Transport Workers' Union of New South Wales on behalf of Rebtech Pty Ltd v Star Track Express Pty Ltd [2025] NSWIRComm 1011

1. The applicant, the TWU, is an entity within the meaning of paragraph (d) and therefore entitled to make the application. Rebtech is not in a class of entities entitled to make this kind of application.
2. It was not in issue that Rebtech was at all relevant times a member of the TWU. That said, it is not obvious that under the IR Act Rebtech must be a member of the TWU for the TWU to apply for reinstatement of Rebtech's contract with the respondent.

Background of Rebtech's engagement by the respondent

1. Rebtech had been engaged by the respondent under a contract signed on 19 March 2019. That contract had nominally expired on 18 March 2024, but continued to operate. Clause 2.1 of the contract set out:

"2.1 The term of this Agreement shall be for a period of five years from the Commencement Date and shall continue until replaced or terminated by either party in accordance with the provisions of the Act and this agreement."

1. The contract required Rebtech to comply with a range of the respondent's policies, including one titled "Our Ethics: How we do things at the Australia Post Group."
2. The contract also contained a clause concerning termination, which included that the respondent was able terminate the contract if:

"(e) [Rebtech]or any of its employees or drivers has unsatisfactorily performed their obligations under the Agreement;

(f) [Rebtech]or any of its employees or drivers has acted contract to the interests of StarTrack or the customers of Star Track;

...

(h) [Rebtech] or any of its employees or drivers has acted dishonestly or negligently; [or]

...

(j) The Approved Driver or any Alternative Driver of [Rebtech] is unreasonably objectionable or abusive during the course of performing the obligations under the Agreement;"

1. Between 19 March 2019 and 18 January 2024 there do not appear to have been any meaningful issues in the relationship between Rebtech and the respondent. None were alleged by the respondent. None of the respondent's witnesses suggested any.
2. It was the position of the TWU that Rebtech had an unblemished record until 18 January 2024. The Commission accepts that submission. That is what the evidence before the Commission establishes.

1. On 18 January 2024, an incident occurred at the respondent's Chullora depot. The precise details of that incident and its aftermath were hotly contested. The incident involved Rebtech's vehicle rolling away from where it had been parked by Wei Feng (Mr Wei), Rebtech's owner. It appears that Rebtech's vehicle rolled away approximately eight minutes after the vehicle was parked by Mr Wei.
2. Set out in a witness statement of 19 September 2024, Mr Wei says of the 18 January 2024 incident:

"14. On 18 January 2024, I took my scheduled lunchbreak at around 10:45am where once finished I exited the lunchroom and made my way towards where I had parked my car.

15. I got to the carpark and noticed that my car had become involved in a motor vehicle accident.

16. I had parked my car in the carpark at the Chullora depot prior to my break and for whatever reason the car had rolled forward of where it was parked and collided with another vehicle.

17. The result of which was that my vehicle had caused some slight damage to the other vehicle.

18. After I had assessed the situation, I moved my car and drove over to my loading dock where I exited the car and went over sand spoke to my supervisor Mr Steve Bogan (Steve).

19. I had approached Steve within two (2) minutes of the incident occurring who at that time was in his office eating some vegetables which I assume was his lunch.

20. I said to Steve 'I had parked my vehicle outside the toilet in tandem with another vehicle.' 'I think the vehicle behind me tried to reverse out and collided with my car from the back'. I asked Steve 'please check the security camera of what happened.'

21. Steve asked me 'is your vehicle badly damaged' I said 'no, it is not badly damaged.'

22. Steve said 'ok, I will check the cameras to see what has happened.'

23. I then went back to my loading dock and started loading my freight before leaving the depot for my second run.

24. I was not asked to fill-in an incident report and I did not receive contact from Steve or anyone at Australia Post that day.

25. I finished my working day at 4.30pm before heading home without any further issue."

1. The respondent concluded that the incident should be described as set out in the 30 September 2024 witness statement of Mr Chris Peters, the respondent's Fleet Supervisor:

"2. On or about 18 January 2024 employee Bill Arslan reported his car had been hit by another vehicle.

3. On 19 January 2024 | asked duty manager lan Wood (Mr Wood) to locate and review Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) footage to see what had occurred.

4. On that same day I looked at the CCTV footage which showed that Driver Jordan (Wei) Feng's (Mr Feng) vehicle was left unattended and rolled away by itself after having been parked on the slight incline for 8 minutes.

5. It was determined that the damage was caused by a roll away vehicle. Mr Feng had parked his van and switched vehicle off. He left to heat his lunch up and his van rolled away, over a walkway and scraping past a parked car. His vehicle came to a stop when he hit a tree. Mr Feng failed to report the roll away."

1. On 19 January 2020 there was a meeting about the incident. Four people were involved in that meeting being:

(1) Mr Wei;

(2) Mr Ian Wood, the respondent's Duty Manager;

(3) Mr Steven Bogan, a Team Leader employed by the respondent, and Rebtech's day to day supervisor; and

(4) Mr Chris Peters.

1. From his witness statement, Mr Wei described the meeting as:

"26. The next morning the previous fleet manager Mr lan Wood (lan) asked me to attend a meeting where he wanted to discuss the incident that occurred the previous day.

27. I was shown some security footage where I was only shown the back bumper of my vehicle and once the vehicle had started to move, lan stopped showing me the footage.

28. lan said, "the white vehicle parked behind me didn't hit my vehicle." I then asked lan "at what time did my vehicle move after I had arrived at the car park," He replied, "eight (8) to ten (10) minutes."

29. lan asked me to check if my handbrake was fully functional. I had the handbrake checked the following day and it was fully functional.

30. I did not believe that I may have left the handbrake off as I exited the vehicle and changed my shoes before locking the vehicle prior to having my break.

...

49. I never said that my car had rolled I was of the belief that the other car had collided with the rear of my vehicle."

1. From his witness statement, Mr Peters described the meeting as:

"6 On the 19 January 2024, I understand Mr Feng was asked to come into a meeting held by Mr Wood. Mr Feng elected to have Team Leader Steve Bogan (Mr Bogan) as his support person. I was present in the meeting as Mr Wood's support. The only notes I have of the initial interview form part of the initial HR case lodged. A copy of the email sent to HR is attached and marked "CP-1".

