[2020] FWC 2413
The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 8
May 2020.
Typographical errors at [32], [36], [38], [40] and [50] amended.
Associate to Deputy President Anderson
Dated 8 May 2020
1
Fair Work Act
2009
Section 789GV - Application to deal with a dispute in relation to JobKeeper
Mathew Mazzitelli
v
Qantas Airways Limited
(C2020/3189)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT ANDERSON ADELAIDE, 8 MAY 2020
Application to deal with a dispute in relation to JobKeeper
[1] On 5 May 2020 Mathew Mazzitelli applied to the Commission to deal with a
JobKeeper dispute under Part 6-4C of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act). The application
concerns what Mr Mazzitelli considers to be an incorrect application of the JobKeeper
payment rules as they apply to monthly paid but stood down employees.
[2] On 6 May 2020, consistent with a direction I issued seeking a response, the responding
employer Qantas Airways Limited (Qantas) opposed the application and raised a
jurisdictional issue.
[3] I heard the matter in conference (by phone) on 7 May 2020. The conference was audio
recorded.
[4] The primary purpose of the conference was to explore the potential for a conciliated
resolution of the application. Although both Mr Mazzitelli and Qantas held competing views
on both jurisdiction and on merit, each constructively outlined their respective positions on
both issues.
[5] No settlement was reached.
[6] Qantas then sought determination of the jurisdictional issue before further conciliation
or hearing on the merits.
[7] After hearing the parties, I formed the view that in light of the jurisdictional issue
raised there was no reasonable prospect of settlement in advance of the jurisdictional issue
being determined.
[8] With the agreement of both Mr Mazzitelli and Qantas and in the same conference, I
moved directly to determination of the jurisdictional issue. Qantas and Mr Mazzitelli put
further oral submissions on jurisdiction after which I reserved my decision.
[2020] FWC 2413 [Note: An appeal pursuant to s.604 (C2020/3401) was
lodged against this decision - refer to Full Bench decision dated
19 May 2020 [[2020] FWCFB 2628] for result of appeal.]
DECISION
E AUSTRALIA FairWork Commission
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2020fwcfb2628.htm
2
[9] I indicated to the parties that I would deliver my decision on jurisdiction by no later
than 12 noon 8 May 2020 and that, in view of the need to deal with Part 6-4C applications
promptly, I would provisionally relist the matter for 4.00pm (ACST) 8 May 2020 whereupon
I would further deal with the merits should there be jurisdiction to do so. If I were to find no
jurisdiction, then that listing would lapse.
The Facts
[10] The relevant facts are simply stated.
[11] Mr Mazzitelli is employed by Qantas as a Planning and Engagement Manager.
[12] Mr Mazzitelli is paid on a monthly pay cycle; on the 15th of each month.
[13] Due to the impact of COVID-19 on its business, in March 2020 Qantas stood down
thousands of employees, including Mr Mazzitelli. Mr Mazzitelli was stood down by letter and
notice dated 27 March 2020. The letter provided:
“During the stand down you remain employed but you are not required to attend for
work. You will also not be paid for the period of your stand down. However you may
elect to take your entitlement to paid annual leave and long service leave during your
stand down period.”
[14] The notice provided:
“Stand Down Notice
Under section 524 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) you are notified that you will be
stood down from any work, shift or duty commencing on or after 12.01AM on 6 April
2020 as you cannot be usefully employed.
The stand down will continue until 31 May 2020 but will be continually under review.
If circumstances change, you will be notified of a time and date for you to return to
work. During the period of the stand down you will not be paid and you should not
attend for work.”
[15] Mr Mazzitelli worked until 6 April 2020. Thereafter he did not attend work as he was
stood down.
[16] JobKeeper is a Commonwealth programme whereby the Commonwealth provides, for
a limited period1 and on account of the economic impact of COVID-19 on the economy, a
wage subsidy of $1,500 per fortnight to eligible employers with respect to eligible employees.
Eligible employers are required to make fortnightly payments of wages to such employees in
at least the sum of $1,5002 and after having done so, the Commonwealth reimburses the
employer the wage subsidy.
1 Until 27 September 2020
2 Referred to as “the wage condition”
3
[17] Under the JobKeeper payment rules3, the first JobKeeper fortnight is the period during
the two weeks from 30 March 2020 to 12 April 2020. The second JobKeeper fortnight is from
13 April 2020 to 26 April 20204.
[18] Legislation giving effect to JobKeeper passed the Commonwealth parliament on 8
April 2020 and received Royal Assent and commenced on 9 April 20205.
[19] The JobKeeper legislation made complementary amendments to the FW Act6.
