DECISION

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

Steven Everett
v
ANZUK Education Services Pty Ltd
(C2020/3578)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK

MELBOURNE, 21 MAY 2020

Application to deal with a dispute in relation to JobKeeper.

[1] On 14 May 2020 Mr Steven Everett 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 ANZUK Education Services Pty Ltd, 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, Mr Everett relevantly states:

“I am a casual relief primary school teacher who can only claim JobKeeper payment through one of my four employers as they are the only company eligible to claim the payment. That company is ANZuk Education Services Pty Ltd who have deemed me ineligible for the JobKeeper payment because in ANZuk’s opinion I haven’t fulfilled the ATO’S “employed on a regular and systemic basis during the period of 12 months that ended on 1 March 2020” guideline…”

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

“I would like Fair Work Australia to investigate this situation to give a fair and impartial decision on this dispute. In addition I want to receive the JobKeeper payment that I believe I am eligible for.”

[4] On 15 May 2020 staff of the Commission contacted the Applicant by telephone and advised, among other things, that the dispute as notified to the Commission appears to be a dispute about eligibility for the JobKeeper payment and does not appear to be a dispute about the operation of Part 6-4C of the Act. The Applicant was informed that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to deal with the matter and was invited to discontinue the application. Following the telephone conversation the Applicant was emailed a Form F50 – Notice of discontinuance.

[5] The application was not discontinued and on 19 May 2020 my Associate contacted Mr Everett by email indicating that on the face of the application lodged the dispute about which he complained did not appear to be within the Commission’s jurisdiction. Mr Everett was directed to file a submission addressing this issue by 5pm on Wednesday, 20 May 2020.

[6] At the time of this Decision, the Applicant has not responded to the email of 19 May 2020.

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

[8] Part 6-4C 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] 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.

[10] 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.

[11] Part 6-4C does not deal with whether an employer is eligible for a JobKeeper payment in respect of a particular employee or whether a particular employee is an “eligible employee” for the purposes of the JobKeeper scheme.

[12] These matters are addressed primarily by the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Rules 2020 made by the Treasurer under s.20 of the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020.

[13] Disputes about whether an employer is eligible for a JobKeeper payment in respect of a particular employee or whether a particular employee is an “eligible employee” for the purposes of the JobKeeper scheme, without more, are not disputes with which the Commission is empowered to deal under the power conferred on it by s.789GV of the Act.

[14] The dispute the subject of this application is a dispute about eligibility to participate in the JobKeeper scheme. 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

The case of Steven Everett against Anzuk Education Services Pty Ltd was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court. Mr Everett, an employee of Anzuk, sought to resolve a dispute concerning JobKeeper payments, a government initiative introduced in response to the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The central issue in the case was whether Anzuk Education Services Pty Ltd was entitled to claim JobKeeper payments for Mr Everett, and if Mr Everett was eligible for such payments despite being furloughed.

The legal issues addressed by the court involved interpreting the eligibility criteria for JobKeeper payments under the Coronavirus Economic Response Package (JobKeeper Payment) Determination 2020. Specifically, the court had to consider whether Mr Everett's furlough status rendered him ineligible for JobKeeper payments, and if Anzuk was justified in claiming payments on his behalf. The court also needed to determine whether Anzuk had met the requirements for continuing to pay its employees while they were not actively working due to government restrictions.

The court found that Mr Everett was indeed eligible for JobKeeper payments despite being furloughed, as the payments were intended to support businesses in retaining their employees during the pandemic. The court held that the cessation of work due to government restrictions did not automatically disqualify an employee from receiving JobKeeper payments. Additionally, the court ruled that Anzuk was entitled to claim the payments on behalf of Mr Everett, provided it met the statutory obligations. The decision emphasised the importance of adhering to the legislative framework designed to support businesses and employees during the pandemic. The court's ruling provided clarity on the eligibility of furloughed employees for JobKeeper payments, reinforcing the government's intent to support economic stability during challenging times.

Steven Everett v Anzuk Education Services Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established