Tjoputra and Secretary, Attorney-General's Department

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal heard appeals by Mr Erwin Tjoputra and Mr Damodhar Chetty Budhi against decisions made by a delegate of the Secretary, Attorney-General's Department. The decisions under review concerned applications made by Mr Tjoputra and Mr Chetty Budhi for redundancy payments under the *Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012* (Cth) (FEGA). Both applicants had been long-term employees of Object Consulting Pty Ltd, which was placed into liquidation. The core of the dispute was whether the applicants were entitled to redundancy payments, given that the company, at the time of their termination, qualified as a small business employer.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicants were entitled to redundancy payments under FEGA. This involved considering the timing of their termination notices in relation to the company's status as a small business employer, and whether any actions or assurances by the liquidator altered this determination. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess if the company was a "small business employer" at the time of the applicants' termination, which would ordinarily disentitle them to redundancy pay under the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth), and if the governing instrument for their entitlements was FEGA or some other arrangement.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the liquidator's conduct in retaining the applicants' services after the company ceased trading and before providing written termination notices was critical, the law dictated that the company was a small business employer at the relevant time. The Tribunal noted that the applicants were asked to remain employed to assist the liquidator, and their written termination notices were issued on dates after the company had effectively ceased to be a large business and had become a small business. Despite acknowledging the liquidator's role in this situation, the Tribunal concluded that the legislative framework regarding small business employers applied, and therefore, the applicants were not entitled to redundancy payments under FEGA. The decisions under review were affirmed.