Peter Meyers v Victoria Racing Club

[2014] FWC 251

[2014] FWC 251

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.739—Dispute resolution

Peter Meyers
v
Victoria Racing Club
(C2013/6423)

COMMISSIONER CRIBB MELBOURNE, 13 JANUARY 2014

Alleged dispute regarding racing tickets.

[1] Mr Peter Meyers (the applicant) has made an application, under section 739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), for the Fair Work Commission to deal with a dispute between himself and the Victoria Racing Club (VRC). On listing the application for conference, the Commission was advised, on 23 October 2013, that the VRC contended that the Commission did not have jurisdiction to deal with a dispute.

[2] The VRC also objected to the Commission proceeding with the conference and sought determination of the jurisdictional objection in the first instance. Mr Meyers wished to continue with his application and so Directions were issued by the Commission in respect of the filing of submissions regarding the jurisdictional objection. The VRC filed their submissions on 21 November 2013 and Mr Meyers on 10 December 2013.

[3] In accordance with the VRC’s request, the jurisdictional objection will be dealt with on the papers.

1. Submissions

(a) VRC

[4] Firstly, it was argued by the VRC that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to deal with the dispute because Mr Meyers has never been covered by an enterprise agreement, which also covers the VRC, made under the Fair Work Act 2009, namely, since 1 July 2009. 1

[5] Secondly, it was stated that Mr Meyers had last performed work for the VRC on 26 April 2001 and that his employment was terminated on 8 June 2005. The VRC submitted that, at the time Mr Meyers’ employment terminated, he was covered by The Victoria Racing Club and The Australian Workers Union (Victoria Branch) Enterprise Agreement 2003 2 (2003 Agreement). This Agreement was said to have been replaced by a new agreement on 1 July 2005 and by subsequent others since then.3

[6] The VRC contended that, on and from 1 July 2005, the Commission therefore ceased to have jurisdiction to resolve the alleged dispute under the 2003 Agreement. A number of authorities to this effect were referred to. 4

(b) Mr Meyers

[7] For Mr Meyers’ part, he explained that all of his Workcover documentation stated that the VRC is his employer. This included the WorkCover certificates and reimbursements of medication costs. It was stated that his weekly payments were calculated on the basis of the current enterprise agreement in place with the VRC. 5

[8] It was also explained by Mr Meyers that the voluntary termination agreement, that was agreed between the VRC, himself and his representative, the Australian Workers Union (AWU), included the provision of race day tickets (the issue in dispute). 6

2. Considerations and Conclusions

[9] It is contended by the VRC that Mr Meyers’ employment ceased on 8 June 2005. 7 Mr Meyers refers to a “voluntary termination agreement” in his submissions.8 It is therefore common ground that Mr Meyers’ employment with the VRC was terminated and it is accepted by the Commission that this occurred on 8 June 2005.

[10] The essence of the VRC’s argument is that there is no applicable agreement that covers Mr Meyers which enables him to bring a dispute to the Commission under the dispute settling clause of an agreement. This was said to be because the 2003 Agreement (which did cover Mr Meyers during his employment with the VRC) was replaced by the 1 July 2005 Agreement. Secondly, Mr Meyers is not covered by an enterprise agreement made under the present Act.

[11] Having considered all of the material before me, I find that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to deal with the application lodged by Mr Meyers. This is because, in order for a person to raise a valid grievance under the dispute settlement clause of an enterprise agreement, the person must be an employee. Under the Fair Work Act 2009, enterprise agreements can only apply to “an employee” (section 52(1)). As Mr Meyers’ employment was terminated on 8 June 2005, he is no longer an employee for the purposes of the Fair Work Act 2009.

[12] Also, it is acknowledged by the VRC that, at the time of his employment with the VRC, Mr Meyers was covered by the 2003 Agreement. However, that agreement has been replaced by the 1 July 2005 agreement. Therefore, Mr Meyers is no longer able to lodge a grievance under the 2003 Agreement.

[13] Accordingly, as Mr Meyers was not an employee at the time he raised the dispute, the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to deal with the application.

[14] The VRC’s jurisdictional objection is upheld and the application is dismissed.

 1   Submissions of the Respondent dated 21 November 2013 at paragraph 2

 2   AG822179 PR928490

 3   Submissions of the Respondent dated 21 November 2013 at paragraph 3

 4   Ibid at paragraph 4

 5   Submission of the Applicant dated 3 December 2013 at paragraphs 1 - 4

 6   Ibid at paragraph 4

 7   Submissions of the Respondent dated 21 November 2013 at paragraph 3

 8   Submission of the Applicant dated 3 December 2013 at paragraph 4

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code A, PR546670>