The applicant claimed unfair dismissal against the respondent, her former employer. The respondent contested the jurisdiction of the Commission, arguing that it is a national system employer under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The central issue was whether the respondent, as a corporation, engaged in trading activities, thus determining the Commission’s jurisdiction.

The respondent submitted evidence, including a statutory declaration by its CEO, outlining its income sources, which included government service agreements, grants, and trading activities such as the sale of goods and rental income. The CEO’s declaration also highlighted the respondent’s strategic plan, emphasising a profit-for-purpose approach and a diversified income generation strategy.

Commissioner Walkington evaluated whether the respondent was a corporation engaging in trading activities. Commissioner Walkington found that the Constitution described the respondent as an association, and there was no evidence of its incorporation. Consequently, the Commission could not conclude that the respondent is a corporation. Regarding trading activities, the Commission considered sources of revenue, emphasising that income from government grants and services did not exhibit the character of trading. While the respondent engaged in some trading activities like the sale of goods and rent, these were deemed limited and incidental, not substantial or significant.

As a result, Commissioner Walkington concluded that the respondent is not a trading corporation, establishing the Commission’s jurisdiction to conciliate and potentially hear and determine the unfair dismissal claim.

The decision can be read here.