WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION. No. 282 of 1985. Between Hugh Joseph Bracken, Applicant and Bristile Limited, Respondent. Before Mr Commissioner J.F. Gregor. This 6th day of August 1985. Mr L.J. Irwin appeared for the Applicant. Mr R.H. Gifford appeared for the Respondent. Reasons for Decision. THE COMMISSIONER: By this Application, brought pursuant to section 29 of the Industrial Relations Act 1979, the Applicant seeks an Order that he be re- employed or compensated for loss of employment in respect of a position he occupied immediately prior to the termination of his contract of employment by the Respondent on 28 March 1985. 65 W.A.I.G. WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE. 1783 Hugh Joseph Bracken was employed as an Engineer- ing Clerk by Bristile Limited from 29 August 1981 to 28 March 1985 when his employment was terminated because, in the Respondent's view, of the need to re- organise its Engineering Section's operation. As a result of that re-organisation the Respondent says that the position occupied by Mr Bracken had become redundant. It is the Applicant's contention that he was unfairly and/or unjustifiably dismissed and furthermore that the terms of the termination were harsh and unreasonable and resulted from a contrived situation which did not have sound business practice as its foundation. In the Applicant's view the factors which lead to this conclusion are: 1. The decision to terminate was taken by the Chief Engineer, Mr Peter Gordon without con- sidering the general administrative functions of Bristile Limited and the possible relocation of Bracken. 2. An approach by the Chief Engineer in staff matters which was discriminatory, inequitable and based on personal likes and dislikes. 3. Mr Bracken made legitimate observations and reports that were in the Company's interest but which were looked upon with disfavour by the Chief Engineer. 4. The Engineering Section's inconsistent treat- ment of matters affecting its financial state, destroying any genuity in the claimed reasoning behind making Mr Bracken redundant. The Respondent had answered that the Applicant was terminated from the position of Engineering Clerk within the Engineering Division with effect from 18 March 1985, the position being no longer necessary as a result of the rationalisation of the Company's operation. Amongst other things the rationalisation flowed from the formation of Metropolitan Brickworks as a separate Division causing responsibility for maintenance to be transferred from the Engineering Division to a separate Division, coupled with the closure of the Stainless Steel Division and the re-allocation of the Pressing Section to the Eastern States causing an overall reduced require- ment for maintenance services. In addition there was the closure of the Pipe Division, again with consequent reduction in the need for maintenance services. The Respondent says that Mr Bracken's position was not the only one to be made redundant within the Engineering Division. An Engineer and two Design Draughtsmen have also been terminated. Further, it says that following the Applicant's termination that the work originally performed by him in respect of wages has been re-allocated to the Divisional Paymistress and the remaining work has been spread among other staff. The Respondent emphatically denies that the termina- tion was unfairly effected. It further denies that the termination arose from a contrived situation, or that there was any possibility of a relocation. The alleged discrimination or lack of favour on behalf of the Chief Engineer was also denied. It was common ground that the employment contract of the Applicant commenced on 29 August 1981, although there was some debate as to the classification at the time of the engagement. As far as the Company is concerned, Mr Bracken was engaged as an Engineering Clerk and remained so for the total period of his employ- ment. Mr Bracken asserted that he had replaced a Purchasing Officer and that his major function was therefore that of a Purchasing Officer. It was said in evidence, and was not disputed, that Mr Bracken was a useful and willing worker in the Engineering Division and that over the period of his employment he had accepted various duties of a clerical nature as and when they arose. On Mr Bracken's behalf it was submitted that there was a history of discriminatory practice in the office known as the Engineering Division, that Mr Bracken had often made observations about cost and expenditure within the Company, and appeared to have received no response, and that this was passing strange given that pressure on budget was one of the reasons given for his termination. The Applicant said that various officers of the Company appeared to undertake their duties with less diligence and time-keeping surveillance than was expected of himself and that different behavioural criteria were applied to groups of people who were in favour with the Chief Engineer. In support of these propositions the Applicant called evidence from Mr Roger Parker who was at that time the Chief Draughtsman at Bristile Limited. He, at the date of Hearing, had given his notice of termination to the Company. Mr Parker evidenced that there was favouritism directed to the Technical Officers and the Receptionist and that Mr Bracken suffered as a result. He confirmed that, in his view, Mr Bracken was a willing and useful worker. Mr Parker was asked by the advocate for the Applicant to comment on matters which seemed to go to his view of the management style which ought to have been adopted by the Company and which would have resulted in work being made available for Mr Bracken. In his evidence, Mr Bracken raised a whole series of issues concerning the alleged misbehaviour of other members of the Engineering Branch relating to time- keeping and performance of duty. He made unsupported assertions concerning alleged financial favouritism by the Company to a Technical Officer in the purchase of redundant machinery. Central to his complaint, however, was that he had had a personality conflict with the Receptionist and it was as a result of this personality conflict that he had, a year before his termination, tried to get a transfer into another part of