TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – genuine redundancy – modern award coverage – ss.382, 389, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 – jurisdictional objections – not protected from unfair dismissal – not covered by modern award – redundancy was genuine – applicant employed in business now operated by respondent since 1989 – applicant’s rate of earnings in excess of high income threshold – not covered by enterprise agreement – applicant submitted Real Estate Industry Award 2010 (Award) provided coverage – not disputed that respondent was relevantly covered by Award – respondent submitted applicant’s senior management position was beyond classifications in Award – Commission considered respondent’s witness evidence in cross-examination against witness statement – considered respondent’s list of applicant’s duties against indicative tasks for Property Sales Representative classification in Award – applicant submitted his focus was property sales for respondent – submitted he was instructed not to provide guidance to staff – respondent submitted remuneration paid was indicative of different character of applicant’s position compared to position contemplated by Award – Commission held that high levels of remuneration are indicative only of an employer’s view that the employee is valuable and a reflection of their success – held that remuneration does not reflect award coverage – found that applicant had no managerial responsibilities, no direct reports and little role in strategy and management of respondent – found that principal purpose of applicant’s position was to sell real estate – found that at time of dismissal applicant’s duties fell squarely within definition of Property Sales Representative classification of Award – satisfied that applicant covered by Award and protected from unfair dismissal – jurisdictional objection dismissed – application to proceed – question of genuine redundancy to be determined in conjunction with merits of application. Kaufman v John Lang LaSalle (Vic) P/L t/a JLL
…
