Details  Created: 03 March 2020

The Commission has dismissed a claim for denied contractual benefits as it found that the claim did not concern a benefit of an employment contract and the failure to provide that benefit.

The applicant argued that the respondent had breached their contract by reducing the applicant’s annual salary by $5,000. The applicant then terminated the contract, stating that he did so due to the breach.

At the hearing, the applicant submitted a different claim for $68,750, arguing that this would have been the amount received under contract for 12 months as he would have continued employment had the respondent not unilaterally reduced his salary.

The respondent refuted the applicant’s claim and sought that the application be dismissed as the applicant had not identified a benefit under a contract of employment that has been denied.

Commissioner Walkington found that the applicant’s assertion that the contract ‘would have’ continued for a further 12 months was not supported by any evidence. Further, Walkington C found that the applicant had not established that either his initial claim of $5,000 or his revised claim for $68,750 were entitlements under a contract of employment.

Walkington C concluded that the applicant’s claim concerns the fairness of his termination and does not concern a benefit of an employment contract and the failure to provide that benefit.

The application was dismissed on the basis that there was no real question of fact or law to be determined.

The decision can be read here.

Details 

Created: 27 February 2020

The Commission has determined on the papers that it is unable to hear an unfair dismissal claim because the applicant was employed by a national system employer and the Commission does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The applicant was employed by a mining contractor until his employment was terminated. He claimed that he was unfairly dismissed and applied to the Commission for compensation.

The respondent objected to the application on the basis that they are a national system employer and the Commission does not have the necessary jurisdiction. 

Commissioner Walkington considered whether the respondent was a trading corporation as defined under the Fair Work Act 2009. Walkington C applied relevant legal principle and found that the respondent was an incorporated entity with a main purpose to trade with the aim of generating a profit.

Walkington C concluded, on the undisputed information and documentation provided by the respondent, that the respondent was a trading corporation and the applicant was employed by a national system employer. Therefore, Walkington C found that the Commission did not have jurisdiction to deal with the applicant’s claim for unfair dismissal.

An order was issued dismissing the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The decision can be read here.

Details 

Created: 26 February 2020

The Industrial Magistrate’s Court has, in part, granted an application for summary judgement dismissing a claim for unpaid annual leave by a Master on an even time roster of 28 days on and 28 days off (Even Time Roster) where the parties were covered by the Go Inshore Port Hedland Agreement 2009 (Cth) (2009 Agreement), Go Inshore Port Hedland Agreement 2013 (Cth) (2013 Agreement), and Go Inshore Port Hedland Enterprise Agreement 2016 (Cth) (2016 Agreement).

The claimant argued that while the relevant clauses in the Agreements provided that annual leave will be taken during the rostered off-duty periods, this does not mean he will be deemed to have taken, and should be paid, annual leave during those periods.

The respondent contended that the Agreements deemed the claimant to have taken his annual leave during the off periods of the Even Time Roster. That is, annual leave accrued and was taken in the same ratio and therefore no claim for unpaid annual leave under the Agreements can be made. 

Industrial Magistrate Scaddan found that, as there were three Agreements covering the span of the claimant’s employment, it was necessary to look at the terms of each Agreement separately.

Scaddan IM found that the proper construction of the 2009 and 2013 Agreements were that they operated not only to require paid annual leave to be taken during the off-duty period, but deemed any annual leave to be included in the off-duty periods of the Even Time Roster such that the respondent had no ongoing annual leave liability. Scaddan IM found that the effect of this meant no outstanding unpaid annual leave were owed to the claimant during the operation of the 2009 and 2013 Agreements, where accrued annual leave was taken and paid on the same ratio.

However, Scaddan IM found that the 2016 Agreement raised the possibility of ongoing accrual of annual leave. Scaddan IM found that it was arguable that annual leave was not incorporated into the off-duty period, and ordered the claimant to lodge an amended Further and Better Particulars of Case Outline for his period of employment covered under the 2016 Agreement.

The Application was granted in part.

The decision can be read here.

Details 

Created: 26 February 2020

The Public Service Appeal Board (Board) has dismissed an appeal against the decision of the Department of Transport to terminate the employment of a customer service officer for substandard performance pursuant to the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (WA).

The appellant contended that at no time was her performance substandard and that the Performance Improvement Action Plan (PIP) implemented by the respondent raised major procedural and substantive concerns. The appellant also argued that procedural fairness and natural justice had been denied, the investigation process was unduly secretive and that the penalty of dismissal was unfair in consideration of the appellant’s employment record.

The appellant sought a declaration that her performance met the expected standards, the respondent’s adverse findings are set aside, and an order that the respondent reinstate the appellant with continuity of service and reimbursement of loss.

The respondent contended that the appellant had clear opportunities to respond during the investigation, had access to the support required to overcome barriers to meeting expectations, had reasonable opportunity to demonstrate improvement and that the process was conducted in a fair and unbiased manner.

The Board found that given the entirety of the informal and formal processes put in place by the respondent, including a Return to Work Program and the PIP, it could not conclude that the appellant did not have a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate an improvement in her level of performance. The Board held that it was the sheer type and number of basic errors, committed consistently by the appellant over a sustained period, that was of legitimate concern to the respondent.

The Board found that the appellant’s performance had not attained or sustained a reasonably expected level. The Board dismissed the appeal.

The decision can be read here.

Details 

Created: 25 February 2020

The Full Bench has unanimously dismissed an appeal against a decision of the Commission that found that a claim for denied contractual benefits should be dismissed on the basis that the application was barred by a Deed of Settlement and Release (Deed) between the parties.

The appellant at first instance argued that she signed the Deed under duress and was threatened that if she did not sign the Deed, she may be dismissed.

The Commissioner at first instance found that the pressure exerted on the appellant to sign the Deed was not ‘undue’ because ‘it did not involve any actual or threatened unlawful conduct by the Respondent’. In addition, the Commissioner found that the appellant, though stressed, was under no special disadvantage, and the appellant did not breach or threaten to breach the contract.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the Commissioner erred in law by failing to consider or properly consider the issue of actual or threatened breaches of the appellant’s contract, and whether this constituted duress and a threat.

Chief Commissioner Scott, with whom Senior Commissioner Kenner and Commissioner Walkington agreed, found that the since the respondent had given the appellant an option to either sign the Deed or face disciplinary action, and that the appellant knew and understood that she was not being threatened with dismissal, there was no duress or threat. Further, the appellant had received independent advice from an industrial agent prior to signing the Deed and was told by the respondent that she must not sign the Deed under duress.

The Full Bench also dismissed the appellant’s argument that the respondent’s conduct constituted unlawful conduct amounting to the tort of deceit because it had not been argued before the Commission at first instance. The Full Bench also found that:

• The Commissioner at first instance was correct in finding there was no contractual duty on the respondent to act with good faith;
• That there was a legitimate reason for suspicion of wrongdoing by the appellant as the basis for commencing disciplinary proceedings; and
• It was in the public interest for the parties to be bound by the agreements.

The Full Bench found that, as no error had been identified, the appeal should be dismissed.

The decision can be read here.