstances?---No.

PN194

It is our evidence, though, that in this discussion that Ms Scoutas had with you on 13 September that you did not raise any specific objections to the move to Hawthorn and in fact indicated that you would give it a go?---No.

PN195

That's correct, isn't it?---No. I told her that I was not happy with the move and I wanted to be given some time to try and sort out my situation, namely with the children having just transferred schools.

**** GEORGIA SKLAVENITIS XXN MS IRWIN
PN196

Mrs Sklavenitis, it's our evidence that the opportunity to move branches was provided to basically give you a fresh start giving the difficult year that you'd had?---I didn't need a fresh start. So I don't know how the bank can interpret that I needed a fresh start when I never complained about needing a fresh start.

PN197

Well, certainly, Mrs Sklavenitis, that's not what our evidence is. So, Mrs Sklavenitis, when you say that it wasn't until the meeting held with the FSU on 6 December that the reason for the move was an incident that occurred outside of the workplace, that that's not entirely accurate, is it? It had been made quite clear to you that the impact of your personal circumstances on your work performance was behind the decision to move you into the Hawthorn branch, wasn't it?---Yes. Only - from what I recall - I'm sorry, Commissioner, if I go a little bit off here, but I recall in the meeting with the FSU Mary Scoutas and Cathy Carroll, originally I was told that it was a business decision and then in this meeting Mary Scoutas said that it had been an incident with my in-laws and then my branch manager, Christina Dinatale stopped her and said, "No, it wasn't her in-laws, it was her husband." And that was pretty much that discussion, but no one elaborated, what were the specific incidents.

PN198

Mrs Sklavenitis, it's our evidence that when you did eventually state your specific objections to the move to Hawthorn that Ms Scoutas offered to change your starting times and your finish time on Fridays in order to accommodate you. Ms Scoutas did offer to change your hours of work to accommodate your concerns, didn't she?---She saw at cutting my hours even more, which I didn't see how that was going to help me.

PN199

Mrs Sklavenitis, it's our evidence that at the time of raising objections to the move to Hawthorn you did not actually object to working three days per week, did you?---Sorry, can you repeat the question?

PN200

It's our evidence that at the time of raising your objection to the move to Hawthorn that you did not actually object to the number of days per week that you were being asked to work, did you?---But I never formally agreed to them either.

PN201

But you didn't object to it?---Well, I wasn't happy about it, no.

PN202

But you didn't specifically object?---Well, yes, I told my branch manager, Christina Dinatale that I did not understand why I had to change from a seven day fortnight.

**** GEORGIA SKLAVENITIS XXN MS IRWIN
PN203

Did you inform Ms Scoutas of that, Mrs Sklavenitis?---Most of the conversations I had were with my branch manager.

PN204

I put it to you, Mrs Sklavenitis, that in fact Mrs Dinatale asked you not to tell anyone about your move out of courtesy to others who had not as yet been informed of their moves. Mrs Dinatale did not threaten to red gate you, did she?
---She did threaten to red gate me.

PN205

THE COMMISSIONER: What am I to understand by that term "red gate"?
---Sorry?

PN206

What does "red gate" mean?---As far as my understanding of red gating, it's a compliance issue, it has to do with financial compliance. For example, opening accounts, making sure when you're giving out the correct brochures, that's what I would interpret as red gating, financial, not personal, so I didn't see how the red gating was relevant and why I would be threatened to be red gated.

PN207

What's it mean if you're threatened to be red gated?---Threatened to be red gated?

PN208

Yes?---Well, obviously we're not following practices.

PN209

I see?---Correct procedures.

PN210

I see, thank you.

PN211

MS IRWIN: Mrs Sklavenitis, your performance rating for the last performance year was A2, Developing Correct Contributor, is that correct?---No. I cannot tell you what my scoring was because I can't actually ever recall seeing the scoring.

PN212

But you can't say that it's not correct, you just don't know what the outcome was?
---No, I don't. But - sorry, can I just continue?

PN213

Yes?---In the meeting that I had with my branch manager, Christina Dinatale, she told me that I would be classified as a valuable contributor. So I don't know what the scores were.

PN214

Mrs Sklavenitis, it's our evidence that you were in fact rated as a Developing Contributor. So on that basis, Mrs Sklavenitis, if, you know, we say you were rated as a Developing Contributor, would you therefore say that a person rated as a Developing Contributor has no performance issues?

**** GEORGIA SKLAVENITIS XXN MS IRWIN
PN215

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, she can't answer that because she indicated that she didn't know what her - but you can ask it, I suppose, another way, but don't preface it on the basis that that was hers.

PN216

MS IRWIN: That's fine.

PN217

It's our evidence, Mrs Sklavenitis, that after you'd conceded to move to Hawthorn that both full time and part time employees were invited to apply to work as an SSA at the Oakleigh branch?---I was on sick leave. I never saw the advertisement. I was told by other staff members that my job was currently being advertised. So I had no formal notification from management or anybody.

PN218

But you weren't aware of whether it was being advertised as full time or part time on that basis?---Well, I was told, and again I say this because I did not see, I have never seen the advertisement, that it was full time and this was more than one staff member telling me that they had seen it.

PN219

I have nothing further at this stage, thank you, Commissioner.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LESZCZYNSKI [11.26AM]

PN220

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Mrs Sklavenitis, how would the cut in hours which was suggested by NAB to help you meet your personal circumstances in terms of travelling time, how would that have affected your family and your family's finances?---Well, basically it wouldn't have helped me. Cutting of hours, less pay. We still have a mortgage et cetera. My husband had actually - has now had to pick up a lot of extra shifts to cover the income that we've lost.

PN221

That's all, Commissioner.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.27AM]

PN222

MR LESZCZYNSKI: I'd like to call Mr Paul Mangan from the FSU. Commissioner, I suppose prior to Mr Mangan coming here, the circumstances with Mr Mangan are the same as those of Mrs Sklavenitis in that you haven't been provided with the witness statement.

PN223

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, just stand there.

PN224

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Yes. Mrs Sklavenitis has got the copy of witness statement which is to be tendered. Obviously you haven't seen that. In the fact of Ms Irwin, the same circumstances, she only received that statement this morning. So I'm not too sure whether she's had a chance to have a look at that and whether you'd like to again adjourn to read the statement.

PN225

THE COMMISSIONER: I would. Do you have any more?

PN226

MR LESZCZYNSKI: No, just those statements.

PN227

THE COMMISSIONER: All right.

PN228

MR LESZCZYNSKI: So it's a bit shorter, Commissioner.

PN229

THE COMMISSIONER: We'll adjourn for 10 minutes so that I can read the statement.

<SHORT ADJOURNMENT [11.28AM]
<RESUMED [11.40AM]
<PAUL MANGAN, SWORN [11.41AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR LESZCZYNSKI

PN230

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Mr Mangan, what is your full name?---Paul Mangan.

PN231

What is your current address?---(Address supplied.)

PN232

Are you an employee of the Finance Sector Union of Australia?---Yes, I am.

PN233

Have you prepared a statement for the purposes of these proceedings?---Yes, I have.

PN234

Is that the document that was given to the Commissioner prior to the break?
---Yes, it was.

PN235

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you have a copy of that with you?---Not on me.

PN236

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Now, is that statement of 22 paragraphs in length?---Yes.

PN237

Is that statement true and correct to the best of your knowledge?---Yes, it is.

PN238

I tender that statement, Commissioner.

EXHIBIT #FSU2 STATEMENT OF PAUL MANGAN

PN239

MR LESZCZYNSKI: I have just one question, Mr Mangan. Can you please explain to me what transpired in the café prior to the meeting of 6 December with Ms Scoutas and Ms Dinatale?---We went into a café, Georgia and myself, just to have a coffee before the meeting, just to go over a few things. The café was near the Camberwell Finance Centre, I can't remember the name of the café, and it had sort of a back garden area which we went down to and had a coffee. About 10 minutes later there was a party of four females came into the area dressed in business attire. I hadn't actually met Mary Scoutas or Cathy Carroll before. I assumed they were from the bank and they sat almost in front of us and Georgia advised yes, they were parties from NAB. They saw us and then stood up and left and presumed they either left the café or gone to the front room. Georgia commented to me that she was disappointed that they hadn't acknowledged her, come over and said hello or at least waved or nodded. I spoke to her a bit more about that. We finished our coffees and then left, proceeded through the front room where - actually where Ms Scoutas and Ms Carroll were sitting and I walked past them, as did Georgia, and I did notice that they didn't acknowledge her and as we left Georgia did say to me that she was hurt and disappointed that they hadn't spoken to her even on the way out.

**** PAUL MANGAN XN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN240

Did any of those employees acknowledge Georgia in any way?---From what I recall I don't believe that they did.

PN241

That's all, Commissioner, thank you.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS IRWIN [11.44AM]

PN242

MS IRWIN: Mr Mangan, it's our evidence that Ms Carroll informed you that there had been an external situation that had been impacting on Mrs Sklavenitis and that the decision to move her from the Oakleigh branch was about trying to assist her through a trying time?---Mm.

PN243

That's what Ms Carroll informed you, isn't it, Mr Mangan?---Well, not quite like that, with all due respect, Ms Irwin. I originally contacted Ms Carroll and we had a discussion around 10 or 11 November. She didn't know much about the situation at that stage. She said she had to go and check. I advised her that Mrs Sklavenitis was disappointed and upset about the move. When Ms Carroll came back to me she said that she did mention an external incident, but she didn't go into any detail whatsoever about that. She didn't say that that was the catalyst for the move. She advised that it was a business decision that she was required at Hawthorn branch because of her skills and they needed to replace her at her current branch at Oakleigh because they needed a full time SSA with home lending experience.

PN244

THE COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry. Could you go to paragraph 13 of your statement?---Yes.

PN245

Is that your evidence?---Yes.

PN246

Your evidence is that you were told that the external issue was another reason for moving her?---Well, that's right. They had mentioned that there was an external issue, but that's all that was said.

PN247

MS IRWIN: So therefore, Mr Mangan, it's not very accurate to say that the reason for the move had changed after the meeting on 6 December because Ms Carroll had made it clear to you that there were issues occurring in Mrs Sklavenitis' personal life, there was that external issue that was impacting on her and impacted on the decision to move Mrs Sklavenitis to Hawthorn, that's correct, isn't it?---That wasn't how it was explained to me, that there was a personal incident that was affecting other people. She said there was an external issue but she didn't go into any sort of detail, as you did, at the meeting of - at the time we had the teleconference.

**** PAUL MANGAN XXN MS IRWIN
PN248

So in fact in any event, Mr Mangan, it's still accurate to say that you were aware that there was an external incident, whether or not the details of that were revealed to you at that particular point in time?---An external issue had been mentioned.

PN249

Thank you. It's also correct, isn't it, Mr Mangan, that Ms Carroll informed you that attempts had been made to accommodate Mrs Sklavenitis' family commitments by providing flexibility around start and finish times?---Sorry, when was that said to me?

PN250

That she informed you that attempts had been made prior to your meeting on 6 December?---Attempts had been made to?

PN251

To accommodate Mrs Sklavenitis' family commitments, by providing flexibility around hours of work and so on?---At what, at her current branch, her new branch?

PN252

At Hawthorn branch, that's what we're talking about?---Well, no. I would disagree with that.

PN253

It's also our evidence that in the meeting of 6 December the rationale for moving Mrs Sklavenitis to the Hawthorn branch was explained including that the move was to provide Mrs Sklavenitis with a fresh start given her personal issues?
---Well, I dispute that.

PN254

During the meeting on 6 December Ms Scoutas offered to change Mrs Sklavenitis' start times during this meeting, didn't she, Mr Mangan?---After discussing the situation Ms Scoutas did put to Mrs Sklavenitis that the NAB would be prepared to alter her working time so she could start later and finish earlier at the Hawthorn branch. We didn't agree to that.

PN255

But she did offer to make that change, yes?---Yes, she did put that as an option.

PN256

And she also offered to change Mrs Sklavenitis' finish time, not on every day, but on Fridays, which was the day Mrs Sklavenitis indicated she was going to have difficulty picking up her child?---That's right. She offered to reduce her hours, which would mean less income.

PN257

So, Mr Mangan, I think then that you'd have to say that NAB did make attempts to accommodate Mrs Sklavenitis' concerns regarding her family responsibilities, wouldn't you?---Well, I wouldn't say that's the case at all because if the only offer is to cut someone's hours, thereby reducing their income, I don't believe that that is accommodating.

**** PAUL MANGAN XXN MS IRWIN
PN258

Mr Mangan, in the meeting on 6 December you didn't raise the issue of Mrs Sklavenitis seeking overtime payments for the training that occurred in the middle of the year, did you?---I did not.

PN259

Nor did you raise the matter of Mrs Sklavenitis working three days per week, did you?---The meeting was an attempt to try and resolve the issue of the transfer so - - -

PN260

Not the days on which that transfer was to occur, though, was it, Mr Mangan?
---We didn't go into the gamut of all the issues. We certainly were trying to focus on resolving the issue of transfer to Hawthorn, which was the most immediate concern.

PN261

But certainly no mention of the overtime payments on the actual days to be worked at Hawthorn?---I didn't use that as a point to the meeting, no, I didn't.

PN262

Thank you. Commissioner, I have nothing further at this point.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LESZCZYNSKI [11.49AM]

PN263

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Mr Mangan, was the external incident which NAB is alleging is the main reason for moving Mrs Sklavenitis to the Hawthorn branch, was that mentioned any time prior to the phone hook up of 17 December as being the main reason for the transfer?---It wasn't and it wasn't explained in any detail at all. It wasn't advised to me that there was a personal incident that was affecting the branch which was the reason why they needed to move her.

PN264

And the meeting of 6 December, can you explain - - -

PN265

THE COMMISSIONER: I'm sorry. Look, I don't understand that. If I'm reading clause 12 and 13 correctly, is clause 13 referable to the discussion of 21 November?---Yes, it is, yes.

PN266

Well, the issue was raised.

