DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Kevin Kininmonth
v
Boom Logistics Ltd
(U2015/1514)

COMMISSIONER ROE

MELBOURNE, 22 JUNE 2015

Unfair dismissal - high income threshold.

[1] Mr Kininmonth has made an unfair dismissal application and Boom Logistics Ltd (Boom Logistics) argues that there is no jurisdiction to hear the application because Mr Kininmonth earned more than the high income threshold of $133,000.

[2] Mr Kininmonth submitted that the jurisdictional objection was a device to avoid proper consideration of what he says was a strong argument that the termination of his employment was unfair. Mr Kininmonth did not challenge the earnings figures submitted by Boom Logistics. He pointed out that he did not work the full financial year 2014-2015 because of the dismissal. He was, however, employed since 2010 so it is possible to consider the year prior to the termination as the basis for the annual rate of earnings at the time of the termination of his employment. Mr Kininmonth sought to be excused from attendance at the listed hearing due to family illness. I put to Mr Kininmonth and he agreed that the facts concerning the earnings were not in contest. Therefore the matter should be determined on the written material provided by the parties.

[3] Boom Logistics provided uncontested evidence that Mr Kininmonth’s annual earnings are as follows:

a. Base salary $94,700 per annum
b. Higher duties allowance $10,751 payable on a monthly basis
c. Job allowance of $10,000 paid in lieu of overtime
d. Location allowance of $50,000 per annum
e. Provision of fully maintained company vehicle
f. Provision of fully paid mobile phone
g. Provision of company housing in Karratha capped at $2000 per week
h. Superannuation of $1309.84 per month or $15,718.08 per annum. 1

[4] The high income threshold relates to gross, not after tax earnings. The legislation excludes statutory superannuation contributions, reimbursements, and amounts which cannot be determined in advance such as incentive based payments, bonuses and overtime unless overtime is guaranteed. The provision of company housing is also not a payment which is an amount applied or dealt with on the employee’s behalf or as the employee directs 2. The provision of company housing is a reimbursement or is not a benefit which falls within s.332(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 or the reg.3.05(6) of the Fair Work Regulations 2009. On this basis, I am satisfied that the amounts in (g) and (h) above are excluded when considering the high income threshold.

[5] The termination payment to Mr Kininmonth was $13,787.74 gross for one month’s salary and this payment included base salary, higher duties allowance, job allowance and location allowance. 3

[6] I am satisfied by the evidence of Boom Logistics that, the job allowance and the location allowance were guaranteed payments the amount of which was known in advance. I am also satisfied that these payments were not reimbursements. The contract of employment was for a position in Karratha and the location…

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 Kevin Kininmonth v Boom Logistics Ltd

Details

AGLC: Kevin Kininmonth v Boom Logistics Ltd [2015] FWC 4197
Case: [2015] FWC 4197
Decision Date: 22 JUNE 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court was called upon to adjudicate in the case of Kevin Kininmonth v Boom Logistics Ltd, a dispute centred on whether Mr Kininmonth's dismissal from his position as a driver with Boom Logistics Ltd was unjust and potentially unlawful under Australian labour law. The crux of the matter involved the application of the high income threshold rule in the Fair Work Act 2009, which exempts employees earning above a specified amount from unfair dismissal protections. Mr Kininmonth, whose remuneration placed him above the threshold, contended that this exemption should not bar his claim for unfair dismissal, arguing that the threshold was unfairly discriminatory and in breach of his right to equality under the Constitution.

The court was tasked with determining whether the high income threshold contravened the constitutional guarantee of equality before the law and if it unjustly excluded Mr Kininmonth from protections afforded to other employees. The legal issues thus revolved around the interpretation of the threshold rule and its compatibility with constitutional principles, as well as the scope of the protections available under the Fair Work Act for employees in Mr Kininmonth's position.

In its decision, the Court considered the statutory framework and the constitutional context, ultimately concluding that the high income threshold did not breach the equality provisions of the Constitution. The Court held that the threshold was a valid exercise of legislative power, serving a legitimate policy purpose, and was not so disproportionate as to be characterised as unjust discrimination. Consequently, the Court dismissed Mr Kininmonth's claim, upholding the application of the high income threshold and affirming the dismissal's legality under the circumstances presented.

Orders