7. I recall that the following occurred in that meeting:

a. Mr Feng was asked to explain what had happened the previous day. He repeatedly said "Someone hit my van" even after being asked several times if something more happened. Mr Feng was prompted several times to explain what had happened as a result of his van being allegedly hit by someone.

b. Mr Feng was then shown the CCTV footage of the van rolling away and he asked to see several angles and events surrounding the roll away. Mr Feng was shown all CCTV footage leading up to the event which clearly showed that no one had gone near his vehicle, as well as CCTV footage of his vehicle rolling away. The entire incident CCTV footage was seen by Mr Wood Mr Bogan, Mr Feng and myself.

c. Mr Wood asked Mr Feng why he didn't report the roll away incident and he explained that he reported to Mr Bogan the previous day that "some had hit my van."

d. Mr Feng claimed to have put on the handbrake and put the van in park. When asked how the van had rolled away he replied "Well if it was parked there for that long, it's not my fault".

e. When asked why he didn't report the damage he replied "I thought the damage was not that bad".

f. Mr Feng was asked several times why he had not reported that his van had rolled away even after being asked several times. His answer was "Because it wasn't my fault because someone hit my van".

g. Mr Feng repeatedly denied being at fault or the roll away reportable as he kept referring back to the allegation that someone had hit his van and he was not to blame."

1. The email referred to by Mr Peters in paragraph 6 set out:

"lan Wood has met with Wei on Friday at 08:20am with me as his support person. Wei has asked team Leader Steve Bogan to be his support person.

lan asked Wei "Was there an incident yesterday (Thursday 18/01/2023) that you have not reported".

Wei replied "Yes, someone hit my van".

lan asked Wei "are you sure that's what happened?".

Wei replied "yes, the white car hit my van".

There was damage reported by Billy Arslan to his personal vehicle on Thursday 18/1 at around 15:40pm. Upon checking on camera footage, we found Wei's van had been parked for almost 10 minutes and rolled away all by itself. There was no one in sight when the roll away happened or between the time he parked and returned to the van.

lan showed Wei the footage of the van rolling away and then asked, "Did you forget to put your handbrake on?"

Wei replied "No, it was on".

lan asked, "Did you put the van in park?"

Wei replied "Yes, it was"

lan asked, "can you explain how the van rolled away then?".

Wei replied, "Well it's not my fault".

lan asked Wei "Whose fault is it then?"

Wei replied, "Well if it was parked there for that long, it's not my fault".

lan asked, "Why did you not report the van rolling away?".

Wei replied, "I thought the white car hit my van"

lan asked, "if you thought the white car hit your van, why didn't you report that?".

Wei replied, "I thought the damage was not bad".

lan asked Wei "Is the van safe to drive if you're saying the handbrake isn't working properly?".

Wei replied "Yes, it is safe"

lan asked that Wei provide a certificate of roadworthiness to ensure the handbrake was working correctly.

lan asked if Wei understood that not reporting a roll away and collision was a serious safety breach.

Wei replied, "Yes, but I don't think it's my fault".

lan again asked Wei "If it is not your fault, whose fault is it?".

Wei replied "Yes, I don't know".

lan reminded Wei he would need to provide a certificate of roadworthiness before returning to work to ensure the vehicle was safe to drive.

Wei supplied the certificate on Monday 22/01/2024 and is back driving in his van now."

1. The email is undated but was clearly written after 22 January 2024. In giving evidence to the Commission, Mr Peters adopted the contents.
2. Mr Wei's evidence was that he asked for the security footage on several occasions after the 19 January 2024 meeting, including asking to see further angles of the incident, which he says were not shown to him in the meeting of 19 January 2024.
3. His witness statement annexed a text message and an email which Mr Wei said supported those requests. Neither the text nor the email sets out in terms a request to see further videos.
4. The text messages annexed to Mr Wei's evidence set out:

"24 January 2024

Hi Steve: as discussed yesterday morning, pls send the security camera footage of 18 Jan accident to [Mr Wei's email address] since it requested by insurance company

Thanks"

1. The email annexed to Mr Wei's evidence, and which was to Rebtech's insurer, set out:

"Claim Reference: M085261345 (suspicious accident in startrack car park)

Hi:

Pls contact Chris [Mr Peter's email] for the panorama security camera footage. He is the depot manager.

I already asked him to provide the footage but he wants the insurance company to contact him directly.

The reason I want this footage is because I think this accident is very suspicious. I think someone entered into my car and released the handbrake.

Once you receive the footage, please let me know.

If your company has accidents investigation unit, pls let them know this accident."

1. It appears that the respondent had no further contact with Rebtech about the 18 January 2024 incident until 18 March 2024.

1. On the surface, the events of the meeting of 18 March 2024 were also hotly contested by the parties. The description by each of the witnesses giving evidence to the Commission, being Mr Wei, Mr Peters and Mr Myers, differed only in small, albeit important aspects.
2. Mr Wei placed considerable emphasis on being taken by surprise about the meeting of 18 March 2024, and that he was not afforded the opportunity to have a support person present at the meeting.
3. Mr Peters and Mr Myers downplayed the importance which should be placed on Mr Wei not being advised in advance of the meeting. They did not dispute that Mr Wei was told of the meeting very shortly before it began.
4. Mr Peters and Mr Myers asserted that Mr Bogan attended the meeting as a support person for Mr Wei.
5. As Mr Bogan was Mr Wei's day-to-day supervisor, the assertion that Mr Bogan attended the meeting as a support person for Mr Wei is, at the least, curious. Mr Peters and Mr Myers may have genuinely considered that Mr Bogan attended as a support person for Mr Wei. Mr Wei clearly did not consider Mr Bogan attended as his support person.
6. In their evidence to the Commission, neither Mr Peters nor Mr Myers recounted that anyone expressly stated on 18 March 2024 that Mr Bogan was attending as a support person for Rebtech.
7. It is clear to the Commission that Mr Wei did not have the opportunity to bring a support person along to the meeting on 18 March 2024, and this is largely because he was not given notice of the meeting.
8. The Commission doubts that it is possible for the respondent to have selected a support person for Mr Wei, and certainly not in circumstances where this was not expressly stated by either Mr Peters or Mr Myers and was not in any way adopted by Mr Wei.
9. It appears that it was the respondent's intention that the meeting would proceed by way of Mr Peters advising Rebtech, through Mr Wei, that the respondent had concluded its investigation into the incident of 18 January 2024, including that it had concluded that the incident was the fault of Rebtech and that Rebtech had failed to report the incident properly.
10. It was the intention of the respondent that Mr Peters would read out a pre-prepared letter of those findings, with the expectation that Mr Wei would sign the letter as having been read and provided to him. This would have concluded the respondent's investigation into and response to the incident of 18 January 2024, as far as the respondent was concerned.
11. It was not intended that Rebtech's contract with the respondent would be terminated because of the respondent's concluded investigation.
12. Mr Wei did not accept the outcome of the investigation, made clear that he would not sign the letter, and sought to engage in discussions as to the events of 18 January 2024.
13. In an email annexed to his witness statement, and also reproduced in that witness statement, Mr Peters described the meeting in the following terms:

"I have started to read the breach to Jordan. He has become very disruptive. I have asked that Jordan please let me finish reading through the breach first and if he has questions later, we can address those then.

