TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – high income threshold – ss.394, 400, 604 Fair Work Act 2009 – permission to appeal – Full Bench – at first instance Commission upheld respondent’s jurisdictional objection – found appellant’s salary exceeded the high income threshold and he was not covered by an industrial award or agreement – appellant sought permission to appeal on the basis that the Commission omitted appellant’s written final submissions and erroneously applied the ‘principle purpose test’ – whether in public interest, where the test is ‘a discretionary one involved a broad value judgment’ [Coal & Allied] – whether decision at first instance involved a ‘significant error of fact’, the test being ‘a stringent one’ [Coal & Allied] – rarely appropriate to grant permission to appeal unless an arguable case of appealable error is demonstrated, simply because an appeal cannot succeed in the absence of appealable error [Wan] – the fact that even if a Member of the Commission made an error, this is not necessarily a sufficient basis for the grant of permission to appeal [GlaxoSmithKline] – Full Bench not satisfied appellant demonstrated any reasonably arguable case of error on the part of the Commission in determining that his employment was not covered by the Commercial Sales Award 2010 – found no error in the Commission’s approach to the application of the principal purpose test – Full Bench could not detect any significant error of fact or error of law – no basis to grant permission to appeal – not in public interest – permission to appeal refused. Appeal by Graham against decision and order of Drake SDP of 15 June 2016 [[2016] FWC 3525] and [PR581332] Re: Globus Medical Australia P/L
