1
Fair Work Act 2009
s.120—Redundancy pay
Children’s Services Support Unit (CSSU) Inc
(C2014/923)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS PERTH, 24 OCTOBER 2014
Variation of redundancy pay.
[1] This is an application made pursuant to s.120 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) by
Children’s Services Support Unit (CSSU) Inc (CSSU or the applicant). The respondent is Ms
Margaret McEniery (Ms McEniery or the respondent).
[2] Ms McEniery was employed under the Children’s Services Award 2010 [MA000120]
(the Award).
[3] Ms McEniery’s employment was terminated because CSSU no longer required the job
she was doing to be done by anyone.
[4] Clause 12.1 of the Award provides that redundancy pay is provided for in the National
Employment Standards. Consequently subject to s.120 of the Act Ms McEniery is entitled to
redundancy pay under s.119 of the Act.
[5] Section 119 and 120 of the Act are as follows:
“Subdivision B—Redundancy pay
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.
[2014] FWC 7503
DECISION
E AUSTRALIA FairWork Commission
[2014] FWC 7503
2
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:
(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.”
Findings
[6] There is no dispute between the parties as to the factual background to this matter and
based on the statements and materials provided by both parties I make the following findings.
[7] The respondent was employed in February 2012 as the Regional and Remote
Coordinator in Wickham.
[8] The position was identified under the Award is being at level 6.9.
[9] Clause 2.4 of the respondent’s contract provided that:
“You will commence employment at Wickham OSC as Regional and Remote
Coordinator. You agree to relocate to other CSSU services as required.”
[2014] FWC 7503
3
[10] “OSC” refers to out-of-school care.
[11] The position reported to the Regional Manager whom in turn reported to the Chief
Executive Officer.
[12] Centre staff reported to the respondent.
[13] The respondent’s salary at the time of the redundancy was $72 091.50 per annum and
she worked a 37.5 hour week equating to an hourly rate of $36.97 per hour.
[14] The CSSU obtained an alternative position which was offered to the respondent.
[15] That alternative position was as the Contact Coordinator 2IC at the Dampier Early
Learning Centre.
[16] This position is identified under the Award as being at level 5.4.
[17] The hourly rate payable for the Contact Coordinator 2IC position was $29.99 per hour.
[18] The CSSU offered the applicant the same district and housing subsidy as she had
received in Wickham.
[19] The Early Learning Centre was located in Dampier.
[20] The distance from Wickham to the Dampier Early Learning Centre is approximately
70km by road. This would equate to a one-way travel time of approximately one hour.
[21] If the respondent relocated she would have lived in Karratha which is approximately
20km by road to the Dampier Early Learning Centre. This would equate to a one-way travel
time of approximately 20 minutes.
[22] The respondent’s husband lives with her in Wickham and is employed there.
[23] Whilst employed at Wickham the respondent would either walk from her home to
work or in the wet season drive the 2km each way.
[24] The OCS position that was made redundant involved children between school age up
to 12 years old whereas the Dampier Early Learning Centre deals with children under five
years old.
[25] Notwithstanding the fact that the CSSU had offered the respondent the same quantum
of housing subsidy to live in Karratha that she had received in Wickham the cost of rental
accommodation in Karratha is likely to be more expensive than Wickham.
[26] A number of the duties and responsibilities of the two positions, but not all, are
common.
[2014] FWC 7503
4
The issue - Other acceptable employment
[27] The issue to be determined by the Commission is whether the offer of alternative
employment amounted to “other acceptable employment” within the terms of s.120 of the Act
for Ms McEniery and if it was whether the amount of redundancy pay payable should be
reduced and by what amount.
[28] I accept the alternative employment was obtained for Ms McEniery by CSSU.
[29] As noted by the Full Bench in Australian Chamber of Manufacturers v Derole
Nominees Pty Ltd1 at 124:
“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 provisions would be without practical effect.
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 elections 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.”
[30] The determination of whether the position offered was other acceptable employment
must be determined objectively and not subjectively from the perspective of the employer or
the employee.
[31] As was explained by Watson SDP in Feltex Australia Enterprise Agreement 20042 at
[89]:
“...acceptable alternative employment is not necessarily identical employment and that
the AIRC has previously found alternative employment to be acceptable
notwithstanding inconvenience to employees and some detrimental alteration to the
terms and conditions of employment.”
[32] That the alternative employment may be rejected by employees does not objectively
make it unacceptable.
[33] In Clothing and Allied Trade Union of Australia v Hot Tuna Pty Ltd3 a Full Bench of
the Commission found that the determination of whether alternative employment is acceptable
will involve a consideration of 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.
[34] In National Union of Workers v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd4 Vice President Watson
considered the following criteria:
[2014] FWC 7503
5
(a) the employee’s skills, experience and physical capacity;
(b) the rates of pay, hours of work, duties and conditions of employment associated
with the proposed job;
(c) whether or not continuity of employment is provided to the employee;
(d) the extent of any additional travel distances from home to the new place of work
and whether the employee has to substantially alter their method of travelling to and
from work in order to attend to duty; and
(e) the level of any compensation.
[35] In this case when one objectively considers the criteria mentioned in the case law and
applies these to the facts of this case it is apparent that the other employment involves a
number of significant changes, the question however is whether these either individually or
collectively lead to a conclusion that the other employment was or was not acceptable other
employment.
[36] The requirement to move to Karratha, in the context of the express acceptance by the
respondent at the time she took up her position only two years earlier that she would relocate
as necessary does not indicate that the other employment was not acceptable.
[37] The applicant should have appreciated at the time she was first employed that other
than the OSC site where she was working at Wickham her acceptance of a term that she
would agree to relocate as required would inevitably mean that she would have to move to
another town if relocation was necessary. Similarly the fact that the respondent would be
dealing with children of a different age group does not involve a radical departure from the
respondent’s skill set to the extent that this would indicate that the other employment was not
acceptable.
[38] Turning to consider a number of the other criteria I do accept that the following
changes or characteristics of the other employment compared to the redundant position does
indicate that the other employment was not acceptable, these are:
a 19% reduction in pay.
a reduction in the seniority of the position. The alternative position is subject to
direction not only from the Regional Manager but also the Director of the Centre.
a likely increase in nett housing costs.
Conclusion
[39] A 19% reduction in pay is sufficiently significant that in the absence of any offsetting
benefits from the other employment this would be sufficient by itself for the Commission to
conclude that the other employment was not acceptable.
[40] The likelihood of further additional costs in terms of housing for the respondent
compounds the negative consequence in the circumstances of this case.
[2014] FWC 7503
6
[41] Separately the reduction in seniority is also a significant negative element of the other
employment.
[42] Considering these factors then I do not accept that the Contact Coordinator 2IC
position is other acceptable employment for the purposes of s.120 of the Act. Accordingly this
application is hereby dismissed.
[43] Ms McEniery is entitled to the full benefits of redundancy pay as provided for in s.119
of the Act.
COMMISSIONER
Final written submissions:
Applicant, 27 June 2014
Respondent, 13 July 2014
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
Price code C, PR556914
1 (1990) 140 IR 123
2 PR974699
3 27 IR 226
4 [2008] AIRC 647