the Company. When this was unsuccessful he had in fact sought other employment. Mr Bracken said that he had reported this conflict to the Chief Engineer who had not been able to solve the issue. By inference his evidence can be taken to mean that the Receptionist occupied a privileged position with Senior Management and that Senior Management reacted to that privileged position to the detriment of Mr Bracken with the result that his services were terminated. He also said that when the termination was effected he was not given any reason for it. In his submissions in reply, Mr Gifford for the Respondent denied that the termination was in any way contrived by the Engineer in the manner suggested in evidence either by Mr Bracken or Mr Parker. He denied that the termination had in any sense arisen out of the kind of discriminatory practice alleged of the Chief Engineer. Mr Gifford submitted that it is clear that Mr Bracken's services were terminated because his position was redundant. Further that the reasons for redundancy had been explained by Mr Gordon on the day of the termination. The circumstances leading to redundancy had been made known to Mr Bracken, that is, ration- alisation of a number of operations within the Company had occurred and was reflected very significantly in the amount of maintenance work and maintenance services provided through the Engineering Division of the Company. This then had a consequent effect on every- one's position within that Division, including Draught- ing Staff, Technical Officers and Engineering Staff with the result that ultimately a number of redundancies were to be effected, Mr Bracken's being the first. It was further submitted that contrary to the assertion that no consideration was given to the possibility of the transfer of Mr Bracken that such consideration was in fact given. Mr Gordon had made approaches to the Group Accountant and the Personnel Division to deter- mine whether other positions were available. Those approaches by the Chief Engineer were fruitless then and the position remains the same today, no other work is available. Mr Gifford submitted that he would evidence that there was no contrivance and no discrimination exercised, that in relation to the matters which the Applicant has raised concerning the allegation that Mr WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE. 65 W.A.I.G. Gordon had been abusive towards Mr Bracken, that the Receptionist, Miss Butler, had been obstructive towards Mr Bracken, that favouritism in a sense had been exercised by Mr Gordon towards her to his (Bracken's) detriment, that the Technical Officers within the Division had been given more favoured treatment, and that there has been a lack of sympathy for the exercise of the workload which Mr Bracken has encountered, particularly in the latter part of 1984; were completely unjustified charges and without substance. The Chief Engineer, Mr P.J. Gordon, was called. Without reciting his evidence in detail, it suffices to say that the submissions of Mr Gifford on behalf of the Respondent were supported. In addition Mr Gifford called Mr Eggett who has also been involved in the Engineering Division as the Deputy to Mr Gordon, and in whom Mr Bracken said he placed a great deal of reliance. On my assessment of the evidence given by the Applicant and the Respondent, I find the Respondent's approach to be far more logical, rational and believable. That is not to say Mr Bracken gave evidence that he sees to be untrue. I believe the error into which he has fallen is that in his disappointment and concern about being made redundant at his age with his lack of prospects, that minor irritants which he did not take any notice of during his three years of employment with the Company have been magnified in his mind out of all proportion and he has drawn wrong conclusions as a result. For instance, it is my view that far from Mr Gordon being struck with some antipathy towards Mr Bracken he had been, over the three years, a great supporter of Mr Bracken's retention in an organisation which had been going through successive management changes with an ever diminishing workforce. In fact, what has happened in this case is, from the evidence, it falls that there has been a situation with a small group of people, five or six on average, working closely together over a period of time with a personality conflict occurring between two of them and the whole relationship being subject to the ebbs and flows of human behaviour over that time. Mr Bracken appears to have built upon these ebbs and flows and created a situation in his mind of discrimination which is in my view unavailable when rational analysis of the facts occurs. It is clear from the evidence that the Respondent Company has gone through a number of changes in response to economic fluctuations in the building supply industry of which it is a major operator in the country. Further, it has undergone changes in Management style which have led to divisional decent- ralisation with the result that a central Engineering Division in the form in which it operated when Mr Bracken was first employed is no longer necessary. It is these structural changes in the Company which are the nub of this case. I accept the evidence that re- adjustment of work allocation has led to this termina- tion. It is well settled that the Commission should not intervene in such matters. In my view the four grounds on which this Application is erected are misdirected. I cannot find that any one of them has been proved and in that event I cannot find that the dismissal of Mr Bracken was unfair within the meaning of section 29 (b) (i) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 and I dismiss the claim. BEFORE THE WESTERN AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRIAL. RELATIONS COMMISSION. No. 282 of 1985. Between Hugh Joseph Bracken, Applicant and Bristile Limited, Respondent. Order. HAVING heard Mr L. J. Irwin on behalf of the applicant and Mr R.H. Gifford on behalf of the respondent, the Commission, pursuant to the powers conferred on it under the Industrial Relations Act 1979 hereby orders — That the application be dismissed. Dated at Perth this 6th day of August 1985. (Sgd.) J.F. GREGOR, [L.S.] Commissioner. BEFORE THE