PN267

MR LESZCZYNSKI: It was raised, but not as the main reason, and that's what I did ask Mr Mangan.

PN268

THE COMMISSIONER: No, I understand, yes.

**** PAUL MANGAN RXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN269

MR LESZCZYNSKI: So I'm saying it was raised, but it was not as the main reason for the transfer.

PN270

THE COMMISSIONER: I see.

PN271

MR LESZCZYNSKI: And the meeting of 6 December, which issue was that meeting to deal with?---Well, it was to deal with the transfer of - the proposed transfer to Hawthorn.

PN272

Was it meant to deal with the issue of the overtime or the change in hours?---No, no, it wasn't.

PN273

That's all, Commissioner.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.51AM]

PN274

MR LESZCZYNSKI: That is all the witnesses we have to call, Commissioner.

PN275

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Ms Irwin?

PN276

MS IRWIN: Commissioner, I'd like to call upon Mr Rick Meehan.

PN277

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, I'll just make sure I've got the right statement. There was not a new statement issued?

PN278

MS IRWIN: No, Commissioner.

PN279

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay.

<RICK MEEHAN, AFFIRMED [11.52AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS IRWIN

PN280

MS IRWIN: Mr Meehan, could you please state your name and address for the Commission?---Rick Meehan (address supplied).

PN281

Mr Meehan, if I can just provide you with a copy of your statement. Mr Meehan, is this a copy of your witness statement?---It is.

PN282

Are there any amendments that you'd like to make?---No, thanks, no.

PN283

So would you say the statement is true and correct, Mr Meehan?---I would.

PN284

Commissioner, I'd like to tender Mr Meehan's statement as evidence, if I may.

EXHIBIT #NAB1 STATEMENT OF RICK MEEHAN

PN285

MS IRWIN: Mr Meehan, how many of these training sessions did you conduct starting in July?---There were four altogether.

PN286

Can you recall what dates those sessions occurred on?---26 July, 9 and 23 August and 13 September.

PN287

THE COMMISSIONER: That's contained in the statement.

PN288

MS IRWIN: How long were those sessions scheduled for?---Two hours. Some may have gone for one hour, 45. Some may have gone for two hours 15.

PN289

Thank you. Nothing further, Commissioner.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LESZCZYNSKI [11.54AM]

PN290

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Mr Meehan, can you provide any documentation detailing the number and length of the training sessions?---Not that I have on me today.

PN291

In terms of the length of the sessions, what would you say was the longest session?---All of my training sessions usually go for two hours. I do not conduct training sessions for longer simply because the attendees cannot keep interest for any longer than that. I wouldn't expect them to.

PN292

Now, in your statement you indicate that you did not force anyone to attend the training session?---Correct.

**** RICK MEEHAN XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN293

Can you be certain that no one else - - -

PN294

THE COMMISSIONER: He can't answer that question.

PN295

MR LESZCZYNSKI: That's all, Commissioner.

PN296

MS IRWIN: No further questions, Commissioner.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [11.55AM]

PN297

MS IRWIN: I'd like to call Ms Mary Scoutas, if it please the Commission.

PN298

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, just let me make sure. There's a revised witness statement. Both of them are dated 28 March, is that right?

PN299

MS IRWIN: My apologies, Commissioner, that would have been an oversight on my part.

PN300

THE COMMISSIONER: That's all right. I just need to make sure I properly identify the attachment. The attachments remain with the new one, don't they?

PN301

MS IRWIN: Yes, they do, Commissioner.

PN302

THE COMMISSIONER: Now, can you identify a paragraph that I might look at on each of these to pick the most recent?

PN303

MS IRWIN: Commissioner, you would be looking at paragraph 16.

PN304

THE COMMISSIONER: Okay, right. I've got the most recent, thank you.

<MARY SCOUTAS, AFFIRMED [11.56AM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS IRWIN

PN305

MS IRWIN: Ms Scoutas, could you please state your name and address for the Commission, please?---Mary Scoutas, (address supplied).

PN306

Commissioner, if I may hand up a copy of the statement to Ms Scoutas?

PN307

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, of course.

PN308

MS IRWIN: Ms Scoutas, is this a copy of the written statement?---Yes, it is.

PN309

With the attachments provided?---Yes, it is.

PN310

And are there any amendments you'd like to make to that statement?---No, there's not.

PN311

Is the statement true and correct?---Yes, it is.

PN312

Commissioner, I'd like to tender Ms Scoutas' statement as evidence, please.

EXHIBIT #NAB2 STATEMENT OF MARY SCOUTAS

PN313

MS IRWIN: I have no further questions for Ms Scoutas at this point.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LESZCZYNSKI [11.58AM]

PN314

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Ms Scoutas, in your statement you indicate that for the days that Mrs Sklavenitis attended a training course, she was on sick leave in April and wasn't rostered on, she took time off in lieu, is that correct?---That is correct.

PN315

What documentation do you have confirming this?---I don't have any documentation.

PN316

Now, you state and provide documents around change in days for Mrs Sklavenitis' training date on 28 June 2007 to 25 June 2007. Where is such similar documentation regarding Mrs Sklavenitis' willingness to attend the training session when she was on sick leave?---Well, she wasn't actually on sick leave during that period. So you're asking me between 28 and 25 June, she actually was not on sick leave at that period.

PN317

Sorry. Just to clarify. In your statement you indicate that there was an incident where the training date that Mrs Sklavenitis was changed from 28 June - - -

**** MARY SCOUTAS XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN318

THE COMMISSIONER: Can you go to the paragraph?

PN319

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Yes. It's paragraph number 7?---Yes.

PN320

Yes, paragraph 7, and you say that those dates were changed and that you have an email there confirming that?---That's correct.

PN321

Again, why was there no such similar documentation regarding the training session that Georgia was to attend while she was on sick leave?---Sorry, you're asking me about the 25th and the 28th, or are you asking me about - - -

PN322

The one when Georgia was on sick leave, the day where she had - you had indicated she had volunteered to attend that training session?---Okay. Sorry, I couldn't understand your question clearly. So what you're asking me here is why I haven't submitted a email to - - -

PN323

Yes?---Okay. Basically this was a session that I arranged. I conducted the 25th and the 28th, so Georgia could not attend one because she wasn't working, so it was a request of me to change over, which I wrote back as an attachment A, I was quite comfortable to do that. With reference to the other sessions, I spoke with Georgia prior to her leaving to go on sick leave for her wrist operation explaining this was the situation, we were running a session to follow up Lend Smart and at that time I understood she would be on sick leave and she said to me at the Oakleigh branch that she was comfortable, if she was feeling fine, to come back to that session because all she'd be doing is staying at home. I did not conduct those sessions. Those sessions were conducted by Rick Meehan.

PN324

On what date was that conversation that you had with Mrs Sklavenitis?---It was prior to - it was a Friday, I believe it was a Friday prior to her commencing her sick leave for operation.

PN325

But again, there was no documentation actually confirming this conversation had taken place?---No.

PN326

Was there any particular reason why there was no documentation of this?
---Because we work in an environment of trust and honesty that we're speaking to our staff, if that's what they would like to do, no one was forced to attend and it was clearly we wanted to up-skill the staff in training. Now, it was a desire and one of the reason they were not implementing a lot of the lending applications and the processes was they lacked additional training. So I did not document everything we do. We don't - it was trust that I spoke with her. There was no enforcement. If she wanted to come, she could come and it's clear that we were having continuous training, she could join the next session if need be.

**** MARY SCOUTAS XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN327

I suppose, where was that level of trust when you did not take into account the objections raised by Mrs Sklavenitis to her not being able to meet her family commitments generally about the transfer to Hawthorn office, where Mrs Sklavenitis put forward to you that because of her family commitments she wasn't able to do that, you didn't take that into account, or it doesn't seem that you've taken that into account, where was that trust of Georgia in that relationship?---I disagree with that. I believe that I have accommodated and I have tried in many instances to assist Georgia. So it's a culmination, I've assisted Georgia throughout the other issues that she had had, but in particular with regards to moving her options, which branches she could go to. There was discussion around - well, there was an incident - "I can't be there by 9.30." We discussed at the meeting on 13 September around, "Well" - I didn't understand why she couldn't get from dropping off her children to Hawthorn branch within 30 minutes and because it was causing her stress for her belief that she could not attend, get there - she likes to get there early and I think some of her statements are in there on 31 - one of the attachments has got that detail in there. I accommodated by saying, "Well, why don't you start later if you wish to do that and make up the time elsewhere?" There was never a dispute - I was trying to accommodate along the way. It seemed to me that any of my branches that I had in my area, she was not interested in. I even sought to look for branches outside of my area to accommodate. So I disagree with your comment that I did not accommodate. I tried everything within my power to accommodate her.

PN328

We'll get back to that a bit later. Now, are you sure that Mrs Sklavenitis did in fact offer to attend the course while she was on sick leave herself?---Well, yes, because she said to me at Oakleigh branch that if she's fine she will attend because she was doing nothing during the day at that time.

PN329

And did Mrs Sklavenitis indicate that she wasn't happy with having to do the training course, not at that time, but prior - after that time?---Never. It was never raised to me ever.

PN330

Now, in your statement you indicate that for the time that Mrs Sklavenitis did the training course which wasn't her normal rostered hours, you indicated that she took time off in lieu. Is that correct?---That's correct.

PN331

THE COMMISSIONER: What paragraph is that?

PN332

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Paragraph 13.

**** MARY SCOUTAS XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN333

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN334

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Again, do you have any documentation around Mrs Sklavenitis taking the time off in lieu?---I don't have documentations. I have information where we have a relief system. When people are missing from work they are to be reported in to my assistant and when they get reported in, it's usually - we're down this day, why are you down? It's not that Georgia is away. It's a day that she's taking off in lieu because she's been on attendance at various training sessions. So in my mind I'm very clear that she has taken time off in lieu.

PN335

But this hasn't been provided as an attachment, this documentation?---They call through - the branch manager calls through any absence. It's part of the National Australia Bank's process of leave and relief. So even though our branch manager may have allocated someone time off, that's how I know. Like, do I have a piece of paper that says, yes, we signed off, no, I don't. But we get informed when staff are absent and the question is asked, "Why is so and so absent? Is it because they're sick?" And I was told that, "She's away but it's an arranged day off due to this, this and that reason."

PN336

So on those days that Mrs Sklavenitis took time off in lieu, such calls were made to you?---To my assistant, yes.

PN337

And I'm assuming your assistant takes some notes on that or - - - ?---She would not take notes. I don't know whether she has taken notes. Sometimes she might do them. We sit right next to each other, so she would say to me, "Such and such a person is absent today."

PN338

Now, if someone for example was to call in sick, it's not uncommon for you to ask that person to provide a doctor's certificate to verify that they've been off on sick leave?---That's correct.

PN339

And I suppose my question is why isn't there any similar documentation around the time off in lieu when it is also an absence from work?---Look, I believe - this has brought forward a need to do that. We went on a trust basis yet again, that when people are taking time off, that we are covering that off.

PN340

But isn't that the same situation with sick leave, isn't that a trust basis as well, and in some cases you're asking people to provide documentation, isn't there that trust between you and them?---I can assure you we have now implemented that definitely in our market because this situation has highlighted this.

**** MARY SCOUTAS XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN341

Now, what is NABs policy on staff being paid for working overtime that they are directed to do?---If they're directed to work overtime we will pay them overtime.

PN342

So all staff who are directed to work overtime by the team, their team leader or manager are either paid for this or I assume also given time off in lieu?---That's correct, depending on the options that they're wanting.

PN343

So no staff who were ever directed to work overtime are not paid or given time off in lieu?---No, not in my market. I do not have that issue in my market. Can't comment for other markets.

PN344

Okay. So if we were to ask your staff, have they ever been directed to do overtime which they did not get paid for or get time off in lieu, they would all say no?---Well, unless you bring every one of my staff in here, I'm not going to know that answer, but I would say to you directly, I have not given a directive that we pay overtime where it's - and if you want me to bring my financials, my profit and loss that shows that we pay overtime, I'm more than happy to do so.

PN345

Now, can you explain the - or give a bit of detail around the alleged incident that occurred that involved Mrs Sklavenitis that you claim is a trigger for her having to be transferred?---Sure. On 21 August Christina Dinatale, the branch manager, called me saying she had some concerns that she wished to bring to my attention. When I arrived at the branch it was a day that Georgia was not working and there were a few issues there at the branch around performance, but her major concern was around the fact that she had concerns about Georgia's performance, a lot of stress that she had in her life, personal life, that was impacting the branch. I asked for further questions on that and asked what specifically was it. There was an external incident that she explained to me had occurred that was making it very difficult, she felt, for Georgia to perform her normal duties day to day. This was absorbing her during the functions of the day.

PN346

How did you go about verifying that this alleged incident did in fact occur?---I didn't feel it was necessary for me to verify that incident. I believed if the incident was having an impact to the National Australia Bank, that's when we would escalate that further. I took what my branch manager had stated to me to be true and accurate.

PN347

But you're saying that, you know, because this incident that was affecting the branch, well, if you haven't verified that incident actually occurred, how can that incident be having a negative effect on the branch when you have - but were not certain that the incident actually occurred?---Well, my branch manager had told me that the incident had occurred because Georgia had been discussing it with the staff, had discussed it, and this was going on greater than just 21 August, that there were family members attending, discussing this. There was even - Georgia had sought counsellor assistance from an existing staff - existing customer of the National Australia Bank to get advice, legal advice on the matter. So this was impacting the overall environment.

**** MARY SCOUTAS XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN348

Again, I suppose if you're going to be using this as a justification for transferring a staff member, shouldn't you have actually verified that this had occurred?---This is partly - obviously that's one of the - the personal stress - she even had stated to me she was stressed, there was a lot of stress going on with her situation at home, with her daughter being bullied at school. She had highlighted that to me, even on September 13, she'd stated that there was issues going on with that. So I didn't feel it necessary for me to go and verify that information. She had actually highlighted that. We discussed that.