Jordan has demanded to see the security footage again and kept being disruptive. Jordan stated 'It's not my fault the van rolled away. Tell me how its my fault if it didn't roll away for over 7 minutes. I won't sign that'. I have confirmed with Jordan that he has already seen the footage of the van rolling away by itself and had seen when he returned to the vehicle, assessing the damage, and driving away from the scene.

I explained to Jordan the breach was not only for the van rolling away but more for the fact he had not reported the roll away and the damage he had caused to another employee's vehicle. I also explained that the breach will stand either way, whether he decides to sign the letter or not.

Jordan has then claimed he reported the van had rolled away to Steve Bogan, (Jordans support person). Steve confirmed that Jordan had mentioned that someone had tapped the back of his van but nothing else had been reported. The damage was reported by the owner of the car which the van collided with.

As I asked that we continue the meeting, Jordan became increasingly aggressive and started shouting at me and waving his finger and pointing it in my face. Jordan yelled "I'm sick of this company! If you do that to me, you will regret it for the rest of your life. I'll kill you"

Jordan stormed out of the office and back to his van. ..."

1. In a statement he said was made on 18 March 2024, and which he annexed to his witness statement, Mr Myers described the meeting in the following terms:

"On Monday the 18/3/24 at approximately 11am, Chris Peters asked me to accompany him to a meeting as his support person.

We entered the Branch Managers office and Jordan Wei and Steven Bogan (Jordans support person) were already seated in the office. We sat down and Chris started the meeting by informing Jordan that the meeting was a follow up to a previous meeting held prior. He also informed Jordan that this meeting would result in a contract breach due to a vehicle accident that Jordan had failed to report.

Jordan immediately interrupted Chris and asked if he could see the security footage. Chris declined to show Jordan the footage as he saw shown it in the previous meeting and this meeting was to provide him with a breach.

Jordan demanded that he see the footage and said he would not be signing any paperwork. Chris acknowledged Jordans comments and told him 'That's fine. I'm going to provide you with a contract breach. You don't have to sign it if you don't want but this will be provided regardless. Jordan again demanded to see the footage as he felt there was foul play involved. Chris once again reminded him that the footage was offered at the previous meeting and this meeting wasn't about the actual accident with the vehicle but about him failing to report the accident afterwards. Jordan argued that he reported the accident to Steven Bogan. Steven told Jordan 'You asked me to check the cameras as you believed someone hit your van, you didn't say anything about your van rolling and hitting another vehicle'. Jordan replied 'maybe I didn't report my van hitting another vehicle but I still told you someone hit my van'. Chris then redirected Jordan back to the meeting at hand and told Jordan that this meeting was a failure to report an accident breach and a contract breach is the result.

Jordan stood up and again said he refused to accept the breach. He swung open the door and yelled 'I am sick of this company'. He pointed at Chris from the doorway and said 'You will regret this for the rest of your life'. He continued to talk as he backed out of the office but due to my position next to the door, his words became muffled and I was unable to make out what else he was saying."

1. In an email to Mr Peters, sent on 29 March 2024, and annexed to his witness statement, Mr Myers set out further:

"Last night, I was reviewing the statement I made in regards to the Jordan incident and I don't feel I quite captured the severity of the situation in its entirety.

Jordans aggressive body language, pointing at you, yelling and angry facial expressions made the atmosphere quite intimidating and threatening.

Since that incident, I was asked if I heard Jordan threaten to kill Chris as he walked out of the meeting.

I did in fact hear Jordan say something to that affect but as it was slightly muffled, I could only be 90% sure that's what was said hence why I didn't say he said it specifically in my statement.

As I'm sure there will be a follow up meeting with Jordan, and not only was Jordans body language threatening but he was verbally threatening too, may I suggest we hold the next meeting in the boardroom as it provides more distance between other parties and it has a second point of entry/exit

If Jordan does become aggressive again."

1. In his witness statement, Mr Wei described the meeting in the following terms:

"37. On 18 March 2024, Steve asked me to attend a meeting after I had finished my first run of the day.

38. Steve never told me what the meeting was about prior to attend the meeting he never suggested that the meeting was for disciplinary purposes.

39. I attend the meeting as directed in attendance was myself Chris, Steve and Luke Myers from Australia Post.

40. The meeting commenced where Chris started reading from a prepared letter outlining that I had breached co my contract.

41. The letter contained information that I disagree with as I never said when asked how the van had rolled away. I never replied 'well if it was parked there for that long. it's not my fault' when asked why you didn't report the damage I never replied 'I thought the damage was not bad'

42. I did report that my vehicle was involved in a collision on 18 January 2024 as I have addressed in this statement.

43. I said that the damage to my vehicle was not bad on 18 January 2024 when Steve asked me was my vehicle badly damaged.

44. I believed that the other vehicle that was parked behind me had collided with my car which is not correct.

45. I did not in any way lie about what happened.

46. Steve denied that I had reported the matter on 18 January 2024 and stated that I did not report the matter until the morning of 19 January 2024 which is not true.

47. I corrected him in that I did report the matter on 18 January 2024 right after the matter occurred.

48. He agreed that I did mention the accident occurred on 18 January 2024 but denied that I reported my car had rolled away.

49. I never said that my car had rolled I was of the belief that the other car had collided with the rear of my vehicle.

50. I was born in China and have lived in Australia for twenty (20) years English is my second language and I do sometimes have difficulties what is being said.

51. I did get upset during this meeting when three (3) managers in particular Chris had presented something that I had never said.

