Manager fails in argument he was entitled to pursue unfair dismissal claim
A manager’s application for unfair dismissal has been rejected on jurisdictional grounds, as it was determined that his compensation package exceeded the statutory thresholds determined in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act).
The employee commenced working for Remondis Australia Pty Ltd (“Remondis”) as the Finance Manager from 17 January 2022 until his termination on 8 March 2024.
Remondis is the local operation of one of the world’s largest recycling, service and water companies.
At the time of his dismissal, the high-income threshold was $167,500.
The manager received a remuneration package amounting to $171,842, comprised of an annual salary of $150,072 and a vehicle allowance of $21,870.
In submissions before Deputy President Abbey Beaumont, the manager argued that $5,377.87 of his vehicle allowance was attributable to work-related travel, therefore placing him under the high-income threshold.
The Deputy President reviewed previous decisions of the Commission, which determined the following questions need to be considered regarding a car allowance. In simple terms, if a car allowance is paid to an employee in circumstances in which there is no requirement or expectation that the employee will have to use his or her car for work purposes, then the whole of the car allowance is, in reality, part of the employee’s wages and is therefore included in their “earnings”.
Alternately, if a car allowance is paid to an employee in circumstances in which there is a requirement or expectation that the employee will have to use the car for work purposes, then it will be necessary to determine and calculate the private benefit, if any, derived by the employee from the car allowance.
The manager claimed that he was regularly required to attend other worksites, in addition to his normal workplace, during his employment. He claimed to have made work-related trips in his own vehicle, amounting to approximately 460km.
The Deputy President considered a number of scenarios but ultimately concluded that the additional travel undertaken in addition to the manager’s normal drive to and from home to work did not reduce the manager’s earnings below the minimum threshold.
The jurisdictional objection was accepted, and the unfair dismissal application was rejected.
CB v Remondis Australia Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 1534 (14 June 2024) (austlii.edu.au)
For queries about jurisdictional issues, unfair dismissal thresholds, or other employment questions, please contact Dean Cameron at Workforce Advisory Lawyers – We Know Employment Law on 0417 622 178, 1300 WAL LAW or via email to dean.cameron@workforceadvisory.com.au
Disclaimer: This information is provided as general advice on workplace relations and employment law. It does not constitute legal advice, and it is always advisable to seek further information regarding specific workplace issues. Liability limited by a scheme approved under professional standards legislation.
Ref: 448.0724