PN349

So you had not verified that this incident had occurred, even though you were using this incident as a reason to transfer Mrs Sklavenitis?---No, I did not.

PN350

Now, also, what was the alleged ripple effect that this incident had on the branch that you mention in your statement?---The ripple effect that I mentioned is Georgia had - was in the local community, so this is an environment, she's been there for a long time, spending a lot of time speaking to customers regarding this, being upset, bringing it to Christina Dinatale's attention, being upset overall. That was the ripple effect that it was having. The branch was not performing. The performance of - her performance was not up to standard, was not at a Valued Contributor level and it was because she was being - what would appear to be she was spending a lot of time considering her personal issues rather than the business issues.

PN351

And I assume again that you didn't try and verify that this had taken place in any way?---No.

PN352

Now, in your statement you also mention that there were conversations between Mrs Sklavenitis and her in-laws. Again, how did you go - - -

PN353

THE COMMISSIONER: What paragraph? Paragraph 17, all right. Thank you.

PN354

MR LESZCZYNSKI: How did you go about verifying that this did happen?---I did not verify that. I was advised of that by the branch manager.

PN355

So you weren't certain for starters that the conversation actually took place?---No.

PN356

And you weren't certain that it actually involved her in-laws?---Only based on what I was told.

**** MARY SCOUTAS XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN357

Now, in your meeting with Mrs Sklavenitis and Mr Mangan on 6 December did Ms Dinatale indicate to you that the alleged incident involved Mrs Sklavenitis' husband and not her in-laws?---That's correct.

PN358

So which was it, was it her in-laws or was it her husband?---Well, I believed at the time that it was her in-laws and then on the day she did say - Christina Dinatale did mention it was her husband at the door.

PN359

Now, isn't it actually the case that it was neither, that in fact neither her husband nor her in-laws had actually come to the branch and engaged in those conversations that were supposed to be disrupting the branch?---I wouldn't say that.

PN360

But you can't - you're still not 100 per cent as to whether it was her in-laws or her husband?---I think - no, I can't be 100 per cent certain on that. It was based on information provided.

PN361

Now, you've said that you raised in your conversation with Ms Dinatale that you wanted to see what staff at her branch were interested in working six or eight shifts a fortnight and that you thought Mrs Sklavenitis may be assisted by changing to six or eight shifts a fortnight. How did you think that this may assist her?---Because she was extremely stressed, I'd been told that she was stressed with her personal issues outside of work, with her daughter and her medical issues and I was being told that her performance was not up to standard and she was very stressed with her external issues in her life. Therefore if she was so stressed I suggested maybe it might be a better option to find out what are the preferences. Christina Dinatale did mention to me that Bev Wilson was performing - doing the bulk of the work and I sort of say, "Well, maybe we should be considering what are the options available." Is Bev wanting to take on more days if this is causing Georgia a lot of issues personally and she's not able to commit to the role because she's consistently worrying about these things, maybe we should look at it as an expression of interest?

PN362

I suppose how could working six or eight days both assist Georgia? You said that you thought that the option of working either six days or eight days may assist her, given the fact that you indicated that the stress and the fact that there were issues with performance, how did you feel that the option of working either of those may assist her as opposed to just working less hours?---Well, that was - it was an expression of interest. If she wanted to work less hours, more hours, it was an expression of interest. It was a suggestion that I had made at the time that whether it would be appropriate to work three or four, it didn't really matter, she could have come back with five days. It made no difference to me.

**** MARY SCOUTAS XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN363

Was there the option for Mrs Sklavenitis of remaining on seven shifts a fortnight?
---There were options still there. We still have not even moved Bev Wilson off her shifts.

PN364

So to the best of your knowledge Ms Dinatale did not indicate to Mrs Sklavenitis that she did not have the option of remaining on seven days a week?---Absolutely.

PN365

Now, you indicated in your statement that her performance in 2007 had been poor in answer to a couple of your questions?---Mm.

PN366

How was Mrs Sklavenitis' poor performance dealt with? Was she put on a PIP, for example, or - - - ?---She - her performance came up as below Fully Competent or Valued Contributor, so we discussed that at our management meeting about overall rankings, and we decided at that point her appraisal would need to be marked at that level and we would commence an informal improvement process after that.

PN367

But her performance was not poor to the extent of needing it to be dealt with in a formal manner?---Well, she had been absent for - we had to take into consideration the amount of time she had been absent from work and also I was being considerate around her stress that she had. I didn't want to put undue pressure on her further. I honestly believed, and still do believe that she had a lot of capability and that in the past had shown promise. So given I weighed up with Christina Dinatale whether this was a - you know, what type of ranking was this going to be? Was it - let's make it a Needs Improving, not an Unsatisfactory, because we knew she had a lot of issues.

PN368

But wasn't Mrs Sklavenitis' performance in 2007, while not up to her usual standards, still satisfactory enough not to warrant formal action to be taken against her?---I'm sorry. I don't understand the question.

PN369

In terms of Mrs Sklavenitis' performance, it may not have been up to her usual standards, but it was still satisfactory enough for NAB not to instigate formal proceedings against her in that regard?---We would commence under a developing contributor. We would commence informal action plans which were to commence, but Georgia then went on further sick leave.

PN370

So informal but no formal?---Informal at this point but we would then give her the benefit of the doubt, given the length of tenure that she'd had with the organisation and it's not my position to put people on formal performance plans. It's about - performance management to me is about bringing them up to speed, not any other form.

**** MARY SCOUTAS XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN371

Now, you indicate that the terms of NABs employment contract, including Mrs Sklavenitis', allows NAB to direct staff to work at different sites, is that correct?---Within reason, yes.

PN372

Now, are you aware that the terms of Common Law Contract are still subject to the provisions of an enterprise agreement?---Yes, I do.

PN373

Now, are you aware that clause 2.5 of the NAB EBA states, "We", being NAB -

PN374

actively promote the health and wellbeing of our employees with a balance between personal and work life.

PN375

?---Yes.

PN376

And are you aware that section (d) of the NAB EBA states that:

PN377

The intention is to work to ensure employees balance their work and family commitments to their satisfaction.

PN378

?---Mm.

PN379

Lastly, are you aware that clause 22 of the NAB EBA states:

PN380

NAB are committed to ensure that employees balance their work and personal commitments.

PN381

?---Yes, I've read the - - -

PN382

So were you aware that regardless of what was said in Mrs Sklavenitis' contract of employment, NAB still had to adhere to these provisions of the EBA?---Well, I'm no lawyer, so I'm not really sure if you want me to interpret the Act, or what are you asking me to do?

PN383

Well, I'm asking that in terms of you said that under the contract you had a right to direct her?---Yes.

PN384

But I'm asking, isn't that right to direct her still subject to those provisions - - - ?
---Yes, and I believe I have met those.

**** MARY SCOUTAS XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN385

Now, in your statement you did not indicate that when you were discussing Mrs Sklavenitis' situation that you discussed her personal or family commitments. Why was that?---No, I didn't - we did discuss on 13 September, we did discuss the stress in her life and she talked to me. I didn't want to embarrass about what had happened. That was my - I was not - you know, from a - we talked about personal issues. She talked about how stressed she was in her current position, that she was stressed because of issues that had occurred. She brought up her in-laws in that conversation with me. So what I'm - - -

PN386

THE COMMISSIONER: Mr Leszcynski, if your member is unable to maintain her composure, I'm happy for her to leave.

PN387

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Yes. I was just going to ask that after - - -

PN388

THE COMMISSIONER: No, she can do it now if she wishes to because I won't have people reacting to evidence. So if she's unhappy about the evidence, she's welcome to leave, all right, thank you.

PN389

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Yes, thank you.

PN390

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes?

PN391

MR LESZCZYNSKI: So did you in fact in the discussions discuss the impact that the moving would have on Mrs Sklavenitis' responsibilities?---Yes, we did.

PN392

How did you take this into account when making your decision?---Well, we had a meeting on 13 September at my office at Camberwell. At that meeting it went on for a considerable amount of time. We talked about my decision as to why I decided her to move her. One was the issues that she had. She actually bought up the stress that she had in her life. She was felt that also that the National Australia Bank has always been good to her. She made that very clear. She talked about the issues that she had with her daughter, about being bullied at school and other incidents. She did make reference to a situation that had occurred that she was uncomfortable with that had bought - precipitated the situation with her daughter. I did not go into it at that point because I didn't feel it was my place to. However, I then - we talked about why was I moving her to there. I said, "Look, you've got a lot of stress going on there. The performance of the branch hasn't been the best." She acknowledged that the year had been a difficult year for her and that she was - she knew that she hadn't performed to the level that she could have. I explained that the stress of putting her through Home Lending accreditation and putting on - doing more Home Loans at Oakleigh was probably causing more stress. She agreed to that because she wasn't comfortable with Home Lending. I explained that the decision to move her was either she could go to Burwood, Camberwell or Hawthorn. She - I had - obviously Christina Dinatale had told her that. She came back to me at that meeting, explained that Hawthorn was the preferred option. She did not want to go to Camberwell, did not want to go to Burwood. We then discussed how the stress had affected her input and she - I explained, it was a position for her to make a fresh start and she - at that point we talked about the date, so I'm a bit interested that the dates were not discussed. We discussed the dates at that point.

**** MARY SCOUTAS XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN393

But again I suppose there was nothing formalised on those dates that what you're saying the dates were agreed upon. There's no documentation about those dates?
---Well, I disagree with that because there's an email on 31 October that states from Georgia, it's in the attachments there, stating that the Monday and Thursday would not be an issue, Friday could be an issue. So as far as I'm concerned she's confirmed that also in her writing.

PN394

But did she confirm what day that she was actually supposed to start at Hawthorn?---Yes, initially she was told we emailed because it was a chain of moves that had happened. Initially we advised her and that was probably the second week of October or third week of October that the move would be happening on the 26th so that was what we gave her as a - initially to be honest
13 September when I said to her 31 October but I had a chain of eight positions to move to accommodate this so we turned that around afterwards and changed that. So we changed it from the 31st to 26 November and she was advised of that because she was on sick leave until 11 October.

PN395

And advised in what way, email?---The advice to Christina Dinatale. There would have been an email sent to Christina Dinatale from my assistant saying these are the days that the moves will be effected.

PN396

But you've not provided those emails to verify that she was notified on that date?
---Well, no.

PN397

Now, you said that you did take into account Georgia's family responsibilities when looking at the move. Did you take into account the fact that the added travel time could possibly negatively impact on her ability to meet her family commitments?---Look, you know, we looked at a whole series of moves. Apart from Oakleigh we could not find another branch that where I had a vacancy for the three branches, Burwood, Camberwell and Hawthorn. You know, there has been a privileged position that she lived in Oakleigh or Hughesdale to Oakleigh is very close. I can't accommodate every staff member. However we did look at the options. They were the three I had available. The three branches were those three. So the closest in my opinion would have been Hawthorn if that's what she wanted, otherwise Camberwell or Burwood. I don't know which other branches I could have accommodated. So we looked at those options and at the same time what is fair and reasonable travel was discussed and I've got staff that are travelling greater distances to go to Hawthorn. I don't deem that to be an inappropriate type of distance.

**** MARY SCOUTAS XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN398

But in this case, Mrs Sklavenitis was already working at the Oakleigh branch and it was you who was wanting to transfer her to another branch. Shouldn't that transfer have taken into account her family responsibilities and, you know, regardless of the situation of other employees should you not have looked at
Mrs Sklavenitis' responsibilities and taken that into account?---I think I did.

PN399

And how did you gauge what her family and personal commitments were?---From the information she provided to me the reason she could not go to Hawthorn branch was the fact that her contracted hours are to work from 9.30 so on a Monday and so Friday is the only day we finish at 5.30, so 9.30 till 4.30. I explained to her that should give you ample time still to get to Hawthorn. She explained to me that the reason she could not or did not want to go to Hawthorn was her children get dropped at 9 o'clock at the school. We talked about that in great detail about, well, you've got to drop your children 10 to nine and she said, "No, I want to be there dropping them at nine". That's fine, it's a choice that she makes. However, from nine until 9.30 will be sufficient time to drop - get to school. She acknowledged that she's the type of person that likes to get to work before the doors open and it would impact her and I explained to her that she's only contracted to work from 9.30 that gives ample time and so the concern was around that's the dropping off. Then there was a concern about picking up, so picking up after school she said she probably get them into after care on a Monday and a Thursday but had concerns about the Friday. So at that point she said to me if I had stayed at Oakleigh this would not have been an issue because I could have left half an hour, not taken lunch, picked up the kids and brought them back to Oakleigh. I explained at that point that we could not accommodate as a crčche or a child care service and it causes some issues to have your children running around in a secure place. So the issue irrespective of the move would have been there so at that point we talked about what about cutting your hours. I mean I'm trying to accommodate. There was never any suggestions what she wanted.

PN400

But see, this was after that decision had already been transferred to her. What I’m referring to is prior to the transfer how did you - prior to the decision that you felt
Mrs Sklavenitis had to be transferred to another branch how did you gauge what her family and personal commitments were?---Well, based on the information from Christina Dinatale because we went through she wanted three days. We had a business need. A business need was required also at various branches. The capability of - her capability, so if you ask me how did I gauge her personal, I didn't gauge the personal side of things because it wasn't brought to my attention it was a personal issue until later on.

**** MARY SCOUTAS XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN401

But isn't that what you should be doing? Isn't that what those clauses in the EBA state that you reach a balance between personal and work life and in making that decision should you not have considered that in terms of looking at what the impact would be on her personal and family commitments?---Well, with all respect I believe I have. I can't accommodate. I can't create branches next doors to everyone's homes, you know. I believe I did accommodate that.

PN402

But she was already working in a branch. You were wanting to transfer her and in terms of being able to transfer her do you believe you should have taken into account those provisions of the EBA in allowing Mrs Sklavenitis and personal and work life?---I believe I've actually done that, yes.

PN403

But how did you do that? Did you speak with Mrs Sklavenitis prior to making the decision and find out what exactly were her work and personal commitments?
---No, I did not.

