| [2023] FWC 514 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Brian Cowan
v
I.P.C. Pty Ltd
(U2022/12220)
| DEPUTY PRESIDENT BEAUMONT | PERTH,10 MARCH 2023 |
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy
Issue and outcome
This decision concerns a jurisdictional objection raised by I.P.C Pty Ltd (the Respondent) in response to an unfair dismissal application brough by Mr Brian Cowan (the Applicant) under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).
The Respondent submitted that the Applicant earned more than the high income threshold and is therefore excluded from making this application by virtue of s 382(b)(iii) of the Act.
It is uncontentious that the Applicant was not covered by a modern award and an enterprise agreement did not apply to him in his employment. Therefore, the inclusions of s 382(b)(i) or (ii) are not triggered.
The Applicant rejects the assertion that at the time of his dismissal, on 15 December 2022, his annual income was above the high income threshold of $162,000.00 and maintains that he is eligible to make an unfair dismissal claim pursuant to s 382 of the Act. If this condition can be established, the Respondent’s objection will be dismissed. Therefore, the primary question to be determined is whether the Applicant’s annual rate of earnings exceeded the high income threshold. Briefly stated, I have found that they did not.
Background
The Applicant commenced employment with the Respondent in or around 2008 in a casual position. The Applicant commenced full-time employment with the Respondent in or around 2015 in the position of Mechanical Maintenance Supervisor and was subsequently promoted to Mechanical Superintendent in or around November 2019.
An employment agreement confirming the Applicant’s terms and conditions of employment was entered into by the parties on or around April 2016 (the Contract). According to the Applicant, with the exception of an increase to the Applicant’s hourly rate of pay entered into on or around 20 January 2020, no further agreement has been entered into by the parties to vary the terms and conditions of the Applicant’s employment.
Clause 4.1 of the Contract describes the Applicant’s remuneration as follows:
The Company will remunerate the Employee as follows:
a)An hourly base rate of $50.00 per hour;
b)An hourly overtime rate of $53.00 per hour for overtime worked in excess of 40 hours per week and outside of the normal business hours;
c)Rates of pay may be increased subject to suit business requirements, without prior consent. Rates of pay will not be decreased without prior consent;
d)provision of company vehicle;
e)superannuation in accordance with Australian statutory requirements in place from time to time, and at a minimum rate currently being not less than 9.5% of the Annual Salary set out in 4.1(a) above;
f)reimbursement for all travel and other business expenditure reasonably incurred by his in connection with the discharge of his duties in terms of this Agreement provided the claims are submitted and approved in accordance with the Company’s usual procedures from time…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Brian Cowan v I.P.C Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2023] FWC 514
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court examined the components of Mr Cowan's remuneration, including his base salary, overtime pay, the use of a company vehicle, and a mobile phone. The Respondent's calculation of Mr Cowan's annual earnings included presumptive amounts for future overtime and private use of the company vehicle and mobile phone. In contrast, Mr Cowan argued that his guaranteed annual earnings consisted solely of his base salary, vehicle, and mobile phone, amounting to $127,441.60. The Court found that certain payments, such as overtime and increased hourly rates during shutdowns, constituted amounts that could not be determined in advance and were therefore excluded from earnings under s 332(2)(a) of the Act. Additionally, while the Court could estimate the value of the private use of the company vehicle, it was not persuaded by the evidence provided to determine a precise value. Ultimately, the Court concluded that Mr Cowan's annual earnings, even when including the estimated value of the private use of the vehicle and the mobile phone, did not exceed the high income threshold. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Respondent's jurisdictional objection and found that Mr Cowan was protected from unfair dismissal under s 382 of the Act.
The matter will proceed to a hearing on the merits and remedy.
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.