Isaac Axford v AIC Copper Pty Ltd - [2024] FWC 1110

[2024] FWC 1110

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Isaac Axford
v

AIC Copper Pty Ltd

(U2024/237)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DOBSON

BRISBANE, 29 APRIL 2024

Unfair dismissal application – non-compliance - jurisdictional objection – applicant not covered by an award – earnings exceed high income threshold – application dismissed - jurisdictional objection upheld - s.587 - dismissing applications – application has no reasonable prospects of success

Mr Isaac Axford (the Applicant) made an unfair dismissal application on 8 January 2024 under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). This decision concerns a jurisdictional objection raised by AIC Copper Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

The Applicant was employed by the Respondent as a shift supervisor. He submits that he was dismissed from his employment on 29 December 2023, and that his dismissal was unfair.

The Respondent contends that the Applicant was not a person protected from unfair dismissal because he earned more than the high-income threshold and his employment was not covered by an award or enterprise agreement.

The Applicant contests the company’s jurisdictional objection. He contends that his remuneration did not exceed the high-income threshold, and that his employment at the Respondent was covered by the Mining Industry Award 2020 (Award).

Non-Compliance

Directions for the application were issued by my chambers on 28 March 2024. They provided for a preliminary case management conference at 10am on 15 Apr 2024. In respect of the jurisdictional objection, they provided:

·   The Respondent to file their submissions and witness statements (material) by 4:00pm (AEST) on 4 April 2024;
·   The Applicant to file their material by 4:00pm (AEST) on 11 April 2024;
·   The Respondent to file any reply material by 4:00pm (AEST) 18 April 2024;
·   Legal authorities/witnesses required were to be filed/advised by 4:00pm (AEST) 19 April 2024; and
·   A hearing would be listed at 10:00am (AEST) on 26 April 2024.

In respect of the merits of the matter, they provided for:

·   The Applicant to file their material by 4:00pm (AEST) on 3 May 2024;
·   The Respondent to file their material by 4:00pm (AEST) on 17 May 2024; and
·   The Applicant to file their material in reply by 4:00pm (AEST) on 24 May 2024.
·   Legal authorities/witnesses required were to be filed/advised by 4:00pm (AEST) on 27 May 2024; and
·   A hearing would be listed at 10:00am (AEST) on 4 June 2024.

The directions were amended on 2 April 2024 following an adjournment request from the Respondent to provide the parties with a further 4 days for the filing of material. In respect of the jurisdictional objection, they provided for:

·   The Respondent to file their submissions and witness statements (material) by 4:00pm (AEST) on 8 April 2024;
·   The Applicant to file their material by 4:00pm (AEST) on 15 April 2024;
·   The Respondent to file any reply material by 4:00pm (AEST) 22 April 2024;
·   Legal authorities/witnesses required were to be…

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 Isaac Axford v AIC Copper Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Isaac Axford v AIC Copper Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 1110
Case: [2024] FWC 1110
Decision Date: 29 APRIL 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Isaac Axford has brought an unfair dismissal claim against AIC Copper Pty Ltd to the Fair Work Commission, asserting that he was dismissed unfairly from his position as a shift supervisor on 29 December 2023. AIC Copper contends that the application should be dismissed due to Axford's salary exceeding the high-income threshold and his role not being covered by an award or enterprise agreement. The central legal issues were whether Axford's earnings surpassed the high-income threshold and whether his employment was covered by an award or enterprise agreement.

The Fair Work Commission considered the material provided by both parties. It found that Axford's base salary was $180,000, which exceeded the high-income threshold of $167,500 as of 1 July 2023. Additionally, the Commission determined that Axford's role as a shift supervisor did not fall under the Mining Industry Award 2020, as it did not involve maintenance work or supervision as defined by the award. The Commission concluded that Axford was neither protected by an award nor an enterprise agreement and that his salary exceeded the high-income threshold, rendering him ineligible for protection under the Fair Work Act 2009. Consequently, the application had no reasonable prospects of success, and the Commission dismissed the unfair dismissal application.

The Commission also noted Axford's failure to comply with the directions issued and the extensions granted, his absence from the hearing, and his failure to provide any material in support of his claims. Based on these factors and the provisions of section 587 of the Fair Work Act 2009, the Deputy President dismissed the application for want of prosecution. The decision was published on the Fair Work Commission’s public website.

Orders