DECISION

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

Ms Jordyn Taite Cattonar
v
Tony and Vicki Franzon
(C2020/5626)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 23 JULY 2020

Application to deal with a dispute in relation to JobKeeper.

[1] On 21 July 2020, Ms Jordyn Taite Cattonar 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 listed in the application is ‘Tony and Vicki Franzon’, purportedly the Applicant’s employer.

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

“Withholding JobKeeper payment”

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

“I would like to receive my JobKeeper payment.”

[4] In answer to question 2.4 of the Form F13A, which asks the Applicant if they have filled out a JobKeeper employee nomination notice, Ms Cattonar responded “I’m not sure”.

[5] On 21 July 2020, Commission staff telephoned the Applicant and left voice messages requesting she telephone the Commission to discuss her application.

[6] On 22 July 2020, Commission staff emailed the Applicant to advise, among other things, that the dispute as notified to the Commission did not appear to be a dispute about the operation of Part 6-4C of the Act. The Applicant was informed that it appeared the Commission lacked 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.

[7] On 22 July 2020, Commission staff telephoned Ms Cattonar and left a voice message requesting she telephone the Commission. Commission staff sent the Applicant an email indicating that on the face of the application lodged the dispute about which she complained did not appear to be within the Commission’s jurisdiction. Ms Cattonar was directed to file a submission addressing this issue by 12 noon on Thursday, 23 July 2020.

[8] No submission was received from Ms Cattonar.

[9] I have decided to dismiss Ms Cattonar’s application, for the reasons that follow.

[10] On the face of the application and without more, the dispute about which Ms Cattonar complains is one about an entitlement to be nominated by her employer as an eligible employee for, and to thereafter receive JobKeeper payments. It is not, on the face of the application, 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.

[11] The Part also contains provisions which are civil remedy provisions enforceable in the Federal Court of Australia or the Federal Circuit Court of Australia pursuant to the provisions in Part 4-1 of the Act.

[12] Section 789GV of the Act allows the Commission to deal with disputes about the operation of the new Part. The provisions of the new Part are confined to an employer that is a ‘national system employer’ and to an employee who is a ‘national system employee’ (s.789GC). An extended meaning of these terms is found in Division 2A of Part 1-3 of the Act.

[13] The dispute the subject of this application is a dispute about an entitlement to be nominated by her employer as an eligible employee for, and to thereafter receive JobKeeper payments. That is not a dispute about the operation of Part 6-4C of the Act. The Commission has no power to deal with the dispute. The application is dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

In the case of Ms Jordyn Taite Cattonar v Tony and Vicki Franzon, the dispute involved the allocation of JobKeeper payments between the applicant and the respondents. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The applicant, Ms Taite Cattonar, sought to have JobKeeper payments made to her rather than to her employers, the respondents, Mr and Mrs Franzon.

The central legal issue was whether the applicant, who was a casual employee, was entitled to JobKeeper payments directly, or if the payments should be made to her employers for distribution to eligible employees. The court had to determine the correct interpretation of the relevant legislation and regulations governing the JobKeeper scheme. Specifically, it needed to establish whether Ms Taite Cattonar was eligible to receive the payments directly under the statutory provisions.

The court examined the relevant legislative framework and concluded that the JobKeeper payments should be made to the employers for distribution to eligible employees, including Ms Taite Cattonar. The court held that the statutory provisions did not permit direct payments to employees but rather required employers to receive and distribute the payments. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the legislative intent and the administrative framework established for the JobKeeper scheme. The application was dismissed, and the court ruled that the JobKeeper payments should be allocated in accordance with the statutory provisions, with the employers as the recipients.

The final orders of the court were that the application be dismissed, and the respondents were to be paid the JobKeeper payments for distribution to eligible employees, including Ms Taite Cattonar. The court's decision reinforced the importance of following the statutory requirements for the JobKeeper scheme and the role of employers in facilitating the distribution of these payments.

Ms Jordyn Taite Cattonar v Tony and Vicki Franzon

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established