The Commission has dismissed a claim for denied contractual benefits as it found that it had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter since the applicant’s salary exceeded the prescribed amount specified in reg 5 of the Industrial Relations (General) Regulations 1997 (WA).

Contentions

The applicant, a tug master, claimed that he had been denied several entitlements including the restoration of 30 days of personal leave and the back payment of two months’ salary and superannuation.

The applicant contended that the relevant period that ought to be considered material for this matter was between 15 April 2019 to 15 April 2020. He claimed that the payment received by him during this period was the total of his base salary, statutory superannuation and additional superannuation contributions.

The respondent, the applicant’s employer, objected to the claim and contended that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to deal with the matter on the basis that the employment contract provided for a salary that exceeded the prescribed amount.

The respondent contended that the material period was the twelve months prior to the date of the applicant’s claim, that being 20 March 2020. It also claimed that the relevant payments that were to be considered included the base salary and the additional superannuation contributions but excluded the statutory superannuation payments.

Findings

Commissioner Walkington found that the prescribed amount for the purposes of determining the applicant’s claim was $166,680.

Walkington C found that the applicant was not correct to include payments received for statutory superannuation. She found that when the formulas in either reg 5(2)(a) or reg 5(2)(b) (with the latter applying where there was not a period of leave without pay) were correctly applied to the period between 15 April 2019 to 15 April 2020, the applicant’s salary exceeded the prescribed amount. This was also the case when the formulas were applied to the material period contended by the respondent, being 21 March 2019 to 20 March 2020.

The claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The decision can be read here.