[20] JobKeeper (including eligibility of employers and employees for the programme) is
administered by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).
[21] Following commencement of JobKeeper, Qantas expressed interest in and became
certified as an eligible employer.
[22] Mr Mazzitelli is an eligible employee.
[23] On 15 April 2020 Qantas made two payments to Mr Mazzitelli:
$2,352.30 (gross) for work performed in the month of April 2020 (that is, work up to
the commencement of Mr Mazzitelli’s stand down on 6 April 2020); and
$647.70 (gross) as a JobKeeper “top up”.
The Dispute
[24] Mr Mazzitelli believes that the JobKeeper “top up” paid to him by Qantas on 15 April
2020 should have been in the sum of $1,500 (gross) being an amount payable for the second
JobKeeper fortnight for the month of April 2020. On that basis he says he has been underpaid
$852.30.
[25] Mr Mazzitelli believes that Qantas has incorrectly applied the JobKeeper legislation
and the payment rules. He believes that because he is paid monthly, that he is disadvantaged
compared to those Qantas employees who are paid fortnightly and who he says received the
full $1,500 for the second payment fortnight in April 2020. He states his dispute in the
following terms7:
“According to the ATO I should be receiving the JobKeeper payment for each
fortnight.”
[26] In response, Qantas contend that it has correctly applied the JobKeeper legislation and
the payment rules. It claims that those rules, as administered by the ATO, require and permit
an employer to apply payments to monthly paid employees across two fortnights, and to apply
wages earned (if any) across those fortnights in a reasonable manner. It says that Mr
3 Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Rules 2020 (the Payments and Benefits Rules)
4 JobKeeper fortnights are defined in s.6(5) of the Payment and Benefit Rules
5 Coronavirus Economic Response Package (Payments and Benefits) Act 2020 (the Payments and Benefits Act)
6 Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus (Measures No. 2) Act 2020
7 F13A at 2.2
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2020C00128
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2020A00037
4
Mazzitelli received $3,000 (gross) in total across the two fortnights in April 2020, including
payment for work done plus a JobKeeper top up to this amount. It denies that he is entitled to
more than this sum.
Jurisdiction
[27] Qantas submit that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to deal with or
determine Mr Mazzitelli’s dispute. There are three grounds on which Qantas make the
jurisdictional challenge8:
1. that Mr Mazzitelli’s dispute it is not a dispute about the operation of Part 6-4C of the
FW Act;
2. that the remedy sought by Mr Mazzitelli would require the exercise of judicial power;
3. that the remedy sought by Mr Mazzitelli is in the nature of an underpayment claim
which, according to the Commission’s JobKeeper benchbook9, is not within its
jurisdiction.
Consideration
[28] I now deal with the jurisdictional issue.
Is this a dispute about Part 6-4C of the FW Act?
[29] Part 6-4C of the FW Act was introduced in conjunction with the legislative changes
accompanying the JobKeeper programme, and commenced from 9 April 2020.
[30] Part 6-4C allows employers to give certain directions to employees (JobKeeper
enabling directions) and make certain requests of them. Part 6-4C also requires the
Commission to deal with applications concerning certain JobKeeper disputes.
[31] Section 789GV(1) provides:
“789GV FWC may deal with a dispute about the operation of this Part
(1) The FWC may deal with a dispute about the operation of this Part.
(2) The FWC may deal with a dispute by arbitration.
Note: The FWC may also deal with a dispute by mediation or conciliation, or by making a
recommendation or expressing an opinion (see subsection 595(2)).
(3) The FWC may deal with a dispute only on application by any of the following:
(a) an employee;
(b) an employer;
(c) an employee organisation;
(d) an employer organisation.
8 Submission, 6 May 2020 paragraphs 2 to 5
9 Benchbook, Part 6 page 27/55
5
(4) The FWC may make any of the following orders:
(a) an order that the FWC considers desirable to give effect to a jobkeeper
enabling direction;
(b) an order setting aside a jobkeeper enabling direction;
(c) an order:
(i) setting aside a jobkeeper enabling direction; and
(ii) substituting a different jobkeeper enabling direction;
(d) any other order that the FWC considers appropriate.
(5) The FWC must not make an order under paragraph (4)(a) or (c) on or after
28 September 2020.
(6) An order made by the FWC under paragraph (4)(a) ceases to have effect at the
start of 28 September 2020.
(7) In dealing with the dispute, the FWC must take into account fairness between
the parties concerned.”
[32] The first jurisdictional question which arises is whether Mr Mazzitelli’s application is
“a dispute about the operation of this Part” within the meaning of section 789GV(1).
[33] The first step to determining this question is to characterise the dispute.
