1
Fair Work Act 2009
s 120 - Application to vary redundancy pay for other employment or incapacity to pay
Spotless Services Australia Limited
(C2013/594)
Hospitality industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS SYDNEY, 9 JULY 2013
Application to vary redundancy pay - contract catering industry - acceptable alternative
employment - no change to wage rates or conditions - additional travel time - alternative
employment reasonable - redundancy pay reduced to nil - determination made.
[1] Spotless Services Australia Pty Ltd (the ‘applicant’ or ‘Spotless’) has filed an
application, pursuant to s 120 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the ‘Act’) to vary redundancy pay
in respect to two former employees, Ms Catherine McLeish and Ms Marilyn Thompson (the
‘employees’) who were offered alternative employment. The background facts to this matter
are relatively straightforward. Both employees were employed at the Tomago Aluminium site
at Tomago, New South Wales, where the applicant had a contract for providing various
services which included catering. Both employees were employed at the site under the
Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2010 [MA000009] (the ‘Award’).
[2] Ms McLeish was employed from 29 September 1997 as a Catering Attendant working
27.5 hours per week at an hourly rate of $17.52 (at the time of termination). Ms Thompson
commenced employment at the site on 15 December 2010 as a Catering Attendant working 25
hours per week at the same hourly rate. The employees worked at night and on weekends.
Both employees travelled to and from work in their private cars, from their homes in
Rutherford, New South Wales.
[3] On 11 March 2013, the employees were informed that, as a result of changed
requirements by Tomago, there would need to be a reduction in catering hours provided by
[2013] FWC 4484
DECISION
AUSTR FairWork Commission
[2013] FWC 4484
2
Spotless at the site. It was indicated to them that alternative locations for re-employment were
being investigated at other sites where Spotless provided catering and other services.
[4] On 22 March 2013, and again on 5 April 2013, the employees were informed that
alternative work had been identified for them at Eraring Power Station, Eraring, New South
Wales. Importantly, they were to be re-employed in the same roles, with the same hours and
rates of pay. They were also offered cleaning roles at Greenhills Stockland (Ms McLeish) and
Jesmond Stockland (Ms Thompson). The cleaning roles were rejected as not comparable.
[5] However, the employees declined the offers of re-employment at Eraring, citing the
additional distance and time required to travel to the new location. Using Google Search,
Spotless assessed the distance from:
a) Rutherford to Tomago as 25.1km, taking 25 minutes; and
b) Rutherford to Eraring as 53.7km, taking 50 minutes.
[6] On this basis, it was assumed the employees would have a net additional travel time to
Eraring of 25 minutes each way; effectively doubling the time they had previously travelled to
Tomago. Spotless maintains that the additional travel time was not unreasonable and the
offers of re-employment therefore constituted acceptable alternative employment. In these
circumstances, Spotless seeks to be relieved from paying redundancy pay to the employees, in
accordance with the provisions of s 120 of the Act.
[7] The matter was initially listed for directions on 9 May 2013 and listed for hearing on
28 June 2013. Directions for the filing of evidence and an outline of submissions had been
complied with by the applicant. However, the employees filed no evidence and no
submissions, although no point was taken by Spotless in this respect. In any event, there
appears to be only one issue of factual contest between the applicant and the employees.
Contrary to Spotless’ estimate of the time to drive from Rutherford to Eraring as being 50
minutes, the employees time trialled the distance on a single occasion, at one hour and fifteen
minutes. They left Rutherford at 7:50am and arrived at Eraring at 9:05am.
[2013] FWC 4484
3
[8] Spotless relied on an unchallenged statement from Mr David Horder, Operations
Manager, who had been directly involved in negotiations with the employees as to their
terminations of employment and offers of re-employment. In addition to the factual matrix,
Mr Horder referred to a contract of employment with Ms Thompson, dated 10 December
2010, which relevantly provided at cl 4:
‘4. LOCATION & TRAVEL
This position is located at Tomago Aluminium Co Pty Ltd, Tomago Road, Raymond
Terrace NSW 2324
The location of your employment may change in accordance with the Company’s
business needs. Any proposed changes will occur in full consultation with you.
If relocation requires you to move to a new region, interstate or overseas, then you will
be reimbursed reasonable relocation expenses in accordance with the applicable
Company Policy.’
