Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales CITATION : Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union NSW Branch (o/b M Blundell) and Hunter Quarries Pty Ltd [2004] NSWIRComm 121 APPLICANT PARTIES : Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union NSW Branch RESPONDENT Hunter Quarries Pty Ltd FILE NUMBER: IRC 4729 of 2003 CORAM: Harrison DP CATCHWORDS : Application pursuant to s213 of Industrial Relations Act 1996 - Alleged victimisation by termination of employment due to wage claim - not made out - genuine redundancy arising from removal of plant and equipment - reduction in scale of employer's business - Small claim pursuant to s379 - underpayment of wages- payment to employee of $931.80 ordered. LEGISLATION CITED : Industrial Relations Act 1996 HEARING DATES: 04/05/2004 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/18/2004 APPLICANT Mr S Marshall CFMEU LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT Mr B Evans Workplace Relations Consulting Pty Ltd JUDGMENT: 17 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES CORAM: HARRISON DP Tuesday, 18 May 2004 Matter No IRC 4729 of 2003 cONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION, NEW SOUTH WALES BRANCH (ON BEHALF OF MARK BLUNDELL) AND HUNTER QUARRIES pty ltd Application for relief from victimisation pursuant to section 213 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 DECISION [2004] NSWIRComm 121 1 This is an application for relief pursuant to s213 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 ("the Act") filed by Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (New South Wales Branch) ("the Union") on 26 August 2003. The application is filed on behalf of Mr Mark Blundell, the member whom the Union alleges was victimised by termination from employment on 13 August 2003 by Hunter Quarries Pty Ltd ("the respondent"). 2 This matter was subject to proceedings on 26 November 2003, having been rescheduled on two earlier occasions at the request of the notifier. Directions issued that the Union file and serve the relevant documentation and the matter stood over pending compliance. 3 The matter was subject to further proceedings on 11 February 2004 with further directions issued to bring the matter to hearing on 12 March 2004, subsequently rescheduled to 5 April 2004. 4 On Hearing Mr S Marshall appeared on behalf of the Union. Mr B Evans of Workplace Relations Consulting Pty Ltd, appeared on behalf of the respondent with Mr G. Chevalley and Ms A Gray. 5 Mr Marshall brought evidence from Mr R Cochrane, an official of the Union for approximately 35 years; and Mr Blundell. 6 Mr Evans brought evidence from Mr Alex Badior, Quarry Manager for the respondent; and Mr Brett Halliwell employed by the respondent in a supervisory capacity. 7 Mr Blundell commenced employment with the respondent from 30 June 2003 subsequent to employment with a related company from 7 February 2003. Mr Blundell's employment was terminated on 13 August 2003 in circumstances which the Union contends constitute victimisation. 8 It is not contested that employment was regulated by the Quarries &c. (State) Award 316 IG 961 ("the Award"). 9 Mr Blundell obtained alternative employment from 21 November 2003 and seeks payment of 10 weeks wages as compensation. The applicant also claims an underpayment of wages totalling $931.80. This claim is detailed in Exhibit 7 in the following terms: Wage Claim for Applicant 1. We claim Blundell should have been paid at the rate of Quarry Worker Grade 5 for the seven weeks he was paid by Hunter Quarries Pty Ltd. He was paid at casual QW1 rates for the first 3 weeks and casual QW2 rates of pay for the last four weeks. 2. His pay never included a loading for holiday pay. 3. The claim for ordinary hours is calculated at the full time QW5 rate plus the annual leave component ($16.90) due under the Annual Holidays Act 1944 minus what he was paid as a casual QW1/QW2. 4. Although the company paying the applicant changed he was effectively employed by the same boss in the same quarry using the same machines thus he had already gone past the period that he should have been paid as a fulltime employee. 5. The claim is calculated on a full time 40 hour basis absorbing RDOs due. Thus weeks paid at less than 40 hour ordinary hours have the additional hours included. He was short 43 hours ordinary pay @ 16.90 = $726.70 6. The applicant was employed for 197 ordinary hours. 97 at the rate of $15.30 p/hr and 100 at the rate of $16.11. So he is owed $126.10 and $79.00. Total = $931.80 10 In support of his claim Mr Blundell contends that he was operating a 25 tonne dump truck, an excavator and a loader. Mr Blundell deposed that he spent even amounts of time working on each machine. It is asserted that operation of the dump truck attracts classification of Level 6, operation of the excavator is Level 5 and operation of the loader is classified at Level 4. 11 Mr Evans objected to the tender of the Union's wage claim on the basis that it was not in the proper form prescribed by the Rules pursuant to s380 of the Act. 12 The tender of the wage claim was accepted by the discretion of the Commission pursuant to section 170 of the Act. THE EVIDENCE 13 The evidence of Mr Cochrane and Mr Blundell establishes that preceding the termination of his employment an issue arose concerning the appropriate classification pursuant to the Award. The evidence of Mr Cochrane and Mr Blundell is that the respondent resented the involvement of the Union, was slow and difficult in addressing the issues, and eventually terminated the Applicant's employment in retaliation of him initiating the question of appropriate rate of pay. 14 Mr Cochrane referred to proceedings before Redman C in Matter No IRC 4821 of 2003 which, on examination of the transcript of 3 September 2003 tendered by Mr Marshall (exhibit 2), goes to an issue between Mr Cochrane and Mr Evans as to constitutional coverage of the Union and right of representation as compared to the Australian Workers' Union, and associated refusal by the respondent to allow the Union to undertake an inspection of payroll records. During the course of those proceedings Mr Evans informed the Commissioner at page 10 of that transcript: EVANS: …… The records simply show from that time, the employee was a casual employee, employed for the number of ordinary hours and overtime hours, on the basis of Grade 1, the Award - that was increased when the person went to Grade 2 of the Award, and the hours paid, and the payment that was received, the difference between the new amount and the old amount have been calculated. I have a cheque here, and a one page printout - a spreadsheet. Commissioner: Have you had an opportunity to talk to Mr Cochrane about that fact - the fact that you've got a cheque? Evans:: No, but I understood from the Company, when I talked to Mr Cochrane last week, that the Company were endeavouring to do it, and pay last week, so that when we talked about this issue, my advice to Mr Cochrane was - 'Look, the Company has now rectified the mistakes it had. They are making back payment to all employees now, and ex employees'. COMMISSIONER: But Mr Cochrane wants to check as to rates of pay, etcetera, I suppose. EVANS: He does. All we can say is, the rate of pay originally was $15 an hour. The Grade 2 as from 6 March went to $16.11 an hour, and the payment has been made on that basis. 15 Those proceedings concluded on the basis of further discussion between the parties and an undertaking that the right of representation would be argued in these s213 proceedings. This issue of representation is not raised in this matter. 16 Mr Blundell's evidence describes some meetings involving himself and two other employees with management representatives, which were inconclusive. He describes the events following the last of these meetings in his affidavit (exhibit 3) in the following terms: 11. A couple of days passed and there seemed to be a bit of conflict there so I asked Alex Bedour if everything was alright. He when onto [sic] say "that what we did was wrong and that we tried to hurt the company." 12. I said "no we did not all we wanted was a quick meeting to discuss our rate of pay and to make sure we were getting what we are entitled to". Alex then said "that he would not be able to forget what happened" 13. 3 weeks before my dismissal Hunter Quarries employed another operator, then 2 weeks before my dismissal Hunter Quarries employed another operator and the day I was terminated another operator was employed. 14. Monday August 11th 2003. At the end of the day I was told to stay home for a couple of days because it was forecast to rain. I thought this odd because even when it rained we still had to go to work before they would send us home. 15. The next day I woke up not a cloud in the sky so I rang Alex Bedour and asked him if he wanted me to come in as it was not raining, Alex said "no stay at home and we will get the guard on the dump truck fixed." I asked if he need a hand to do that and he replied "no, I will ring you when I want you back". 16. I asked "what is going on are you finishing me up", Alex said "when we had our 1st meeting with Brett Haliwell about our wages the director of the company Graham Chevalley was with him and he said I want you to get rid of those 3 employees". (Josh and Simon left on their own accord and I was the last one left.) 17. Alex Bedour went on to say "he was on his way to a meeting with the CFMEU at Thornton at 8 o'clock on the 12th 8th 03 and according to how that meeting went was to judge whether I was going to be allowed back." 18. I asked what that had to do with me, he said that "Simon had got the CFMEU involved in a wage clam and that I was a part of it". 19. Wednesday August 13th 2003. Drove up to work at 6:30am dressed in my work clothes and asked Alex Bedour if I was still employed or not and he said "no". I asked why not and Alex replied "because of the meeting we had about our wages and you are not a team player because you would not sign some policy documents". 17 Mr Blundell deposed that the documents referred to were incomplete and that he declined to sign them on this basis only. The documents are in evidence (Attach. 3 to exhibit 3). These documents may properly be described as administrative in nature, setting out the respondent's disciplinary policy, terms of employment and letter of offer of employment. The documents tendered are signed by the Applicant on 7 July 2003 but not returned to the respondent. 18 An examination of the documents reveals them to be incomplete, for example, the letter of employment states that: "employment will be subject to the terms and conditions set out in the (insert award name)". 19 There was no document offered which nominates the applicable award. 20 In his affidavit in reply sworn whilst a witness on 4 April 2004 (exhibit 4) Mr Blundell referred to the meeting of 12 August (para 17 above). Mr Blundell put that he checked with Bill [sic] Cochrane, the Union official handling the matter, and was told that no meeting took place with the respondent on that day. 21 Mr Badior described the events of 11, 12 and 13 August at paras 4, 5 and 6 of exhibit 8 in the following terms: 4. Monday 11/08/03 It rained in the afternoon, so I asked Mark to have the following day off as the truck he was driving was having repairs, and Daracon would probably not be working (due to weather). 5. Tuesday 12/08/03 We pulled the air conditioner out of the Terex truck and dropped it into Raymond Terrace to be repaired. I rang Mark and told him Daracon were slow after the rain, and one truck would be enough to keep up to the plant so we did not need him. Daracon contacted me to say that they were pulling the crushers out on Friday & Saturday the 15/16th August 2003. 6. Wednesday 13/08/03 Mark was at work when I arrived at 6.30am, and he wanted to know what was going on. I advised him that due to the crusher being demobilised by Daracon, he was being made redundant as we had no further work for him. 22 The evidence of Mr Badior is that the respondent operates quarries at Karuah and Tea Gardens. Mr Blundell was employed at the Karuah Quarry. 23 Mr Badior's evidence is that at the time of Mr Blundell's employment the Karuah Quarry employed five people operating one Komatsu PC 300 excavator (380 hp) fitted with a three cubic metre bucket, a Komatsu 470 (230 hp) front end loader fitted with a four cubic metre bucket, one dump truck, a 10,000 litre water cart, and two crushers to produce concrete aggregate. Mr Badior deposed that each crusher had capacity to produce 60 tonne of aggregate per hour. 24 Mr Badior deposed that the Applicant was occupied to ninety percent of his time driving the dump truck, which was a Volvo 25 tonne vehicle acquired by a hire arrangement, and later, up to the time of termination, one of two Terex 25 tonne vehicles purchased by the respondent. Mr Badior put that Mr Blundell would relieve on the other equipment. 25 The picture of the operation afforded by the evidence of Mr Badior is that the face excavator wins rock from the quarry which is then transported to the crusher by 25 tonne dump trucks. The rock is then crushed to aggregate and loaded out by the front end loader (also referred to as the sales loader) for transport to the client site. 26 Mr Badior deposed that one of the crushers was on lease from a firm identified as Daracon Pty Ltd and that the terms of the lease allowed Daracon to retrieve the crusher on short notice. Mr Badior's evidence is that Daracon exercised its option to remove its crusher to meet a contract it had won in the coal industry. This reduced capacity and the associated reduction in requirement for transport of rock to the single crusher resulted in a reduction in the number of employees from five to four by retrenchment of Mr Blundell. 27 Mr Badior deposed that Daracon contacted him on 12 August 2003 advising they were pulling their crusher out of the respondents operation on Friday 15 August 2003 and Saturday, 16 August 2003. 28 Mr Evans tendered a tax invoice to Hunter Quarries from Daracon Quarries dated 31 August 2003 detailing crusher hire on a daily basis to 8 August 2003 and advising demobilisation of the crusher dated 9 August 2003, (Exhibit 9). 29 The effect of this evidence is to demonstrate that the respondent had only three days confirmation of removal of the Daracon crusher. 30 Mr Badior denied that the wages issue had anything to do with the selection of Mr Blundell for retrenchment. The evidence of Mr Badior and Mr Halliwell is that there had been some discussion between them and the employees concerned, including Mr Blundell, in their view satisfactory to all parties to remedy underpayment arising from under classification and incorrect weekly hours. 31 Mr Badior deposed that the decision to terminate Mr Blundell's employment was made with respect to his competencies as a consequence of Daracon retrieving their crusher. This evidence is found at page 52 of the transcript in the following terms: Q: Why did you make the decision to terminate Mr Blundell when he had been longer than the other two employees? A: On his competencies. When I looked at who I had there and Daracon leaving. Q: How was his degree of competence in relation to the other two employees? A: Well he didn't have the experience or as I deemed, the competencies in driving an excavator, which he didn't do much of and in the loader operation. In the quarry which I said previously takes - there's a skill required there with the aggregates which you've got to look after them. Q: But Mr Blundell says he has a certificate of competence to operate the machinery you have. A: That's quite possible yes. Q: Is it your evidence that he wasn't competent to your standard? A: Not up to the standard of the other people, no." 32 Mr Badior denied that the two people employed in the weeks prior to the termination of Mr Blundell's employment (as asserted by him in para 13 of his statement) were engaged to replace Mr Blundell. 33 Mr Badior refuted the assertion that another employee was engaged on the day Mr Blundell's employment was terminated. Mr Badior's evidence is that the two employees were engaged in the ordinary course of business then, when Daracon withdrew their crusher he was required to make a selection for redundancy, which he did on the basis of skill and experience. 34 Mr Badior deposed that had the crusher remained Mr Blundell would have continued in employment. Mr Badior conceded that the respondent did not have a formal training and accreditation system in place. SUBMISSIONS 35 Mr Marshall pressed his argument that Mr Blundell was targeted for termination as a result of the wage claim issue. Mr Marshall submitted that the employment of two new employees in the weeks prior to the termination of Mr Blundell's employment was a strategy to single him out for departure. Mr Marshall relied upon the legislative presumption to support his argument. 36 Mr Marshall submitted that the applicant found alternative employment, 10 weeks after termination of employment by the respondent, operating the same equipment and employed at a Level 5 rate. 37 Mr Marshall submitted that there was no evidence to substantiate the assertion by Mr Badior that other employees held qualifications and experience superior to that of Mr Blundell. Mr Marshall put that failure by the respondent to prove the superior qualifications of the preferred employees is a fundamental and fatal flaw in their rebuttal. 38 Mr Marshall put that the termination of Mr Blundell's employment was without prior consultation. 39 Mr Marshall submitted that had the trucks, loader and excavator operated by Mr Blundell left the site there may be a case for redundancy, however, all of this equipment remained, albeit operating on a reduced scale. Underpayment Of Wages 40 Mr Marshall submitted that the majority of work conducted by Mr Blundell was operating the dump truck which classified him as a Grade 5 worker pursuant to the Award. A Quarry Worker Grade 5 is detailed in part 3.1 (e) of the Award in the following terms: (e) Operator Level 5 - An Operator Level 5 has demonstrated competency and is required to undertake work at this level. Duties - Indicative of the tasks an employee at this level may perform are the following: carry out routine mechanical repairs; operate at least one item of Group C plant; operate a multiple weighbridges and carry out computerised allocation of trucks; higher level tasks for training purposes. Responsibility - An employee at this level will be responsible for the quality of their own work, subject to general supervision, and exercise discretion to the level of their skill and training. Qualification - An Operator Level 5 will have successfully completed the entry level induction and skills training and have demonstrated competence in performing the duties at this level. When accredited competency-based training and assessment becomes available for Level 5 occupations, successful completion of this training and assessment will be a required qualification for this level. Training - In accordance with clause 2.4, Training, of Part 2 - Contract of Employment, etc., an employee at this level may be provided with structured training to allow him/her to perform the wider range of duties at this level. An employee may also, over time, be provided with a structured program of training that will allow them to competently perform work at higher levels. Progression - An employee may progress to a higher level on the basis of being able to competently perform the skills to work at the higher level and on being selected for a position when a position at that level becomes available. When accredited competency-based training and assessment becomes available for higher levels, successful completion of this training and assessment will be required for progression to the higher level. Group C machinery is detailed in Part 3.1, 3 (c) in the following terms: (c) Group C - Excavator up to and including 3.0 m3; Face Shovel up to and including 3.0 m3; Dragline up to and including 3.0 m3; Dump Truck over 12 t and up to and including 25 t capacity; Motor Scraper over 12 t and up to and including 25 t capacity; Off Highway Water Carts; Wheel or Tracked Loader over 220 kW and up to and including 450 kW (not employed at a hard rock face); Tracked Dozer over 220 kW and up to and including 450 kW (not employed at a hard rock face); Air Drill; Hydraulic Drill up to and including 95 kW; Sophisticated, computer managed processing plant. 41 Mr Marshall conceded that no claim was pressed against HRC Transport, acknowledging that it is a separate employer. In making this concession Mr Marshall noted that there had been no change in duties for Mr Blundell from HRC to the respondent and that he came to the respondent on 1 July 2003 as a full time employee entitled to all provisions of the Award in that capacity. 42 Mr Evans relied on the evidence of Mr Badior to support his submission that the termination of Mr Blundell's employment was a genuine redundancy. In particular Mr Evans noted that the respondent was given three days notice from Daracon of the removal of their crusher. Mr Evans noted that the removal of the Daracon crusher is not disputed. 43 Mr Evans submitted that the termination of Mr Blundell's employment was carried out in accordance with the Award, referring to Part 2.5 Redundancy of the Award, which states: (c) Selection - (i) When redundancies are to occur, those to be made redundant should be selected by reference to the skills, experience, training and performance of individuals compared to the current and future needs of the business concerned. Having undertaken such an assessment, if it is necessary to make redundant individuals that are comparatively equal in terms of the said assessment, unless some other pressing domestic issue is raised by the individual concerned, the employee or employees with the shortest period of service should be retrenched first. 44 Mr Evans submitted Mr Badior was an experienced quarry manager with 15 years experience and that he was qualified and obliged to assess the competency of employees. Underpayment Of Wages 45 In his outline of submissions (filed on 27 February 2004) Mr Evans described the employment arrangements applicable to Mr Blundell in the following terms: 3. It is acknowledged that HRC Transport Pty Ltd & Hunter Quarries Pty Ltd have overlapping shareholding and common directors but are separate Companies with separate Management systems. 4. The company was led to believe that Mark Blundell was a Fitter by trade and had had little previous experience working in a Quarry as a quarry operator. 5. During his employment at HRC Transport Pty Ltd, he was given training in the quarry operations and on some of the plant and equipment. 6. Mark Blundell and all other employees were employed as casual employees of HRC Transport Pty Ltd as the Company was a labour Hire Company which supplied labour to a number of other Companies including Hunter Quarries Pty Ltd. 7. Employees were advised in March that they would be transferring employment to Hunter Quarries Pty Ltd on and from July 1st 2003. The Company took over the employment of a number of employees from HRC and as a result, attention was then paid to administration and payroll matters. Employees were advised at that time that if they had any problems with the change over of employment or any other payroll issues, to ring the payroll officer at the Company office in Thornton. 8. The employment conditions at Hunter Quarries are governed by the terms and conditions of the "Quarrying Industry (STATE) Award". 9. Each employee employed as a casual employee at the quarry should have been employed as a weekly employee at the conclusion of four weeks employment but was not. Employees were continuously employed as casuals even under the new Company arrangement until late August 2003. At that time those employees retained by the company were offered full time employment. 10. All employees were employed pursuant to Part 3.1(1)(a) as Quarry Workers Grade 1 which includes Mark Blundell. 11. Employees should have been reclassified as Quarry Workers, Grade 2 or above at the conclusion of three months employment but were not reclassified at that time. 46 Mr Evans was obliged to acknowledge that Mr Blundell did perform work of a 25 tonne truck driver, classified as Level 5 Operator duties, however, submitted that this wasn't the only work that he was performing and whether the applicant had the capacity to continue working at the required level of competence in an operating quarry in terms of the totality of the relevant part of the Award is quite a different issue. 47 Mr Evans submitted that the assertion of termination of employment due to a wage claim is not sustained as the respondent was not aware that the employees had involved the Union as no formal or official approach had been made to the respondent by the Union at the time Mr Blundell was made redundant. In short, any involvement by the Union was not in the respondent's knowledge at the time of selection for retrenchment. 