Will relocating your workplace trigger
Monday, 8th December 2014, by Loran McDougall
In today's Workplace Bulletin:
Have you considered that if you relocate your workplace, the relocation may trigger redundancy obligations?
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) Full Bench recently considered this, after an employer relocated and expected its employees to attend work 34 kilometres away from its original location.
The FWC’s decision took into account:
But before he does...
I want to let you know about a special offer we have on the price of an important new resource.
If you need to deal with inappropriate behaviour or misconduct in your workplace, you need to ensure your investigation is fair, comprehensive and defensible should the case be heard in court.
The new eBook Effective Workplace Investigations explains every step of the investigation process in detail. And you can save yourself $100 off the usual price if you purchase it before December 18.
You can read more about it here.
Until next time,
Case Law: The redundancy implications of
relocating a workplace
by Charles Power
Editor-in-Chief, Employment Law Practical Handbook
In DL Employment Pty Ltd v AMWU (2014), the employer closed its plant at Kogarah and directed the employees to attend work at a new plant at Ingleburn, 34 kilometres away.
When a number of employees rejected this change and the employer refused to pay the employees redundancy payments, the employees took the dispute to the FWC.
Kogarah employees were covered by an enterprise agreement adopting the standard formulation of redundancy, i.e. redundancy is where the employer no longer requires the employee’s job to be done by anyone.
Was the relocation allowed under the employee’s terms of employment?
The FWC’s first step was to look at the terms governing the employee’s employment to determine whether they permitted the employer to require the employees to work at the new location. If the terms permitted the transfer, an employees' job could also be transferred without triggering redundancy.
Kogarah employees were covered by an enterprise agreement that, according to the FWC, did not allow transferability between the two sites at Kogarah and Ingleburn. However, after the enterprise agreement had been made, the employees had signed a contractual document which provided for the transfer.
The FWC ruled that the contractual provision for transferability did not operate because it was inconsistent with the enterprise agreement. Accordingly, the FWC decided it was a term of each employee’s employment that they could not be transferred from the Kogarah plant to the Ingleburn site unless they agreed.
As a result, the effect of the employer’s decision that it no longer required the employees’ jobs to be performed at Kogarah was that their jobs were no longer required to be performed by anyone, i.e. they were redundant.
Did the relocation trigger an entitlement to redundancy pay?
That an employee’s job is redundant does not ordinarily trigger an entitlement to redundancy pay. Firstly, the employee’s employment must end for an entitlement to arise. Secondly, in many circumstances a redundant employee will lose their entitlement to redundancy pay if they reject an offer of suitable or acceptable employment.
In this case, the FWC ruled that the employer’s direction for an employee to work at a new location resulted in termination of employment because it was repudiatory of the employment contract – in other words, the employer was effectively disowning the employment contract and seeking to impose a new one in its place. This was due to:
The employer tried to argue the new jobs located at Ingleburn were acceptable employment for the redundant employees, which disentitled the employees to redundancy pay. Section 120 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) allows employers of redundant employees to seek an exemption from paying redundancy payments where reasonable alternative employment is obtained for the affected employees.
However, in this case the FWC ruled that section 120 did not apply to the redundancy pay entitlements in the enterprise agreement. The enterprise agreement required a redundancy entitlement to be paid unencumbered by section 120 of the FW Act.
Furthermore, the enterprise agreement did not provide for the avoidance of redundancy pay entitlements where the employer obtains acceptable or suitable alternative employment.
Employment Law Practical Handbook
Please whitelist the Workplace Bulletin to make sure you get every edition delivered to your inbox.
The information in this email is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please return the message to the sender and delete it from your records. All content is © 2007-2013 Portner Press Pty Ltd All Rights Reserved.
Queries: For general enquiries, email firstname.lastname@example.org or call 1300 782 911.
Workplace Helpdesk: Paid subscribers to the Employment Law Handbook can ask our experts for advice.
Syndication: To republish a Workplace Bulletin article, please email email@example.com for information.
Workplace Bulletin ISSN 1836-117X
Portner Press Pty Ltd
96-98 Bridport Street
Albert Park VIC 3206
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- Antitrust & Trade Regulation
- Arbitration Agreements
- Breach of Contract
- Business Organizations
- Business Torts
- Civil Remedies
- Civil Rights
- Confidentiality Agreements
- Constitutional Law
- Construction Contracts
- Consumer Protection
- Contract Disputes
- Electronic Discovery
- Energy & Utilities
- Environmental Issues
- General Business
- Government Contracting
- Intellectual Property
- International Trade
- Labor & Employment
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Products Liability
- Professional Malpractice
- Professional Practice
- Real Estate - Commercial
- Science, Computers, & Technology
- Virtual Currency
понедельник, 8 декабря 2014 г.
Австралия (трудовые отношения). Происходит ли юридически "сокращение штата", если наниматель осуществляет перемещение рабочего места в другой населенный пункт?