The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia v Energy Queensland Limited T/A Energy Queensland Summary

[2022] FWC 2852

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute

The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia
v

Energy Queensland Limited T/A Energy Queensland

(C2021/4063)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY

BRISBANE, 24 OCTOBER 2022

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

This Decision concerns an application made by the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia (APESMA) pursuant to s. 739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 for the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) to deal with a dispute under the dispute resolution procedure in the Energy Queensland Union Collective Agreement 2020 (the Agreement). The dispute is notified by APESMA on behalf of its member, Mr Anthony Wilkinson and relates to Mr Wilkinson’s classification level under the Agreement. The Respondent is Energy Queensland Limited T/A Energy Queensland (EQL), Mr Wilkinson’s employer.

The agreed question for determination and my answer to that question are as follows:

Question:
On the basis of the duties required to be performed by Mr Wilkinson, is Mr Wilkinson entitled to be classified as a Level 3 Professional and Managerial Employee or Level 4 Professional and Managerial Employee under the Agreement?
Answer:
Based on the duties required to be performed by Mr Wilkinson, Mr Wilkinson is entitled to be classified as a Level 3 Professional and Managerial Employee under the Agreement.

Reasons for Decision will be issued separately.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

L Ablett for the Applicant.
JE Murdoch QC of Counsel instructed by MinterEllison for the Respondent.

Hearing details:

2022.
Brisbane:
6 June, 20 July (via Microsoft Teams).

Final written submissions:

Applicant, 6 July 2022.
Respondent, 6 July 2022.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia (APESMA) sought to resolve a dispute with Energy Queensland Limited (EQL) over the classification level of Mr Anthony Wilkinson under the Energy Queensland Union Collective Agreement 2020. The dispute was lodged with the Fair Work Commission (FWC) under section 739 of the Fair Work Act 2009, seeking to determine whether Mr Wilkinson should be classified as a Level 3 or Level 4 Professional and Managerial Employee. The FWC was required to decide on the classification based on the duties Mr Wilkinson was required to perform.

The primary legal issue before the FWC was to ascertain the correct classification level for Mr Wilkinson under the Agreement. This involved interpreting the duties specified in the Agreement and comparing them to the roles and responsibilities that Mr Wilkinson was assigned. The FWC had to determine whether Mr Wilkinson's duties aligned more closely with the criteria for a Level 3 or Level 4 classification.

The FWC, represented by Deputy President Asbury, concluded that Mr Wilkinson was entitled to be classified as a Level 3 Professional and Managerial Employee. The decision was made following a thorough examination of Mr Wilkinson's duties and responsibilities, as well as the specific criteria outlined in the Agreement. The Deputy President found that Mr Wilkinson's role did not meet the threshold for a Level 4 classification and was more appropriately classified as Level 3. The detailed reasons for this decision were to be provided in a separate document.

The FWC's final order, as summarised in the decision, was that Mr Wilkinson should be classified as a Level 3 Professional and Managerial Employee under the Energy Queensland Union Collective Agreement 2020. This decision effectively resolved the dispute in favour of APESMA and Mr Wilkinson.

The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia v Energy Queensland Limited T/A Energy Queensland

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established