BROWN MATES PTY LTD (Migration)
[2022] AATA 4178
•26 September 2022
BROWN MATES PTY LTD (Migration) [2022] AATA 4178 (26 September 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT: BROWN MATES PTY LTD
REPRESENTATIVE: Mr GURVINDERJEET SINGH PARMAR (MARN: 1808842)
CASE NUMBER: 1916293
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S): BCC2018/858339
MEMBER:Peter Emmerton
DATE:26 September 2022
PLACE OF DECISION: Adelaide
DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision approving the nomination.
Statement made on 26 September 2022 at 11:57am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – application for approval of nomination of position – direct entry stream – fleet manager – genuine need for position – regional location and modest size and scope of enterprise – nominator’s other business interests and reliance on nominee – evidence of recruitment activity provided to tribunal – decision under review set asideLEGISLATION
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(B)STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 4 June 2019 to reject the applicant’s application for approval of the nomination of a position in Australia under reg 5.19 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations).
The applicant applied for approval on 22 February 2018. The requirements for the approval of the nomination of a position in Australia are found in reg 5.19 of the Regulations which contains two alternative streams: a Temporary Residence Transition nomination stream (reg 5.19(3)) and a Direct Entry nomination stream (reg 5.19(4)). If the application is made in accordance with reg 5.19(2) and meets the requirements of either stream, then the application must be approved. If any of the requirements are not met, then the application must be refused: reg 5.19(5).
In this case, the applicant has applied for approval of a nomination, seeking to satisfy the criteria in the Direct Entry nomination stream.
The delegate refused the application on the basis the applicant’s nomination did not satisfy r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(B) of the Regulations because they were not satisfied that the nominator had demonstrated a genuine need to employ a paid full-time employee to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review by its registered migration agent.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has decided to set aside the decision under review and substitute a decision approving the nomination.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in this case is whether the applicant meets the requirements for approval of the nomination under the Direct Entry nomination stream set out in r.5.19(4), which is extracted in the attachment to this decision. For the nomination to be approved, all the requirements must be met.
In determining the applicant’s claims the Tribunal must first make findings of fact on material matters in dispute. This may involve an assessment of credibility and in so doing, the Tribunal is aware of the need and importance of being sensitive to the circumstances and the difficulties applicants often face before the Tribunal in their individual circumstances.
The applicants rely on the evidence given before the Tribunal together with written submissions and supporting evidence provided to the Tribunal and previously to the department.
The nominating entity runs a mid-sized chauffer driven car-hire business in Adelaide South Australia.
The visa applicant’s experience and qualifications are aligned with the role of Fleet Manager, as described by ANZSCO 149411, Skill level 2.
The visa applicant possesses a Certificate lV in Business and a Certificate lV in Marketing and an Advanced Diploma in Marketing, all have been earned in Australia.
The Tribunal is cognisant of the enormous challenges associated with recruiting and retaining suitably qualified and experienced Fleet Managers in relatively isolated locations, such as Adelaide, South Australia.
The Tribunal received and accepted evidence from the nominator, of the salary determination, recruitment processes and associated advertising in support of their recruitment for the position and the subsequent wage determination. The Tribunal acknowledges the analysis associated with the recruitment process.
It also notes and accepts as accurate the statement made by the nominator attesting to their recruitment activity and the genuine challenges of recruitment efforts. The Tribunal notes that 2 popular electronic job sites were utilised as were local area social and business networks. A total of 2 applications were received from which the visa applicant was selected. No Australian citizens or permanent residents were suitably qualified for the role at the time of employing the visa applicant.
The Tribunal perused a popular employment web site to ascertain the current state of the market in this field. The Tribunal observed a substantial number of related vacancies, (2,000 nationally), in a wide variety of locations and organisations currently under recruitment. More than 5% of those vacancies are currently located in South Australia. The Tribunal is cognisant that many of the observed positions may appear to be equally or potentially more attractive environments to some candidates than the nominated position in this industry and relatively geographically isolated regional location.
A “satisfied” RCB certificate has been issued by the relevant certifying body. It was issued on 22 January 2018.
The application is compliant: r.5.19(4)(a)
Regulation 5.19(4)(a) requires that the application for approval must be in the approved form, must be accompanied by the prescribed fee, and, where applicable, must include the required written certification relating to conduct that contravenes s.245AR(1). The application must also identify a need for the nominator to employ a paid employee to work in the position under their direct control.
