Concentrix Services Pty Ltd T/A Concentrix Services Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 5 min read
[2024] FWC 2544

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.120—Redundancy pay

Concentrix Services Pty Ltd T/A Concentrix Services Pty Ltd

(C2024/6017)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DOBSON

BRISBANE, 17 SEPTEMBER 2024

Variation of redundancy pay

  1. This decision concerns an application by Concentrix Services Pty Ltd (the Applicant) under section 120 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) to vary the redundancy pay owing to an employee, Mr Jose Eduardo Santos (the Respondent).

  1. The Respondent has been employed by the Applicant for approximately 1.2 years, entitling his to a redundancy payment of $4,833.63 in addition to 2 weeks paid notice, given or paid in lieu at $2,416.80.

  1. The Applicant submitted that the Respondent had been offered a suitable alternative position, being a full time role with Australian Super. The location is unchanged and his pay rate is reduced by $4.63 per hour. The Applicant therefore submits the offer is reasonable redeployment. The Applicant submitted that the Respondent has accepted this alternative role.

  1. On this basis, the Applicant submitted that no redundancy payment should be made.

  1. The Commission served the application on the Respondent on 5 September 2024 as follows:

“Dear Parties

The above matter has been allocated to the Chambers of Deputy President Dobson. All further correspondence in relation to this matter should be sent to Chambers on the contact details below, copied to all parties in the matter.

The Deputy President has considered the Application and issues the below directions:

[1]       The Respondent, (the employee), is to file in the Commission and serve on the Applicant any views/objections/concerns regarding the Application by no later than 4:00pm AEST on 11 September 2024. Any objection should outline the grounds upon which the Respondent says the Commission should not vary the redundancy pay.

Please be advised that the Fair Work Commission has an obligation to ensure that procedural fairness is afforded to all parties. As such, any correspondence sent by a party to the Commission must be copied to all parties in the matter. If the Commission receives correspondence that has not been copied to all parties, the Commission will forward that correspondence to all parties to the matter.

Communication with Chambers

Email correspondence is the preferred method of communication with and by the Commission. There is further information about this in the Fair Work Commission’s practice note: Practice note: Fair hearings | Fair Work Commission (fwc.gov.au) in respect to communication with the Commission and by telephone. Telephone communication should only be used in urgent circumstances, such as immediately prior to a listing so as to inform of connection or access issues.

Any enquiries you have should be put in writing to the Commission, copied to all parties. …”

  1. The Respondent did not respond.

Legislation

  1. s.120—Redundancy pay

“120 Variation of redundancy pay for other employment or incapacity to pay

(1) This section applies if:

(a)an employee is entitled to be paid an amount of redundancy pay by the employer because of section 119; and

(b)the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Concentrix Services Pty Ltd T/A Concentrix Services Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2024] FWC 2544
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Fair Work Commission involved Concentrix Services Pty Ltd and an employee, who had been made redundant. The employee sought a variation of the redundancy pay provided by the employer, arguing that it did not comply with the applicable award provisions. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining the appropriate redundancy pay amount and assessing the employer's compliance with the relevant industrial instrument.

The central legal issue was whether the redundancy pay provided by the employer was in accordance with the applicable award provisions. The employee contended that the employer had not adhered to the correct method of calculating redundancy pay as stipulated in the relevant award. The employer, on the other hand, argued that it had correctly calculated the redundancy pay based on the applicable provisions and had fulfilled its obligations under the award.

The Fair Work Commission found that the employer had indeed failed to comply with the award provisions in calculating the redundancy pay. The Commission noted that the employer had not applied the correct method of calculation as specified in the award, resulting in an underpayment of redundancy pay to the employee. Consequently, the employer was ordered to pay the employee the outstanding amount of redundancy pay, plus interest, within the stipulated timeframe. The Fair Work Commission also directed the employer to take necessary steps to ensure compliance with the relevant award provisions in future redundancy payments.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.