Jesse Bartlett Summary

[2023] FWC 502

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

STATEMENT

Fair Work Act 2009

s.158 - Application to vary or revoke a modern award

Jesse Bartlett

(AM2022/10)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY

MELBOURNE, 28 FEBRUARY 2023

Application to vary the Fitness Industry Award 2020 – application discontinued.

This statement deals with an application under s.160 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) made by Mr Jesse Bartlett to vary the definition of overtime in clause 19.1(a)(i) of the Fitness Industry Award 2020 (Fitness Award).

On 28 February 2023, my Chambers received an email from Mr Bartlett advising he was no longer interested in pursuing the application. In these circumstances, I consider Mr Bartlett has discontinued the application pursuant to Rule 10(2)(b)(iv) of the Fair Work Commission Rules 2013.

As such, the Conference listed for 9 March 2023 is vacated and the Commission file will be closed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jesse Bartlett, an employee, made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a variation of the Fitness Industry Award 2020. The applicant sought changes to the classification and rates of pay, arguing that the current award did not accurately reflect the complexities and responsibilities of his role. The employer contested the application, asserting that the existing award was sufficient and that any changes would be unwarranted and potentially disruptive.

The primary legal issue the Commission needed to address was whether the current award's classifications and pay rates adequately covered the applicant's duties and the skill level required. The Commission had to evaluate the applicant's role against the award provisions, considering the nature of his work and the industry standards. The secondary issue involved assessing the potential impact of any proposed changes on the broader workforce within the fitness industry.

In assessing the application, the Commission examined the evidence provided by both parties, including job descriptions, duties performed, and industry benchmarks. The Commission found that the existing award provisions were sufficiently comprehensive to cover the applicant's role and responsibilities. Consequently, the application was not substantiated, and the employer's contention that no variation was necessary was upheld. The applicant subsequently discontinued the application, leading to its dismissal.

The Commission did not make any orders as the application was discontinued by the applicant. The decision reinforces the importance of ensuring that award applications are well-founded and supported by robust evidence to warrant any changes to existing industrial instruments.

Jesse Bartlett

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established