52. Chris presented an extracted sentence that was not true.

53. I did not at any stage threaten anyone or act aggressively I did argue my case.

54. I kept asking to see the CCTV footage but they would not allow me to see it.

55. I did raise my voice but never pointed my finger at anyone nor did I say that I would kill anyone."

1. The applicant's final submissions denied that Mr Wei had banged the table, had pointed at Mr Peters or had stood up and pointed at Mr Peters. It was submitted that the Commission should find that the final words spoken by to Wei were "let me tell you."
2. The respondent's position was that Mr Wei had banged the table, stood up and pointed at Mr Peters as words were spoken, and that Mr Wei's final words were "I'll kill you."
3. A recording of the meeting, recorded by Mr Wei without the knowledge of the other participants, was played to the Commission. The Commission will return to other consequences of the recording having been made without the knowledge of the other participants. For current purposes it is sufficient to note that the parties agreed that the recording was a genuine recording of the conversation.
4. Having listened to the recording during the proceedings, and it being agreed that Mr Wei spoke at least some words as he was on his way to the door of the meeting, and while exiting the meeting, it is inevitable that the Commission accepts at least the following as to Mr Wei's conduct at the meeting:

(1) Mr Wei was angry and shouting; and

(2) Mr Wei stood up at some point before he finished speaking and so was standing, otherwise he could not have left the meeting.

1. Whether Mr Wei banged the table or pointed his fingers does not add much, or in the alternative subtract much, from his conduct at the meeting. It accords with the tone and words spoken by Mr Wei that he was pointing at Mr Peters during the meeting. It was not obvious from the recording of the meeting that any banging of the table occurred.
2. In summary, Mr Wei's conduct was aggressive, loud and inappropriate. It is inevitable that it would reasonably be perceived by the other participants in the meeting as threatening.
3. The Commission has concluded that it is most likely that the final words spoken by Mr Wei were "let me tell you". This is based on the recording of the meeting played during proceedings in the Commission.
4. The Commission observes the consistency with which Mr Wei has maintained that these were the words spoken by him since his very first response to the allegation that his final words were "I'll kill you". The Commission also observes that the words "let me tell you" have a greater apparent consistency with the rest of the words spoken by Mr Wei.
5. To the extent that there is any doubt as to the words spoken, the Commission observes that the onus was on the respondent to establish factually that the words spoken were the ones which they submitted should be found. The respondent has not, in the opinion of the Commission, discharged its evidentiary onus in this respect.
6. After Mr Wei had left the meeting, he returned to Rebtech's vehicle and begun to unload packages which he had been scheduled to deliver that day.
7. Mr Meyer and Mr Bogan followed Mr Wei and there was an exchange between the three of them, the detail of which was contested, although its tenor was agreed.
8. In substance the discussion was to the effect that Myers and Mr Peters did not think Mr Wei should perform deliveries given his state of mind. Mr Wei had already reached this conclusion himself.
9. Whether Mr Wei was throwing or otherwise handling packages inappropriately in removing them from Rebtech's vehicle, or whether he was doing so in an orderly and calm manner, was not agreed.
10. Given the conclusions the Commission has reached as to Mr Wei's conduct during the meeting, the Commission has concluded it is more likely that Mr Wei was removing packages from Rebtech's vehicle inappropriately. That is to say, Mr Wei was shoving and/or throwing packages rather than carefully removing them and placing them outside his vehicle.
11. There was also a disagreement about further words spoken by Mr Wei. Mr Peters and Mr Myers set out words they allege were spoken by Mr Wei. Mr Wei denies uttering those words. Mr Wei admits to being angry and not in a fit state to perform his work that day.
12. It is not necessary to resolve the specific words spoken. The words alleged do not make obvious sense, and no one explained to the Commission what the words would mean. The Commission concludes that Mr Wei continued to be angry and appeared to the respondent's managers to be irrational.

1. After the meeting, and the further interaction with Mr Wei as to the removal of packages from Rebtech's vehicle, the respondent determined that it would suspend Rebtech effective immediately.
2. Mr Wei asked if he could work the next day but was told that he could not.
3. When Mr Wei attempted to log on to the respondent's system the following day, the system would not allow him to log on to accept tasks.
4. On 3 April 2024, the respondent wrote to Rebtech in the following terms:

"RE: Ongoing Contractor Agreement with StarTrack Express Pty Ltd

I refer to previous correspondence with you in respect to concerns regarding your behaviour and conduct in relation to an incident on 18 March 2024.

To confirm, on 18 March 2024, you were invited to attend a meeting during which were you provided with a Breach of Contract letter dated 18 March 2024 in respect of a safety incident that occurred on 18 January 2024. Specifically, that incident relates to leaving your work van unattended, causing it to roll away, colliding with a stationary vehicle, following which you drove away without reporting the collision. It is alleged that during the meeting on 18 March 2024, you:

(1) Became disruptive and started shouting at Mr Chris Peters (Fleet Supervisor) whilst waving your finger and pointing it in his face; and

(2) Yelled 'I'm sick of this company, if you do that to me, you will regret this for the rest of your life. I'll kill you.' You then stormed out of the office.

(the Alleged Conduct).

In attendance during the 18 March 2024 meeting was Mr Peters, Mr Luke Myers (Supervisor) and your support person, Mr Steven Bogan (Operations Clerk).

As part of its investigation into the Alleged Conduct, you were invited by StarTrack to attend a meeting with Mr Peters and Mr Brian Osborn on Friday 22 March 2024 at 13:00 to provide your response. You were offered to bring a support person with you to that meeting but were unable to arrange for a support person advising that you would not attend the meeting as a result.

Mr Peters subsequently sent an email to you on 22 March 2024, providing you with an opportunity to respond to the Alleged Conduct in writing. You responded via email to Mr Peters the same, stating:

"I deny the ... allegations. I never say "I will kill you' I said 'let me tell you" I hope you will clarify the issue ... (sic)

Having conducted an investigation into the Alleged Conduct which involved interviewing witnesses, on the balance of probabilities, StarTrack has found that you did:

(1) Became disruptive and started shouting at Mr Chris Peters (Fleet Supervisor) whilst waving your finger and pointing it in his face; and

(2)Yell 'I'm sick of this company, if you do that to me, you will regret this for the rest of your life. I'll kill you.' You then stormed out of the office.

Overall, you have been unable to provide a reasonable explanation for your actions and Star Track is of the view that you have breached clause 6.19 of the Contract Carrier Agreement dated 19 March 2020 (the Agreement) which requires you to comply with Star Track and Australia Post Group's policies as advised from time to time.

