Steven Threadgill v Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane
Case
•
[2014] FWC 6277
•10 SEPTEMBER 2014
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Steven Threadgill v Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane [2014] FWC 6277
[2014] FWC 6277
10 SEPTEMBER 2014
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Steven Threadgill lodged an application for relief from unfair dismissal against the Corporation of the Synod of the Diocese of Brisbane. Threadgill claimed to have been dismissed from his employment as the Executive Officer of the Corporation, and sought relief on the basis that his dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. The Corporation raised a jurisdictional objection, asserting that Threadgill was not an employee and therefore not entitled to relief under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The matter was heard by the Fair Work Commission.
The central legal issue before the Commission was whether Threadgill was an employee of the Corporation, and thus entitled to seek relief under the Act. The Corporation argued that Threadgill was not an employee, but rather a volunteer who had been given a volunteer position of responsibility. Threadgill, on the other hand, contended that he was an employee, having been paid a salary and provided with a contract of employment.
The Commission found that Threadgill was not an employee of the Corporation, and therefore not entitled to relief under the Act. The Commission held that Threadgill's role was that of a volunteer, and that the relationship between Threadgill and the Corporation was one of volunteerism, rather than employment. The Commission found that Threadgill had been given a volunteer position of responsibility, and had not been paid a salary or wages. The Commission also found that Threadgill had not been subject to the Corporation's control and direction, and had not been entitled to leave or other employment benefits. Accordingly, the Commission dismissed the application for relief from unfair dismissal.
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for relief from unfair dismissal, finding that Threadgill was not an employee of the Corporation and therefore not entitled to relief under the Act.
The central legal issue before the Commission was whether Threadgill was an employee of the Corporation, and thus entitled to seek relief under the Act. The Corporation argued that Threadgill was not an employee, but rather a volunteer who had been given a volunteer position of responsibility. Threadgill, on the other hand, contended that he was an employee, having been paid a salary and provided with a contract of employment.
The Commission found that Threadgill was not an employee of the Corporation, and therefore not entitled to relief under the Act. The Commission held that Threadgill's role was that of a volunteer, and that the relationship between Threadgill and the Corporation was one of volunteerism, rather than employment. The Commission found that Threadgill had been given a volunteer position of responsibility, and had not been paid a salary or wages. The Commission also found that Threadgill had not been subject to the Corporation's control and direction, and had not been entitled to leave or other employment benefits. Accordingly, the Commission dismissed the application for relief from unfair dismissal.
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for relief from unfair dismissal, finding that Threadgill was not an employee of the Corporation and therefore not entitled to relief under the Act.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Employment & Labour Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Breach of Contract
-
Unfair Dismissal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Rev. Paul Anthony O'Donnell v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Wilcannia-Forbes [2024] FWC 1223
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Rev. Paul Anthony O'Donnell v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Wilcannia-Forbes
[2024] FWC 1223
Solomon Woldeyohannes v Zion Church in Melbourne Australia Inc
[2020] FWC 4194
Cases Cited
8
Statutory Material Cited
0
Cameron v Hogan
[1934] HCA 24
Cameron v Hogan
[1934] HCA 24
Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd
[2001] HCA 44