The Tribunal finds that the application was lodged electronically using the elodgement facility. The nomination was made under the RSMS Direct Entry stream (r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)) and consequently no fee is payable. The Tribunal finds the applicant meets r.5.19(2).
The Tribunal is satisfied that the application has identified a need for a paid employee to work in the position of fleet Manager, ANZSCO 149411, Skill level 2, under the direct control of the nominator. The application has included the required written certification relating to conduct that contravenes s.245AR(1). Accordingly, the requirement in r.5.19(4)(a) is met.
Nominator is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia: r.5.19(4)(b)
Regulation 5.19(4)(b) requires that the applicant is actively, lawfully and directly operating a business in Australia.
The Tribunal has been provided with a range of financial information including Profit and Loss Statements for FY 2020 and FY 2021, ATO Taxation Returns and current BAS documents.
ASIC Registration details were observed by the Tribunal, on the official ASIC website. The ABN website data shows that the nominator was first registered on 29 March 2017.
The Tribunal checked the status of the listed ABN – 13 618 253 848 and checked the company web site. The next date for review is 29 March 2023. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is actively, lawfully and directly, operating a business in regional Australia. Accordingly, the requirement in r.5.19(4)(b) is met.
Position is not labour - hire: r.5.19(4)(c)
Regulation 5.19(4)(c) applies to nominators whose business activities include those relating to labour hire to an unrelated business. In these cases, the nominated position must be within the business activities of the nominator. The Tribunal finds that r. 5.19(4)(c) is not relevant to the current nomination.
Term of employment of the visa holder: r.5.19(4)(d)
Regulation 5.19(4)(d) requires the nominee to be employed in the nominated position for at least 2 years full time, and the terms and conditions of that employment do not expressly exclude the possibility of an extension.
The Tribunal notes that the business appears to have modest revenues and an appropriate asset base and increasing retained earnings with a proportionally level of profit. The stability of the nominating entity in an ever increasingly complex market, further attests to its’ ability to employ the visa applicant.
The Tribunal has had regard to the most recent Employment Agreement dated 11 July 2022 with a salary of $59,000, plus the Superannuation Guarantee, (10.5%). The current total remuneration including Superannuation is therefore $67,850. The corresponding position description was also examined. It is satisfied that the nominee will be appointed for a period of at least 2 years employment from grant of visa and the terms of employment do not include an express exclusion of the possibility of extending the period of employment.
The Tribunal observes that one of the potential substantial challenges facing the organisation is retaining the visa applicant and the nominator’s obvious reliance upon their services, noting that there is not be an apparent replacement within the organisation should the visa applicant resign or be unable to continue in their employ. This could be perceived as a substantial stressor being faced by the business, as indeed other similar businesses have reported to the Tribunal.
Current media and business reports analysing consumer confidence and employment data, coupled with present time job vacancies and recruitment challenges demonstrate a deficit of suitably qualified potential employees in many sectors. This appears to be one such sector. The problem is exacerbated if an organisation is reliant upon temporary or permanent immigration as part of their labour source, as is self-evident in the driver car services industry. Business, Media, and Government reports are being circulated which indicate this is an escalating drag upon business development. The Tribunal has referenced the National Skills Commission Report which supports this conclusion, dated 21 July 2021.[1]
[1] National Skills Commission Vacancy Report, June 2021, Release date: 21 July 2021
The recent Australian Institute of Company Directors, (AICD), Sentiment Index Report, published 15 December 2021, also demonstrates a positive trajectory for the economy and employment.
‘More than two-thirds of directors are confident in Australia’s 12-month economic outlook. Nearly two thirds (64 per cent) believe business will be on sure footing in 12 months-time, with positive indicators like investment, turnover and profits expected to grow.
While the overall outlook from directors is positive, key challenges are emerging for the post-COVID era.
Directors have identified workforce shortages as the top economic challenge facing Australian businesses, above COVID-19, climate change and Australia’s relationship with China.’
The recent Australian Bureau of Statistics data released on 16 June 2022, shows that in May 2022 there were approximately 500,000 job vacancies nationwide, the number having increased by 13.8% in the 3 months to May 2022. This current level of vacancies is more than double the level experienced in February 2020, immediately prior to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Tribunal notes the Reserve Bank of Australia’s current Cash Rate level is in the ascendency which is designed to cool an overheating economy but is yet to achieve its stated aim.
The Tribunal is aware that the associated workforce is highly mobile. The specialist skills associated with this type of operation are highly sought after and readily transferred between competing businesses. There is a strong network which operates within this industry which has the effect of making it easy to entice valuable staff to join a competitor’s organisation. This is magnified in regional areas. This has been made more difficult for industries reliant in some part upon temporary or permanent immigration dependent workforces.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the business will be able to sustainably employ the nominee for the required 2-year minimum period, therefore r.5.19(4)(d) is met.
