ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS – dispute about matter arising under agreement – ss.604, 739 Fair Work Act 2009 – appeal – Full Bench – Commission granted extension of time for Broadspectrum to lodge appeal – at first instance the Commission found it had had jurisdiction to arbitrate a dispute between Mr Crawford and Broadspectrum Australia P/L under the Transfield Services Limited (Maintenance Services – Wyee) Collective Agreement 2011 – 2015 where Mr Crawford was no longer an employee of Broadspectrum – also found Mr Crawford not entitled to overtime for training attended during overtime hours – the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) and Broadspectrum lodged respective appeals against parts of the decision at first instance – Broadspectrum’s appeal concerned Commission’s jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute – at first instance Commissioner decided Commission had jurisdiction to hear dispute [Jajoo], notwithstanding Mr Crawford was no longer an employee of Broadspectrum – Full Bench of the view that Broadspectrum’s submissions concerning the Commission’s jurisdiction raised important questions pertaining to rights arising from enterprise agreements – on this basis permission to appeal with respect to the dispute over jurisdiction was granted – whether, pursuant to s.739 of FW Act, the Commission has the jurisdiction to deal with a dispute concerning a former employee – if an employee agitates a claim arising under an enterprise agreement while employed, the Commission has the jurisdiction to deal with the dispute, even after that employee’s relationship with the employer is terminated [Jajoo, Wollongong] – Full Bench do not need to adhere to precedent of Jajoo and Wollongong – should only depart from precent if persuaded sufficient reason to do so – Full Bench not persuaded findings in Patrick Projects and Kentz there was sufficient reason to depart from Jajoo and Wollongong – not persuaded Commission erred in its jurisdiction when finding dispute was to be arbitrated by the Commission – found terms of Agreement did not oust the jurisdiction of the Commission to deal with the dispute – satisfied Commission has jurisdiction to deal with dispute – CFMEU’s appeal regarding whether compulsory training is to be deemed ‘work’ within the meaning of Agreement and whether Mr Crawford entitled to overtime pay – Agreement provides that overtime rates will be paid for ‘work’ that is performed outside ordinary hours – if training constitutes ‘work’ then training in overtime attracts overtime pay – at first instance Commission found that training was not ‘work’ and that training conducted outside of ordinary hours did not attract overtime pay – whether the Commission erred in finding that training was not ‘work’ for the purposes of the Agreement – Full Bench believed appeal raised important questions of construction and interpretation of Agreement – held dispute matter of public interest – permission to appeal granted – grounds of appeal included that the Agreement contained no definition of ‘work’ or ‘training’ which created ambiguity; and that the decisions relied on by the Commission turned upon their own facts which were distinguishable to those before the Commission at first instance – Full Bench found that Excelior was distinguishable to the present case – Golden Cockerel considered – Full Bench considered an employee who attends training at the direction of his or her employer outside of ordinary hours is carrying out ‘work’ and is entitled to overtime remuneration – appeal upheld – decision at first instance quashed – held Mr Crawford is entitled to overtime remuneration for the training that he undertook outside of ordinary hours. Appeal by Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union against decision in transcript of Saunders C of 2 September 2016 Re: Broadspectrum Australia P/L
…