48 Mr Evans submitted that the Union had not made out their case of victimisation and that the respondent had clearly rebutted the allegation and therefore the application for compensation should be refused. CONSIDERATION Victimisation 49 Section 213 of the Act States: 213 Enforcement (1) The Commission may, by order, enforce the provisions of this Part on the application of an industrial organisation or by any person affected by a contravention of this Part. (2) The Commission may, in particular, for that purpose do any one or more of the following: (a) order the reinstatement or re-employment of an employee, (b) order the employer to promote or otherwise advance an employee in his or her employment, (c) order the employer to pay an employee or prospective employee the whole or any part of the amount of remuneration or other financial benefits lost or foregone, (d) order the employer to employ a prospective employee, (e) order the employer not to carry out a threat to victimise an employee or not to make any further such threat, (f) order an industrial organisation (or its officials or employees) to take any particular action or to cease any particular activity, (g) make consequential orders (including orders concerning continuity of service). (3) An application for an order under this section must be made within 21 days after the contravention concerned. (4) The Commission may accept an application that is made out of time if the Commission considers there is sufficient reason to do so, having regard in particular to: (a) the reason for, and the length of, the delay in making the application, and (b) any hardship that may be caused to the applicant or other party if the application is or is not rejected, and (c) the conduct in relation to which the order is sought. 50 This has been subject to considerable examination in Smith and Others v Moore Paragon Australia Ltd of 21 March 2002 (PR915674); Davis v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1998] 81 IR 364; and Tapia v Lagoon Seafood Restaurant [1999] 89 IR 436, to which neither party referred. 51 The facts in this matter, in particular short notice from Daracon of removal of their crusher which reduced quarry capacity by fifty percent and removal of that item, is clear evidence of a substantive reason for a reduction in employment. 52 The selection for redundancy by Mr Badior was in accordance with his Award obligations. He was required to make a judgement, he did so on his assessment of the experience and qualifications of the employees, which are the specified criteria. 53 I find the assertion of victimisation adequately and effectively rebutted. The claim in this regard is refused. Underpayment Of Wages 54 I exercise discretion afforded by s170 of the Act to admit this claim in the form submitted. I regard the respondent to have had adequate notice and sufficient detail to mount a defence. I note that detail was also provided in an outline of submissions filed by the Union on 19 December 2003 which acknowledges some back payment as a partial remedy and calculates underpayment at $928.24. The further and better particulars tendered on 5 April 2004 setting underpayment at $931.80 are not materially difference so as to prejudice the respondent. 55 The paucity of defence available to Mr Evans arises from substance, not form. The respondent had no assessment or accreditation system in place, accordingly they are bound by the indicative task of operating C Class plant, which on the evidence of Mr Badior occupied eighty to ninety percent of Mr Blundell's working time. 56 There is no evidence of any arrangement or contract of employment that determined Mr Blundell's employment to be as a casual. He was required to work regular hours on a full time basis and, in the absence of any specific arrangement as to casual employment, is in accordance with clause 6.2.1 Contract of Employment of the Award, as a weekly employee and he is entitled to be paid as such. Clause 6.2.1 states: (1) Except as hereinafter provided, employment shall be by the week. Any employee not specifically engaged as a casual employee shall be deemed to be employed by the week. 57 I determine that Mr Blundell should be paid at classification Quarry Worker Level 5 for the entirety of his employment with Hunter Quarries Pty Ltd. I accept the claim put by the Union and order payment of $931.80 to Mr Blundell within 14 days of the date of this decision. 58 I so determine. oo0oo INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES CORAM: HARRISON DP Matter No IRC 4729 of 2003 cONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION, NEW SOUTH WALES BRANCH (ON BEHALF OF MARK BLUNDELL) AND HUNTER QUARRIES pty ltd Application for relief from victimisation pursuant to section 213 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 ORDERS Pursuant to section 379 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Hunter Quarries Pty Ltd is ordered to pay to Mr Mark Blundell the amount of $931.80 (nine hundred and thirty one dollars and eighty cents) within 14 days of the date of this decision. I so order. The Hon. R W Harrison DEPUTY PRESIDENT DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.