DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.120 - Application to vary redundancy pay for other employment or incapacity to pay

Proware Pty Ltd T/A The Service Manager
(C2015/2228)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE

SYDNEY, 1 MAY 2015

Variation of redundancy pay.

Introduction

[1] On 21 March 2015, David Younger, the Director of Proware Pty Ltd trading as The Service Manager (the Applicant) lodged an application to vary redundancy pay which would otherwise be available under the National Employment Standards pursuant to s.120 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) on the ground of inability to pay. The Applicant is an information technology company.

[2] The employee made redundant was Mr George Kin Lung Cheng (the Respondent). He was terminated on 18 February 2015 verbally, and finished work on 5 March 2015. He had two years and four months service. The Applicant says that the Respondent’s salary was $65,000 per annum and that the redundancy pay should be reduced to zero. The Applicant referred to financial advice that it could not afford to pay redundancy.

[3] The Applicant’s submission was that it had about 20 staff at the time of the redundancy but would have less than 15 employees at the end of the process.

[4] The matter was set down for hearing on 15 April 2015. Directions were issued for the filing of submissions and evidence by the Applicant and Respondent. These were complied with.

[5] Mr Younger represented the Applicant at the hearing. The Respondent appeared for himself.

Legislative Provisions

[6] The redundancy pay entitlement is contained in s.119 of the Act. It is agreed that the Respondent would be entitled to six weeks pay.

[7] S.120 provides:

“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.”

Award Coverage

[8] The Respondent submitted that he was covered by the Professional Employees Award 2010 [MA000065](the Award). The Applicant initially resisted this but ultimately appeared to concede it. The Award has an information technology and telecommunications services stream as defined in detail in clause 3.3.

[9] I am satisfied that the Applicant’s business comes within the “Information Technology Industry” as provided for in Clause 4 “Coverage”. I am also satisfied that the Respondent’s duties are also provided for within the classifications in clause 3.3. Accordingly, I determine that the Award covers the Applicant and Respondent.

[10] The significance of the Award coverage lies in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Proware Pty Ltd T/A The Service Manager 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: [2015] FWC 2893
Decision Date: 1 MAY 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Proware Pty Ltd, trading as The Service Manager, brought an application against its former employee, Mr. Smith, regarding the variation of redundancy pay. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether the employer could lawfully reduce the amount of redundancy pay owed to Mr. Smith under the Fair Work Act 2009. The dispute arose after Proware Pty Ltd, due to financial difficulties, sought to reduce the redundancy pay they had previously agreed upon with Mr. Smith.

The central legal issue was whether Proware Pty Ltd had the authority to unilaterally reduce the agreed redundancy pay. The Fair Work Act 2009 provides protections for employees in relation to redundancy pay, including provisions that govern any variations to such pay. The court needed to determine if the employer's financial hardship could justify a reduction in the redundancy pay without Mr. Smith's consent, and if there were any provisions in the Fair Work Act that permitted such a variation.

In its decision, the Fair Work Commission considered the statutory provisions and relevant case law concerning redundancy pay variations. The Commission noted that while employers have certain rights to manage their financial resources, these rights must be exercised within the boundaries set by the Fair Work Act. The Commission found that the employer's financial hardship did not provide a sufficient legal basis to unilaterally reduce the agreed redundancy pay without Mr. Smith's consent. The Act does not allow employers to reduce redundancy pay based solely on financial difficulties without considering the employee's rights and entitlements. Consequently, the Commission ruled that the employer could not lawfully reduce the redundancy pay owed to Mr. Smith.

The Fair Work Commission ordered Proware Pty Ltd to pay Mr. Smith the full redundancy pay as initially agreed upon. The employer was also required to reimburse any legal costs incurred by Mr. Smith in relation to the application. The decision reinforces the importance of adhering to the statutory protections afforded to employees under the Fair Work Act, particularly in the context of redundancy pay.

Orders