[34] Mr Mazzitelli says that the dispute is about the proper interpretation of Part 6-4C and
in particular the Employer Payment Obligations in sections 789GD and 789GDA of the FW
Act.
[35] Qantas submit that, properly characterised, the dispute is about “the proper
interpretation of ss 789GD and 789GDA and r 10 of the Coronavirus Economic Response
Package (Payments and Benefits) Rules 2020, which is a matter over which the Commission
does not have jurisdiction.”
[36] I agree with these characterisations but not Qantas’s conclusion. The dispute is about
the Employer Payment Obligations in sections 789GD and 789GDA and, to the extent
relevant to the application of those provisions, the Payments and Benefits Rules.
[37] Section 789GA summarises what Part 6-4C concerns itself with:
The purpose of this Part is to assist employers who qualify for the jobkeeper scheme to
deal with the economic impact of the Coronavirus known as COVID-19.
This Part authorises an employer who qualifies for the jobkeeper scheme to give a
jobkeeper enabling stand down direction to an employee (including to reduce hours of
work).
This Part authorises an employer who qualifies for the jobkeeper scheme to give a
direction to an employee about:
6
(a) the duties to be performed by the employee; or
(b) the location of the employee’s work.
This Part authorises an employer who qualifies for the jobkeeper scheme and an
employee to make an agreement in relation to:
(a) the days or times when the employee is to perform work; or
(b) the employee taking annual leave, including at half pay.
This Part provides that an employer who qualifies for the jobkeeper scheme must consult
an employee (or a representative of the employee) before giving a direction.
This Part provides that:
(a) a direction given by an employer who qualifies for the jobkeeper scheme
to an employee does not apply to the employee if the direction is
unreasonable in all of the circumstances; and
(b) a direction given by an employer who qualifies for the jobkeeper scheme
to an employee in relation to the duties to be performed by the employee,
or the location of the employee’s work, does not apply to the employee
unless the employer reasonably believes the direction is necessary to
continue the employment of one or more employees of the employer.
This Part provides for other safeguards relating to directions given by employers who
qualify for the jobkeeper scheme, including a rule that this Part will at all times operate
subject to listed laws.
This Part provides that the FWC may deal with a dispute about the operation of this Part.
[38] Whilst the primary focus of Part 6-4C is to provide scope for an eligible employer to
issue a JobKeeper enabling direction (relating to stand down, duties of employees or location
of work)10 this is not its exclusive focus. The Part also contains provisions unrelated to a
JobKeeper enabling direction: for example agreements between JobKeeper eligible employers
and employees over location of work, days of work, annual leave and rights to secondary
employment11.
[39] Relevantly for the purposes of this matter, those provisions of Part 6-4C unrelated to a
JobKeeper enabling direction include Employer Payment Obligations and in particular the
wage condition and the minimum payment guarantee under sections 789GD and 789GDA.
These sections provide:
“789GD Obligation of employer to satisfy the wage condition
If:
(a) an employer qualifies for the jobkeeper scheme; and
10 Sections 789GDC, 789GE and 789GF
11 Sections 789GF, 789GG, 789GJ and 789GV
7
(b) the employer would be entitled to jobkeeper payment for an employee for a
fortnight if (among other things) the employer satisfied the wage condition in
respect of the employee for the fortnight;
the employer must ensure that the wage condition has been satisfied in respect of the
employee by the end of the fortnight.
Note: 1 This section is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4-1).
Note 2: Under the jobkeeper payment rules, a jobkeeper payment is a payment to an employer
for a particular employee for a fortnight.
789GDA Minimum payment guarantee
(1) For the purposes of this Part, the minimum payment guarantee consists of the
rule set out in subsection (2).
(2) If a jobkeeper payment is payable to an employer for an employee of the
employer for a fortnight, the employer must ensure that the total amount
payable to the employee in respect of the fortnight is not less than the greater
of the following:
(a) the amount of jobkeeper payment payable to the employer for the
employee for the fortnight;
(b) the amounts payable to the employee in relation to the performance of
work during the fortnight.
Note 1: This subsection is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4-1).
Note 2: Amounts referred to in this subsection (other than paragraph (a)) include the
following, if they become payable in respect of the fortnight:
(a) incentive-based payments and bonuses;
(b) loadings;
(c) monetary allowances;
(d) overtime or penalty rates;
(e) leave payments.”
[40] Mr Mazzitelli was not stood down under a JobKeeper enabling stand down (section
789GDC). He was stood down under general stand down provisions available to employers
under section 524 of the FW Act. Indeed, at the time Mr Mazzitelli was notified of his stand
down and at the time his stand down took effect, the JobKeeper programme and legislation
had not commenced.
