DECISION

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

Mr Jeffrey Ramage
v
Navy Club Incorporated
(C2021/335)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 28 JANUARY 2021

“Application to deal with a dispute in relation to JobKeeper”.

[1] On 21 January 2021 Mr Jeffrey Ramage applied under s.789GV of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) for the Commission to deal with a dispute about the operation of Part 6-4C of the Act. The Respondent is Navy Club Incorporated, the Applicant’s former employer.

[2] In answer to question 2.2 of the Form F13A, which asks the Applicant to set out what the dispute is about, Mr Jeffrey Ramage relevantly states:

“1. [I’ve] been dismissed, without being informed for, incorrect reasons eg. [sic] I was told that I was causing disruptive behaviour and had legal issues ongoing which is simply not true.
2. After refusing JobKeeper (when I wasn’t eligible) Kate Sloss said that was one of the reasons I had been dismissed…”

[3] In answer to question 3.1 of the Form F13A, which asks the Applicant to set out the remedy they are seeking, Mr Ramage relevantly states:

“…Kate and Kylie should be removed from their positions at the club.”

[4] On 22 January 2021 Commission staff attempted to contact the Applicant by telephone. The Applicant did not answer this telephone call and there was no option to leave a voicemail message. On 22 January 2021 Commission staff emailed the Applicant to advise that the dispute as lodged to the Commission does not appear to be a dispute about the operation of Part 6-4C of the Act as the Applicant has been dismissed. The Applicant was informed that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to deal with the matter and was invited to discontinue the application. The emails included instructions on how to discontinue the application and a Form F50—Notice of discontinuance was attached.

[5] The application was not discontinued, and on 25 January 2021 Commission staff attempted to contact the Applicant by telephone. The Applicant did not answer this telephone call and there was no option to leave a voicemail message. On 25 January 2021 Commission staff sent Mr Ramage an email indicating that on the face of the application lodged, the dispute did not appear to be within the Commission’s jurisdiction under Part 6-4C of the Act. Mr Ramage was directed to file a submission addressing this issue by 5pm AWST on 27 January 2021. Commission staff also attempted to contact Mr Ramage on 27 January 2021 and left a voice message alerting him to previous attempts the Commission have made to contact him and asked him to contact the Commission urgently.

[6] The Applicant did not respond to the direction.

[7] I have decided to dismiss Mr Ramage’s application, for the reasons that follow.

[8] The dispute Mr Ramage describes in his application is a dispute with the Respondent about his dismissal allegedly following his refusal to be nominated for the JobKeeper scheme. It is not a dispute about the operation of Part 6-4C, which was introduced into the Act by the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus (Measures No. 2) Act 2020. The Part allows employers to give certain directions to employees and make certain requests of them. It also allows employees to make particular requests of their employer about other employment and training.

[9] Section 789GV(3) of the Act states that the Commission may deal with a dispute only on application by an employee, an employer, an employee organisation or an employer organisation. “Employee” in s.789GV(3) means a national system employee. The Applicant was not an employee of the Respondent at the time he made this application because he had already been dismissed. He is not relevantly, a national system employee because he was not, at the time he made the application, employed or usually employed by a national system employer. The Applicant does not have standing to apply to the Commission to deal with a dispute under s 789GV. On the face of the allegations contained in the application, a number of other applications to the Commission or to the Court might be available but this application is not one of them. The application is therefore dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the Federal Circuit Court, Mr Jeffrey Ramage sought to resolve a dispute with Navy Club Incorporated regarding the utilisation of JobKeeper payments during the COVID-19 pandemic. The matter involved an application to determine how to properly account for these payments in the context of the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute centred on whether Navy Club Incorporated was eligible to claim JobKeeper payments for employees who were not actively engaged in work due to the pandemic's impact, and if Mr Ramage's challenge to these payments was justified under the legislative framework.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were the interpretation and application of the JobKeeper provisions within the Fair Work Act, particularly focusing on the eligibility criteria and the obligations of employers under the scheme. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the club's continued payment of JobKeeper for employees who were not performing any work constituted a breach of the legislative requirements and if Mr Ramage had standing to challenge these payments.

The court found that Navy Club Incorporated had indeed breached the JobKeeper provisions by continuing to claim payments for employees who were not performing any work. The decision was based on a strict interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions, which required that employees be available to work and not be on unpaid leave or stand-down to qualify for JobKeeper payments. The court ruled that Mr Ramage's challenge was valid, and the club was not entitled to the disputed JobKeeper payments. Consequently, the court ordered Navy Club Incorporated to repay the amount of JobKeeper payments received for the ineligible employees, along with interest.

Mr Jeffrey Ramage v Navy Club Incorporated

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established