Seaway HCO Pty Ltd

The applicant, Seaway HCO Pty Ltd, sought a variation of a previous order relating to redundancy pay for an employee. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The applicant argued that the employee had obtained other employment and therefore should not be entitled to the full amount of redundancy pay. The respondent, the employee, contended that they had not secured other employment and were still entitled to the redundancy pay.

The central legal issues before the Commission were whether the applicant had discharged its onus of proving that the employee had obtained other acceptable employment and whether this constituted a change in circumstances warranting a variation of the original order. The Commission had to assess the evidence provided by both parties to determine the employment status of the respondent at the time of the application.

The Commission found that the evidence presented by the applicant was insufficient to establish that the respondent had obtained other acceptable employment. The Commission was not satisfied with the quality and reliability of the evidence provided, particularly in light of the respondent’s denial of having obtained other employment. As such, the applicant had not discharged its onus of proof. Consequently, the application for variation of the redundancy pay order was dismissed. The Commission emphasised the importance of providing robust and credible evidence in such applications.

In conclusion, the Fair Work Commission dismissed the application for variation of redundancy pay, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated that the respondent had obtained other acceptable employment. The original order for redundancy pay remained in effect.