top of page

New Rulings on Redundancy Payouts: A Shift in Employer-Employee Negotiations?

In a significant turn of events that could set a precedent for how employers manage redundancies, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has made a ruling that reduces the redundancy payouts for two employees by 50%. This decision, emerging from the financial sector, revolves around the employees' refusal to cooperate with their employer's efforts to secure alternative employment for them with a competitor.

New Rulings on Redundancy Payouts: A Shift in Employer-Employee Negotiations?
New Rulings on Redundancy Payouts: A Shift in Employer-Employee Negotiations?

The Backstory:

The case involved Paymay Pty Ltd, operating under the brand Moneyplus, which faced business challenges that led to the closure of one of its branches in Western Australia. The company's management, in a proactive move, attempted to mitigate the impact on their employees by facilitating potential employment opportunities with a competitor. This effort was communicated to the employees by the director, who requested updated resumes to pass on to the competitor, known for similar roles and competitive compensation packages.


Employee Responses and Legal Arguments:

The employees, however, declined to provide their updated resumes. One cited a desire to change industries and already having prospective opportunities elsewhere. The other preferred to wait for her redundancy terms to be finalized, aiming for a break before re-entering the workforce. The refusal was rooted partly in concerns about non-compete clauses and the confidentiality of their personal information.


FWC's Findings:

Deputy President Abbey Beaumont noted that while an actual job offer was never directly made to the employees, the mere refusal to update and submit their resumes prevented Moneyplus from exploring these potential opportunities. This action, according to the deputy president, justified a reduction in their statutory redundancy payments. She emphasized that their initial responses were clear and that later additional reasons provided during the tribunal were deemed as afterthoughts, not reflecting their genuine stance at the time.


Implications for the Future:

This ruling underscores the complexities of redundancy negotiations and the importance of cooperation in transition opportunities. Employers may view this decision as a green light to require more proactive engagement from employees in securing alternative employment as part of redundancy processes. Conversely, employees must navigate the delicate balance between their career aspirations, legal obligations, and opportunities presented by their current employers.


As workplace dynamics continue to evolve, this case adds a new layer to the conversation about rights, responsibilities, and the legal frameworks that govern employer-employee relationships. It also raises questions about the future of redundancy negotiations and the extent to which employees can be penalized for safeguarding personal boundaries and career paths during transitions.


For more discussions on workplace laws and employee rights, stay tuned to 1800Advocates.

10 views0 comments

Comments


bottom of page