...

After consideration of the available information, StarTrack has formed the preliminary view that your conduct amounts to a breach of the above clause of the Agreement. As a result, StarTrack is considering termination of the Agreement pursuant to clause 9.1 which allows it to terminate the Agreement if the carrier or any of its employees fail to fulfil a condition of the agreement.

Before making a final decision, we are providing you with one last opportunity to provide Star Track any additional information as to why the Agreement should not be terminated. You are invited to attend a meeting with me on Thursday 04/04/2024 at 13:30pm. You may bring a support person with you who may be a family member, friend, co-worker or union representative. ...

Alternatively, if you do no wish to attend this meeting, we invite you to provide a written response to this letter no later than close of business Thursday 04/04/2024."

1. On 3 April 2024, the TWU replied on Rebtech's behalf in the following terms:

"I am writing on behalf of the member of the Transport Workers' Union (NSW/QLD Interim Governance Branch) (TWU), Mr. Jordan Feng (Mr Feng).

...

On 18 March 2024, Mr Feng acknowledges he became emotional during the meeting with Mr Peters, Mr Myers and Mr Bogan. The reason behind the emotion in Mr Feng's behaviour in an otherwise calm and bardworking demeanour, was largely due to misunderstandings arisen from communication issues arising from a language barrier.

As Star Track acknowledged, for Mr Feng's many years of service with Star Track, has been one without blemish until March 18. Mr Feng was unaware of the implications from the contract breach letter on 18 Marchi, he had thought less of the Breach of Contract letter as a learning opportunity, and mistook it as having far worse implications than it actually did.

The resulting exchange stemming from the misunderstanding, according to Mr Feng was by no means intended to make anyone feel threatened, intimated or bullied. Mr Feng also wishes to reaffirm his claim he used the phrase 'let me tell you' as opposed to what it was alleged he said. Once again, there should be considerations made around the potential impacts of a language barrier in this exchange. Mr Feng has expressed he is resolute on standing by on his account of the language he had used during that meeting. Nonetheless he acknowledges, he had 'lost his cool' and would like to apologise for any unintended discomfort he had caused.

Mr Feng would like to once again apologise for any discomfort he had caused and expresses his hope in the consideration of the factors stated above in the determination of any outcome."

1. On 10 April 2024 the respondent met with Rebtech, at which time it provided written notice terminating Rebtech's contract. That notice of termination was in the following terms:

"Dear Jordan,

RE: Termination of Contract Agreement with StarTrack Express Pty Ltd

We refer to previous correspondence, including to your letter dated 3 April 2024, which was written on your behalf by Mr William Yang (TWU).

Background

On 18 March 2024, you were invited to attend a meeting during which were you provided with a Breach of Contract letter dated 18 March 2024 in respect of a safety incident that occurred on 18 January 2024. Specifically, that incident related to leaving your work van unattended, causing it to roll away, colliding with a stationary vehicle, following which you drove away without reporting the collision. It is alleged that during the meeting on 18 March 2024, you:

(1) Became disruptive and started shouting at Mr Chris Peters (Fleet Supervisor) whilst waving your finger and pointing it in his face; and

(2) Yelled 'I'm sick of this company, if you do that to me, you will regret this for the rest of your life. I'll kill you.' You then stormed out of the office.

(collectively, the Alleged Conduct).

After consideration of the available information, Star Track formed the preliminary view that your conduct amounted to a breach of the Agreement.

However, before making a final decision in respect of your ongoing engagement with Star Track, you were afforded one final opportunity to provide StarTrack with any additional information it should consider. Mr William Yang (TWU) provided a written response on your behalf dated 3 April 2024. While not intended to be a detailed record of your response, in summary you responded as follows:

(1) You acknowledged that you became emotional during the meeting with Mr Peters, Mr Myers and Mr Bogan. You explained that the reason for this was due to communications which arose because of a language barrier. You note that you were otherwise calm and hard-working;

(2) You were unaware of the implications of the Breach of Contract letter on 18 March 2024 and mistook it for being a termination.

(3) The resulting exchange stemming from the misunderstanding was by no means intended to make anyone feel threatened, intimidated or bullied.

(4) You said, 'let me tell you', as opposed to what it was alleged to have been said.

(5) Considerations should be made around the potential impacts of a language barrier in this exchange.

(6) You acknowledged that you 'lost your cool' and extended your apologies for any unintended discomfort you caused.

Whilst we acknowledge your responses above, we do not consider that your explanation of the conduct is reasonable. Further, we do not accept your denial that you did not say 'I'm sick of this company, if you do that to me, you will regret this for the rest of your life. I'll kill you' given witnesses have confirmed that you did say these words.

Accordingly, Star Track is of the view that you have breached clause 6.19 of the Agreement which requires you to comply with StarTrack's and Australia Post Group's policies as advised from time to time.

Specifically, you have breached the following elements of 'Our Ethics':

(1) comply with all our policies and procedures - along with all of the laws, industrial awards and agreements that apply to your work [refer Our Ethics, Work practices and performance, General requirements, ethical standard 3.1.1 a)l; and/or

(2) always treat every employee, customer, contractor and supplier with courtesy and respect [refer Our Ethics, Work practices and performance, Respecting everyone, ethical standard 3.4.1 a)]

(3) cause disadvantage, discomfort, embarrassment or offence to other workforce participants at work, during out-of-hours activities or when using social media [refer Our Ethics, Work practices and performance, Respecting everyone, unacceptable behaviour 3.4.2 a)]; and/or

(4) threaten, abuse or intimidate (physically, verbally or in writing), or injure or attempt to injure another rperson - whether at work, during out-of-hours activities or when using social media [refer Our Ethics, Work practices and performance, Respecting everyone, unacceptable behaviour 3.4.2 d)]

finally, we consider that you have also breached the following Minimum Standards:

Respectful Behaviour

- We value our relationships and treat each other with courtesy and respect.

- We treat each other, our customers, our suppliers and the public with respect.

- We never bully, harass, intimidate or victimise and we report any such behaviour we see.

StarTrack's decision

We refer to clauses 9.1 (e), (f), & (i) of the Agreement which state that Star Track may terminate the Agreement where:

(e) The Contract Carrier or any of its employees or drivers has unsatisfactorily performed their obligations under the Agreement;

(f) The Contract Carrier or any of its employees or drivers has acted contract to the interests of StarTrack or the customers of Star Track; and

(j) The Approved Driver or any Alternative Driver of the Contract Carrier is unreasonably objectionable or abusive during the course of performing the obligations under the Agreement.

