T9556
TASMANIAN INDUSTRIAL COMMISSIONIndustrial Relations Act 1984
and Copper Mines of Tasmania
[2] The Union was in dispute with Copper Mines of Tasmania of Queenstown (the Company) over “the termination of employment of several employees who are members” of the Union. Four employees, the subject of this application, were made redundant on 18 May 2001. [3] The AMMA (the Association) represented the Company at the hearings. [4] The final hearing of this application took place on 12 March 2002 and, in the meantime, through the Union, all except one employee had reached a settlement with the Company. [5] The Union claimed, on behalf of the one employee, Mrs Jane Wray-McCann (the employee), an extra six weeks’ pay for notice, in addition to the amount she had received by way of a severance payment. Along with the other employees, the employee had received a redundancy amount of three weeks’ pay for each year of service (ie, six weeks’ pay), plus four weeks’ pay in lieu of notice. The employee commenced employment with the Company in April 1999 and was made redundant in May 2001. [6] In support of its claim the Union submitted that the employee was entitled to the extra payments because of the isolation of Queenstown and the lack of consultation whereby she may have been able to take up a part-time position with the Company. The Union produced a list of all the duties the employee previously performed for the Company and said that a number of them still needed to be carried out, hence the opportunity for part-time work which was not discussed with the employee. [7] All the applicants in this matter had received the same redundancy and notice payments, but, the Union said that two at least of the others had received additional benefits in the form of rental assistance in one example, and hence the employee should be entitled to the additional benefit sought. [8] The Association rejected the proposition that the employee was entitled to receive an additional benefit. The Association pointed out that in one case the settlement involved other extraneous claims concerning workers compensation and anti-discrimination, therefore it was not acceptable to compare each one. In any case, the Association submitted, the package afforded the employee was fair and reasonable. [9] The Association also said that to grant the Union’s claim for an additional notice payment would be unfair by comparison to others and would create an excessive standard. [10] The Association said the case was one of genuine redundancy in that the reception desk the employee had occupied had been closed and the switchboard she operated had been removed in favour of a more technically advanced system that eliminated the need for the main duties she had performed. As to the other duties listed by the Union, the Association said they could not be accepted as applying because it was not an official Company document and no other evidence had been produced to confirm the performance of other duties. The Association said there had been a complete restructure and some duties had been transferred to other employees. [11] In relation to the lack of consultation accusation, the Association said, without conceding anything, that was taken care of by the “more generous treatment” in the redundancy package. Findings [12] The Commission is not prepared to interfere in this matter on the basis that the redundancy package for the employee was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. [13] It may be that there was insufficient consultation with the employee over the possibility of on-going employment, but, I accept that the duties remnant after the removal of the switchboard were primarily in the hands of the Company for allocation and the severance payment adequately covered that consideration. [14] I also accept that the additional benefits said to have been received by some of the other employees related directly to each of their particular circumstances and they were settled at the time. There was no evidence nor submissions that the employee had comparable circumstances to them. [15] I consider there were no specific reasons why the employee’s period of notice should have been any different from that of the other employees made redundant with her. I also reject the concept that the isolation of Queenstown was a factor that should have made the employee’s period of notice or total redundancy payment any more than that received by the other employees made redundant with her. [16] The application is dismissed and I so order.
P A Imlach
Date and place of hearing:
|