ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS – dispute about matter arising under agreement – s.739 Fair Work Act 2009 – applicant made application for resolution of dispute under dispute resolution term within Victorian Catholic Education Multi Enterprise Agreement 2013 (the Agreement) – applicant is classified under the Agreement as Level ES 4 employee – applicant considered this to be one grade too low given his duties and demonstrated competencies and sought relief to be reclassified and paid the correct salary as per the Agreement Level ES5.1 – applicant submitted that changes to his role between 2010 and 2017 were significant and his role had grown beyond Level ES 4 – applicant further submitted that he was engaged in development and deployment of information technology strategy which was key feature of Level ES 5 – applicant also submitted that with reference to criterion within descriptors for Level ES 5 that role is featured with leadership and management of significant functional element of large school – respondent submitted that applicant was not undertaking the work of Level ES 5 and did not have management responsibility for its Information Communication and Technology (ICT) function – respondent further submitted that applicant managed day-to-day operational requirements of ICT function but did not have leadership and management responsibility – found work described by applicant was broadly consistent with competencies set out in General Work Description for Level ES 4 however those features of competency do not amount to level described within General Work Description for Level ES 5 – unable to make finding that applicant’s job was to ‘lead and manage a significant functional element’ – applicant did not demonstrate that work he was undertaking was aligned with judgement, independence and problem-solving descriptors of Level ES 5 – found circumstance of applicant’s supervision fits Level ES 5 descriptor but is probably circumstances arisen by default or lack of management rather than conscious decision making – found that applicant was not working at level expected of Supervision for Level ES 5 – nothing before Commission formally identifying respondent’s requirements in relation to qualifications and experience nor is there sufficient evidence that applicant is insufficiently qualified or experienced to be classified at Level ES 5 – no findings made in respect of this aspect of the descriptors therefore qualifications and experience are neutral consideration – found applicant is performing duties consistent with, and not significantly beyond, Level ES 4 defined ‘typical duties’ – unable to make finding that applicant is working at ES 5 level – application dismissed. Murphy v Mercy Education Limited t/a Sacred Heart College, Kyneton
…