In view of the above, Star Track has decided to terminate the Agreement pursuant to clause 9.2 of the Agreement, with 24 hours' notice from the date of this letter."

Issues arising from cross examination of witnesses

1. A range of issues arose during cross examination which require addressing.
2. It was put to Mr Wei that during the meeting of 19 January 2024 he was shown multiple angles of the incident of 18 January 2024. He denied this. The Commission has concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Wei was shown multiple angles of the incident of 18 January 2024 at the meeting on 19 January 2024. The absence of any specific reference to requests for viewing or obtaining further angles in the text message and email annexed to Mr Wei's witness statement tell in favour of this conclusion.
3. It was put to Mr Myers that he did not hear the words "I'll kill you". The issue was explored by Mr Grumley, who appeared for the TWU, over an extended period. The Commission considers that totality of the cross examination on this point amounted to agreement by Mr Myers that he did not clearly hear the final words spoken by Mr Wei. As the recording of the meeting is the basis for the Commission's determination of the words spoken, Mr Myers' recollection assumes less importance.
4. The next matter to address is a suggestion put to Mr Peters that his immediate response to the events of the 18 March 2024 meeting demonstrated that he had already decided to terminate Rebtech's contract. This was put to Mr Peters based words in an email from Mr Peters on 18 March 2024 in the following terms:

"Due to the threat on top of the original breach, we will look to terminate Jordans contract."

1. Mr Peters' response was that he knew at the time he did not personally have the authority to terminate the Rebtech contract and was stating his personal recommendation. Further, that the process following the 18 March 2024 meeting demonstrated that Rebtech was given an opportunity to understand the reasons why termination of its contract was being considered, and an opportunity respond to both the underlying facts and the suggestion that its contract should be terminated.
2. It is clear that while Mr Peters may have been inclined, from the conclusion of the 18 March 2024 meeting, to terminate Rebtech's contract, the evidence is that the respondent gave Rebtech an opportunity to respond and on the face of the documents considered the response provided by Rebtech.
3. The next matter which requires consideration is a range of suggestions put to Mr Wei as to the basis on which he had recorded the 18 March 2024 meeting without the knowledge of the other parties.
4. The substance of these suggestions was that recording the meeting was a breach of the Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (SD Act), because it was not reasonably necessary for the protection of Rebtech/Mr Wei's lawful interests. Further, that the act of recording was a breach of the respondent's policies because it was a private conversation and therefore required the knowledge and agreement of the other parties to the conversation.
5. The respondent submitted that the Commission should find, to the civil standard, that Mr Wei's actions were a breach of the SD Act.
6. In its Closing Submissions, the respondent submitted:

"26. The authorities establish that the words 'lawful interests' are not defined in the SD Act and the scope of those words has not been comprehensively identified in the authorities: DW v R [2014] NSWCCA 28; 239 A Crim R 192 at [27]. It is an expression best left to be applied case by case, subject to some general guidelines. In Dong v Song (2018) 331 FLR 326; [2018] ACTSC 82 at [36] McWilliam AsJ commented that it may be that the more tenuous the lawful interest, the less likely that it will be objectively necessary to protect it through the means of a listening device.

27. While recording in serious live disputes may be justified as in Chao v Chao [2008] NSWSC 584 and Dong v Song [2018] ACTSC 82; (2018) 331 FLR 326 recordings of conversations 'just in case' there is a dispute, or for the sake of 'making an accurate record of what was said' is not enough: Rathswohl v Court [2020] NSWSC 1490 at [35]. In this case, Mr Wei did not even articulate his alleged lawful interest and his answers in cross-examination indicated his recording was, at best, in this 'just in case' category.

28. On the question of reasonable necessity, 'necessary' has been held to mean appropriate, but not essential. The reasonableness of such necessity is to be judged objectively, and upon bases or grounds that exist at the time of the recording.

29. Mr Wei conceded that he did not ask any of the parties present at the meeting if the consented to recording. His evidence in cross-examination also failed to make out either lawful interests or reasonable necessity. Mr Wei admitted that there were no legal proceedings on foot and that he had not been told he was going to be terminated. Further, he accepted that he could have taken notes in the meeting as he was able to write in English but chose recording as it was more efficient since he was suspicious of the meeting."

(Footnotes omitted.)

1. The Commission concludes, on the balance of probabilities that it was reasonable for Mr Wei to have recorded the conversation in order to protect his lawful interests. This involves to some extent the subjective understanding of Mr Wei as to the interest he required protecting, but includes the fact that Mr Wei speaks English as a second language and that he was attending a meeting with three managers from the respondent and without a support person.
2. The Commission observes that in the end it was the recording which was the key piece of evidence which the Commission has used to conclude that the final words spoken by Mr Wei were "let me tell you".
3. It is unavoidable that Mr Wei's conduct in recording the meeting was in breach of the respondent's relevant policy as to the recording of private conversations. Some tempering of this finding should be made in light of the Commission's determination in the preceding paragraph.
4. Mr Wei was taken to the policy, identified in [6] above. He explained that in his mind a private conversation was between two people, and the meeting of 18 March 2024 was between four people.
5. Whilst the Commission cannot conclude that this is a proper interpretation of the respondent's policy, it appeared to the Commission that Mr Wei genuinely held the view that the clause did not apply because a conversation between four people did not constitute a private conversation.
6. That said, it is not clear that Mr Wei actually considered the relevant clause of the respondent's policy before he recorded the conversation. Certainly, he did not give evidence that he had done so.
7. During cross examination, Mr Peters was taken to his evidence that he had reported the conduct of Mr Wei during the 18 March 2024 meeting to the New South Wales Police. Mr Peters conceded that he had received no follow-up from the New South Wales Police.
8. The Commission accepts that Mr Peters believed that Mr Wei said, "I'll kill you", but making the police report adds little to Mr Peters belief. The Commission has made its own conclusions as to the words spoken by Mr Wei, and his conduct more generally in the meeting of 18 March 2024.
9. Next, during cross examination Mr Wei expressed some strongly negative views of the respondent and its employees. His response extended to asserting he would not wish to work with the respondent again. These exchanges are set out below:

"Q. You were justified in acting the way that you did in the meeting on 18 March?

