T10274
|
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION Industrial Relations Act 1984 Phillip Bryant Watson and Incat Tasmania Pty Ltd
Industrial dispute - severance pay in respect to termination as a result of redundancy - application dismissed REASONS FOR DECISION (1) On 27 June 2002, Phillip Bryant Watson (the applicant) applied to the President, pursuant to Section 29(1A) of the Industrial Relations Act 1984, for a hearing before a Commissioner in respect of an industrial dispute relating to severance pay in respect to termination as a result of redundancy. [2] The matter was set down for hearing (conciliation conference) at "Lyndhurst", 448 Elizabeth Street, North Hobart at 9.00am on 10 July 2002. [3] Mr J Zeeman, a solicitor, sought and was granted leave to appear for the applicant. Mr S Carter appeared on behalf of the employer. [4] In his opening submission, Mr Zeeman explained that Mr Watson commenced employment with Incat on 8 February 1989. On 19 June 2001, Mr Watson, together with approximately 30 other welding supervisors, attended a meeting with Mr Hardstaff, the Shipyard Director. The substance of that meeting was that supervisors would in the future be designated as "team leaders". This meant that a significantly greater proportion of their time would be "on the tools", than had hitherto been the case. There was no change to salary. [5] Mr Zeeman asserted that this amounted to a forced redundancy, a contention firmly rejected by Mr Carter. [6] Mr Watson accepted "what they were offering" and as a consequence left the employ of Incat on 22 June 2001. Mr Watson signed a "Release Agreement"1, item 1 of which reads as follows:
[7] In March 2002 Mr Watson read a newspaper report relating to a decision of this Commission granting improved redundancy provisions for certain Incat workers.2 As a consequence Mr Watson sought legal advice as to whether he had an entitlement to an additional severance payment, given his relatively long service with Incat. This in turn led to the application currently before the Commission. [8] Mr Carter made it clear that the matter was not negotiable from the Company's point of view. Whilst he was prepared to explain the Company's position in a conciliation conference environment, there was no prospect of a financial settlement being agreed. He also raised a preliminary matter in that the application had been lodged well outside the 21-day limit prescribed in s.29[1B] of the Act. [9] After hearing evidence from Mr Watson on the "out of time" question, the hearing was adjourned on the basis that the parties would submit written submissions, possibly including affidavit material, within an agreed time frame. [10] By correspondence dated 19 July Mr Zeeman advised:
[11] In view of my finding in this matter, it is unnecessary to address Mr Zeeman's application for an extension of time. [12] The chronology of events surrounding the May 2001 redundancies is set out in paragraphs 7 to 20 of T9551. [13] In short summary, the company called for voluntary redundancies on 21 May 2001 and approximately 90 employees accepted this offer. [14] By memorandum dated 30 May the Company advised that additional compulsory redundancies were necessary and, as a consequence, a further 92 employees were compulsorily made redundant. [15] On 6 June the Company issued a further memorandum indicating that, whilst forced redundancies were "not on the table" for the present time, applications for voluntary redundancy would still be received. [16] In light of the circumstances that then followed, it was perfectly reasonable for Mr Watson to inquire as to whether he had a further entitlement. There can, however, be no doubt that the decision in T9551 related solely to those employees compulsorily made redundant as a consequence of the 30 May 2001 memorandum. It did not have application to any employee who accepted a voluntary redundancy, either prior to or after that date. [17] Mr Watson may well have felt disillusioned as to his future role with Incat following the meeting with Mr Hardstaff. I am unable to conclude, however, that the circumstances amounted to a forced redundancy. [18] To prolong this matter by calling further evidence would only serve to drive up the parties' costs with no prospect of a favourable outcome for Mr Watson. [19] Pursuant to s.21[c] of the Act I refrain from further hearing and dismiss the application.
Tim Abey Appearances: Date and Place of Hearing: 1 Exhibit R1 |