Application by S.B [2014] FWC 2104 (12 May 2014)

(#P31_2190) This was done in a manner consistent with the statutory charter of the Commission. See the discussion of some of the relevant considerations for a similar Tribunal in Minogue v HREOC [1999] FCA 85.

(#P73_6296) This was conceded by the employer without prejudice to its position on the merit of the application itself.

(#P81_6595) The basis of the applicant's claims was confirmed at the outset of the proceedings.

(#P91_7611) Another employee provided a statement but did not wish to give evidence or attend the hearing. Given the potentially prejudicial nature of that evidence and the other circumstances, I declined to accept or rely upon that statement.

(#P135_13285) Relying upon the Shorter Oxford Dictionary definition of "repeatedly".

(#P175_16471) 4 Yearly Review of Modern Awards: Preliminary Jurisdictional Issues [2014] FWCFB 1788 at [14] and [15].

(#P176_16728) Australian Education Union v Department of Education and Children's Services (2012) 285 ALR 27 at [26].

(#P177_16954) Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 at [69].

(#P178_17787) Mills v Meeking [1990] HCA 6; (1990) 169 CLR 214 at 235 per Dawson J; R v L (1994) 49 FCR 534 at 538.

(#P181_17969) [1985] HCA 48; (1985) 60 ALR 509 at 514.

(#P184_18417) Also see S_olution 6 Holdings Ltd v Industrial Relations Commission of NSW (2004_) [2004] NSWCA 200; 208 ALR 328 at 348 per Spigelmann CJ.

(#P189_18726) Explanatory Memorandum to the Fair Work Amendment Bill 2013.

(#P204_21255) The Explanatory Memorandum is a source to confirm that the meaning of the provision is the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text of the provision taking into account its context in the Act and the purpose or object underlying the Act; or to determine the meaning of the provision when the provision is ambiguous or obscure; or the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text of the leads to a result that is manifestly absurd or is unreasonable (s.15AB of the Acts Interpretation Act 1910).

(#P209_22495) 1 January 2014.

(#P210_22546) McInnes [2014] FWCFB 1440.

(#P215_23254) Newcastle Wallsend Coal Co Pty Ltd v Workcover Authority (NSW) (Inspector McMartin) [2006] NSWIRComm 339; 159 IR 121 at [301].

(#P218_23576) Thiess Pty Ltd v Industrial Court of New South Wales [2010] NSWCA 252, 78 NSWLR 94 at [65]- [67]; Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd v WorkCover Authority of New South Wales [2004] NSWIRComm 270; (2004) 135 IR 317 [58].

(#P219_23849) Macquarie Concise Dictionary definition.

(#P229_24715) At par 111 and 112.

(#P235_25529) Georges and Telstra Corporation Limited [2009] AATA 731 at [23].

(#P238_25766) Ibid.

(#P241_25948) Bropho v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [2004] FCAFC 16; (2004) 135 FCR 105 at [79].

(#P245_26374) See Von Stieglitz and Comcare [2010] AATA 263 at [67].

(#P248_26782) See the discussion in Department of Education & Training v Sinclair [2005] NSWCA 465.

(#P253_27436) Keen v Workers Rehabilitation & Compensation Corporation (1998) 71 SASR 42.

(#P283_31991) Transcript PN228.

(#P350_40310) Transcript PN954.

(#P368_42809) Statement of SB - Exhibit A4.

(#P379_44941) See Goldberg and Another v NG and Others [1995] HCA 39; (1995) 132 ALR 57, AWB Ltd v Cole and Another (No 5) [2006] FCA 1234, AWB Ltd v Cole and Another (No 6) [2006] FCA 1274 and Fair Work Ombudsman v Quest South Perth Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 608 on the question of the operation and potential waiver of privilege.

(#P390_46424) Although the absence of NP from the workplace might otherwise be relevant to whether there is a future risk of bullying conduct.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer