FWC 9972
FAIR WORK COMMISSION
Fair Work Act 2009
s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute
National Tertiary Education Industry Union
ADELAIDE,18 DECEMBER 2013
Dispute notification - Redundancy.
 This matter concerns a dispute notification by the National Tertiary Education Industry Union (NTEU or the Union) pursuant to s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
 The matter was unresolved following conciliation within the Commission and was referred for consent arbitration on 20 November 2013 pursuant to Clause 9 - Dispute resolution of the Higher Education Industry - General Staff - Award 2010 (the Award). The Commission issued directions as to that process on 4 November 2013.
 The parties are not in contention as to the applicable industrial instrument in this matter being the Award,nor the jurisdiction of the Commission in this matter to attempt to resolve this matter generally by arbitration.
 This matter shall be determined giving regard to the provisions of s.578 and of the Act - Matters the FWC must take into account in performing functions etc. - and the relevant criteria within the Act generally.
The applicant’s submissions
 The applicant submits that the respondent has breached their obligations pursuant to clause 8 of the Award - Consultation regarding major workplace change - and in particular the obligations that arise on the respondent arising from sub-clause 8.2(a) in regard to the employment of their member Mr Prashant Joshi.
 The applicant raised these matters with the respondent on 26 September,15 October and 17 October 2013 in terms of their proposal that,in mitigation of Mr Joshi’s pending redundancy he be deployed into the recently vacated continuing role as “Clubs and Events Officer.”However they submit that no genuine consultation has subsequently occurred in relation to the respondent’s obligations in that the respondent has not met such obligations to consider if there are reasonable options available to mitigate the effects of redundancy on Mr Joshi.
 The applicant submits it is entirely reasonable Mr Joshi be redeployed into a recently advertised role as he has the skills and experience for that role.
 It is further submitted the respondent has failed to do so and instead chose to advise Mr Joshi that they had no obligation to consider Mr Joshi for redeployment because of his fixed term status whereas the applicant submits Mr Joshi is a continuing employee.
 In respect to the status of Mr Joshi the applicant submits the following.
●That the initial workplace change event I December 2012 to January 2013 changed Mr Joshi’s role and responsibilities from Campus Manager and Volunteer Coordinator to Advocacy Officer without change to his continuing employment status.
●That in the second workplace change event in July 2013,the position of Mr Joshi was formalised which did not change his employment status. That the redeployment option given to Mr Joshi on 11 July 2013 confirmed he was performing the role of advocate.
●That in offering the redeployment options,the respondent clearly distinguished that option one,which included permanent full-time work until 28 February 2014,specifically included the payment of a redundancy payment and option two,which offered fixed term roles at the end of which no redundancy payment would be made.
●The applicant submits that by accepting option one Mr Joshi did not forego his continuing employment status but chose an option which would avert his redundancy until the return of the staff member whose role he was backfilling.
●By accepting the redeployment to the role of an absent staff member Mr Joshi did not change his employment status from continuing to fixed-term employment but delayed the date of his potential redundancy.
 The applicant seeks a finding that Mr Joshi now be redeployed to the available position of Clubs and Events Officer forthwith and that the redundancy of Mr Joshi could be challenged as defined in s.389 of the Act as to it being a genuine redundancy.
The respondent’s submissions
 The respondent contends that the jurisdiction of the Commission is qualified by s.739(3) of the Act in that the Commission cannot exercise any powers limited by the term and must make a decision that is consistent with the Act or a fair work instrument that applies.
 The respondent in July 2013 made a decision to introduce changes likely to have a significant effect on employees and advised Mr Joshi of the proposed decision in compliance with the Award. In consequence Mr Joshi entered into a contract of employment to backfill a position of another employee under agreed terms. In doing so the employer’s obligations under clause 8 of the Award were fulfilled.
 The obligations to consult arise in clause 8.2 of the Award in relation to specific change to be notified in clause 8.1. The respondent asserts that when Mr Joshi assigned his new contract in July 2013 that the employer’s obligations to consult under clause 8.2 were fulfilled.
 In this respect a new “status quo”emerged on and from July 2013 enabling Mr Joshi to be employed under a contract to end on 28 February 2014.
 That Mr Joshi’s contract is a fixed term contract permissible under the Award as it relates to the replacement of an employee on a defined and approved leave of absence.
 That the respondent has not since August 2013 made any decision which affects Mr Joshi’s employment position of Advocate. Accordingly the employer has no obligation to consult with the NTEU or the employee. The restructure announced on September 2013 does not affect his role as Advocate;it affects other roles and does not affect him as envisaged by clause 8.2 of the Award.
 The respondent further submits that an order to redeploy Mr Joshi is beyond jurisdiction as the Commission’s powers would be limited to directing the employer to consult about the merit of redeploying Mr Joshi to the vacancy. To do so would require a conclusion that clause 8 has not been complied with,that Mr Joshi is redundant and that this requires a consideration of redeployment.
 Since redeployment arises out of a consideration that an employee’s position be made redundant and Mr Joshi has not been made redundant that it would be an error to direct a remedy for consultation about redeployment where there is no basis for a redeployment to occur.
 Consideration has been given to appointing Mr Joshi to the vacancy as canvassed by the applicant. The respondent does not accept the proposal and is not obliged under the Award to accept such a proposal.
 The orders sought by the applicant exceed the scope of obligations required of an employer under this Award and therefore exceed the powers of the Commission to make such an order.
 The Commission was assisted by evidence from Mr Joshi,Ms Juliet Fuller,Mr Arun Thomas,Ms Jennifer Coulls and Mr Daniel Randell. The Commission found the evidence of the parties was based mainly on recollection of events as it was obvious not a great deal of note taking done or contemporaneous records kept by Ms Fuller,Mr Thomas or Mr Randall. There were some inconsistencies in the evidence from Mr Joshi where he seems to confuse the nature of the transitional period apparently negotiated, 1 and from Ms Coulls where she refers to fixed term employment as being offered to Mr Joshi when such terms do not appear in the option accepted by him.2 However the Commission did not find any witness evidence unreliable save for some conflicting evidence by Mr Thomas.
The factual context and the Commission’s findings
 The Commission has given regard to all the evidence and documentation available and finds the following factual context in this matter.
 Mr Joshi was employed since October 2010 in a full-time role of Campus Manager and Volunteer Coordinator and continued in that role until late 2012. 3
 In late 2012 the respondent undertook a restructuring resulting in a majority of Mr Joshi’s role being transferred to the University of South Australia. He was advised in December 2012 by the then General Manager,Mr Keith Rudkin,of a major shift in the way the employer intended to operate. The proposed new structure did not retain his role and the most suitable position for him was the advocate’s role and he should familiarise himself with the advocates role as there was a need for a proposed third advocate and funding was to be available in the future. Mr Joshi was aware from December 2012 onwards his role was to no longer exist from some date in the future sand he was to “basically start”in the advocate role in January. 4
 On 22 January 2013 Mr Joshi wrote a proposal to the General Manager proposing that his duties be changed and he train as an advocate. 5 This proposal included:Mr Joshi train as an advocate and work closely with the other two advocates until the end of February when Ms Marieke De Graff (advocate) was due to take leave for a year break;that at the end of February he replace Ms De Graff;that he fill a role as advocate and also advocacy marketing from “‘now until a period between 1 July and 31 August 2013”at his current salary as a transition role until he chose one of six nominated options. He also included an eight point Public Awareness and Media Strategy.
 Those six options were as follows:if he so chose not to continue as an advocate he would seek a redundancy package with appropriate notice to the board provided by him; if he chose not to apply for the advocates position after 1 July 2013 he would seek a redundancy package;if he did not choose to apply for the advocates position but apply for another position with the employer he would notify the General Manager and board of such an intention and appropriate application process;if he chose to apply for the advocates positions and being unsuccessful he would apply for a redundancy from the employer;if he chose to apply for the advocates position and being successful he would be able to decline the offer and seek redundancy from 1 July 2013;if he chose to apply for the advocate role and being successful accepted the offer he would accept the drop in salary.
 All of these options reflect Mr Joshi was aware at that time he was filling a vacant role. That he had been given information from the General Manager to the effect he was potentially redundant in his former role and was able to fill in Ms De Graff’s role. That he potentially was going to be made redundant sometime after July 2013 subject to the board’s considerations on the ongoing budget,the advocacy service and others services. Mr Joshi was not seeking to leave at first instance but was seeking to firm up on his options. He proposed an expansion of the role he was to fill for the period. He proposed options for himself after 1 July 2013 all of which sought to preserve his access to redundancy benefits. Mr Joshi referred to it as a proposed transition role. 6
 Mr Joshi was advised on 29 January 2013 by Mr Stephen McCallum and Mr Thomas,student presidents,that the board on 29 January had approved his proposal “to approve the transfer to the advocate’s role.” 7
 Under examination Mr Joshi was clear he was told “your position has been accepted”by Mr Thomas. 8 In January he commenced working with the two advocates and Ms De Graff took maternity leave at the end of February 2013.
 There is no evidence of any written transmission by the board to Mr Joshi or documents in relation to his proposal. 9 Mr Thomas’evidence confirms that the former General Manager told Mr Joshi that his former role in campus events was not ongoing on 29 January 2013. He states:
“A motion was passed that ‘the proposal put by Prashant Joshi dated 22 January 2013 with respect to the role of Advocate be accepted by the Board.’
...the proposal to put an offer to Prashant to fill the advocate role until Marieke De Graff returned was never formalised to Prashant with a contract of employment.” 10
 Mr Thomas’s evidence is that he confirmed to Mr Joshi his proposal was approved “on a six month trial basis”was accepted and he was instructed to cease his campus duties and commenced training for the advocates role.
 The extract from the minutes attached to Mr Thomas’statement indicates that consideration was given to the proposal as Mr Joshi’s role was one the Board had decided not to continue and the trial would provide time to determine further funding “for advocacy and open selection can then be made and if successful will reduce salary,if unsuccessful will take a separation package.” 11
 The minutes further state:
“It seems sensible to trial him for half a year and then we can decide as an organisation and if unsuitable he has agreed to a separation package
Rather than starting the process from scratch,Arthur sees this is something of a legitimate way of addressing an imminent redundancy and fulfilling the advocacy role
Arthur noted that there would have to be some variation to the existing employment contract so that it is clear about the change in his substantial duties. Arthur noted also that UniLife if going ahead with the proposal would have to keep him at his current level.” 12
 It is clear that Mr Joshi had not been made redundant at this time,that he had been transferred into the vacant role ostensibly for six months. However his accepted proposal was for a transfer for a period between 1 July and 31 August 2013. He was notified effective 30 January. Mr Joshi had therefore various accepted options available to him after 1 July 2013 depending on the direction of the Board in regard to structure. It is not clear from the evidence as to what aspects of Mr Joshi’s proposal were agreed to or if the proposal in total was agreed to given that the Board or Mr Thomas did not document the concept. It is clear also that the advocate’s role he was backfilling was available until February 2014 with potential for a further advocate to be employed before that date.
 Mr Joshi took up the new duties as of 30 January 2013. He did not receive a variation to his contract of employment,he was not advised that he was redundant and until the end of July 2013 he continued in the role and also was involved in various other delegated duties at the direction of Ms Coulls and Mr Thomas. Mr Joshi was concerned at the lack of official response to his proposal. 13 Ms Fuller of the NTEU requested a formal response a number of times from Mr Thomas.14
 Ms Coulls became Interim General Manager on 4 March 2013 and was concerned with implementation of an appropriate structure for the organisation. The proposed new structure was approved by the Board on 2 April 2013 and confirmed the role of campus manager would be redundant. On the 11 April 2013 the first consultative meeting was held regarding the new structure proposed with staff.
 On 6 June Mr Joshi talked with the General Manager regarding his role in the new structure and he advised her of his former approved proposal for the advocacy role. He was still concerned as to his future in the organisation and at that time Mr Joshi had not been advised of any intended change to his circumstances or advised of the change intentions of the respondent in the workplace.
 Ms Coulls was aware Mr Joshi had not been in his former role since January 2013 and she had formed a view his former role did not exist. 15 However she had decided to implement a redundancy of that role as it was identified as such in the approved structure. The formal funding for the new structure was approved on 20 June 2013. Ms Coulls’evidence is that she was advised by the President of the Board,Mr Thomas,that Mr Joshi was redundant in his role as Campus Manager.16
 On 4 July Mr Joshi was requested to attend a meeting with Mr Thomas and Ms Coulls. Ms Fuller from the NTEU also attended. Mr Joshi was provided with a letter at that meeting a “Notification of Redundancy.”Importantly this letter was in relation to:
“...your contracted position of Campus Manager has been identified as becoming surplus to requirements and is to be made redundant.
UniLife has investigated all measures to mitigate the adverse effects of the restructure of the organisation.
Consistent with this investigation,UniLife has considered all opportunities for you to be redeployed to another position. Unfortunately we note that there are no available alternative positions that have been identified to date .”17
 The intention of the respondent was Mr Joshi be terminated for redundancy on 9 July 2013 and he was invited to respond with proposals prior to the close of business on 8 July 2013. 18
 Ms Coulls evidence is less than firm as to her understanding of Mr Joshi’s role at this time as it was based on information provided by the President and indicated that Mr Joshi had a temporary arrangement for six months. 19
 The Commission finds that at this time the respondent attempted to make Mr Joshi redundant in a role he had not been involved in since 30 January that year (some five months previous). The redundant role in fact had no incumbent employee,as Mr Joshi had been transferred when his proposal had been accepted by the Board. A redundancy of a previous role in circumstances where the role he was backfilling was still to be vacant until February 2014 and in the circumstance where the Board had agreed to his various options to be considered after 6 months. Those options included six options around Mr Joshi applying or not applying for an advocate position that apparently was mooted and available within the structural arrangement to apply after the referred to redundancy. Since the advocate’s role was still available and had been filled by Mr Joshi since January this seems to have been some attempt to make Mr Joshi redundant from his former role that he had not been involved in for that time. Mr Joshi was incumbent in an advocate’s position that was not redundant and would continue to at least February 2014. At that time it was also possible other advocates positions may be available.
 Mr Joshi responded by letter indicating he did not accept the redundancy and that he wished to continue in the advocacy role as agreed by the UniLife Board at the end of January 2013 and that he would continue to backfill Ms De Graff’s position until further discussions upon her return in 2014. 20
 On 11 July Mr Joshi was provided with a letter from the General Manager entitled “Redeployment Options”. This document contained various options for Mr Joshi’s consideration. Option one - he continue in the role of full time advocate until 28 February 2014 with advice from the respondent as to further continuance to occur four weeks prior to that date and stating:
“Please note that if we are unable to secure your ongoing employment beyond February 2014 your employment may be terminated due to redundancy in which case a redundancy payment would apply.” 21
 The letter referenced various changes to the contract of employment which in effect changed only the accrual multiple for annual leave to apply after 1 January 2014. It was further stated that “All other terms and conditions of your employment remain unchanged.” 22
 Option two - he accept a permanent part-time role (either 0.6 or 0.8 FTE) on a 12-month fixed term basis from approximately October 2013. No redundancy payment is attached to this option.
 Ms Coulls submitted that this was provided to fulfil the obligations of the employer in respect to redeployment options under the Award and the Act. She further asserts that option one in the offer was a fixed term position yet no such term exists in the text of that option in contrast to the text in option two.
 The reference to obligations for redeployment options by an employer in these circumstances is inappropriate. The redundant role was not being filled by anyone. Mr Joshi had organised an approved transfer to backfill an advocate position with other duties ostensibly to some date between the 1 July and the 30 August 2013 and potentially later at the volition of the employer. The backfill position would obviously be available until the end of February 2014. Yet the respondent intended to make Mr Joshi redundant in face of their previously approved proposal to him. The Commission finds this ill conceived and conflicting conduct by the respondent with little if any regard to the potential effect on Mr Joshi. The reference to redeployment reflects the respondent does accept the nature of such obligations for redundant employees and has sought to apply them in this case in terms of the nominated redeployment options. However,the offer that was made to Mr Joshi to continue in the same role until February 2014 reflects not only the obvious arrangement but also what was available to the respondent in terms of their obligations to Mr Joshi when they considered making him redundant and before they attempted to do so. In fact they attempted to make him redundant when they had an obvious alternative in that he was already working in that back fill role. What has changed is that he has been advised he is redundant formally and he has on offer of a position ostensibly until February 2014.
 On 5 July 2013 a new restructuring proposal for the employer was circulated to staff. This was not provided to Mr Joshi as he was compelled to stay home for two days to decide on the proposal he had received thus to consider his choices without any details of the restructuring to prevail in the workforce.
 The Commission considers that this restructuring must be considered in association with the decision to make Mr Joshi redundant given the above comments on the actions of the respondent. The Commission finds by their actions the respondent has excluded Mr Joshi from the common consultation on workplace change.
 Mr Joshi was subsequently provided with only part of the restructuring proposal by email on 5 July and a quote on his pending redundancy. He ultimately received the information on the restructuring proposal from the NTEU,not the employer. 23
 On 8 July Mr Joshi became aware that he was the only employee proposed to be made redundant by the respondent. He subsequently advised them he did not accept the redundancy and disagreed with the restructuring. He wanted to continue in the advocate’s role which he had undertaken since January backfilling the absent advocate.
 The NTEU wrote to Ms Coulls notifying a potential breach of the Award in regard to disputes procedures and requesting an urgent meeting regarding lack of consultation etc. 24
 Mr Joshi resumed duties on 9 July 2013. He subsequently accepted the option one proposal on the basis he considered he was not giving up any of his employment status and he would receive a redundancy payment ultimately,and that his employer was still obligated to consider options as to his further employment.
 Ms Coulls in her evidence asserts that:
“...it was agreed that his employment...would end on 28 February 2014 to cover a period of approved leave for Marieke...” 25
 Further that Mr Joshi’s advocate role was for a fixed term in status as approved by the Board. 26 Mr Joshi received a position description and letter of offer on 11 July 2013.27
 The letter of offer confirms the conditions of employment notably:the position of Student Advocate,that you will be employed on a full time basis,that your employment will,unless terminated in accordance with clause 12,end on 28 February 2014 and that it will be confirm in writing at least four weeks prior to 28 February 2014 regarding your ongoing employment with UniLife and whether the employer intended to offer you a further contract. Ms Fuller discussed this with Mr Joshi and her evidence was that they believed this amounted to work for Mr Joshi in the advocates role until end of February and if they have not found any further role the position will be redundant and a redundancy payment shall apply. 28
 The Commission considers the offer of continuing in the backfill advocates role until February 2014 simply underlines that the intended redundancy was not a genuine redundancy;that is where the employer did not require the job the employee was doing to be done by anyone. The job was available and Mr Joshi was the incumbent employee.
 On the question whether adopting the “option one”made Mr Joshi a fixed term employee as submitted by the respondent. It conspicuously,unlike the previous documents,does not say fixed term contract of employment. The question to be answered is does it convert Mr Joshi’s contract to fixed term. In the circumstances referenced above the applicant employee was always in ongoing employment and not redundant prior to accepting the option one proposal. He had been transferred with approved options. The offer of redeployment was made by the respondent in regard to Mr Joshi denying he was redundant as the job was available. The employer,by their offer,gives an admission the job was available for him to be redeployed into. The intended redundancy of Mr Joshi was therefore in error or a sham. The respondent has reconsidered and provided the ongoing back fill role for Mr Joshi.
 Given the form of the offer and the circumstances of its instigation and the history of the work concerned,at best,the option identifies that the redeployment offer of work is available only until February 2014. There is an end date to the redeployment but in the Commission’s consideration this does not translate Mr Joshi to be a fixed term employee. He is an ongoing employee backfilling a term vacancy. It is not fixed term employment. He has not been made redundant at this time and may not be at the end of the date nominated as the offer mentions the possibility of further contracts. Also the agreed proposals between Mr Joshi and the Board of the respondent have not been addressed in regard to the intended new advocate position yet to be filled after February 2014.
 On 20 September 2013 the “Clubs and Events Officer”resigned. On 26 September Mr Randell and Mr Thomas met with staff to discuss a further round of structural changes (the September restructure).
 Mr Joshi met with the Mr Randell,Mr Thomas and the NTEU representative on 26 September. Mr Joshi was advised that there were no changes to his current position as a result of the restructure and received a letter. 29
 Mr Randell’s evidence is that he indicated there were no changes to Mr Joshi’s contract of employment signed in July 2013 30 that his job description had been reworded,but the role was the same.31 The Commission notes the position description relates to tasks and location but no details as to tenure and hours of work and conditions of employment. Mr Joshi was to continue in his role of advocate.
 Mr Joshi sought to apply for the vacant “Clubs and Events Officer”role and was told he would have to apply for it. Further Ms Fuller proposed that Mr Joshi be transferred to one of the two full time advocacy roles that were now proposed in the respondent’s new structure (up to 3 advocates). The respondent undertook to further advise them. Ms Fuller says Mr Randell also advised he would not be filling the vacant fixed term advocacy roles before February 2014. The third role and the vacant advocacy position would be available to Mr Joshi at that time should he be interested in it. This may extend his employment to August 2014. 32
 Ms Fuller’s evidence is that she requested that the new role be given to Mr Joshi as soon as possible and that Mr Randell undertook to respond to that request. In regard to the Events Officer role Ms Fuller’s evidence is that she asked if it was available as a redeployment role for Mr Joshi.
 On 4 October 2013 Mr Joshi was advised that the respondent considered they had no obligation to consider any alternative position for him because they considered him a fixed term contract employee. Thus his requests were not to be considered. This was the first time fixed term employment status had been mentioned to Mr Joshi.
 Discussions proceeded with the NTEU in an attempt to resolve the issues. On 15 October Mr Randell advised the NTEU that Mr Joshi was on a fixed term contract and could apply for the Clubs and Events officer vacancy. Mr Joshi has demonstrated to the respondent that he is still passionate to work for them and that he would accept a reduction in salary in accordance with a redeployment role. He also submits that he is experienced with the vacant role.
 The Commission has found Mr Joshi is not a fixed term employee. He further has agreed proposals with the respondent in relation to his applying or not applying for the advocate role with the respondent. There are now various advocate roles available and other vacancies and he is an ongoing employee whose role may end in February 2014.
 The Commission finds the above activities of the respondent do not satisfy the appropriate approaches to redundancy and their obligations under the Act and the Modern Award. There is little in the above scenario that meets the requirements in regard to an attempt to satisfy an approach to genuine redundancy under the Act. The obligation to consult with employees results out of the change process within an organisation and in the above scenario three approaches to change at the instigation of the employer. The obligation cannot be interpreted to mean that an affected person still in the workplace is excluded for further consideration unless that person has a contractual arrangement that precludes such consideration. In this matter Mr Joshi had no such contractual exclusion. He was and is an ongoing employee. He was not converted by the offer of extended backfill work until February 2014 to be a fixed term employee.
 The Commission therefore finds that the Mr Joshi is not a fixed term employee. He has been notified of his pending redundancy and accepted a continuing advocate’s role until February 2014. He has also been advised he may be further offered further work. The employer is obligated under the Award and the Act to consult with the employee about his pending redundancy under the provisions of clause 8.2 of the Award and the provisions of the Act. Such consultation and mitigation considerations arise from change. If change continues the obligation continues. It does not end with the first approach by the employer. Thus if further roles become available as a result of resignation or structural change the applicant must be given consideration for such roles.
 The applicant in this matter seeks an order for redeployment of Mr Joshi to a vacant role with the respondent’s workforce. The Commission declines to make such an order as insufficient information has been evidenced about the attributes of current or pending vacant roles within the organisation.
 The Commission therefore,given the above findings,directs the respondent to consult with Mr Joshi and his union in regard to the available roles within the workplace as a consequence of structural or organisational change. Given that his present role may end in February 2014,such discussions are to occur as soon as possible and consider the requirements and obligations on the employer in such circumstances.
 The Commission gives liberty to the parties to apply for further directions in this matter.
Ms K Harrington for the applicant
Mr S Bakewell for the respondent
1 PN 174
2 PN 643-645
3 Exhibit R1,Annexure Joshi 1
4 PN 51
5 Exhibit R1,Annexure Joshi 3
7 Ibid at para 9
8 PN 184
9 PN 187-190
10 Exhibit R1 at paras 11-12
11 Ibid,Annexure AT1
13 Exhibit A2 at para 10
14 Ibid at para 16
15 PN 613
16 PN 626
17 Exhibit R1,Annexure Joshi 4
19 PN 630
20 Exhibit R1,Annexure Joshi 6
21 Exhibit R1,Annexure Joshi 7
23 PN 369
24 Exhibit A2,Annexure Fuller 4
25 Exhibit R2 at para 53
26 PN 660
27 Exhibit A1,Annexure Joshi 7
28 PN 400
29 Exhibit A1,Annexure Joshi 9
30 PN 685
31 PN 702
32 Exhibit A2 at para 51
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<Price code C, MA000007 PR545905>