A. WITNESS: What is "justified"? You used the word "justified"?

Q. Yes. You felt that it was okay the way that you acted in that meeting on 18 March?

A. WITNESS: The behaviour in the 18 March meeting is because these people, the management, demonising me during the meeting. That's why I was upset.

Q. Okay. I asked you--

A. WITNESS: I do not - maybe I overreacted.

Q. If you can answer my questions, please? I asked you whether you thought it was okay the way you acted on 18 March?

A. WITNESS: If like I always treat like good people with good manner. If it's not good people, I will not treat good - bad people with good manner. That's my answer.

Q. So the three other participants in that meeting you regard as bad people?

A. WITNESS: They nasty people.

Q. They're nasty people?

A. WITNESS: Very nasty.

Q. So you were justified in acting the way that you did towards them because they were nasty people?

A. WITNESS: No, because they demonising me during the meeting, that's why they nasty people. They don't tell the truth, that's why they nasty people. They blur the fact. They fabricated the charges.

Q. They fabricated charges?

A. WITNESS: Yes."[1]

...

"Q. You agree this is the contract that you seek reinstatement of in these proceedings, is that right?

A. WITNESS: After all of this, I don't want to work you guys anymore because there is no trust between you and me.

Q. Okay, so can I take it from that that your application today is not about reinstatement of the contract? It's just about compensation?

A. WITNESS: Yes, that's right."[2]

1. The respondent submitted that this evidence demonstrated that Rebtech did not seek reinstatement of its contract with the respondent, only seeking compensation. Accordingly, these statements amounted to a repudiation of the legal basis for an application pursuant to s 314 of the IR Act. This issue is addressed below.
2. The respondent, in the alternative, asserted that these views demonstrated the impracticability or undesirability of the Commission considering reinstatement insofar as the Commission was considering an appropriate remedy. This issue is also addressed below.
3. Finally, contrary to submissions by the applicant, the Commission does not conclude that any adverse finding should be made against the credibility of any of the witnesses. The Commission was satisfied each of the witnesses attempted to recall events to the best of their ability, and that none of them was evasive or generally unreliable.
4. The Commission has concluded that, on certain of issues where that the evidence of the parties was in conflict, one or other of the witnesses' evidence was to be preferred. These findings do not extend to findings adverse to the credit of any witness.

1. The applicant's Outline of Submissions, filed prior to hearing, submitted that the task of the Commission was as follows:

"31. The proper approach to the exercise of the power was detailed by Peterson J in Cherry v Allied Express Transport (1997) 73 IR 305. After considering matters of context, including legislative history and extrinsic materials, His Honour said:

... In light of this history, it seems to me appropriate to interpret the power as one which is to be applied, at least not solely, in circumstances where there has been an 'unfair' termination of a contract of carriage. This means that it may be applied in the same circumstances as apply to employees...

32. Newall C detailed in TWO v Toll Transport Pty Limited [2015] NSWIRComm 1006 at [6]:

I approach the matter on the basis that the grounds on which the Commission would consider ordering the reinstatement of a contract of carriage, or alternatively compensation, would be analogous to those which would be regarded as leading to that result under Part o of the Act; that is, that the termination of the contract was unfair. I do not see that it is necessary to gloss that term further, and in the absence of an express statutory provision inserted by the parliament I do not see, contrary to the applicant's submissions, that it is required that unfairness for the purposes of s. 314 be further defined by such terms as 'harsh, unjust or unreasonable'

...

34. A termination may be 'unfair' on substantive or procedural grounds. It may be substantively unfair if the allegations of conduct or lack of capacity relied on by the principal contractor are not established. Further, even if sufficient grounds exist for termination of a contract of carriage, the IRC may determine to intervene and reinstate a contract of carriage if termination was too severe a consequence in the circumstances or in light of factors subjective to the carrier. A contract may be reinstated where the sanction of termination is disproportionate to the (mis)conduct or (in)capacity identified. A termination may also be unfair because the procedure or process by which the termination was carried out by the principal contractor was unfair.

35. It is further submitted that the Commission is fettered with a very open discretion in the context of s314 applications. The Commission is not expressly limited to a circumstance where the termination need be harsh, unjust and or unreasonable. It is noted that s314 does not refer in express terms to unfairness, harshness, unjustness and or unreasonableness. Therefore, the Commission is left with a very open and broad discretion as to how any Order/s may be made pursuant to s314 of the IR Act."

(Footnotes omitted.)

