ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS – dispute about matter arising under agreement – ss.604, 739 Fair Work Act 2009 – permission to appeal – Full Bench – at first instance it was found that the additional competencies that Freight Operators were being trained in did not fall within the scope of the ‘role for which they are employed’ for the purposes of clause 29.4 of the Aurizon Train Crew and Transport Operations Enterprise Agreement 2015 (the Agreement) – that they should not be compensated for the relevant tasks at the rate equivalent of a Traincrew Support employee for the time that they were carrying out the tasks – that they should not be compensated for the period of time they were performing the relevant tasks based on the work value of those tasks as this was not pursued – that they should not be back-paid for the period of time they had been carrying out the tasks – therefore Commission held that the claimed remuneration of the Higher Grade Allowance was not applicable to the subset of duties sought to be undertaken – that since the extra duties the Freight Operators were being directed to perform did not fall within their classification, the direction was not in accordance with the applicable Agreement provisions – the grounds of appeal essentially related to central issue of whether the additional competencies for which Freight Operators were being trained fell within the scope of the ‘role for which they are employed’ for the purposes of clause 29.4 of the Agreement – permission to appeal must not be granted unless in public interest – public interest test is discretionary and involves broad value judgment – Full Bench observed the Commission had regard to context and purpose of Agreement by referring to clauses 29 and 42 – in considering context and purpose the Commission noted the additional tasks Freight Operators were being asked to perform – Full Bench found the Commission adopted an orthodox approach in construing the context and purpose – Commission had not erred in finding that competencies did not fall within the scope of the ‘role for which they are employed’ – Commission had not erred in finding that the Agreement was ambiguous when applying the principles in Golden Cockerel – Commission undertook an orthodox approach in her application of those principles and her application was not disharmonious when compared with other decisions dealing with similar matters – Full Bench found no arguable case of error in relation to any of the grounds of appeal – concluded that appeal did not attract public interest after taking into account considerations in GlaxoSmithKline – not satisfied there is a diversity of decisions at first instance so that guidance from appellate body is required, nor that appeal raises issues of importance and/or general application – also not satisfied decision at first instance manifests injustice, or result is counterintuitive, nor that legal principles applied were disharmonious when compared with other decisions dealing with similar matters – permission to appeal refused. Appeal by Aurizon Operations Limited t/a Aurizon against decision of Spencer C of 20 February 2017 [[2017] FWC 955] Re: Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union
…