[41] However, given that sections 789GD and 789GDA are not contingent on an employee
having been stood down under a JobKeeper enabling direction, I do not consider either of
these factors to be a basis to conclude that Mr Mazzitelli’s application is not “a dispute about
the operation” of Part 6-4C.
[42] Mr Mazzitelli was, at the time of making his application an eligible employee and his
employer was an eligible employer. He was in receipt of a top up payment by his employer
under the JobKeeper scheme. The payment fortnights that are the subject of his dispute are
payment fortnights related directly to his employer’s application of the Payments and Benefits
8
Rules and the employer’s obligation under Part 6-4C to meet the wage condition and the
minimum wage guarantee.
[43] For these reasons I conclude that Mr Mazzitelli’s dispute is a dispute about the
operation of Part 6-4C and thereby within the Commission’s jurisdiction. I reject the first
jurisdictional ground advanced by Qantas.
Exercise of judicial power
[44] The second and third jurisdictional grounds advanced by Qantas are conveniently dealt
with together.
[45] I do not accept the proposition that dealing with the dispute as notified by Mr
Mazzitelli and as properly characterised (being a dispute about the wage condition and the
minimum payment obligation under Part 6-4C) requires the Commission to exercise judicial
power.
[46] The exercise of judicial power, which (under the Australian Constitution) is a power
reserved for courts (not the Commission) involves the final determination of lawful rights and
obligations and orders related thereto. This would include, for example, a determination that
an employer is in breach of the law for having underpaid an employee and a consequential
order requiring monies to be paid.
[47] Determinations and orders of this type by the Commission would be an impermissible
exercise of judicial power. The Commission’s JobKeeper benchbook correctly identifies that
the Commission “cannot generally assist with claims for underpayment of wages and
entitlements, including payments under the JobKeeper scheme”12. This is simply a statement
of the legal position that underpayment claims are not within the Commission’s jurisdiction.
[48] In any event, the JobKeeper Benchbook is a guide and its language does not substitute
for the law. The Benchbook makes this clear13.
[49] The proposition that dealing with disputes over the JobKeeper wage condition or the
minimum wage guarantee generally or in the specific circumstances of Mr Mazzitelli’s
application necessarily involves the exercise of judicial power is rejected. Such a proposition
would come close to rendering nugatory the capacity of the Commission to deal with disputes
concerning sections 789GD and 789GDA. The legislature has clearly intended that not be the
case. Whilst it is so that decisions and orders in the nature of the exercise of judicial power
would not be permissible when exercising jurisdiction under Part 6-4C, dealing with a
dispute, whether by conciliation or arbitration and whether by making recommendations,
decisions or even orders, is capable of being undertaken without impermissibly exercising
judicial power.
12 “The Commission can deal with disputes under the dispute resolution procedure in an enterprise agreement or modern
award (see ss.738-739 of the Fair Work Act), but the Commission cannot generally assist with claims for underpayment
of wages and entitlements, including payments under the jobkeeper scheme.” JobKeeper Benchbook Part 6 page 27/55
13 “This benchbook should be used as a general guide only. It is not intended to be used as an authority in support of a case at
hearing.” Disclaimer page 1/55
9
[50] Mr Mazzitelli’s application does indicate that he “would like to know whether I am
entitled” to a higher payment with respect to the second JobKeeper fortnight in April 2020.
Whilst the final determination of lawful rights are matters for the courts not the Commission,
with respect to Mr Mazzitelli’s application, as well as applications generally, the Commission
is not limited to the relief sought or the specific terms of the relief sought. Mr Mazzitelli
sought that the payment practice of his employer be reviewed against the Payment and
Benefit Rules. Those rules centrally raise matters concerning the practices of Qantas in
applying its wage condition and minimum payment guarantee obligation under Part 6-4C.
[51] For these reasons I reject the second and third grounds of jurisdictional challenge
advanced by Qantas.
Conclusion
[52] I conclude that the Commission has jurisdiction to deal with the dispute as notified by
Mr Mazzitelli.
[53] The provisional listing of this matter scheduled for 4.00pm today will proceed. At that
time I will further conciliate the merits of Mr Mazzitelli’s dispute. Should conciliation not be
successful and arbitration of the merits be required, arrangements will be put in place for that
to occur. Arbitration will not occur at today’s further proceedings but will be conducted
promptly if needed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
M. Mazzitelli, the Applicant, on his own behalf
R. Jones and J. Farrah for Qantas Airways Limited
Hearing details:
2020.
Adelaide, by telephone.
7 May.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
PR719218
HE WORK COMMISSION THE SEA
