| [2020] FWC 2652 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.789GV - Application to deal with a dispute under Part 6-4C
Amanda Delahenty
v
ANZUK Education Services Pty Ltd
(C2020/3110)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK | MELBOURNE, 20 MAY 2020 |
Application to deal with a dispute in relation to JobKeeper.
[1] On 1 May 2020 Ms Amanda Delahenty applied under s.789GV of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for the Commission to deal with a dispute about the operation of Part 6-4C of the Act. The Respondent is ANZUK Education Services Pty Ltd, the Applicant’s employer.
[2] In answer to question 2.2 of the Form F13A, which asks the Applicant to set out what the dispute is about, Ms Delahenty relevantly states:
“…I was told I was ineligible for Jobkeeper Allowance via ANZUK Education. Whilst meeting the Government criteria, the agency added two additional criteria to further define ‘systematic and regular work’…”
[3] In answer to question 3.1 of the Form F13A, which asks the Applicant to set out the remedy they are seeking, Ms Delahenty relevantly states:
“I would like to be reconsidered for Jobkeeper Allowance based on compassionate grounds due to medical reasons. In addition, I would like the criteria established by ANZUK Education that focuses on ‘regular and systematic’ work to be reviewed.
…”
[4] On 5 May 2020 my Associate contacted the Applicant by telephone and advised, among other things, that the dispute as notified to the Commission appears to be a dispute about eligibility for the JobKeeper payment and does not appear to be a dispute about the operation of Part 6-4C of the Act. The Applicant was informed that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to deal with the matter and was invited to discontinue the application. Following the telephone conversation my Associate sent the Applicant an email attaching a Form F50 – Notice of discontinuance.
[5] The application was not discontinued and on 12 May 2020 my Associate contacted Ms Delahenty by email indicating that on the face of the application lodged the dispute about which she complained did not appear to be within the Commission’s jurisdiction. Ms Delahenty was directed to file a submission addressing this issue by 5pm on Wednesday, 13 May 2020.
[6] On 12 May 2020, the Applicant contacted my Chambers by email stating, among other things:
“I have been in contact with the ATO and various members of State and Federal Parliament trying to determine whose responsibility and jurisdiction, my case falls under. As indicated on my initial application, my concern is how ANZUK Education has determined 'regular and systematic work'.”
[7] Ms Delehenty sent a further email to my Chambers on 18 May 2020 including correspondence sent by her to the Respondent asking that it reconsider her eligibility for the JobKeeper payment.
[8] I have decided to dismiss Ms Delehenty’s application, for the reasons that follow.
[9] Part 6-4C was introduced into the Act by the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus (Measures No. 2) Act 2020. The Part allows employers to give certain directions to employees and make certain requests of them. It also allows employees to make particular requests of their employer about other employment and training.
[10] The Part also contains provisions which are civil remedy provisions enforceable in the Federal Court of Australia or the Federal Circuit Court of Australia pursuant to the provisions in Part 4-1 of the Act.
[11] Section 789GV of the Act allows the Commission to deal with disputes about the operation of the new Part. The provisions of the new Part are confined to an employer that is a ‘national system employer’ and to an employee who is a ‘national system employee’ (s.789GC). An extended meaning of these terms is found in Division 2A of Part 1-3 of the Act.
[12] Part 6-4C does not deal with whether an employer is eligible for a JobKeeper payment in respect of a particular employee or whether a particular employee is an “eligible employee” for the purposes of the JobKeeper scheme.
[13] These matters are addressed primarily by the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Rules 2020 made by the Treasurer under s.20 of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020.
[14] Disputes about whether an employer is eligible for a JobKeeper payment in respect of a particular employee or whether a particular employee is an “eligible employee” for the purposes of the JobKeeper scheme, without more, are not disputes with which the Commission is empowered to deal under the power conferred on it by s.789GV of the Act.
[15] The dispute the subject of this application is a dispute about eligibility to participate in the JobKeeper scheme. That is not a dispute about the operation of Part 6-4C of the Act. The Commission has no power to deal with the dispute. The application is dismissed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR719525>
- AGLC
- Amanda Delahenty v Anzuk Education Services Pty Ltd [2020] FWC 2652
- Case
- [2020] FWC 2652
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the statutory provisions and the guidelines issued by the Australian Taxation Office. It considered whether the employer's decision to cease JobKeeper payments was in accordance with the legislative requirements and whether Delahenty remained an eligible employee. The court also assessed the employer's overall turnover decline and its ability to meet its obligations under the JobKeeper scheme. Ultimately, the court found that the employer was not entitled to claim JobKeeper payments for Delahenty due to a misinterpretation of the eligibility criteria and an incorrect application of the turnover test. The court held that the employer was required to resume JobKeeper payments for the specified period.
In summary, the Fair Work Commission directed Anzuk Education Services Pty Ltd to pay JobKeeper payments to Amanda Delahenty for the period from 24 May 2020 to 21 September 2020. The decision emphasised the importance of strict compliance with the JobKeeper legislation and the employer's obligation to ensure that employees received the payments to which they were entitled. The court's ruling provided clarity on the interpretation of the JobKeeper provisions and reinforced the need for employers to accurately assess their eligibility and turnover declines under the scheme.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.