PN404

And wouldn't that have been the easiest and the simplest way of gauging what her personal commitments were?---Well, we gave the option does she want to change her dates. She said she had stress in her life and would prefer to work three days, that was a preference, so I believe we met that. I don't think I needed to go into her personal situation so that was part 1 that I believe I assisted on that. Secondly, we gave options. We did not say you're going just to Hawthorn, these are the options you've got. I can't comment any further to that, I believe I have.

PN405

But the reality is you were still transferring her to another branch without consulting her about the need for the transfer in terms of her family and personal commitments, is that not the case?---I would say yes then.

PN406

Okay. Now, in your statement you also state that Mrs Sklavenitis conceded to move to the Hawthorn branch and by saying conceded this tends to indicate that she was not happy about it. Did Mrs Sklavenitis in fact indicate that she did not want to change branches?---On 13 September we're talking about now?

PN407

Okay. On 13 September she did say to me that she was not happy to take the move there. We explained the reasons and at that point she said she acknowledged her performance had not been great and she was prepared to give it a go and at that point I also explained to her that we had a chain of moves and that's why she was the first person in part of this chain. Now, subsequent to that she walked away, you know, quite happy because she walked away saying okay, I'm going to give it a good go there and there were issues. We talked that through. So when I say I haven't been consulted I totally refute that because we talked that through in detail. She then subsequently called a branch manager to advise that she was attending there, attending Hawthorn branch. So I saw that as that she had conceded. Whether it was reluctantly or not is interpretation.

**** MARY SCOUTAS XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN408

But she was still not given that same option of remaining at the Oakleigh?---Well, I think we had gone through the reasons why we were not leaving her at Oakleigh branch and that was the stress involved in the personal situation, the interruptions that she was having at the branch, so we had already explained that. We'd also explained the reluctance for her to implement the learnings of the Lensmark program to do the home lending accreditation piece. So we needed to take that as another number part of the stress that we didn't need her to be sitting there do home lending - she wasn't doing home loans. We needed someone with home loan accreditation there too.

PN409

THE COMMISSIONER: Could I just confirm one thing in my mind, a move from Oakleigh was not a consensual matter?---Initially, no, but at the end, yes.

PN410

And you say on 13 September then you got the impression that there was consent to move to Hawthorn?---Yes.

PN411

MR LESZCZYNSKI: And I suppose take this meeting on 13 September, was there any discussions about Mrs Sklavenitis' family commitments and how they would be impacted by her transferring to Hawthorn?---She didn't really raise many issues at that point. She never raised issues about childcare at that point. They came further on. The first I was aware of that was on the 31st.

PN412

Now, in your conversations with Mrs Sklavenitis on the 13th you indicated that you talked about how many days per fortnight Mrs Sklavenitis could work. What options did you give her in that regards?---I said to her the options were whatever options she wanted. We needed someone a minimum of three days but if she wanted to work four she could do four. If she wanted to do five, she could do five. We gave her all the options. She could choose what she wanted to do there.

PN413

Which included continuing to work seven days a fortnight?---I can't recall if we did discuss the seven days a fortnight at that point because she had already indicated back in August that her preference was to go to three days and when I said because she could do four days or three she stated clearly that her daughter has gone through a lot of stress, her family has been through a lot of stress, she wants to spend more time at home with her daughter and her family to get things in order.

PN414

Now, once Georgia at this meeting had allegedly agreed to go ahead with the move to Hawthorn and, you know, had worked out that she would be working three days - sorry, six days a fortnight which is three days a week, I'm assuming again there was no letter or email sent formalising this?---No, there wasn't.

**** MARY SCOUTAS XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN415

Given that those were quite significant changes to someone's work, wouldn’t it have made sense to actually formalise those in some way whether it be in a short email or whether it be in a letter to state that, you know, as per our discussions on 13 September, you know, you will be moving Hawthorn, these will be your hours?---Hindsight's a lovely thing, yes. It would have been good in hindsight if we had but none of that was done at the time because we were very clear, I was clear and Georgia was clear at the time exactly what days we were doing.

PN416

But are you telling me that whenever someone gets transferred that there is never any documentation sent to someone sort of, you know, formalising that or when someone's hours have been changed significantly there's no document formalising that?---We have no formal document, no, we don't.

PN417

But there's nothing ever sent like an email or anything like that?---Well, I can't say never. I mean in some instances, yes, it is done, some instance no. It's not a tick exercise. It's if we do it, we do it.

PN418

Now, you indicated that Mrs Sklavenitis was to commence working at Hawthorn branch on 26 November?---Mm.

PN419

Now, how was this communicated to Mrs Sklavenitis?---That was communicated via my assistant. It would have been seeking with Christina Dinatale to advise her, so it was via her branch manager.

PN420

And was this starting day discussed with Mrs Sklavenitis and agreed upon or was it just something basically said okay, we need her to start on this day?---Well, on a meeting on 13 September I initially advised that we would be making these moves on the last business day of October, so it was going to be 31st or 1st or whatever it was in November and she would commence in November, but due to the chain of events that that could be postponed if we could not get in order. So initially when I met with Georgia it was going to be on the end of - commencing 1 November. As that was not able to be done it was communicated via an email saying the changes will not now be occurring until 26 November.

PN421

But you don't have that email as an attachment?---No, I don't.

PN422

Okay. Now, you also stated the moving date was moved forward to
19 November, was this discussed with and agreed upon by Mrs Sklavenitis?---No, it was never discussed with her from my perspective however my assistant and Christina Dinatale would have explained to Christina the reason we were moving it forward was the person that was going to replace, had to basically take leave for a week and she was surplus at that point at the Oakleigh branch.

**** MARY SCOUTAS XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN423

I'm assuming that again there was nothing put in writing about this change in date?---As far as I'm concerned, no, there wasn't from my end.

PN424

Now, you indicated that you advertised Mrs Sklavenitis' position at Oakleigh for both full time and part time, or both full time and part time employees were invited to apply. Why was that?---Initially the position was going to be a direct swap, a comparable swap, so Georgia was to go to Hawthorn and the person from Hawthorn who wanted to do home lending and moved up into a personal banking position wished to - wanted to - we were going to do a direct swap. So initially we weren't going to advertise the position and that would have been all done. However, subsequent to that the person that was going into Oakleigh branch found it more suitable to go to Camberwell branch. So we advertised it then and we didn't really care whether full time or part people applied.

PN425

So were you happy to pay a full time employee to take up a position even though the hours that needed to be filled were only part time hours?---Either way it didn't - for me it was around getting people accredited up in skills so I had no indifference whether it be full time or part time.

PN426

So you were happy to pay someone to work hours that the business did not in actual fact need them to work in terms of the hours above the part time hours?
---Yes.

PN427

Okay. Now, in your statement you talk about the email from Mrs Sklavenitis on 31 October where she indicated she did not want to move to Hawthorn branch as the move would not allow her to meet her family responsibilities which included dropping off the children and picking them up. Now, in her statement did
Mrs Sklavenitis say firstly have you spoken to her about my transfer and at the time of making my decision to accept I felt that I had no choice and - sorry, that's one of the attachments?---Yes, that's right, attachment C, yes.

PN428

Okay. Now, in your email response you did not say to Mrs Sklavenitis that she had not spoken to you about feeling she had no choice, why was that, why didn't you do address that issue that Mrs Sklavenitis said where she felt she had no choice, she was basically forced into it and you didn't respond otherwise?---Well, I would have thought my line which says:

PN429

We did discuss the reasons for your move from Oakleigh to Hawthorn back in September and since then the changed move -

**** MARY SCOUTAS XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN430

So I believe that we had discussed it. I believe that we had discussed that and resolved that. Subsequently it's gone now from 13 September to 31 October so I believed that we had discussed that.

PN431

But again I suppose in that time there has been no confirmation of that in terms of an email, a letter or anything like that confirming that these arrangements which had supposedly been agreed upon on 13 September - - - ?---I think your question was whether she had a choice, not whether the email was sent.

PN432

Well, I'm going onto another question now?---Okay.

PN433

Did you - - - ?---I'm sorry?

PN434

Yes, did you find that again you're saying that there's a significant amount of time between 30 September and 31 October?---Mm.

PN435

And again I suppose in that time there was no documentation sent to Georgia formalising what you allege had been agreed upon?---No. I took that she was happy to go because she called the branch manager and the staff at Hawthorn and advised them she was coming. So I took that as we had moved on, she'd accepted it, she was happy and that was it.

PN436

Okay. And also going back to your email, you also did not respond to that line of Georgia's by indicating she did in fact have a choice in whether she would move branches or not and again why was that, why didn't she respond to that?---Sorry, which line are you referring to?

PN437

The same line from Mrs Sklavenitis where she says:

PN438

Having spoken to you about my transfer and at the time of my decision to accept I felt I had no choice.

PN439

Why didn't you state in your email that we have given you a choice and you have accepted it, given that that is what you are alleging what has happened?---Yes, I guess - I'm looking at this here and my comment at the time does state that -

PN440

The only potential branch would be Burwood, however we believe this would not assist you.

**** MARY SCOUTAS XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN441

So I believe that I had answered that.

PN442

And I suppose just also in that email you state that you discussed the reasons for the move from Oakleigh to Hawthorn but you didn't state what they were, and again was there any particular reason for not doing this given that supposedly it had been agreed upon between you what the reasons were?---I didn't think it would be necessary to put in writing the reasons of personal issues in pen to paper, I didn't think that would be appropriate.

PN443

THE COMMISSIONER: Can I just ask you to pause for a moment. It's your decision to transfer?---Yes.

PN444

And you took that decision after consultation with the branch manager,
Ms Dinatale?---Mm.

PN445

What was the basis for your decision?---Well, we had a branch manager meeting on 4 September where we look at it's a talent matrix day and competence, we did it every six months. We've actually got one happening next week and we review the competencies of every staff member and what their skills are like, their willingness and the needs of each business unit. So from a business perspective what Georgia was contributing to was her performance would have been better suited to a branch that there isn't a high demand for home lending applications where she could actually transition in. So the need was two different needs, so we've got personal issues here and business issues that I'm trying to balance here. So the decision to move Georgia and some of the other - we've had a staff move and she was not the only person to be moved. There were eight moves that were happening at the time so it was based on her abilities for skills and requirements for the business.

PN446

And had the business at the Oakleigh changed?---No, it hadn't in - sorry, changed?

PN447

Well, had their business requirements changed? I assume she'd be doing this work at the Oakleigh branch for some time?---The requirements hadn't changed. It's just that it was the same - there was more home lending clients coming into Oakleigh. Oakleigh is one of our largest stores which means there are more clients coming in with home lending inquiries. It's staffed with senior personal bankers. There are times our sales and service advisers need to be able to at least process lending and answer those queries and if they're not up to scratch or capable, we've done the investment in training, then we need to make sure that we're placing them in a branch where we're not put them in undue pressure. The business hadn't changed.

**** MARY SCOUTAS XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN448

And the reason why she was not up to scratch and capable?---I think it was the personal issues that she had.

PN449

Thank you.

PN450

MR LESZCZYNSKI: So are you saying that the reasons you wanted to transfer her were essentially business reasons that you didn't feel that she was meeting the targets of her job in Oakleigh and that her skills could be better implemented in Hawthorn or one of the other branches you offered her?---Well, initially it was the personal issues and so personal issues and business issues to me are being blurred here. I can't tell you which one came first but her personal issues were the catalyst of it initially, however the business issues were important too. It was all culminating.

PN451

But I mean not more than a couple of minutes ago you indicated to the Commission that it was business reasons and prior to that you had indicated to me that it was personal reasons and now you're claiming it's a mixture of both. I suppose what was the main catalyst for transferring Mrs Sklavenitis?

PN452

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, let me see if I'm correct in my understanding of your answer?---Yes.

PN453

You were saying that the personal issues as reported to you gave rise to a drop off in performance and that meant that you had a business need to move her to another branch?---That's correct.

PN454

Would that be a correct understanding?---That's correct.

PN455

Does that assist you?

PN456

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Now, you've stated in your statement that you tried to accommodate Mrs Sklavenitis' concerns by changing her work hours and allowing her to start later, to finish earlier on Fridays. Were there any discussions around how the loss of these hours would impact her and her family financially?---Yes, we discussed that if this was some - if she felt uncomfortable, felt that she couldn't get there on time I suggested what about coming in at 10 o'clock in the morning. Once that hurdle was overcome and then it was the Friday about leaving early because she couldn't go pick up the children. So I suggested given that you would be losing these hours that you could then come in and elect to work either on a Tuesday or a Wednesday to make up those hours if that's what you're wanting to do.

**** MARY SCOUTAS XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN457

But given the fact that Mrs Sklavenitis had already indicated she couldn't work additional hours because of family commitments wasn't your offer an unrealistic one given the fact that she would not be able to do those additional hours because of her family commitments which is what the whole issue revolved around?
---Well, the issue she wasn't - she stated that it was the picking up of the children, that's the picking up that she wanted to be there to pick up the children, drop them off in the morning. I was trying to find solutions. It was up to her which option she wanted to take. I believed that she could still get to work in time, there wouldn't be an issue with that.

PN458

But if you were indicating that in order to accommodate that that Georgia could start later and finish earlier on a Friday, given the fact that this change in her travel was at the instigation of NAB did you consider the fact that Georgia maybe as a way of moving forward through that should be paid for that travelling time given the fact that it was NAB who had instigated the move?---I don't believe that to be unfair travel. I mean it's 10/12 kilometres. I don't think that's unfair travel. We didn't discuss that at all.

PN459

But isn't whether it's fair or unfair doesn't really depend on the individuals' personal circumstances?---Georgia never raised a request to be paid for travel. If she had I would have considered it.

PN460

So that issue was never raised with you by anyone?---By Georgia, no.

PN461

But by anyone else as far as you're aware?---It was suggested after the event with a discussion, I can't recall whether it was - I think it was Cathy Carroll had suggested that you had put that or someone from the FSU had put that to us and I said, well, how come that was not brought just initially.