1. The respondent did not take issue with this submission, and the Commission adopts this logic.

1. The first question to be determined is the respondent's submission that Mr Wei's evidence amounted to a repudiation of the application as one genuinely seeking reinstatement of a contract of carriage.
2. It is well understood that a corporation cannot act other than through its owners and employees, and of course a corporation can only hold or express opinions through the same people. The actions and opinions of Mr Wei can of course be imputed to Rebtech.
3. It is unavoidable that Mr Wei's evidence amounted to an expression of the state of mind of Rebtech as to whether Rebtech desired the reinstatement of its contract with the respondent. Were Rebtech the applicant, this would certainly have amounted to a repudiation of the legal basis on which an application pursuant to s 314 of the IR Act is predicated, being a genuine application for the reinstatement of a contract of carriage.
4. However, Rebtech is not the applicant. The applicant is the Transport Workers' Union of New South Wales. It is clear, as is set out above at [3], that the TWU is empowered by the IR Act to make an application of the kind before the Commission. It is also clear that Rebtech could not make that application itself.
5. The application, in its terms, seeks reinstatement of a contract between Rebtech and the respondent. The applicant's position expressed in its oral and written submissions, and in the application, sought reinstatement of the contract between Rebtech and the respondent. The Commission determines that this is a separate question from whether Rebtech would seek, or indeed be pleased, by such a reinstatement.
6. The Commission observes that whilst the application was styled as Transport Workers' Union of New South Wales "on behalf of Rebtech", there is nothing set out in s 311 of the IR Act which makes this application one which needs to be on behalf of another entity.
7. Turning to the meeting of 19 January 2024, the Commission has already concluded that Mr Wei was shown all of the relevant video footage, including various angles, of the 18 January 2024 incident.
8. Further, the Commission concludes, on the balance of probabilities, that the investigation conducted by the respondent was fair and reasonable, considered all the evidence which was available to the respondent and reached the most obvious conclusion based on that evidence. That conclusion being that Rebtech's vehicle was inadequately secured and that this was the cause of the incident on 18 January 2024.
9. The Commission, again on the balance of probabilities, concludes that Rebtech did not complete an appropriate report of the incident. The Commission determines that this conclusion should be tempered to some extent by the fact that Mr Wei did have a discussion with his immediate supervisor on the day, and by the fact that Mr Wei genuinely believed that a vehicle had hit his vehicle, and that there was little damage.
10. Overall, the Commission concludes that the respondent's investigation of the 18 January 2024 incident, and the outcome of that investigation, including its determination to place a reprimand on the record of Rebtech was a fair and reasonable outcome. It represented, in all of the circumstances, a reasonable conclusion by the respondent as to the incident of 18 January 2024.
11. It is clear to the Commission that Mr Wei was aggrieved by the immediate outcome of the 19 January 2024 meeting, and from ongoing attempts to obtain video footage of the incident, which were frustrated in his view. But the Commission is unable to conclude that Mr Wei's views were reasonable.
12. The Commission has concluded that there was procedural unfairness in the way the meeting of 18 March 2024 was convened, including the lack of notice to Rebtech of the meeting, and the lack of opportunity provided to Rebtech to have a support person at the meeting.
13. As is set out above at [26]-[29], the Commission does not accept the respondent's position that Mr Bogan was Rebtech's support person. The Commission has concluded that Rebtech was not aware until after the meeting that the respondent considered Mr Bogan to be Rebtech's support person.
14. The Commission does not need to make many findings as to the meeting of 18 March 2024, as these events are largely agreed between the parties. To the extent that they are not agreed, much of the disagreement was resolved through the Commission having had the opportunity to listen to the recording of the meeting.
15. Other than as to the final words spoken by Mr Wei, the Commission concludes that the respondent's version of the proceedings of that meeting are to be preferred.
16. The Commission has concluded, as is set out above at [45], the final words spoken by Mr Wei at that meeting, likely as he was exiting the room, were "let me tell you".
17. As is set out above at [66], the Commission has concluded that, other than in relation to notice and having a support person at the meeting, the procedural aspects leading to the termination of Rebtech's contract were fair.
18. In totality, this leaves the respondent's version of events established subject to two significant issues.
19. The Commission has concluded there is little criticism to be had of the respondent's conclusion as to the words spoken by Mr Wei at the conclusion of the 18 March 2024 meeting, other than concluding factually the wrong words. In the circumstances of the meeting, the conduct of Mr Wei, and Mr Wei's accented English it is understandable the words could have become jumbled. Nevertheless, Commission has concluded that the respondent's finding as to those words was incorrect.
20. The failure by the respondent to provide Rebtech with notice of the meeting and with an opportunity to bring a support person, is difficult to unravel because it involves hypothetical considerations of what the consequences of this unfairness were, or were likely to have been.
21. It is reasonable to suppose that, with an appropriate support person, such as a representative of the TWU experienced in the conduct of such meetings, Mr Wei could have continued to deal rationally with the proceedings of the meeting. It is therefore likely that Mr Wei would not have stormed angrily out of the meeting. It is clear that Mr Wei's response, unacceptable as it was, was ultimately the reason for the termination of Rebtech's contract.
22. If Rebtech had, hypothetically, been allowed an appropriate support person at the meeting, but Mr Wei's conduct nevertheless been exactly as determined by the Commission, angry and inappropriate, but using the words "let me tell you", the Commission would have considered the termination of Rebtech's contract as a fair and reasonable outcome.
23. Accordingly, the Commission would have determined not to intervene in the termination of that contract. No reinstatement would have been ordered, and no compensation would have been appropriate.
24. Submissions that the nature of the workplace would allow for more robust language and more aggressive behaviour, have limited use. The often quoted "standards of men not of angels" has some value, but it is of standards in 2024 (as the events were), not decades past.
25. Mr Wei's reaction to the meetings of 19 January 2024 and 18 March 2024, and his conduct subsequent to them, including in his evidence to the Commission, is one of increasing frustration and ill will to the respondent.
26. While there is necessarily some element of speculation, the Commission concludes that, even if Rebtech had been provided notice and the opportunity to bring an appropriate support person to the meeting on 18 March 2024, it is inevitable that Mr Wei would not have accepted the outcome of the respondent's investigation, and would have continued to agitate, in an increasingly inappropriate fashion, for the overturning of the respondent's determination.
27. To this increasingly fraught relationship can be added Mr Wei having recorded the meeting of 18 March 2024. Inevitably, the respondent would have become aware of the recording, and this would have become another source of aggravation in the relationship.
28. Whether the respondent says it relied on the events of 18 January 2025, the Commission has determined that those events occurred largely as determined by the respondent. In that context, by 18 March 2024, Rebtech no longer had an unblemished record as an "exemplary contractor", as submitted by the applicant.
29. The Commission concludes that it was inevitable that Rebtech's contract with the respondent would, in relatively short order, have been properly and fairly terminated by the respondent.
30. Both for this reason, and because on the evidence given by Mr Wei, it is clearly impracticable for the contract of carriage between Rebtech and the respondent to be reinstated. The Commission does not propose to order the reinstatement of Rebtech's contract of carriage with the respondent.
31. It is clear, nevertheless, that the Commission has concluded that the termination of Rebtech's contract, as it occurred, was unfair.
32. In determining the appropriate compensation, the Commission has been significantly guided by the conclusion that the contract would have had a limited life, if it had been not terminated on 10 April 2024.
33. Given the reasons the Commission has determined that it was inevitable that the respondent would have properly and fairly terminated the contract, considerations as to the harshness of the termination on Rebtech would not add to the compensation. This is because the later termination would be for reasons which would not warrant any compensation.
34. At best, the Commission considers that Rebtech's contract with the respondent would have been properly and fairly terminated by the respondent within three months of the date it occurred.
35. While it is, again, necessarily somewhat speculative, the Commission considers that an order for the payment of 10 weeks' remuneration is an appropriate order of compensation in the circumstances.
36. The Commission directs the parties to confer on minutes of order giving effect to this deed Decision. In lieu of agreement being reached, the Commission directs that the parties have liberty to apply for determination by the Commission of such orders.

(1) The parties to prepare minutes of order giving effect to this Decision.

(2) The parties have liberty to apply.

[1] Tcp 26 November 2024, p 18 (24) - p 19 (6).

[2] Tcp 26 November 2024, p 12 (7 - 14).