TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – high income threshold – ss.382, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for relief from unfair dismissal – jurisdictional objection – respondent submitted applicant earned in excess of the high income threshold – not protected by unfair dismissal legislation – applicant submitted he was performing the duties of a plant operator and as such he was covered by either the Guma ICRG JV P/L Base Enterprise Agreement 2013 (Agreement) or the Building and Construction General On-Site Award (Award), thus he was protected by unfair dismissal legislation – respondent submitted in response that the applicant was employed as a supervisor and therefore the Award or Agreement did not apply – further submitted he was not employed as a plant operator and any plant operator duties he performed were in breach of his position responsibilities – Commission first considered the ‘principal purpose’ test in McMenemy to determine what position the applicant was employed in at the time of dismissal – considered evidence from both parties – held at the time of dismissal applicant was engaged principally to perform the role of supervisor – Commission then considered whether the Agreement or Award would cover a supervisor – held Agreement classifications do not include the role of supervisor – applicant not covered by Agreement – held Award does not cover employees who are employed as supervisors or on a supervisory level – applicant not covered by Award – applicant not protected by unfair dismissal legislation – jurisdictional objection upheld – application dismissed. Matera v Guma ICRG JV P/L
…