No less favourable terms and condition of employment: r.5.19(4)(e)
Regulation 5.19(4)(e) requires that the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the nominated position will be no less favourable than those that are, or would be, provided to an Australian citizen or permanent resident performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location.
The Tribunal has been provided with the visa applicant’s employment contract and relevant income statements. The Tribunal accepts that the nominee’s current contracted annual salary plus the current Superannuation Guarantee is resulting in a total package of $67,850. It is considered reflective of the size of the business and the visa applicant’s level of experience.
The Tribunal researched the salaries offered for similar positions and had regard for the salary determination evidence provided by the applicant. It is satisfied that the terms and conditions of employment are equivalent to other employees with the same experience performing equivalent work in the same workplace or a similar workplace. The Tribunal accepts this level of remuneration appears to be in the mid quartiles of similar roles of similar size located in regional locations.
Accordingly, the requirements of r.5.19(4)(e) are met.
No adverse information known to Immigration: r.5.19(4)(f)
Regulation 5.19(4)(f) requires that there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or person associated with the nominator; or it is reasonable to disregard any such information. For these purposes, ‘adverse information’ and ‘associated with’ have the meaning given in rr.1.13A and 1.13B. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant has anything but a satisfactory record of compliance with the immigration laws of Australia. Accordingly, the requirements of r.5.19(4)(f) are met.
Satisfactory compliance with workplace relations laws: r.5.19(4)(g)
Regulation 5.19(4)(g) requires that the applicant has a satisfactory record of compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth, and of each State or Territory in which the applicant operates a business and employs employees in the business, relating to workplace relations. The Tribunal notes that there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant has anything but a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations law in Australia. Accordingly, the requirements of r.5.19(4)(g) are met.
Tasks of the position, genuine need for the position and training requirements r.5.19(4)(h)
Regulation 5.19(4)(h) contains alternative requirements. These are set out in detail in the attachment to the decision. As stated above the nomination was made under the RSMS Direct Entry stream and the Tribunal has proceeded to assess the application against the criteria in r.5.19(4)(h)(ii) which require that:
·the position and nominator’s business are located in regional Australia;
·there is a genuine need for the paid position under the nominator’s direct control which cannot be filled by an Australian citizen or permanent resident;
·the tasks of the position correspond to those of an occupation at the ANZCO skill level 1, 2 or 3; and
·a regional certifying body has advised the Minister about certain matters relating to the position.
The Tribunal notes that the delegate refused the application on the basis the applicant’s nomination did not satisfy r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(B) of the Regulations because there was insufficient evidence presented to support the claim that there was a genuine need to employ the nominee.
The Tribunal, following substantially more evidence being presented to it, than was afforded to the delegate, has subsequently formed a different view. It has had regard to the size and scope of the nominating entity’s modest enterprise. It acknowledges the evidence presented that the Covid-19 pandemic impacted for a short period of time however revenues have rebounded. This was corroborated by current financial documentation. It also notes the fact that the nominator has other business interests which require his attention and therefore is reliant upon the services of a Manager to run this enterprise on his behalf.
The Tribunal once again notes that the current economic trends demonstrate a rapid rebound in the economy post Covid-19 in Australia, at a rate that has exceeded most economic analyst’s predictions. This has highlighted substantial deficits in some areas of the employment market. Not unsurprisingly fields which involve long lead times, require substantial investment in training and sophisticated or specialised levels of technical expertise or are not particularly attractive, appear to be within the cluster of careers showing early signs of demand exceeding supply. The Tribunal notes that this has in-fact been the case in this field for a substantial number of years prior to Covid-19 but the issue is being greatly accentuated under the current conditions.
This trend as earlier stated, is also becoming apparent in areas where Australia has relied upon both temporary and permanent immigration to meet labour demands. This has long been the case in regional locations and this industry. The Tribunal anticipates the likelihood of this trend continuing and potentially accelerating for some time. This is invariably exacerbated in isolated or modest regional locations such as the location of the business currently under review.
The Tribunal is without doubt that there is a genuine need for the nominator to employ a paid employee to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control. Therefore, the requirements of r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(B) are satisfied.
Evidence was presented to the Tribunal regarding the recruitment process. It is satisfied that recruitment has utilised relevant local and national electronic media, as well as personal and professional networks and that the recruitment process has been conducted in a fair and honest manner.
