The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia, Professional Engineers Division, Victoria Sub-Division v Queensland Electricity Transmission Corporation Limited T/A Powerlink Queensland

[2021] FWC 6243

[2021] FWC 6243

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.739—Dispute resolution

The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia, - Professional Engineers Division, Victoria Sub-Division
v
Queensland Electricity Transmission Corporation Limited T/A Powerlink Queensland
(C2021/619)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY BRISBANE, 1 NOVEMBER 2021

Alleged dispute about any matters arising under the enterprise agreement and the NES;[s186(6)]

[1] Pursuant to clause 11 of the Working at Powerlink 2020 Union Collective Agreement, I determine the dispute by answering the questions for arbitration as follows:

1. On a proper construction of clause 8.4 of Schedule 1 of the Working at Powerlink 2020 Union Collective Agreement (WAPA):

Question:

a) Is the phrase “if it is found within three months by either themselves or Powerlink that the alternative position is unsatisfactory” of clause 8.4 of Schedule 1 of the WAPA to be determined subjectively or objectively?

Answer:

The phrase is to be determined objectively.

Question:

b) If it is found to be determined objectively, is the alternative position unsatisfactory?

Answer:

The alternative position is satisfactory when considered on an objective basis in accordance with clause 8.4 of Schedule 1 of the WAPA.

Question:

c) Does clause 8.4 impose any notification requirements on the employee that they seek the retrenchment benefits pursuant to clause 8.4 of Schedule 1 of the WAPA?

Answer:

Yes, clause 8.4 imposes notification requirements to the extent that the employee is required to notify Powerlink that he or she asserts that the position is unsatisfactory and that the employee seeks retrenchment benefits on that basis.

Question:

d) If so, did the employee satisfy that requirement?

Answer:

Yes. Mr Spiteri notified Powerlink to the extent necessary that he was seeking retrenchment benefits on the ground that he asserted that the position was not satisfactory.

Question:

2. In light of the answers to questions 1(a), (b), (c) and (d) above, is Mr John Spiteri entitled to retrenchment benefits under clause 9 of Schedule 1 of the WAPA pursuant to clause 8.4 of Schedule 1 of the WAPA?

Answer:

No. Mr Spiteri is not entitled to retrenchment benefits under clause 9 of Schedule 1 of the WAPA.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR735388>