Gulliver v Curtin University of Technology

The applicant, Mr. Gulliver, brought proceedings against Curtin University of Technology concerning his employment. Mr. Gulliver alleged that the University had breached the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) by failing to provide him with a workplace right, specifically the right to convert his fixed-term employment to a continuing appointment, as he contended was provided for under the relevant industrial agreement. The matter was heard by Antoni Lucev J in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the provisions within the Curtin University of Technology Academic Staff Enterprise Agreement 2017 (the Agreement) relating to the conversion of fixed-term academic staff to continuing appointments conferred a "workplace right" on Mr. Gulliver within the meaning of the *Fair Work Act*. This required the Court to interpret the language of the Agreement and determine if it created an entitlement that could be enforced under the Act.

His Honour considered the wording of clause 10.3 of the Agreement, which stated that a fixed-term academic staff member "is entitled to be considered for conversion to a continuing appointment" under certain conditions. The Court found that the phrase "is entitled to be considered" did not confer a right to conversion itself, but rather a right to be considered for conversion. This distinction was critical. The Court reasoned that the Agreement did not create an absolute entitlement to conversion, but rather a process for consideration. Therefore, the University's actions in not converting Mr. Gulliver's employment did not deprive him of a workplace right as defined by the *Fair Work Act*.

The Court concluded that Mr. Gulliver had not been denied a workplace right. Accordingly, his application was dismissed.