Legal Lessons for Coaches The Federal Court has ruled that the Fitness Industry Award covers elite swimming coaches
T
he Full Bench of the Federal Court’s recent overruling of a previous judgment of Justice Michael Wheelahan which found that a former coach of elite swimmers at Melbourne’s Vicentre Swimming Club, Matthew King, was covered by the Fitness Industry Award 2010 presents some lessons for employers. This decision could have significant implications for employers throughout the aquatic and sport sectors. Background When ‘modern awards’ were introduced in Australia in 2009, they were intended to simplify the process of determining employment conditions. A new advisory note from Royal Life Saving Society Australia explains “for the aquatic industry, theoretically it should be simple - the Fitness Industry Award covers ‘aquatic centres’ and ‘aquatic services or classes’, so that’s all human resources managers need to know about, yes? “Unfortunately, no. Firstly, the Fitness Award specifically excludes some employees (like cleaners and security staff) who are covered by other awards, and second, it is also necessary to consider whether an employee at an aquatic centre comes within one of the classifications under the Fitness Award. “(At the end of July), three judges of the Federal Court of Australia considered the award coverage of a swim coach and provided some useful lessons for the aquatic industry.” 52 Australasian Leisure Management Issue 145
Facts of the trial Matthew King was employed by Melbourne’s Vicentre Swimming Club as a swim coach. When his employment was terminated, he brought claims against the Club which depended, in part, upon an entitlement to award coverage. King argued that they were covered by the Fitness Award (or alternatively, argued that they were covered by the Sporting Organisations Award, or if not that, the Miscellaneous Award, which demonstrates that multiple awards will often overlap). At the first trial, Justice Wheelahan rejected all of King’s award-based claims, rejecting his claims that they were covered by level 4A, or level 5, of the Fitness Award because he did not hold a ‘Fitness Industry AQF Certificate Level IV’ qualification (which the judge noted has historically not been associated with swim coaches). Justice Wheelahan also rejected the coach’s claim to be covered by level 4 of the Award, because that level requires the holding of a bronze licence for coaching, and the coach held a silver licence. Accordingly, Justice Wheelahan found that the coach was too qualified to be level 4, but not qualified enough to be level 4A or 5, and thus found that the coach was outside the scope of the Fitness Award altogether. The Appeal On appeal to the Federal Court, King argued that the Award Classification definitions for a Level 4 employee applied to his role as he was working under limited supervision and guidance