[9] While Mr Horder could not locate a similar contract for Ms McLeish, he assumed her
terms and conditions of employment were on a similar basis. Mr Horder said that as a result
of refusing the offers of employment, the employees’ employment was terminated by letters
dated 23/24 May 2013 for reasons of redundancy. At the same time, Mr Horder advised the
employees of this s 120 application to the Commission, that no redundancy pay be paid.
[10] In supporting submissions, Mr J Douglas, for the applicant, put that the only issue for
the Commission to determine was whether the offer of reemployment at Eraring was
‘acceptable employment’ within the meaning of s 120 of the Act and, if so, whether the
redundancy pay, otherwise payable, should be reduced to a figure of zero or some lesser
amount than that prescribed in s 119(2) of the Act.
[11] Spotless conceded that the applicant bears the onus of satisfying the Commission that
the relevant offers of re-employment constitute ‘acceptable employment’. He relied on the
following authorities in support of the applicant’s contentions; See: Australian Chamber of
Manufactures v Derole Nominees Proprietary Limited (1990) 140 IR 123; Feltex Australia
Pty Ltd v Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia PR974699; Clothing and Allied
Trade Union of Australia v Hot Tuna Pty Ltd (1988) 27 IR 226; National Union of Workers v
[2013] FWC 4484
4
Linfox Australia Pty Ltd [2008] AIRC 647; and Re Rubber, Plastic & cable Making Industry
(Consolidated) Award 1983 (1989) 31 IR 35.
The statutory context and relevant authorities
[12] The legislative provisions relevant to this application are to be found in ss 119 and 120
of the Act as follows:
‘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 with
the employer on termination
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:
[2013] FWC 4484
5
(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.’
[13] In a recent decision of Lawler VP in Datacom Systems Vic Pty Ltd v Rasiq Khan;
Siddharth Desai [2013] FWC 1327, His Honour considered the expression ‘acceptable
alternative employment’. The additional word ‘alternative’ means the same as the words of
subsection (b) of s 120(1):
‘the employer
(i) obtains other acceptable employment for the employee’.
At paras [8]-[9], His Honour said:
‘[8] In NUW v Tontine Fibres [2007] AIRCFB 1016 (Tontine) a Full Bench of the
AIRC considered the meaning of the expression “acceptable alternative employment”
in a redundancy provision in an enterprise agreement. It was common for enterprise
agreements to reflect award provisions and contain redundancy entitlements that could
be reduced if the employer obtained acceptable alternative employment (or some
variant of that expression). The Full Bench observed:
“[23] It is well established... that the concept of acceptable alternative
employment is to be determined objectively. As noted by a Full Bench in
Australian Chamber of Manufacturers v Derole Nominees Pty Ltd:
“What constitutes “acceptable alternative employment” is a matter to be
determined, as we have said, on an objective basis. Alternative
employment accepted by the employee (and its corollary, alternative
employment acceptable to the employee) cannot be an appropriate
application of the words because that meaning would give an employee
an unreasonable and uncontrollable opportunity to reject the new
employment in order to receive redundancy pay; the exemption
provision would be without practical effect.
[2013] FWC 4484
6
Yet, the use of the qualification “acceptable” is a clear indication that it
is not any employment which complies but that which meets the
relevant standard. In our opinion there are obvious elements of such a
standard including the work being of like nature; the location being not
unreasonably distant; the pay arrangements complying with award
requirements. There will probably be others.”
[24] The onus of establishing that the alternative employment in question is
acceptable rests with the applicant employer. In order to establish whether the
alternative employment obtained by the employer is acceptable it is necessary
to have regard to such matters as pay levels, hours of work, seniority, fringe
benefits, workload and speed, job security and other matters (including the
location of the employment and travelling time). ...”
[9] Other employment does not cease to be “acceptable” merely because it is on terms
that are less advantageous to that of the terminating position. Tontine makes it clear
that there are matters of degree involved.’
See also: Football Queensland Ltd v Lonton [2013] FWC 2578.
[14] A number of principles may be distilled from these and other relevant authorities as to
the principles to be applied by the Commission when considering an application under s 120
of the Act. These include, inter alia:
a) the determination of what constitutes acceptable alternative employment is an
objective exercise;
b) mere rejection by the employee of alternative employment does not make it
objectively unacceptable;
c) comparable or equivalent pay and conditions, including hours of work and
continuity of service are important and relevant considerations;
d) to be acceptable, the new employment would need to take account of the
employees’ skills, seniority, experience and capacity to perform the job;
e) the location and additional travel times to and from work are a relevant
consideration. For example, an offer of reemployment to another State would not
ordinarily be found to be ‘acceptable employment’;
f) ‘acceptable employment’ need not be identical employment and may still be
considered acceptable, notwithstanding there might be additional inconvenience or
a detrimental alteration to the terms and conditions of employment;
[2013] FWC 4484
7
g) employees should not unreasonably refuse offers of alternative employment
merely because they wish to access the benefits of redundancy pay.
