Kate Gerdovic v Little Fins Swim School Pty Ltd

[2021] FWC 91

[2021] FWC 91

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.789GV - Application to deal with a dispute under Part 6-4C

Kate Gerdovic
v
Little Fins Swim School Pty Ltd
(C2020/8986)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS PERTH, 8 JANUARY 2021

Application to deal with a dispute under Part 6-4C.

[1] Ms Kate Gerdovic (the Applicant) applied under s.789GV of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) to deal with a dispute about the operation of Part 6-4C of the Act. The Respondent is Little Fins Swim School Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] The Applicant’s representative was provided a copy of the Commission’s bench book, which includes a detailed explanation regarding such applications and the Commission’s jurisdiction.

[3] At the conclusion of the telephone proceedings on Friday 8 January 2020, I advised the parties I had decided to dismiss the application. The following are my reasons for that decision.

[4] Part 6-4C was introduced into the Act by the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus (Measures No. 2) Act 2020. The part authorises employers to give JobKeeper enabling directions to employees and to make agreements with employees about when work is performed or taking annual leave. The part also authorises employees who are subject to JobKeeper enabling directions to make requests of their employer regarding secondary employment, training, or professional development.

[5] Section 789GV of the Act allows the Commission to deal with disputes about the operation of Part 6-4C.

[6] The Respondent has enrolled for the JobKeeper wage subsidy and the Applicant has completed a JobKeeper employee nomination notice and has received JobKeeper payments.

[7] The Applicant has not been subject to any Jobkeeper direction. Further the respondent has not under Part 6-4C:

1. Given the Applicant a JobKeeper enabling stand down direction.

2. Given the Applicant a direction about the duties they are required to perform.

3. Requested the Applicant change the location where they perform work.

4. Requested the Applicant agree to perform their duties on different days or times.

5. Requested the Applicant take paid annual leave.

[8] In summary, the dispute concerns the Applicant working for two different companies and allegations of incorrect JobKeeper payments and alleged underpayments.

[9] The Respondent submits this particular dispute is outside the jurisdiction of the Commission in this instance.

[10] I am satisfied that this particular dispute is not a dispute about the operation of Part 6-4C of the Act.

[11] Consequently, the Commission has no power to deal with the dispute. The application is dismissed.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR726064>