King v Melbourne Vicentre Swimming Club Inc

The applicant in this case sought to determine whether his employment by the Melbourne Vicentre Swimming Club Inc. between 29 May 2012 and 28 May 2018 was covered by the Fitness Industry Award 2010. This case was heard by the Fair Work Commission, which had to decide on the interpretation of the classification levels within the Award to ascertain if the applicant's employment was indeed covered.

The primary legal issue the Court had to resolve was the proper construction of the classification levels in the Fitness Industry Award 2010, specifically whether the applicant's employment as a swim coach fell within classification levels 4, 4A, or 5 during the claim period. This involved examining the principles of award construction and the specific wording of the Award, along with variations made to the Award up until 4 December 2013. The Court also had to consider the submissions from both the applicant and the respondents regarding the application of these principles.

In delivering the judgment, the Court meticulously examined the principles of award construction, including the interpretation of the Award's language and the effect of the variations made by the Fair Work Commission. The Court found that the applicant's employment engaged level 4 of the Award, but not the lower levels 3A, 3, or 2. This conclusion was based on the specific qualifications and duties outlined in the Award, which did not align with the applicant's role and responsibilities. The Court also highlighted that the variations made to the Award did not alter the essential nature of the classifications, thereby supporting the finding that the applicant's employment was not covered by the Award during the relevant period.

Consequently, the Court declared that the applicant's employment was not covered by the Fitness Industry Award 2010 during the claim period. The Court did not make an order as to costs between the parties, in accordance with the Fair Work Act, section 570.