ENTERPRISE AGREEMENTS – dispute about matter arising under agreement – ss.587, 739 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for Commission to deal with a dispute under Enterprise Agreement (Agreement) Dispute Settlement Procedure (‘DSP’) – applicant’s claim concerned alleged refusal of request for carers’ leave, transfer of work location and false allegations of unreasonable behaviour – respondent raised jurisdictional objection that claim could not be considered under DSP in Agreement – respondent submitted that matter be dismissed as application not validly made on following grounds – applicant did not follow DSP in Agreement – carers’ leave issue was resolved prior to application – transfer and bullying investigation were not matters arising under the Agreement or NES – relief sought was inconsistent with Agreement – applicant submitted she had complied with DSP under Agreement – applicant claimed she had been forced to resign – applicant sought reimbursement of lost wages and personal medical expenses of $9,642.00 and that respondent sign deed of release – respondent submitted that ‘lost wages’ and deed of release were not related to issues in dispute and Commission does not have power to deal with these claims – Commission noted valid s.739 dispute application requires dispute which can be properly identified and characterised – subject matter of dispute must be about ‘matters under Agreement or NES’ – parties must follow all DSP steps – Commission must have necessary power to order relief sought by party requesting relief – Schweppes Australia considered – Commission would not ordinarily order relief sought if no practical utility in doing so – Commission satisfied applicant did not correctly progress dispute through all requisite steps of DSP – applicant misunderstood Commission’s powers – no power for Commission to grant monetary payments or order respondent to sign deed of release – carers’ leave issue only matter that could be argued under Agreement or NES but Commission has no power to deal with a resolved dispute – Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with transfer or workplace investigation disputes as neither were matters arising from Agreement or NES – final DSP step not invoked by applicant meaning Commission barred from dealing with matter which had not progressively moved through each step of DSP – applicant resigned meaning no utility in taking action that would have no impact on employee who is no longer employed – Commission satisfied application cannot proceed under s.739 – found Commission had no jurisdiction to deal with dispute – Commission found application had no reasonable prospects of success – application dismissed. Tarasenko v Insurance Australia Group