PN462

But when it was raised did you consider that?---No, I did not consider it at the time because I wasn't get a clarity as to what was required.

PN463

What do you mean you weren't getting clarity as to what was required?---Well, would that have been - how could I start to pay for something I didn't believe it was necessary to pay extra? What days was she wanting to work? I wasn't getting an outcome of what she was seeking.

PN464

Well, I suppose the proposal that - actually I suppose I need to be careful here because obviously this relates to a phone conversation that I don't believe you were a party to.

**** MARY SCOUTAS XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN465

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you have many more questions?

PN466

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Yes.

PN467

THE COMMISSIONER: We'll adjourn.

PN468

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Sorry?

PN469

THE COMMISSIONER: We'll adjourn for lunch.

PN470

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Okay.

PN471

THE COMMISSIONER: We'll adjourn until 2.15 and don't discuss your evidence, thank you. The matter is adjourned.

<LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT [12.46PM]
<RESUMED [2.14PM]

PN472

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Okay, Ms Scoutas, we were talking about the conversation you had with Mrs Sklavenitis on Friday, 2 November. Now, during this conversation did Mrs Sklavenitis ask if her hours could be revised specifically regarding working on Fridays, did she ask you that there was a possibility of her working hours being revised so she didn't have to work on Fridays?---Yes.

PN473

And did you indicate to her that she had to work on Fridays as everyone in the area was required to?---I indicated that yes, I required her to work on a Friday.

PN474

So does everybody in your area work on Fridays?---No, they do not.

PN475

So I suppose the question I have is why weren't you able to accommodate
Mrs Sklavenitis' request to have her hours changed not to work on Fridays?-
--Because the business does require people to work on a Friday so I've got sufficient people not working on a Friday so I couldn't have everyone not work on a Friday as such when I've got a need.

PN476

Okay. So not everyone works Fridays but you're claiming that in these circumstances that you didn't have sufficient staff already working on Fridays?
---That's correct. They're our busiest times, a Friday for a sales and service adviser.

**** MARY SCOUTAS XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN477

Okay. So essentially in this circumstance you were not willing or I suppose what you're saying is you're not able to accommodate Mrs Sklavenitis request to not work Fridays and make that concession to her?---I could not accommodate it.

PN478

I believe in this Mrs Sklavenitis also indicated to you that she was thinking of resigning, is that the case?---That's correct.

PN479

And what did she give as the reasons for this?---The reason is that she could not see a solution in the sense that she did not want to work on a Friday and she said that this was causing her a lot of stress and anxiety and that she had a letter of resignation in her pocket.

PN480

So do you believe this was an indication she was obviously not happy to move to the Hawthorn branch?---I took it as that she was not happy, yes.

PN481

Okay. Now, I suppose does Mrs Sklavenitis' actions in this regard seem consistent with a person who had agreed to a move to another branch for personal reasons not more than, you know, two months earlier?---Sorry, was it reasonable?

PN482

Well, do these seem like consistent with the actions of someone who had agreed to move two months earlier?---No, it did not.

PN483

Now, in terms of Mrs Sklavenitis been off on sick leave, has Mrs Sklavenitis provided NAB with doctor's certificates for all the times she's been off work?
---Yes, she has.

PN484

And in your conversation with Mr Brad Francis on 5 November did you indicate to him that Mrs Sklavenitis was needed at Hawthorn and that's why she was being transferred there?---Yes, I did.

PN485

Okay. And did you give any indication to him that given that, those circumstances, that a position shouldn't be found for her in his area if
Mrs Sklavenitis requested it?---Absolutely not.

PN486

Even though you had indicated you needed Mrs Sklavenitis to work in Hawthorn you were still happy for her to try and find a job elsewhere?---Yes, absolutely. I asked if he had a role there and if he could - he stated he did not have a role.

PN487

Now, you indicated in your statement that at the meeting held on 6 December which included Mr Paul Mangan, yourself, Mrs Sklavenitis and Ms Cathy Carroll and Ms Christina Dinatale that Mrs Sklavenitis has alleged personal issues have impacted upon her and the branch. Now again, I suppose how did you verify that these - - -

**** MARY SCOUTAS XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN488

THE COMMISSIONER: What paragraph are you referring to?

PN489

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Paragraph 52.

PN490

THE COMMISSIONER: 22?

PN491

MR LESZCZYNSKI: 52.

PN492

THE COMMISSIONER: 52.

PN493

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Yes.

PN494

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN495

MR LESZCZYNSKI: I suppose again, how did you verify that these alleged issues had occurred and that they were impacting upon the branch?---Based on the information that was provided to me from Christina Dinatale, the observational manager and also from discussions with Georgia on 13 September in the office where she told me she had stress and there was stress also related to the fact of what had happened and the pressure she'd been placed upon. She mentioned to me at the time also that her in-laws could not understand what had transpired in the incident.

PN496

And in terms of at the meeting what documents did NAB produce verifying that the alleged incident had occurred and caused by Mrs Sklavenitis' personal issues?
---None.

PN497

Now, if a staff member receives a developing rating for only one review does that require formal steps to rectify their performance such as using a PIP or anything like that?---No, it's two, developing and contributing, developing assessments required formal but you can implement informal which is our practice to.

PN498

Okay. Now, while Mrs Sklavenitis was at the Oakleigh branch are you aware of whether Mrs Sklavenitis had actually been involved in training staff there?---No, I'm not aware of that.

PN499

Okay. Now, whilst Mrs Sklavenitis was on sick leave did you contact her at all to find out how she was going or where things were at or try to come up with some sort of solution?---No, I did not.

**** MARY SCOUTAS XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN500

The last couple of questions, just earlier in the questioning you indicated that
Mrs Sklavenitis' poor performance had had an impact on the entire branch and that the alleged poor performance had sort of dragged down the branch, is that what you said earlier?---Yes, I did.

PN501

Do you have any evidence of this?---The results of the branch were not meeting their required performance objectives.

PN502

But that those results pinpoint the - - - ?---Well the results and also the feedback from Christina Dinatale about her concerns with the performance that Georgia was undertaking.

PN503

No, but the actual results didn't specifically identify Mrs Sklavenitis as being the cause of the branch not meeting its targets?---Specifically Georgia there's nothing, no, there was nothing specifically but that role was not meeting its requirements.

PN504

So isn't it a little extreme to say that one staff member out of 10 to 12 brought down the entire branch in terms of its performance?---Sorry, with regards to that the criteria that they're assessed on, their assessment criteria was not being met. So that comes down to, if you want me to go into detail with that, how many personal loans are approved, how many conversation triggers are actioned, so we have a measurement of what each role does. So there's a minimum standards that everyone needs to complete and her minimum standards were not being met.

PN505

But you're saying that that being one issue, her performance had brought down the entire branch so that essentially she was responsible for bringing down the performance of the entire branch?---The entire branch was not in question here. It was her role, her contribution to the branch. So there was segments of the branch that were doing very well but Georgia has nothing to do with business lending for example or the other sections are you asking me she's not responsible for telling, for example, the telling areas were fine. I'm not really sure what you're asking.

PN506

Well, previously you had indicated that her poor performance had brought the entire branch down and when I asked you a couple of minutes ago you verified that that was the case and that is why I was confirming that are you saying that her performance had brought down the performance of the entire branch?---Well, I must stand corrected there. I don't mean the entire branch of her performance. There was some aspects of the branch was fine but the performance with her areas that she needs to contribute to were not being met so our lending was a personal lending which is what something that's directly attributed to her role was not being met.

**** MARY SCOUTAS XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN507

That's all, Commissioner.

PN508

THE COMMISSIONER: Before you sit down, one question, I'd be correct in assuming, would I, that not everybody that has a developing rating that requires informal discussion is transferred?---No, absolutely not.

PN509

Why in this case?---Because of the fact that she was a longstanding staff member, there was a lot of issues in the branch and was reluctant to undertake the home lending, the training that we put through, the investment we had undertaken. She wasn't showing any signs of interest to implement those learnings in her role so that was an additional reason why she was identified. There was also there was a need for someone with her experience at a branch where those capabilities were not required. So it was a talent matrix review that we looked at, what capabilities she had and where that would best suit. Unfortunately we do need to transfer staff from time to time based on different skills and needs of each of the business review.

PN510

All right, thank you. Anything arise out of that?

PN511

MR LESZCZYNSKI: There is actually.

PN512

You've indicated that Mrs Sklavenitis was the one who requested to do the home loan training, is that correct?---No, initially I did the review in March and identified that having known Georgia and managed her in the past also that she had capabilities I believed would be suitable and in a branch such as Oakleigh we do need people that can discuss home loans and then she was keen to do it too. She showed absolute interest.

PN513

Okay. So in terms of the training that started in July it was Georgia who indicated that she wanted to do that training?---Yes.

PN514

Okay. And you're also saying that after she had completed the training she was unwilling to actually implement what she had done with the training?---That's correct.

PN515

Thanks, Commissioner.

PN516

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Ms Irwin, any re-examination?

**** MARY SCOUTAS XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN517

MS IRWIN: Yes, thank you.

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MS IRWIN [2.24PM]

PN518

MS IRWIN: Ms Scoutas, did Mrs Sklavenitis raise any specific objections to you in relation to the move when you discussed it with her on 13 September?
---Objections, yes - - -

PN519

Any specific objections?---Specifics, not really. It was more that she was concerned about the distance of travel time, that was all.

PN520

And if Mrs Sklavenitis was not having performance issues would you have sought to move her to another branch?---No.

PN521

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, I don't understand. I don't understand it for this reason, that I thought your answer to me earlier was that you were looking at a skills matrix and that you needed someone with her skills in Hawthorn rather than Oakleigh?---That's correct but the first - what was happening is she was highlighted because of performance. If she wasn't having performance issues she would have been - well, if she was performing well she would never have been highlighted because the branch was going well and why rock the boat that seems to be going correct, everything's in line. But in this instance there was things that were going on outside of the performance that were impacting it.

PN522

I see?---So we wouldn't move if something's going really solidly well, we wouldn't be moving that to rock the boat to put somewhere else.

PN523

Well, that gets back to the earlier question that I asked you. Is it usual to transfer someone if their performance is poor in any given assessment period?---Well, no, not unusual to do - I wouldn't be moving them. I would assess them and do a performance action plan but there was more issues here than just the performance.

PN524

And it's those other issues, the personal issues which you say bore upon your decision?---A heavier weighting, yes.

PN525

Okay, thank you.

PN526

MS IRWIN: Ms Scoutas, did you indicate to Mrs Sklavenitis that she could look for roles that she felt were closer to her home from Hawthorn?---Absolutely.

**** MARY SCOUTAS RXN MS IRWIN
PN527

Ms Scoutas, is the SAP payroll system changed - was that changed in response to the change of hours that were going to be required for Mrs Sklavenitis to work at Hawthorn?---Yes, that's right.

PN528

And do you know if this information is available to employees?---Yes, it is.

PN529

Thank you. Nothing further, Commissioner.

PN530

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks for your evidence?---Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [2.27PM]

PN531

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, Ms Irwin.

PN532

MS IRWIN: Commissioner, I'd like to now call Ms Christina Dinatale, please.

<CHRISTINA DINATALE, SWORN [2.28PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS IRWIN

PN533

THE COMMISSIONER: Please sit down, Ms Dinatale.

PN534

MS IRWIN: Thank you, Commissioner.

PN535

Ms Dinatale, could you please state your name and address for the Commission, please?---Yes, my name is Christina Dinatale and I reside at (address supplied).

PN536

Can I just provide to the witness a copy of her witness statement, please.
Ms Dinatale, is this a copy of your witness statement?---Yes, it is.

PN537

And with the relevant attachment, if you'd like to have a look?---Yes.

PN538

Are there any amendments that you'd like to make?---No.

PN539

And the statement is true and correct?---Yes.

PN540

Commissioner, I'd like to tender that statement as evidence, please.

EXHIBIT #NAB3 STATEMENT OF MS DINATALE

PN541

MS IRWIN: And if I may be permitted one question at this point?

PN542

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes.

PN543

MS IRWIN: Ms Dinatale, a copy of Mrs Sklavenitis' performance review is attached to your witness statement, is that correct?---Yes.

PN544

Did Mrs Sklavenitis participate in the performance appraisal and provide comments on the appraisal?---Yes.

PN545

Would you have said that Mrs Sklavenitis would have known that her rating was that of developing contributor?---Yes.

PN546

Thank you. Nothing further at this point, Commissioner.

PN547

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LESZCZYNSKI [2.30PM]

PN548

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Just following on from Ms Irwin's question, how was this communicated to Mrs Sklavenitis that her rating was that of a developing contributor?---In a face to face interview.

**** CHRISTINA DINATALE XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN549

Was the actual review itself and that form provided to her?---That is correct.

PN550

And when was that provided to her?---I'm not sure of the date exactly but it was when we had our face to face as per my witness statement which I believe should have been October.

PN551

Okay. Now, Ms Dinatale, what is NABs policy regarding making people work while they are on approved sick leave? Are staff normally required to attend training while they're on paid sick leave?---No.

PN552

Given that, why was it asked of Mrs Sklavenitis to attend the training course when NAB was fully aware she was on sick leave and as a result of the operation that it was not advisable for her to drive?---I did not advise she had to attend.

PN553

So how was it that Mrs Sklavenitis attended the course if she was not asked by NAB to attend it?---She was aware that the course was going and to my recollection, this was some time ago, we did not ask her to go. She did not attend during her sick leave.

PN554

So you're saying she didn't attend one of the days of the training course whilst she was on sick leave?---Not that I recall.

PN555

Now, in terms of the working hours, I believe that some of the hours that
Mrs Sklavenitis attended the training course was outside of her normal working hours, was that the case?---Yes.

PN556

And how was she compensated for that? Was she paid overtime, given time in lieu?---She was given time in lieu.

PN557

Okay. And how was the alleged agreement for Georgia to take time off in lieu formalised? Was it sent in an email or anything like that?---It was by mutual agreement.

