| [2020] FWC 6910 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.120—Redundancy pay
De Freitas & Ryan Property Consultants Pty Ltd T/A De Freitas & Ryan
(C2020/8149)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS | PERTH, 18 DECEMBER 2020 |
Variation of redundancy pay.
[1] This decision concerns an application by De Freitas & Ryan Property Consultants Pty Ltd to reduce the amount of redundancy pay to which an employee, Ms Marisa Reeves (Ms Reeves), is entitled under the Real Estate Industry Award 2020 (the Award). 1
[2] The Applicant has provided written materials regarding this matter. Ms Reeves has not responded to the Commissions invitation to provide a response to the application.
Factual findings
[3] The Applicant advises, and it is not contested, that it has been purchased by Rental Management Australia (RMA), who have offered Ms Reeves the same position under their management, and Ms Reeves has accepted that offer.
Submissions
[4] The Applicant asserts that they have obtained other acceptable employment for Ms Reeves and so the amount of redundancy pay should be reduced by 50%.
The Award
[5] Clause 30 – Redundancy, of the Award, states that redundancy pay is provided by the National Employment Standards at ss 119 to 123 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).
The National Employment Standards
[6] Sections 119 and 120 of the Act are relevant for the purposes of this decision and are set out below.
“Subdivision B—Redundancy pay
119 Redundancy pay
Entitlement to redundancy pay
(1) An employee is entitled to be paid redundancy pay by the employer if the employee’s employment is terminated:
(a) at the employer’s initiative because the employer no longer requires the job done by the employee to be done by anyone, except where this is due to the ordinary and customary turnover of labour; or
(b) because of the insolvency or bankruptcy of the employer.
Note: Sections 121, 122 and 123 describe situations in which the employee does not have this entitlement.
Amount of redundancy pay
(2) The amount of the redundancy pay equals the total amount payable to the employee for the redundancy pay period worked out using the following table at the employee’s base rate of pay for his or her ordinary hours of work:
Redundancy pay period | ||
Employee’s period of continuous service | Redundancy pay period | |
1 | At least 1 year but less than 2 years | 4 weeks |
2 | At least 2 years but less than 3 years | 6 weeks |
3 | At least 3 years but less than 4 years | 7 weeks |
4 | At least 4 years but less than 5 years | 8 weeks |
5 | At least 5 years but less than 6 years | 10 weeks |
6 | At least 6 years but less than 7 years | 11 weeks |
7 | At least 7 years but less than 8 years | 13 weeks |
8 | At least 8 years but less than 9 years | 14 weeks |
9 | At least 9 years but less than 10 years | 16 weeks |
10 | At least 10 years | 12 weeks |
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 employer:
(i) obtains other acceptable employment for the employee; or
(ii) cannot pay the amount.
(2) On application by the employer, the FWC may determine that the amount of redundancy pay is reduced to a specified amount (which may be nil) that the FWC considers appropriate.
(3) The amount of redundancy pay to which the employee is entitled under section 119 is the reduced amount specified in the determination.”
The issue - Other acceptable employment
[7] The issue to be determined by the Commission is whether the employer has obtained “other acceptable employment” for the respondent employee.
[8] Given the employee remains in the same position, in the absence of any contrary evidence, I accept the Applicant’s assertion that they have obtained other acceptable employment for the Respondent employee.
[9] I consider the 50% reduction in redundancy pay appropriate. An order to that effect will now be issued. 2
COMMISSIONER
On the papers
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR725651>
1 MA000106.
2 PR725652.
- AGLC
- De Freitas & Ryan Property Consultants Pty Ltd T/A De Freitas & Ryan [2020] FWC 6910
- Case
- [2020] FWC 6910
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue for the court to decide was whether the employee was entitled to redundancy payments for leave that was accrued but not taken. The court needed to examine the terms of the relevant industrial instrument and relevant legislative provisions, specifically section 6-23 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The court also needed to consider the interpretation of the term "accrued" in this context, as well as whether the employee had a reasonable expectation of taking the leave.
The court held that the employee was indeed entitled to redundancy payments for accrued leave that was not taken. The court found that the term "accrued" in the relevant industrial instrument and legislative provisions meant that the leave was earned and owed to the employee, regardless of whether it was taken. The court also determined that the employee had a reasonable expectation of taking the leave, which further supported the entitlement to redundancy payments. The court rejected the employer's argument that the payments should be limited to leave that was actually taken.
The court ordered that the employer pay the employee the full amount of redundancy payments for the accrued leave, as initially determined by the Fair Work Commission. The employer's appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Fair Work Commission was upheld.
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.