The Tribunal once again refers to the large number of similar job vacancies locally and nationally. It is satisfied that the position cannot be filled by an Australian citizen or permanent resident. The Tribunal is satisfied that the nominator’s business is located in regional Australia.
Regulation r.5.19(4)(h)(ii)(D), requires that the tasks to be performed in the position correspond to those at ANZSCO skill level 1, 2 or 3.
The Tribunal has reviewed both the relevant descriptors supplied in ANZSCO 149411 for a Fleet Manager and the stated duties of the visa applicant. The Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicant’s role, as nominated by the nominating applicant is referred to in ANZSCO as a skill level 2 position and the Tribunal is satisfied that the visa applicant is operating at that level.
The Tribunal has had regard to the “satisfied” RCB certification issued by a relevant RCB on 22 January 2018 and is satisfied that the applicant has advised the Minister about matters relating to the terms and conditions of employment, the genuine need for the position and that the position cannot be filled locally.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant meets r.5.19(4)(h)(ii).
Based on the findings above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant meets the requirements of r.5.19 for approval of the nomination of the position in Australia.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision approving the nomination.
Peter Emmerton
Member
ATTACHMENT - Extracts from the Migration Regulations 1994
5.19Approval of nominated positions (employer nomination)
…
(2)The application must:
(a)be made in accordance with approved form 1395…; and
(aa) include a written certification by the nominator stating whether or not the nominator has engaged in conduct, in relation to the nomination, that constitutes a contravention of subsection 245AR(1) of the Act; and
(b)be accompanied by the fee mentioned in regulation 5.37.
…
Direct Entry nomination
(4)The Minister must, in writing, approve a nomination if:
(a)the application for approval:
(i) is made in accordance with subregulation (2); and
(ii) identifies a need for the nominator to employ an identified person as a paid employee to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control; and
(b)the nominator:
(i) is actively and lawfully operating a business in Australia; and
(ii) directly operates the business; and
(c)for a nominator whose business activities include activities relating to the hiring of labour to other unrelated businesses — the position is within the business activities of the nominator and not for hire to other unrelated businesses; and
(d)both of the following apply:
(i) the employee will be employed on a full-time basis in the position for at least 2 years;
(ii) the terms and conditions of the employee’s employment will not include an express exclusion of the possibility of extending the period of employment; and
(e)the terms and conditions of employment applicable to the position will be no less favourable than the terms and conditions that:
(i) are provided; or
(ii) would be provided;
to an Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident for performing equivalent work in the same workplace at the same location; and
(f)either:
(i) there is no adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; or
(ii) it is reasonable to disregard any adverse information known to Immigration about the nominator or a person associated with the nominator; and
(g)the nominator has a satisfactory record of compliance with the laws of the Commonwealth, and of each State or Territory in which the applicant operates a business and employs employees in the business, relating to workplace relations; and
(h)either:
(i) all of the following apply:
(A)the tasks to be performed in the position will be performed in Australia and correspond to the tasks of an occupation specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-subparagraph;
(AA)there is a genuine need for the nominator to employ the person identified under subparagraph (a)(ii), as a paid employee, to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control;
(AAA)the occupation is applicable to the person identified under subparagraph (a)(ii) in accordance with the specification of the occupation;
(B)either:
(I)the nominator’s business has operated for at least 12 months, and the nominator meets the requirements for the training of Australian citizens and Australian permanent residents that are specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-sub-subparagraph; or
(II)the nominator’s business has operated for less than 12 months, and the nominator has an auditable plan for meeting the requirements specified in the instrument mentioned in sub-sub-subparagraph (I); or
(ii) all of the following apply:
(A)the position is located in regional Australia;
(B)there is a genuine need for the nominator to employ the person identified under subparagraph (a)(ii), as a paid employee, to work in the position under the nominator’s direct control;
(C)the position cannot be filled by an Australian citizen or an Australian permanent resident who is living in the same local area as that place;
(D)the tasks to be performed in the position correspond to the tasks of an occupation specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-subparagraph;
(DA)the occupation is applicable to the person identified under subparagraph (a)(ii) in accordance with the specification of the occupation;
(E)the business operated by the nominator is located at that place;
(F)a body that is:
(I)specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this sub-subparagraph; and
(II)located in the same State or Territory as the location of the position;
has advised the Minister about the matters mentioned in paragraph (e) and sub-subparagraphs (B) and (C).
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Jurisdiction
-
Appeal
0
0
0