IN THE TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION

Industrial Relations Act 1984

This dispute notification in accordance with Section 29 of the Industrial Relations Act 1984 was lodged by Mr Swallow for the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union, Tasmanian Branch.

This dispute concerned a claim by the union for the payment of one weeks pay for every year of completed service by Mr Williams who was employed by L J Hoare Pty Ltd.

Mr Williams who is 69 years of age was retrenched following the closure of the Hawkridge operated meat works in Launceston in January this year.

The retrenchment arose because L J Hoare Pty Ltd, Mr William's employer did not have work for him as a casing manufacturer in the abattoir in question when the meat works closed.

Mr Williams had completed 40 years and two months service with L J Hoare at the time when he was finally finished up on 5 April 1989.

In the period 27 January 1989, the date of closure of Hawkridge in Launceston to the date of termination in April, Mr Williams, whilst not working, with the exception of a 3 day and a 2 day period, was maintained on full pay.

Mr Edwards submitted that the circumstances of Mr Williams' termination were not harsh or unjust and therefore the Commission should not intervene. He said in this case no claim for retrenchment pay should arise because the employee had been treated fairly.

Mr Edwards made much of the fact that the employee at 69 years of age was already past retirement age and therefore, even if I had a mind to order retrenchment pay, which I don't, then there would not be any basis to do so as the general dicta is that payment would take into account unexpired service to age 65 only.

In this case, said Mr Edwards, as that age has already been passed, retrenchment pay should not be considered on that ground alone.

In that regard Mr Edwards referred me to page 48 of Print F6230 the Termination, Change and Redundancy Case determined by the Australian Commission (as it then was) in August 1984 where the Full Bench stated inter alia -

"In addition, we are of the opinion that where termination is within the context of an employee's retirement, an employee should not be entitled to more than he/she would have earned if he/she had proceeded to normal retirement."

This was restated in the Bench's Supplementary Decision Print F 7262 dated 14 December 1984 when dealing with a dispute in the Metal Industry Award arising from the original decision. The severance clause which was finally included in that particular award is as follows -

"Provided that the severance payments shall not exceed the amount which the employee would have earned if employment with the employer had proceeded to the employee's normal retirement date."

Having advised the parties of my decision in this matter at the conclusion of the hearing, I now confirm that the application by Mr Swallow is not supported by the Commission.

Whilst Mr Swallow maintained that had Mr Williams been employed by Hawkridge a retrenchment payment would have been made to him as for those employees who were employed by that Company, I am satisfied that Mr Williams was treated equitably by his employer. In fact at the hearing I was informed that had it not been for this claim, L J Hoare would have made him a gratuitous offer.

I understand that subsequent to the finalisation of the hearing this was in fact done.

I am of the opinion that in matters of this kind the applicant should take into account all of the broad principles that the Commission will have regard for in matters such as this.

Whilst I do not wish in any sense to discourage applications, in this case the conclusion that could be drawn is that the whole exercise was a fairly frivolous waste of time.

R. K. Gozzi
COMMISSIONER