Reardon and Secretary, Department of Employment

Case

[2016] AATA 1027

15 December 2016


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Reardon and Secretary, Department of Employment [2016] AATA 1027 [2016] AATA 1027 15 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application by Ms Reardon for an increase in advance Guarantee of Entitlements (FEG) payments, specifically in relation to redundancy and payment in lieu of notice. The dispute arose from differing interpretations of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (FW Act) and the *Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012* (FEG Act) concerning the calculation of continuous service for employees engaged as casuals. The case was heard by Miss E A Shanahan, Member, of the Tribunal.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Ms Reardon's period of casual employment constituted continuous service for the purposes of the FW Act, and if so, whether this casual service could be aggregated with her subsequent permanent employment to satisfy the minimum service requirements stipulated in sections 117 and 119 of the FW Act for notice of termination and redundancy pay. The Tribunal was required to interpret the meaning of "continuous service" in the context of casual employment and its interaction with provisions relating to termination entitlements.

The Tribunal considered that Ms Reardon's initial five years of employment were as a casual employee, attracting a 25 per cent loading, in accordance with the relevant award. It was noted that various National Employment Standards (NES) entitlements, including notice of termination and redundancy pay, do not apply to casual employees. The Tribunal found that Ms Reardon was specifically excluded by section 123 of the FW Act from redundancy payments and notice beyond that attributable to less than one year of employment. The Tribunal concluded that the legislature did not intend for casual employees, who receive a casual loading, to also benefit from entitlements like redundancy pay and notice based on their casual service, as this would be inconsistent with the objects of the FW Act and could lead to "double dipping."

Consequently, the Tribunal found that Ms Reardon was excluded by section 123 of the FW Act from redundancy payments and notice beyond that attracted by not more than one year of employment.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Employment Law

  • Administrative Law

  • Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

  • Statutory Construction

  • Judicial Review