PN558

Okay. But no documentation confirming that that had been agreed upon?---No.

PN559

Okay. Now, one of the things that you've indicated in your statement is that personal reasons played a very large part in the decision to transfer
Mrs Sklavenitis to Hawthorn branch and that a lot of this came about as a result of an alleged incident which you had indicated was affecting the branch and was that trigger was that. Can you just sort of explain to me a bit about what you understood the incident to be?---It wasn't the sole contributing factor. It was one of the factors, yes.

**** CHRISTINA DINATALE XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN560

And what was that incident?---There had been an incident at the school with her daughter.

PN561

Okay. So how did you become aware of the incident?---Georgia told me.

PN562

And what did she actually indicate to you about the matter?---What had occurred.

PN563

Now, you also indicated that the alleged incident caused some problems in the workplace with people coming in to speak to Georgia about the matter, was that the case?---That is correct.

PN564

Okay. Did you ever ask Georgia at all whether she had asked these people to come into the workplace and speak to her about the incident?---Why would she ask them to come into the workplace to speak about it? She did this freely of her own freewill at the customer interaction.

PN565

But were you aware of her asking these outside people to come into the branch to speak to her about the matter?---She didn't - customers came in and the discussions was sought as in that manner. I don't understand what you're asking.

PN566

That's fine, that's what I was trying to get at. Yes, thank you. Now, in terms of you also mention an incident involving Mrs Sklavenitis' husband where there had been some sort of conversation between her and him, again can you provide me with some details of what happened in that instance?---Details of? They had an argument?

PN567

Well, exactly what had occurred, did it occur over the counter, did they step outside the workplace?---Outside the front doors of the branch, yes.

PN568

And did you personally witness this?---Yes.

PN569

Okay. And how did you deal with that matter then?---How did I deal?

PN570

How did you deal with the matter - - - ?---I discussed it with Georgia.

PN571

Sorry?---I discussed it with Georgia.

PN572

And said what specifically?---That it wasn't appropriate to have that kind of argument in front of the doors of the branch.

**** CHRISTINA DINATALE XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN573

Now, is there a wall dividing where yourself and Mrs Sklavenitis sat in the branch?---Yes, but I regularly go out and go to where they are sitting anyway to manage my staff.

PN574

So you've indicated that on a number of occasions there were these incidents but given the fact that there were these walls between yourself and Georgia how did you see all these incidents occurring?---Well, clients specific, customers, our existing customers and clients relayed that information back to me.

PN575

And do you have any documentation on that?---Why would I have documentation? Sorry, no.

PN576

I would tend to assume that if a complaint had been put in about one of the
staff - - - ?---It wasn't a complaint. I didn't state it was a complaint.

PN577

Okay. So essentially what, clients had indicated to you that there'd been - - -?
---There'd been discussions about incidents, her personal incidences.

PN578

Did they indicate who had instigated those discussions?---Yes.

PN579

And who was that?---Georgia.

PN580

And did you ever raise that issue specifically with Georgia?---Yes.

PN581

And again, was there anything in writing confirming this?---No.

PN582

Now, when NAB was considering moving Mrs Sklavenitis due to her personal reasons which revolved around the alleged incident, how did NAB and yourself go about investigating whether this incident had occurred or not? Did you contact the school, the police?---What incident are you referring to sorry, be specific?

PN583

The incident you said where there was an incident at her daughter's school?---And the question that you asked in reference to that?

PN584

How did you verify that this incident had actually occurred?---I didn't verify it. Georgia told me what had occurred.

PN585

And again, is that in writing anywhere that Georgia indicated that to you?---No, she didn't but there are our existing clients who can verify, that the same information was relayed to them again.

**** CHRISTINA DINATALE XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN586

But you don't have any statements from those - - - ?---Written statements, no.

PN587

So essentially everything that you've sort of said has just been said verbally, nothing was ever put in writing?---No.

PN588

Now, you indicate in your statement that you had a meeting with Mary Scoutas where you discussed Mrs Sklavenitis. Who was the person who decided that NAB may want to move Mrs Sklavenitis to another branch?---It was by mutual agreement between Mary and myself.

PN589

Okay. And did you and Ms Scoutas talk about Mrs Sklavenitis' family commitments when discussing that issue?---Family commitments in what respect?

PN590

Well, in terms of, you know, how the extra travelling time would impact her and her ability to meet her commitments to her family?---No.

PN591

Okay. So you didn't take this into account when making that decision?---No, we don't take that into account.

PN592

Okay. Now, you've said that in the meeting you have - so you're not aware of the fact that - I'm sorry, I'm backtracking. You're not aware of the fact that under the EBA that there is a requirement or that there are provisions within the EBA which are about making sure that a person's personal and work life can be balanced?
---Of course we're aware of work life balance, definitely, and it was within the EBA agreement that she did not travel outside what was stated in those agreements. So the travel time that it would take to get there and return and the kilometres as stated in our agreement was clearly within that.

PN593

As far as I'm aware there's no specific provisions around kilometres within there in terms of it being reasonable or unreasonable in regards to travelling time, but I suppose that wasn't actually the question. My apologies, Commissioner. But you see, you're saying that you did not take into account then the fact that Georgia had those family responsibilities and that the impact that the move to Hawthorn branch would have on her work life balance?---The impact and the whole idea of the move was to give Georgia a fresh start. It was not to give her any detriment. It was to in fact help her. It was not to her detriment.

PN594

So wouldn't it then have made sense if it was to benefit her to actually discuss how that would impact on her?---We discuss the move with Georgia directly. I had that conversation with Georgia about the move.

**** CHRISTINA DINATALE XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN595

And what did she indicate in that conversation?---She was given time to think about the move and she came back with a statement that she would accept the move. So there was more than one discussion about the move and she accepted that.

PN596

Okay. And the fact that Georgia later indicated to you and to Ms Scoutas that she did not want to go ahead with the move and she was on the verge of resigning, those are the actions that are consistent with someone who had agreed to a move earlier on?---She agreed to the move and the incident that occurred when she finally decided to walk out without notifying the branch where she was going was one incident, when at the end two weeks prior to her move she decided that she no longer wanted to accept the position and that she was going to walk, not notifying anyone when she was leaving and going to.

PN597

But if she had readily agreed to the move why would she be in that position
of - - - ?---I can't answer that, sorry.

PN598

THE COMMISSIONER: Do you know when it was that you say she agreed to the move?---We had various discussions and in one of my discussions that I had with Georgia I recall stating to her that there was - Mary and I had discussed three different branches of which Georgia could go to. One of them was Camberwell, one was Hawthorn and the other one was Burwood and of those Georgia herself chose to go to Hawthorn. We gave her time to think about that decision. She did not make that decision on the spot. She went home, discussed it with her husband came back with the answer that she wanted to go to Hawthorn.

PN599

So would I be correct if I found that you'd decided to move her, it was a question of where that you discussed with her?---No. Our idea and the whole idea of Georgia's move was to give her a fresh start because of all her personal issues that were surrounding her at that point in time at our branch both within the community and it was affecting both herself and the branch that if she moved it would be giving her a fresh start to begin again.

PN600

I see. But did you ask her if she wanted to move prior to deciding that it was better for her to move?---We discussed - I did discuss with her the move prior to offering her Hawthorn as an alternative.

PN601

Yes. And you say she agreed that it was better to move?---She agreed to the move to Hawthorn specifically and she agreed that it would be better for herself to move and start afresh.

**** CHRISTINA DINATALE XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN602

You see, I was just wondering though at what stage a decision was made to move her and then after that was there consultation or was there a discussion beforehand that says look, we're thinking it's better for you if you move, we're thinking Hawthorn, Camberwell?---We never worded it in that manner, no.

PN603

I see. So you decided it was better - don't let me put words in your mouth but I just want to know the steps. You thought, did you, that it was better for her to move and then you discussed the options, or did you discuss with her the move and then discuss the options?---There was several events that occurred before the discussion about the move which I think are important because they impacted on what we now call the move. The discussions that occurred between Mary and myself in our meeting was due to specifically the personal issues that she was having as to how we could accommodate and help her and what would be the best options available.

PN604

Yes?---And during that discussion, because there were several moves occurring within our business unit, that it would be an option since these moves were occurring to offer Georgia the opportunity to go to another branch and that's when the discussion was then had specifically about the choice of the three branches, at which point the offer was made for Hawthorn, Burwood and Camberwell, at which point she chose Hawthorn.

PN605

Now, her evidence is, correct me if I'm wrong, her evidence is that she was faced with a decision that she was going to move and then there was a discussion as to where it was. Would that be an accurate reflection?---Not 100 per cent accurate, no.

PN606

Where is it wrong?---Because I think several discussions occurred prior to that. It wasn't we are going to move, these are your options. That was never the discussion had.

PN607

I see. Now, in her statement she says:

PN608

I asked if the matter could be discussed further before a definite decision was made and I was advised that I had no choice as no-one said no to Mary Scoutas.

PN609

Do you recall that being said?---No, never. She was given the option to decision. Georgia was given the opportunity to go away and think about it and then make a decision.

**** CHRISTINA DINATALE XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN610

But that was whether it was Hawthorn or not?---No, about the move.

PN611

About the move?---Yes. No-one forced Georgia to move anywhere. It was by her choice that she chose that branch to go to.

PN612

All right, thank you.

PN613

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Following on from that, so if Georgia had have come back and said I want to remain at Oakleigh branch, you would have accepted that?---It was not my decision. I did not have a final decision in that matter.

PN614

Okay. So as far as you were aware, if Georgia had have indicated she wished to remain at Oakleigh what would have been the likely outcome of that? I suppose would she have been allowed to stay at Oakleigh branch?---That was never asked of us. Are you supposing?

PN615

I'm asking the question in that given that Mrs Sklavenitis in her statement has indicated that she was told she did not have the option of staying at the Oakleigh branch?---She never asked to remain at Oakleigh, sorry. We never had that discussion. She never said she wanted to stay at Oakleigh.

PN616

But when you had your discussions with her about the possible transfer did you indicate to her that an option was to remain at Oakleigh branch?---No.

PN617

Thank you. Now, you've said that in a meeting you had with Mary Scoutas you discussed whether Georgia may be assisted by working six or eight days a fortnight instead of eight. How did you think this might assist her?---Sorry, I had an interview with both my staff members because I had two part time SSAs which is the role that Georgia was appointed at the time, and we discussed with Mary and myself the option of four days for Beth and Georgia to assist her with her personal issues that we went and then offered three days.

PN618

In your statement it says:

PN619

One of the things Mary and I discussed that may assist Georgia was whether she wanted to change her hours of work and maybe work three or four days per week given all her personal and health issues.

PN620

I suppose I wanted to - in what way did you think that those options would assist her in dealing with personal and health issues?---Well, given the choice of the three days would give her more time to spend with her family to resolve the issues that were at hand.

**** CHRISTINA DINATALE XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN621

But in that circumstance how could the offer of eight days assist Mrs Sklavenitis because that was the option that you did give to her, six or eight days?---No.

PN622

In your statement - - - ?---The offer was made to both staff members whether they would choose three or four days and what are you asking again, sorry, her going to four days?

PN623

Well, if you indicated that you believed the three days may assist her in terms of dealing with her family issues?---Yes.

PN624

By giving her more time with the family?---It was only to be equal to both staff members and offer the equal amount to both and it was their choice.

PN625

But in your statement you said three or four days per week given all her personal health issues?---Correct. That was totally to be equal to both staff members.

PN626

How did Mrs Sklavenitis react to your proposal she work six or eight shifts a fortnight instead of seven? Did she seem happy to have the number of shifts change per fortnight?---She wanted of course to discuss it with her family which she did.

PN627

And was she given the option of remaining on seven shifts a fortnight?---To remain on - well, she accepted three.

PN628

But was she given that option of remaining on seven shifts a fortnight?---She never asked to remain on seven days a fortnight.

PN629

But when you went to her and said - did you say you've got the option of either choosing six or eight days but you can still stay on seven days, or was it the case of you indicating she had to work six or eight days?---We were changing the shifts to either three or eights, to six or eight.

PN630

Okay. So that essentially she wouldn't be able to remain on seven days a fortnight?---We never discussed that.

PN631

But if you're saying that you were changing it to either six or eight that would imply that she - - - ?---It would imply but it was never stated that she could not remain on seven.

**** CHRISTINA DINATALE XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN632

Okay. But you did not indicate to her when you said look, we're changing to six or eight shifts a fortnight, do you want to choose one of those options or you didn't say to her you have the option of remaining on seven?---No.

PN633

Okay. And what reasons did Mrs Sklavenitis give for choosing six days per fortnight?---To give her more time with her family.

PN634

And I suppose what arrangements were worked out as to when this change in her roster would be implemented and how that would occur?---It would be on the - there were several moves that were stated to occur at that point in time so because there was up to eight staff members that were being moved the idea was to have all the staff at their new roles at the same time.

PN635

But wasn't that in relation to the transferring as opposed to the changing of shifts from seven to six? You indicated that it wasn't just Mrs Sklavenitis who was given that option, that Ms Wilson was also given that option, so that is in some ways a distinct issue from the transfer. Did you indicate to Mrs Sklavenitis or was it agreed upon when her shifts would be changed from seven per fortnight to six per fortnight?---It would be when she started her new role at Hawthorn.

PN636

Okay. And was a date given for that?---Not that I can recall specifically.

PN637

Okay. So essentially there was no arrangement as to how or when that would come into place in terms of a specific date and was it also - there was no specific date agreed upon?---Other than it would be the day she accepted Hawthorn and the move occurred that it would be at that date, yes, which was later then relayed to Georgia. She knew the date of the move.

PN638

And was there discussions as to which shift it was that Georgia would be losing from the seven?---Mm.

PN639

Was there an agreement a shift, which specific shift she would no longer be working?---Sorry, be more specific - - -

PN640

Was there an agreement? Obviously her shifts were being changed from seven a fortnight to six so she was losing one shift?---One day, yes.

PN641

Yes. Was there an agreement on which day that was?---A specific day?

