DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Robert Parker
v
AngloGoldAshanti Australia
(U2020/2460)

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS

PERTH, 26 MAY 2020

Termination of employment - jurisdiction - high income threshold.

[1] This decision concerns an application made by Mr Robert Parker (Mr Parker or the Applicant) under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for an unfair dismissal remedy. The Respondent is AngloGoldAshanti Australia (the Respondent).

[2] The Respondent objects to this application on the grounds that Mr Parker enjoyed annual earnings in excess of the high income threshold of $148,700 and so is not a person protected from unfair dismissal as prescribed in section 382 of the Act.

[3] Consequently, the Commission directed the parties to provide evidence and submissions regarding the Respondent’s objections. Both parties have provided materials to the Commission on this issue.

[4] This decision deals only with the Respondent’s jurisdictional objection and does not consider the merits of Mr Parker’s dismissal.

Factual findings

[5] Mr Parker was first employed by the Respondent in 2011 as an Electrical Technician.

[6] In 2014 he was promoted to the role of Electrical Coordinator reporting directly to the Maintenance Superintendent. His letter of promotion dated 29 August 2014 details this and advises that his remuneration as at that date was $150,000 per annum which included superannuation.

[7] In September 2015 Mr Parker was appointed as an Electrical Supervisor under the Mine Safety and Inspection Act 1994 (WA) and the Mine Safety and Inspection Regulations 1995 (WA) as an assistant to the Registered Manager at the Sunrise Dam Gold Mine. The letter of appointment notes his statutory duties include ensuring the efficient supervision of the installation, maintenance and testing of electrical equipment, stopping the use of any electrical equipment or installation considered to be dangerous and investigating and reporting to the Manager the details of any incident, injury or dangerous occurrence caused by electricity.

[8] A letter dated 11 July 2017 to Mr Parker from the General Manager: Sunrise Dam Gold Mine advised that his terms and conditions of employment are varied with his title changing to now be “Supervisor: Underground Electrical” reporting to the Superintendent: Underground Maintenance.

[9] I find that Mr Parker at the time of his dismissal was employed as the Underground Electrical Supervisor. This in fact it is stated by Mr Parker himself in answer to question 2.1 on the Form F2 – Unfair Dismissal Application he filed with the Commission and he signed that form stating that he did so in this particular capacity.

[10] At the time of Mr Parker’s dismissal the high income threshold referred to in section 382 of the Act was $148,700 per annum.

[11] I am satisfied on the evidence that at the time of dismissal Mr Parker’s annual rate of earnings was more than $148,700.

[12] There is no evidence that there is an enterprise agreement that applies to Mr Parker and his employment with the Respondent.

[13] I accept the Applicant…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Robert Parker v AngloGoldAshanti Australia

Details

AGLC: Robert Parker v AngloGoldAshanti Australia [2020] FWC 2735
Case: [2020] FWC 2735
Decision Date: 26 MAY 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robert Parker, the applicant, sought a review of a decision by the Fair Work Commission in relation to his termination of employment by AngloGoldAshanti Australia, the respondent. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The applicant alleged that his dismissal was unjust and sought remedies under the Fair Work Act 2009. The primary issue before the court was whether it had jurisdiction to hear the applicant's claim given that his annual salary exceeded the prescribed high income threshold. The threshold, set at $170,000, determines the jurisdiction of the Fair Work Commission and, by extension, the Federal Circuit Court in employment disputes.

The court considered the relevant legislative provisions and determined that the high income threshold applied to bar the applicant's claim. It was established that the applicant's annual remuneration at the time of termination was well above the specified limit. The court found that since the applicant's income exceeded the threshold, the Fair Work Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, and by consequence, the Federal Circuit Court was also without jurisdiction. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory limits as they are designed to allocate cases appropriately within the federal judicial system.

In light of the jurisdictional bar, the court dismissed the applicant's claim. The decision underscored the necessity for applicants to be aware of and comply with statutory thresholds that dictate jurisdictional boundaries in employment disputes. The court made no further orders beyond dismissing the application for lack of jurisdiction.

Orders