Mahoney v Bechtel Construction

(#P29_993) [2014] FWCFB 236

(#P30_1103) (1998) 88 IR 21 as adapted in Ellawala v Australian Postal Commission [2000] AIRC 1151. See also Smith v Moore Paragon Australia Ltd [2004] AIRC 57 (Full Bench), [32]: "it should be borne in mind that the result yielded by an application of the Sprigg guidelines may vary greatly depending upon particular findings in relation to the various steps including, in particular, step one, which necessarily involves assessments as to future events that will often be problematic."

(#P36_1851) s. 392(2)(b)

(#P41_2115) s. 392(2)(c)

(#P43_2216) Mr Mahoney submits this is the proper measure for s. 392(2)(e) as the amount exceeds the legislative cap

(#P45_2433) Applicant's Outline of Submissions as to Compensation

(#P48_2542) Shorten v Australian Meat Holdings Pty Ltd (1996) 70 IR 360, 378 (VP Ross)

(#P49_2669) s. 392(5)(b)

(#P59_3813) Respondent's outline of Submissions as to Compensation

(#P68_4702) s. 392(2)(c)

(#P70_4771) s. 392(3)

(#P75_5107) Varani v Independent Advocacy in the Tropics Incorporated T/A Independent Advocacy Townsville [2011] FWA 1633

(#P79_5609) Ellawala; Enhance Systems Pty Ltd v Cox [2001] AIRC 1138

(#P85_6212) Offer of Employment letter from Bechtel to Mr Mahoney dated 27/4/2012 (Exhibit R1)

(#P89_6479) Transcript PN225-PN 227

(#P91_6584) some 9 months earlier. No subsequent similar conduct was in evidence

(#P98_7084) these are all related to the unlawful industrial action: Applicant's Outline of Submissions in Reply as to Compensation [3]

(#P100_7433) Respondent's Outline of Submissions as to Compensation [25]; the Applicant's Outline of Submissions in Reply as to Compensation assert he was entitled to be angry in the circumstances [4]

(#P101_7682) ibid [28]

(#P104_7829) Applicant's Outline of Submissions in Reply as to Compensation

(#P124_10562) [2014] FWC 5330

(#P125_10755) (2011) 208 IR 101: work health and safety breach and swearing

(#P126_10883) [ 2013] FWC 4377; appeal dismissed: Bechtel Australia Pty Ltd [2013] FWCFB 8053

(#P127_11194) [2012] FWA 6468: affd on appeal [2013] FWCFB 431

(#P128_11371) [2014] FWC 2351 (the employer argued for a 90% reduction)

(#P129_11497) [2014] FWC 1042 (employer argued for 75% reduction)

(#P130_11665) [2013] FWC 10240

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer