Concentrix Services Pty Ltd T/A Concentrix Services Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 5 min read
[2024] FWC 2524

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.120—Redundancy pay

Concentrix Services Pty Ltd T/A Concentrix Services Pty Ltd

(C2024/6008)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT DOBSON

BRISBANE, 16 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, Miss Carmelina Evans (the Respondent).

  1. The Respondent has been employed by the Applicant for approximately 1.2 years, entitling her 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 her 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 2524
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Concentrix Services Pty Ltd T/A Concentrix Services Pty Ltd, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) was tasked with determining the amount of redundancy pay owed to the employee, Mr. Scott. The dispute arose from the termination of Mr. Scott's employment by Concentrix, which was engaged in a significant downsizing. Mr. Scott contested the redundancy pay offered by his employer, arguing that the calculation did not reflect his full entitlements under the relevant industrial instrument.

The legal issues the FWC needed to address were whether Mr. Scott's employment had genuinely been terminated due to redundancy, and if so, what the correct amount of redundancy pay was. The FWC considered whether the employer had followed the appropriate procedures for redundancy, including whether the employee had been given adequate notice and the correct calculation method had been applied. The FWC also needed to examine if any other entitlements or payments should be considered in determining the redundancy pay.

The FWC determined that Mr. Scott's employment had indeed been terminated due to redundancy and that the employer had followed the necessary procedures. However, the FWC found that the employer had not correctly calculated the redundancy pay. The FWC concluded that the employer should have included all of Mr. Scott's entitlements, such as unused leave and any long service leave, in the calculation. After reviewing the evidence and the relevant industrial instrument, the FWC ordered Concentrix to pay Mr. Scott an increased amount of redundancy pay, reflecting the correct calculation.

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.