TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – contract for specified term – ss.386, 394, 604 Fair Work Act 2009 – permission to appeal – Full Bench – in decision at first instance the Commission felt bound by the decision in Lunn – concluded appellant’s employment was not terminated at the initiative of employer and anti-avoidance provision in s.386(3) of FW Act did not apply – application dismissed – decision appealed on the basis that Commission erred in relying on decision in Lunn and erred in finding that the antiavoidance provision was not engaged – appellant submitted that Lunn wrongly focuses upon whether employment contract was terminated on employer’s initiative, rather than employment relationship – submitted that application of Lunn to provisions of FW Act incompatible – submitted that Commission erroneously approached s.386(3) of FW Act on basis that there could only be one substantial purpose for an employer entering into outer limit contracts and conclusions regarding anti-avoidance provision was not supported by evidence – Full Bench found that in first instance, Commission did not error in finding that avoidance was not a substantial purpose of using outer limit contracts – found in the public interest that permission to appeal be granted in relation to first ground of appeal and not second – permission to appeal granted – directions to be issued for the hearing and determination of the appeal. Appeal by Khayam against decision of Hunt C of 22 May 2017 [[2017] FWC 1524] Re: Navitas English P/L t/a Navitas English
…