CONSIDERATION
[15] At the outset, I make these preliminary uncontested findings:
there is no doubt the employees were made redundant and, in ordinary
circumstances, would be entitled to the benefits of the Award or the National
Employment Standards’ provisions in respect to redundancy pay;
there is no suggestion that the applicant did not properly engage with and
consult the employees as to the need for redundancies and the capacity for
Spotless to minimise the impact of the redundancies;
the applicant investigated various options and found alternative work for the
employees; and
the alternative employment was for the same pay and conditions they had
previously enjoyed. It might be said to have been identical employment, save
for the one contested issue: the additional distance and time taken to travel
from home to Eraring.
[16] Simply put, Spotless maintains that an additional travel time of 25 minutes each way is
not unreasonable. The employees dispute this assessment and contend that the additional time
is close to double that calculated by Spotless. Before determining whether the additional time
(be it 25 minutes or 50 minutes each way) is objectively reasonable, I make the following
further observations about the employees’ objections.
[17] Firstly, as a matter of simple logic, the time taken to travel any distance by car will
depend on numerous factors, including time of day, area or location, weather and road
conditions and the type of vehicles driven. The evidence was that the employees worked
weekends and at night. They were plainly driving in a semi rural location to and from work,
although it seems that it was necessary to drive through Maitland, where it was said there
were major roadworks for a bypass being presently constructed. It follows, that if the
employees conducted their trial run during the day or in peak periods, it is likely to result in
[2013] FWC 4484
8
additional time. In fact, they had driven the distance to Eraring from 7:50am to 9:05am in
what was undoubtedly peak time. No other trials were undertaken.
[18] Moreover, on completion of the Maitland bypass, it must reasonably be assumed to
result in improved travel times. In addition, it must also be acknowledged that road travel
times in semi rural areas are not going to be as great as travelling the same distance in the
Sydney or Newcastle metropolitan areas. In my view, while I do not doubt the sincerity of the
employees, their estimation of additional travel time is somewhat exaggerated. I accept
Spotless’ more objective assessments, based on Google Maps, of the additional time taken
between Rutherford and Eraring compared to Rutherford and Tomago to be around 25-30
minutes each way. In conducting my own independent inquiry of Google Maps, the distance
between Rutherford and Eraring is said to be 58.8km , taking 53 minutes by car, with traffic.
[19] Secondly, the industry in which the employees worked is notorious for the winning
and losing of contracts. So much is plainly evident from the contract of employment signed
by Ms Thompson in 2010. While I appreciate the employees’ reluctance to change work
locations after having worked at the same site for many years, the fact is that the nature and
characteristics of the contract catering industry make it an inherently unstable one, in which
long term employment at one site is more the exception than the rule. Thirdly, ultimately,
even accepting the employees’ estimate, the difference between the applicant’s assessment
and the employees’ trial is 25 minutes each way (50 minutes versus 1 hour, 15 minutes).
[20] That said, I return to consider whether the additional travelling time made the offer of
reemployment objectively unacceptable alternative employment. While I sympathise with the
extra inconvenience and cost the employees would have been required to accept, particularly
in the context of their relatively low wages and part time hours, I am unable to conclude that a
daily travel time of around 1 hour and 40 minutes return trip, or an additional travel time of 50
minutes return, constitutes a sufficient basis for refusing the offer of reemployment at Eraring.
[2013] FWC 4484
9
[21] Accordingly I find the offer of reemployment to Eraring was ‘acceptable employment’
within the meaning of s 120 of the Act. Given this finding, the onus on the applicant to
demonstrate that its offer of re-employment was ‘acceptable employment’ has been
discharged. I consider that no amount of redundancy pay is applicable in these circumstances.
The application is granted and a determination to that effect will be issued contemporaneously
with this decision.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
J Douglas, for the Applicant.
C McLeish, First respondent in person.
M Thompson, Second respondent in person.
Hearing details:
2013
Sydney
9 May, 28 June
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
Price code C, PR538676
COMMISSION FAIR WORK COMM AUSTRALIA THE SEAL OF