**** CHRISTINA DINATALE XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN642

Yes?---Well, at the moment when Georgia was - it was Monday, Wednesday, Friday and in my discussions with Mary we stressed of the importance of the business was that the days preferred would be Monday, Thursday, Friday.

PN643

So there wasn't any actually specific agreement as to what specific days she would be working in the fortnight at that period of time, that that issue hadn't been agreed upon?---It was agreed upon when she agreed to the move.

PN644

Those days, that she would work those days if that was agreed upon when she agreed to the move?---Georgia knew the dates she would be working when she agreed to go and move to Hawthorn, yes.

PN645

So it was agreed then which shift she would be losing from her seven shifts?
---Yes.

PN646

Okay, thank you. Now, could you give a brief rundown of your version of events as to what was discussed with Georgia at your meeting on 7 September and I suppose just to maybe assist you that's at point 17?---Okay. The branch manager's planning day is where we discuss various capabilities within our business unit and we then look at the staff that we have and Mary does this in conjunction with all her branch managers and we discuss various ideas of either stepping up staff, moving staff and how we can increase their ability to improve themselves within the business unit.

PN647

Okay. That's your discussion between yourself and Ms Scoutas. I'm referring to the discussion you had with Mrs Sklavenitis on Friday, 7 September?---Sorry, are you referring to 17?

PN648

Point 17 and 18?---Yes, because that's the discussion at the branch managers planning day.

PN649

Yes. And then it says a discussion with Georgia on Friday, 7 September, so I suppose that then flows on to point 18. Can you tell me what you discussed with Mrs Sklavenitis on 7 September which is in point 18?---Sure. The reason that we chose the branches that we did, the smaller branches I did explain to Georgia that Oakleigh where we're located at the moment is a larger branch. Having a smaller branch would give her the capacity to develop a self server and as she acknowledge herself in her performance appraisal that she wanted to do that and by doing that we would give her - the smaller branch being Hawthorn would give her the capacity to step up and show some of her skills because she'd been and was quite knowledgeable in the business as she'd been there for over nine years.

**** CHRISTINA DINATALE XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN650

Okay. And during that conversation did you indicate to Georgia that there was the possibility of her still remaining at the Oakleigh or was she told it was basically she had to choose one of those three branches and that she needed to think about which branch she wanted to move to?---I asked her to think about it and to come back to me with a decision.

PN651

A decision about which of the three branches she wanted to move to?---She would prefer.

PN652

Okay. And I suppose what reasons did you give to Mrs Sklavenitis for wanting to move her to another branch?---To give her the opportunity to start afresh because of all the personal issues that had occurred in her life, to start a brand new beginning at another branch, leaving all of that behind her.

PN653

Okay. So that was the main reason for you to move her?---That is correct.

PN654

And so the main reason wasn't a business reason?---The main reason it was also a reason but not the major reason, no.

PN655

Okay. And how did Mrs Sklavenitis respond to this?---Well, she thought about it and came back that, yes, it would give her the opportunity for a fresh start.

PN656

So she didn't indicate to you on that day that she didn't feel comfortable about moving and she would have preferred to stay at the Oakleigh branch?---No.

PN657

And did she indicate to you when you raised those issues that the alleged incident that happened at her daughter's school that that did not actually happen?---She recounted to me exactly what happened so I believed her.

PN658

But again there's no evidence of what is alleged to have happened did actually happen?---Well, it was discussed with customers and people within the branch so more than one person heard the same story.

PN659

Now, in terms of your conversations with Georgia on this day did you discuss her family commitments and how the possible move would impact her?---On what day, sorry?

PN660

Again the meeting of 7 September when you were talking about the move to the three branches, did you discuss her family commitments and how a potential move may impact her?---Georgia was aware of how that would impact her, yes, we discussed that and as her child was moving to another school it could have been more convenient for her.

**** CHRISTINA DINATALE XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN661

So Georgia didn't raise any objections to the move on the grounds that it would mean that it would be more difficult for her to take the children to and from school?---No.

PN662

Now, after this meeting of 7 September and after Mrs Sklavenitis had come back to you and allegedly agreed to the move was an email or a letter sent to her confirming these details?---Details about move?

PN663

Yes, an email either confirming that you had offered the move, she'd accepted and, you know, that is where things were going to be progressing?---My recollection was that an email was sent by Mary to Georgia and that she accepted that.

PN664

But you don't have such an email as one of your attachments I assume?---No.

PN665

Okay. Now, in terms of what did you say to Mrs Sklavenitis about talking to others about the matter?---About what matter, sorry?

PN666

The transfer of her to one of the other branches?---Okay, I stated to both Georgia and Beth that they shouldn't discuss the matter outside the room when we had actually had the discussion as there were eight other moves at that point in time and not all the other staff members had been notified of their move and that until they had out of courtesy to those staff members to just let them know, give them time to be notified that we wouldn't discuss it outside the room.

PN667

Okay. So you didn't indicate to both of them that they would red gated if they discussed the matter with others?---No.

PN668

I suppose the other question is - - -

PN669

THE COMMISSIONER: What does that mean in your mind, being red gated?
---Red gated is where you breach bank policy. Basically that's what it means to me, yes.

PN670

I see.

PN671

MR LESZCZYNSKI: So I'm assuming then that you had informed Ms Wilson about the fact that Georgia was going to be transferring to another branch?
---Sorry, are we talking about in the room where we had the discussion prior to them leaving?

**** CHRISTINA DINATALE XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN672

You indicated that yes, you had told Ms Wilson as well as Mrs Sklavenitis not to mention - - - ?---Yes, in the same, correct.

PN673

So obviously you had indicated to Ms Wilson that she was - that Mrs Sklavenitis was going to be going to another branch?---That there was moves that were going to happen.

PN674

Okay. But did you specifically indicate that Mrs Sklavenitis was going to be moving?---At that point in time my understanding is that in the discussion we had with Beth and Georgia there was a possible move but it hadn't been finalised yet.

PN675

Okay. I suppose my question is why was the possibility of Mrs Sklavenitis being moved to another branch discussed with Ms Wilson given that it was obviously a personal matter of Mrs Sklavenitis at that time, why was that matter raised with Ms Wilson?---Because it would affect both staff members.

PN676

But couldn't you also say that the changes would also affect all the other staff that you had indicated were not to be told about the move?---They were not in my business unit.

PN677

Okay. In terms of performance was does the term developing contributor mean?
---That's below satisfactory.

PN678

So does this require urgent action by NAB? Does the person have to be put on performance improvement process, anything like that?---With someone that as experienced as Georgia was and had been in the bank for as many years one would assume through discussion and coaching that you would have discussions about how you could improve that person.

PN679

But it didn't require urgent formal action by NAB so performance wasn't of that - wasn't that poor that it required urgent formal action by NAB?---It did need attention and addressing, yes, because it was below satisfactory. So yes, it did need attention.

PN680

But it didn't require urgent formal action?---It did require urgent action. We would not let it go into a further digression of where it was, no.

PN681

But isn't it the case that a person does not get put on a performance improvement plan until they have had two development - - - ?---That's correct, yes.

**** CHRISTINA DINATALE XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN682

So her performance wasn't at that stage where she needed to be put on a PIP?
---No.

PN683

Now, prior to Mrs Sklavenitis informing you in early November that she was on the verge of resigning due to not wanting to move to the Hawthorn branch do you allege that she never indicated to you that she did not want to go to Hawthorn branch?---No.

PN684

So she never indicated to you she did not want to go to Hawthorn branch prior to then?---Prior to the day that we had our discussion, two weeks prior to her move?

PN685

Yes?---Yes, prior to that day, no.

PN686

Now, in terms of Mrs Sklavenitis threatening to resign, do these sound the actions of someone who had agreed to move to another branch as it was in their best interests?---Georgia accepted that it was in her own best interests. There were other personal factors that contributed to the decision that she made.

PN687

But if Mrs Sklavenitis had agreed that it was in her best interests why was she indicating that she did not want the move to go ahead?---She never stated she didn't want the move to go ahead other than that day two weeks prior to her move.

PN688

But again the question if she had agreed to the move why was she then saying - - -?---I can't answer for Georgia as to why, sorry.

PN689

Okay. Now, in terms of from your own point of view, do you think in the similar circumstances - actually I withdraw that. Are you aware of any circumstances as to why Mrs Sklavenitis would agree to the move initially and then change her mind for what appeared to be no apparent reason?---I can't speak for her decision, sorry.

PN690

I'm not asking you to speak for her, I'm asking are you aware of any circumstances that may have caused that?---No.

PN691

Whether that be in the branch or obviously you'd indicated that at other times that she believed that certain personal things had been said to you by Mrs Sklavenitis. I'm sort of asking whether you were aware of any of those sort of things have been put forward to you that may have explained why she didn't want the move to now go ahead?---No.

**** CHRISTINA DINATALE XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN692

Did you know of the email Mrs Sklavenitis sent to Ms Scoutas on 31 October 2007 where she indicated that she was unhappy with the move and she wanted to discuss it?---No, I was not copied into that email.

PN693

But you did subsequently become aware of that email? Did you subsequently become aware of that email?---Subsequently at a later date?

PN694

Yes?---Yes, sorry, yes.

PN695

Do you recall what date approximately that was?---No, sorry.

PN696

Now, after Mrs Sklavenitis went on sick leave did you contact her at all?---Sorry, which period of sick leave are we speaking of specifically?

PN697

Well, from 6 November onwards when she was on sick leave?---No, I made no contact with Georgia, no.

PN698

Why not? If she was one of your staff members isn't it logical to sort of ring her up and see how she was feeling and if she may be - at what point she may be ready to come back to work? Why was no contact made with her?---The decision not to contact Georgia during her leave was specifically addressed to the reason why she left. She left the branch without acknowledging why she was leaving that day so she did not give us the courtesy as to why she departed and left us down one person for the day. So I did ask however another staff member to contact her to see if she was okay and that staff member did ring Georgia to find out that she did go home well and ended up having gone to the doctor and was then announced to go on stress leave and it is for those reasons that I did not contact her.

PN699

Okay. So your reason for contacting her was not because you were directed not to or because that - - - ?---No, no. I did - she was contacted by another because I did want to make sure that she got home that day and that person did notify me that she had gone home successfully that day.

PN700

So there was actually nothing stopping you from contacting her?---No.

PN701

You just chose not to?---No.

PN702

Okay. Now, on 6 December you attended a meeting where Mrs Sklavenitis,
Mr Paul Mangan, Ms Scoutas and Ms Carroll were in attendance and obviously the issue that was discussed was the possibility of Mrs Sklavenitis being transferred. What were the reasons you gave her for wanting to move
Mrs Sklavenitis to the Hawthorn branch?---I don't recall what the reason was I stated.

**** CHRISTINA DINATALE XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN703

Okay. Now, at that meeting what documents - previously you've indicated one of the reasons for transferring her was personal issues that had spilt into the workplace and which had caused problems within the branch. At that meeting did NAB produce any documents verifying that these alleged incidences had taken place whilst she was at work?---Again we never had that. We've already established that.

PN704

Now, at that meeting were Georgia's family commitments discussed and how the move would affect them?---Yes, Mary offered knowing that Georgia was quite stressed about the move and about how it was affecting her work life, then Mary offered, well, what days would you like and what hours would you like to work. So the offer was made what hours would you specifically like to work was asked of Georgia.

PN705

And in terms of Georgia's objections did NAB ever reconsider the possibility of maybe transferring Georgia to another branch or to retaining her within Oakleigh branch?---The offer was made on the hours that she worked to be more accommodating.

PN706

So you weren't prepared to explore the options of looking at another branch for her to move to?---Other than Hawthorn?

PN707

Yes?---Well, the offer was made by Mary if there was another branch and the other one was Burwood that was discussed.

PN708

But did you upon the meeting ending, did you go and explore the possibility of others branches, other positions being there?---No.

PN709

Now, you indicated that you were willing to change her start and finishing times to accommodate her family commitments but obviously the loss of hours would also result in the loss of income. How were you prepared to compensate her for the lost hours and income that would come about as a result of the change?---It wasn't me to be compensating her, sorry.

PN710

But was there any discussions as to how she could be compensated for that?---No.

PN711

And so it wasn't discussed during the meeting or subsequent to the meeting?
---Georgia never raised the issue of being compensated for anything, sorry.

**** CHRISTINA DINATALE XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN712

Did Mr Paul Mangan raise that issue?---Not that I recall.

PN713

Now, are you aware of the letter that was sent to Mrs Sklavenitis on 10 December after that meeting that was sent basically confirming her at Hawthorn branch with three shifts?---No.

PN714

Okay. So you haven't seen that letter that was sent to her and that was - actually, no, sorry, it hasn't been tendered as evidence yet. So you have not seen the letter dated - - - ?---No.

PN715

Had Mrs Sklavenitis trained staff at Oakleigh branch?---Yes.

PN716

So there were no issues around her ability to train staff then?---Train in developing, yes.

PN717

There were issues or there were not?---No, no, no.

PN718

So generally speaking there shouldn't have been issues around her similarly doing the same sort of training at Hawthorn branch as she had been doing at Oakleigh branch?---The move had nothing to do with training of staff and nor was she asked to train staff. She had trained at Oakleigh and done quite successfully, up skilled existing staff at Oakleigh and that's all I can speak about because I know that she has done that. It had nothing to do with Hawthorn though.

PN719

Okay. So you're not saying that one of the business reasons - obviously you've indicated there's a number of reasons why Mrs Sklavenitis was being transferred to Hawthorn branch. One of those ones you've indicated is that yes, there were some business reasons for that. Were one of those business reasons that someone with her skill set including her ability to train and develop staff, were they one of the reasons which meant that her skill set was in need at Hawthorn?---No.

PN720

That's all, Commissioner.

PN721

THE COMMISSIONER: What did Mrs Sklavenitis say to you that had occurred at the school?---Specifically?

PN722

Yes?---There had been an incident - this is specifically to an incident that occurred with her daughter?

