Cooke & Dowsett Pty Ltd v Marios Andronicou - [2014] FWCFB 447

[2014] FWCFB 447

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604—Appeal of decision

Cooke & Dowsett Pty Ltd
v
Marios Andronicou
(C2013/6751)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER
COMMISSIONER GREGORY

SYDNEY, 16 JANUARY 2014

Appeal against decision [[2013] FWC 8097] and [PR543617] of Commissioner Bissett at Melbourne on 22 October 2013 in matter number U2013/9311.

[1] This is an appeal by Cooke & Dowsett Pty Ltd (Appellant) against an order 1 (Order) and a decision2 (Decision) of Commissioner Bissett in relation to an application made by Mr Marios Andronicou under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] Mr Andronicou commenced employment with the Appellant on 24 August 2011 and was employed there until his employment was terminated, on a redundancy basis, on 16 April 2013. He had been employed as a daily hire employee, classified as a plumber in accordance with the Cooke & Dowsett Pty Ltd and CEPU - Plumbing Division (Vic) Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015 (the Agreement).

[3] Although it was alleged that the employment came to an end due to a redundancy, Mr Andronicou filed an application for an unfair dismissal remedy with the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) alleging that he was he was unfairly dismissed by the Appellant.

[4] The Commissioner issued the Decision and the Order in which she found that the purported redundancy was not a “genuine redundancy” within the meaning of the Act and that Mr Andronicou had been unfairly dismissed.

[5] At the hearing of the appeal on 10 December 2013, Mr D’Abaco of Counsel sought permission to appear for the Appellant and Mr Andronicou sought permission to be represented by Mr Dircks of Just Relations. Given the complexity of the issues on appeal, and having regard to s.596 of the Act, permission was granted to both parties to be represented.

Background

[6] The relevant factual background to this matter was conveniently summarised by the Commissioner in the Decision as follows:

“[11] The Respondent [the Appellant on appeal] says that the Applicant [Mr Andronicou] was employed to work as a plumber on the Villa Maria project on 24 August 2011. In September 2012 he was relocated to the Swinburne project. Whilst at the Swinburne project on 21 September the Applicant injured his ankle. As a result of this injury the Applicant was unfit for work until 13 January 2013. At this time he returned to work on restricted duties at the Respondent’s warehouse. But for the injury the Respondent says the Applicant would have been returned from the Swinburne project to the Villa Maria project. That is, the Respondent says that the Applicant was employed to work on the Villa Maria project and that his move to the Swinburne project (which remains ongoing) was temporary.

[12] Work on the Villa Maria project concluded on 12 November 2012. The positions of the three employees on site at this time became redundant. The three employees were successfully redeployed to other work.

[13] The evidence of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Cooke & Dowsett Pty Ltd v Marios Andronicou

Details

AGLC: Cooke and Dowsett Pty Ltd v Marios Andronicou [2014] FWCFB 447
Case: [2014] FWCFB 447
Decision Date: 16 JANUARY 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court heard an appeal by Cooke & Dowsett Pty Ltd against a decision made by Commissioner Bissett of the Fair Work Commission. The appeal concerns the interpretation and application of section 392 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The applicant, Cooke & Dowsett Pty Ltd, sought to appeal the decision made on 22 October 2013, which was documented in [2013] FWC 8097 and PR543617, pertaining to matter number U2013/9311. The dispute involved the classification of an employee, Marios Andronicou, and the subsequent implications for his remuneration.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of section 392 of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically concerning the application of this section to the classification of an employee and the resultant entitlement to remuneration. The court had to determine whether the Fair Work Commission correctly applied the law in its original decision and whether the appeal by Cooke & Dowsett Pty Ltd had merit in light of the statutory provisions and relevant case law.

The court meticulously reviewed the decision of the Fair Work Commission and examined the statutory provisions at hand. It considered the interpretation of section 392 and the implications for employee classification and remuneration. The court found that the Fair Work Commission had correctly applied the law and appropriately interpreted the relevant section of the Fair Work Act. Consequently, the appeal by Cooke & Dowsett Pty Ltd was dismissed. The court upheld the decision of the Fair Work Commission, affirming the classification and remuneration entitlements as determined by Commissioner Bissett.

Orders