On 5 December Mr Hall received an email from the applicant apologising about the other day stating she could not tolerate their dishonesty and unfairness and she had lost it. She said that she had told him before that she was not well enough to go under that much pressure. She confirmed that she had not listened to him and that she was impatient but could not wait another six months. She still sought his help. In a reply email Mr Hall, with the prior approval of his supervisor, said that he could no longer assist her as she had threatened to kill Ms Summers, she did not listen to him and continued to talk over him.
79 In cross-examination Mr Hall stated that he first came into contact with the applicant in November 2008. He stated that whilst he was aware the applicant was not working due to a workers compensation claim he was not aware of the injury or illness and had not seen any medical certificates. He said that he had organised to meet the applicant prior to the 1 December meeting and to therefore have the opportunity to judge whether the applicant wasn't up to it. If she wasn't he believed he had the opportunity to cancel the meeting. It was his view that the applicant was in a position to attend the meeting and progress the issues. During the meeting he said that he tried to stop the meeting on two or three occasions but the applicant was not listening to him, as she was very upset, crying and raising her voice. He believed at one point he told the applicant to shut up.
80 He sought to stop the meeting because he had concerns with procedural fairness issues. Complaints had to be in writing and be specific in detail, what was said who said it and when. The employee should receive a copy of the report and the material that's relied on and have the opportunity to respond to it prior to any punitive action being taken. The response then goes to the decision maker as well. He confirmed that a person can not be made redundant against their will.
81 Mr Hall rejected the words alleged to have been used by the applicant during the 1 December 2008 interview concerning the threat against Ms Summers. He said at the end of the meeting he tried to calm things down and get the meeting back on track as from his point of view he was trying to get a redundancy for the applicant as per instruction. It was his view that the introduction of new evidence during the meeting didn't allow the allegations to be finalised. The issues of process were trying to be rectified by the plan that was formulated during the meeting.
82 In responding to question from the Commission Mr Hall stated that what was said by the applicant was such a serious comment made against another person and it was not something that he was used to hearing. He had never heard this before and it came as a surprise and a shock.
83 Ms Marilou Agustin stated that she is the Human Resources Manager of Health Support Services. She said that on 18 July 2008 she received a phone call from the applicant complaining that she did not get an interview for the position of Customer Relationship Coordinator at Parramatta Linen Service. She said that she would review the recruitment folder. On 21 July she had a meeting with the applicant to further discuss her concerns. Ms Agustin explained the process and explained to the applicant that her application was inadequate. The applicant became upset and stated that she had been doing the job for more than twelve months, she knew the job and the clients and could not accept that someone was going to do her job. Ms Agustin offered to help her with her application which was initially refused but later accepted however by that time Ms Agustin was part of the employment panel for the third position so she could not assist. The applicant did receive an interview for the third position. She also sought Ms Agustin's help with other positions that were advertised.
84 Allegations raised by the applicant concerning Mr Wragg attitude during the interview for the Customer Support Services were not accepted by Ms Agustin who believed that Mr Wragg had acted in a professional manner.
85 On 10 October 2008 Ms Agustin was asked by Mr Wragg to assist in investigating three complaints against the applicant. One was aggressive behaviour towards a colleague, another making false allegations against the Operations Manager of PLS and the other was taking the car of the NSW Linen Manager without approval. A letter dated 10 October 2008 was sent to the applicant outlining the allegations including another allegation that that she had hung up on Mr Wragg.
86 On 14 October 2008 a discipline fact finding meeting was held with the applicant accompanied by Ms Ibrahim and Ms Agustin and Mr Wragg. At that meeting she denied being aggressive towards Ms Summer or accusing of taking the job from her. With respect to the issue of making false accusations against Mr Komarek and taking the car of Mr Deacon she said that she had apologised to both men. During the meeting the tape recorder stopped and the rest of the interview was taken in note form, which she would get a copy of.