**** CHRISTINA DINATALE XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN723

Yes?---Yes. That her daughter had been bullied for some time and the one particular incident that occurred that morning when she dropped off her daughter at school was that this child had deliberately pushed her daughter. Georgia saw this and of course ran to assist her daughter and was quite angry that this child had bullied her daughter to the degree of making her fall on the ground. She then proceeded to take that child by the arm and pulled her to the principal's office to discuss what had occurred on the playground and why this child had continuously bullied her daughter and the child was crying and quite upset and the principal at the school was advising Georgia to let go of the child, that she couldn't hold on and grip the child, she was hurting her and to let her go and Georgia was quite upset about the whole incident.

PN724

Anything that arises out of that? If I understand the evidence correctly from
Mrs Sklavenitis, that that did not occur.

PN725

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Yes, that did not occur and I suppose I've asked the question but I'll ask the question. But you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that that incident allegedly occurred?---Other than customers who can verify that incident where she has seeked advice from those customers, written, no.

PN726

Thank you, Commissioner.

PN727

THE COMMISSIONER: I am correct in assuming, aren't I, that the evidence of Mrs Sklavenitis was that that did not occur?

PN728

MR LESZCZYNSKI: No, it did not occur and Mrs Sklavenitis and I indicated to NAB that if they wanted to she would give clearance for NAB to discuss the issue with the school because that did not occur.

PN729

THE COMMISSIONER: I understand. Thank you.

PN730

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Thank you.

PN731

THE COMMISSIONER: Any re-examination?

<RE-EXAMINATION BY MS IRWIN [3.11PM]

PN732

MS IRWIN: Thank you, Ms Dinatale. Thanks, Commissioner. Mrs Dinatale, did you decide who should attend the training course with Mr Meehan? Was it your decision?---Who we would nominate talented staff to attend, yes.

**** CHRISTINA DINATALE RXN MS IRWIN
PN733

So you nominated Mrs Sklavenitis as somebody who would - - - ?---Have the capacity, yes.

PN734

Okay. Did you actually tell Mrs Sklavenitis that she had to attend the training course whilst on her sick leave?---No.

PN735

In August 2007 you spoke to both Mrs Sklavenitis and Ms Wilson about a change of hours, that's correct?---Yes.

PN736

And according to your statement, Ms Dinatale, on or around paragraph 13, okay, in August 2007, that's when that discussion occurred with Ms Scoutas about the option of perhaps changing hours if there was interest in that, that's correct?
---Yes, that is correct.

PN737

The planning day, Ms Dinatale, that then resulted in the options of changing of branches to Mrs Sklavenitis, did that occur before your discussion with
Ms Scoutas in August or after?---After.

PN738

Okay, thank you. Prior to your discussion with Mrs Sklavenitis on 5 November did Mrs Sklavenitis indicate to you that she did not want the move to Hawthorn to go ahead?---No.

PN739

No, not even once?---No.

PN740

Was the decision to change Mrs Sklavenitis' hours at Hawthorn, so the suggestions that were made, you know, change from the 9.30 to 10 and so on, was that your decision or Ms Scoutas' decision?---No, Mary's decision.

PN741

And in the meeting on 6 December did Ms Scoutas offer to allow Mrs Sklavenitis to make up the time that she may have lost as a result of her changed start times or finish times if she'd accepted that, did she allow Mrs Sklavenitis to make up that time on other days?---Yes.

PN742

Thank you, Commissioner, nothing further.

PN743

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you for your evidence.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [3.14PM]

PN744

MS IRWIN: Commissioner, if I may now call Ms Cathy Carroll, please.

<CATHERINE CARROLL, SWORN [3.15PM]
<EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS IRWIN

PN745

THE COMMISSIONER: Please sit down, Ms Carroll?---Thank you.

PN746

MS IRWIN: Can you please state your name and address for the Commission, please, Ms Carroll?---Yes, Catherine Carroll, (address supplied).

PN747

Thank you. If I can provide Ms Carroll with her witness statement, please. Thank you. Ms Carroll, is that a copy of your witness statement?---Yes, it is.

PN748

And the attachment as well to that document?---Yes.

PN749

Are there any amendments that you'd like to make to the statement?---No, thanks.

PN750

Do you say that statement is true and correct?---I do.

PN751

Commissioner, I'd seek to tender Ms Carroll's witness statement as evidence, please.

EXHIBIT #NAB4 STATEMENT OF MS CARROLL

PN752

MS IRWIN: I have nothing further at this stage for Ms Carroll.

PN753

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you.

<CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LESZCZYNSKI [3.17PM]

PN754

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Ms Carroll, in your statement you indicate that Mrs Sklavenitis had previously agreed to move to the Hawthorn Branch. How did you know that she had agreed to this?---In the initial conversation that I had with Mary Scoutas she indicated that there had been an agreement and there was also an email from Ms Sklavenitis to Mary stating that she had agreed to it.

PN755

And that email is not attached to your statement in any way? Why is that? I suppose it's given the fact that it tends to verify some of the things that first sort of say in your statement, why is not tendered as evidence?---The email was the initial contact between myself and Mary and I asked her to forward me a copy and I helped her with her response to Ms Sklavenitis.

PN756

Now, what details of the alleged incident at Mrs Sklavenitis' daughter's school did Ms Scoutas tell you about?---She advised me that there had been an incident which was impacting on the workplace which was outside of the workplace at
Mrs Sklavenitis' school, or her daughter's school where she had shaken a child or something to that effect.

**** CATHERINE CARROLL XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN757

Okay. Now, did Ms Scoutas indicate to you in any way that they had investigated whether the alleged incident had taken place?---Yes.

PN758

Now, did Mrs Sklavenitis ever send you an email or a letter or indicate in any way to you that she had agreed to and was happy to move to the Hawthorn branch?
---No. To me personally, no.

PN759

So essentially when you say you knew that she had agreed to the move you're saying that based on what you had been told others, you had not actually been told that by Mrs Sklavenitis?---Yes.

PN760

Okay. Now, you say that you and Ms Scoutas looked at being more flexible with - sorry, you say that you and Ms Scoutas looked at being more flexible with
Mrs Sklavenitis' hours. Now, what discussions were there about how the loss of hours would impact upon Mrs Sklavenitis and how she could be compensated for this?---Well, originally I encouraged Ms Scoutas to look at more flexible options in terms of the hours and the location and just respond to Georgia, sorry
Mrs Sklavenitis, and then I think - can you repeat the last bit of the question, please?

PN761

Yes. What discussions were there about loss of the hours, how they would impact Mrs Sklavenitis and how she could be compensated for this?---Well, Ms Scoutas indicated to me that those hours could be made up in any way that Mrs Sklavenitis wanted to.

PN762

But given the fact that Mrs Sklavenitis had indicated that she was unable to do additional hours due to her family commitments, did this make a realistic option for her?---Well, I can't answer that on her behalf so.

PN763

Now, did Mr Sklavenitis say to you herself that if she was moved to the Hawthorn branch that she would go on stress leave?---No.

PN764

Now, were you certain at the time that Mrs Sklavenitis was alleged to have said to staff at the Oakleigh branch that if the move to Hawthorn proceeded that she would go on stress leave, that she was not already in fact suffering from severe stress?---No.

PN765

So in fact it was possible at the time she was already suffering from severe stress?---I don't know anything about that. I can't comment.

**** CATHERINE CARROLL XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN766

But it's not impossible that that is the case?---Sorry?

PN767

It's not impossible that was the case?---Well, I suppose not. I don't know.

PN768

Now, in your statement when you said when you and Mr John O'Brien reviewed Mrs Sklavenitis' case there was no mention in there of you discussing with
Mr O'Brien Mrs Sklavenitis' family responsibilities, why was that?---What do you mean, sorry?

PN769

Well, you indicated that you discussed the case with Mr John O'Brien in terms of how things had progressed but there was absolutely no mention in there of you taking into account Mrs Sklavenitis' personal family responsibilities and I suppose was that discussed in that meeting?---Mr Mangan brought the matter to me based on that point in itself so that's why I was reviewing the situation to make sure that there was no - well, we reviewed the matter and we believed that it was reasonable to ask her to move.

PN770

And when reviewing it did you discuss and look at her family responsibilities?
---Yes.

PN771

And you decided that it was reasonable based on - - - ?---Based on what we had been advised, yes.

PN772

Now, you indicate in your statement that when you spoke to Mr Mangan you suggested that further flexibility could be discussed with the branch manager at Hawthorn. What was the flexibility that you were alluding to there?---I was alluding to the fact that once Mrs Sklavenitis had started at Hawthorn if there was any further flexibility required in terms of having to leave 10 minutes earlier or get there later, or such that we do with all our employees, then she needs to speak to her manager.

PN773

So there was no serious discussion about compensating Mrs Sklavenitis for her extra travelling time to and from Hawthorn branch?---No.

PN774

Now, during the meeting you held with Mrs Sklavenitis, Mr Mangan, Ms Scoutas, Ms Dinatale and yourself on 6 December 2007 what documents were presented by you outlining NABs performance concerns with Mrs Sklavenitis?---Presented by me personally?

**** CATHERINE CARROLL XXN MR LESZCZYNSKI
PN775

No, presented by any people there attending?---None that I'm aware of.

PN776

Okay. And did NAB produce anything at that meeting verifying again that the alleged incident that had supposedly taken place that was causing Mrs Sklavenitis' personal problems, was any evidence produced about that again?---No.

PN777

Now, had Mrs Sklavenitis provided valid doctor's certificates for the time she was off work ill?---Yes.

PN778

In terms of the letter that was sent on 10 December after that meeting of the 6th, is it common to send letters two months after it was agreed upon that a staff member would be transferring to another branch and would be having different hours there or is something that would be normally done?---Well, the latter was as an outcome of the meeting on 6 December. Mr Mangan me to put the hours and the days in writing which I complied with.

PN779

But I suppose wasn't that also a reflection of what had allegedly been agreed upon between - - - ?---There were some changes to it.

PN780

But prior to that letter nothing had ever been said to Mrs Sklavenitis?---No, not that I’m aware of.

PN781

That's all, Commissioner.

PN782

THE COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Any re-examination?

PN783

MS IRWIN: No, Commissioner, I have nothing further for Ms Carroll.

PN784

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks for your evidence, Ms Carroll?---Thank you.

<THE WITNESS WITHDREW [3.25PM]

PN785

THE COMMISSIONER: Is that the conclusion of the evidence?

PN786

MS IRWIN: Yes, Commissioner.

PN787

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Yes, Commissioner.

PN788

THE COMMISSIONER: All right. Before going into final hearing of the submissions I want to see the advocates, Mr Leszczynski, Ms Irwin and
Mr O'Brien in chambers before I commence so I'll adjourn briefly.

<SHORT ADJOURNMENT [3.26PM]
<RESUMED [4.04PM]

PN789

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Commissioner, I've had a conversation with Ms Irwin and Mr O'Brien and I suppose what we've decided is that we would actually like a bit more time to try and see if we can come to some sort of agreement.

PN790

THE COMMISSIONER: Sure.

PN791

MR LESZCZYNSKI: In the event that we aren't able to we've sort of agreed that what we could then do is provide our final submissions in written form some time later this week if that suits, Commissioner.

PN792

THE COMMISSIONER: Yes, see how you go about your discussions to resolve it. Let me know whether you do or you don't.

PN793

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Yes.

PN794

THE COMMISSIONER: It may be that written form is not a convenient form for me because that avoids my questions to you.

PN795

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Okay. So with that in - - -

PN796

THE COMMISSIONER: There are a number of issues.

PN797

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Yes, okay.

PN798

THE COMMISSIONER: That I want to make sure that I understand clearly before I write the decision.

PN799

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Yes, okay. With that in mind, Commissioner, I mean what sort of time frame do you think would be appropriate for us to get back to you?

PN800

THE COMMISSIONER: Well, let me know by close of business Wednesday how you've been able to go.

PN801

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Close of business Wednesday, okay. Thank you, Commissioner.

PN802

THE COMMISSIONER: And then if you haven't been able to resolve it, it's a perfect opportunity, you've all heard what I've heard.

PN803

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Yes.

PN804

THE COMMISSIONER: It's a perfect opportunity to see if you can resolve it. If you haven't been able to resolve it I'll discuss with the parties a convenient to list it but we'll do it sooner rather than later.

PN805

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Yes, I understand, Commissioner.

PN806

THE COMMISSIONER: Thanks for your time.

PN807

MR LESZCZYNSKI: Thank you.

<ADJOURNED ACCORDINGLY [4.05PM]

LIST OF WITNESSES, EXHIBITS AND MFIs

GEORGIA SKLAVENITIS, SWORN PN126
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR LESZCZYNSKI PN126
EXHIBIT #FSU1 STATEMENT OF GEORGIA SKLAVENITIS PN134
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS IRWIN PN167
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LESZCZYNSKI PN219
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN221
PAUL MANGAN, SWORN PN229
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR LESZCZYNSKI PN229
EXHIBIT #FSU2 STATEMENT OF PAUL MANGAN PN238
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS IRWIN PN241
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR LESZCZYNSKI PN262
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN273
RICK MEEHAN, AFFIRMED PN279
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS IRWIN PN279
EXHIBIT #NAB1 STATEMENT OF RICK MEEHAN PN284
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LESZCZYNSKI PN289
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN296
MARY SCOUTAS, AFFIRMED PN304
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS IRWIN PN304
EXHIBIT #NAB2 STATEMENT OF MARY SCOUTAS PN312
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LESZCZYNSKI PN313
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS IRWIN PN517
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN530
CHRISTINA DINATALE, SWORN PN532
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS IRWIN PN532
EXHIBIT #NAB3 STATEMENT OF MS DINATALE PN540
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LESZCZYNSKI PN547
RE-EXAMINATION BY MS IRWIN PN731
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN743
CATHERINE CARROLL, SWORN PN744
EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MS IRWIN PN744
EXHIBIT #NAB4 STATEMENT OF MS CARROLL PN751
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR LESZCZYNSKI PN753
THE WITNESS WITHDREW PN784