GH ASSOCIATES PTY LTD (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by GH Associates Pty Ltd against a decision to refuse the nomination of a position under the Direct Entry stream of the Employer Nomination scheme. The dispute centred on whether the nominated position of Retail Manager (General) at a fuel outlet and roadhouse restaurant in regional Western Australia met the requirements of Regulation 5.19(4) of the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant’s responsibilities, qualifications, and the terms of employment aligned with the criteria for an approved nomination.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the tasks of the nominated position corresponded to the ANZSCO occupation of Retail Manager (General), whether there was a genuine need for the position that could not be filled by an Australian citizen or permanent resident, and whether the terms and conditions of employment were no less favourable than those provided to Australian workers in equivalent roles. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws and if there was any adverse information known to Immigration concerning the nominator.

The Tribunal reasoned that the visa applicant’s substantial responsibilities, qualifications, and experience clearly aligned with the duties of a Retail Manager (General). It accepted evidence regarding the challenges of recruiting and retaining staff in a geographically isolated regional area, supporting the genuine need for the position. The Tribunal also found that the nominated salary of $50,000 plus superannuation was appropriate and reflective of the applicant's experience, meeting the requirement that terms and conditions be no less favourable than those for an Australian worker. Furthermore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the nominator had a satisfactory record of compliance with workplace relations laws and that no adverse information was known to Immigration.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the original decision and substituted a decision approving the nomination.