Lingli Zheng v Poten & Partners (Australia) Pty Ltd

Case

[2021] FWC 1023

26 FEBRUARY 2021


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Lingli Zheng v Poten & Partners (Australia) Pty Ltd [2021] FWC 1023 [2021] FWC 1023 26 FEBRUARY 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Fair Work Commission (FWC) involved Lingli Zheng, who sought an unfair dismissal remedy against Poten & Partners (Australia) Pty Ltd. The central dispute revolved around whether Zheng's application was justiciable given her earnings exceeded the high income threshold, and whether the applicable award or enterprise agreement provided her with sufficient protection. The FWC had to decide if it had the jurisdiction to hear the case under section 382(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The key legal issues that the FWC addressed were whether Zheng's employment was covered by the Professional Employees Award 2010, and if not, whether an applicable enterprise agreement provided her with the necessary protections. The Commission also needed to determine if Zheng's annualised base salary exceeded the high income threshold, which would render her ineligible for protection under the Act. The FWC found that the Professional Employees Award 2010 did not cover Zheng’s employment, and no applicable enterprise agreement was in force that provided her with the requisite protections. Additionally, Zheng's annualised base salary exceeded the high income threshold.

The FWC held that because Zheng's employment was not covered by the Professional Employees Award 2010, and no applicable enterprise agreement provided her with the necessary protections, she did not meet the criteria for protection under section 382(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009. Consequently, the FWC did not have the jurisdiction to hear Zheng's unfair dismissal application. The application was dismissed.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Employment & Labour Law

Legal Concepts

  • Jurisdiction

  • Limitation Periods

  • Unfair Dismissal

  • Professional Employees Award

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

6

Cases Cited

5

Statutory Material Cited

0