Louisa Baker-Western v Integrated Management Consultants Pty Ltd T/A Melville Mazda

[2020] FWC 3584

[2020] FWC 3584

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Louisa Baker-Western
v
Integrated Management Consultants Pty Ltd T/A Melville Mazda
(C2020/5118)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS PERTH, 9 JULY 2020

Application to deal with a dispute in relation to JobKeeper.

[1] Ms Baker-Western (the Applicant) has, 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 Integrated Management Consultants T/A Melville Mazda (the Respondent).

[2] At the conclusion of the telephone proceedings on Thursday, 8 July 2020, I advised the parties I had decided to dismiss the application. These are my reasons for that decision.

[3] 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 1 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.

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

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

[6] The Respondent however has not:

1. Given the Applicant a JobKeeper enabling stand down direction under s.789GDC.

2. Given the Applicant a direction about the duties they are required to perform under s.789GE.

3. Requested the Applicant change the location where they perform work under s.789GF.

4. Requested the Applicant agree to perform their duties on different days or times under s.7890GG.

5. Requested the Applicant take paid annual leave under s.789GJ.

[7] The dispute concerns the parties failing to agree on a basis for the Applicant to return to work after parental leave and the ceasing of Jobkeepr payments.

[8] This particular dispute is not a dispute about the operation of Part 6-4C of the Act.

[9] My decision is that the Commission has no power to deal with the dispute.

[10] Consequently, the application is dismissed.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR720840>

 1   See s.789GC of the Act.