Issue 29 July 2005
EMPLOYMENT BRIEFLY - Special Edition
Minimum Severance Pay Standards Increased
in SA - For Now
On 22 June 2005, the Full Bench of the South Australian Industrial
Relations Commission handed down its decision approving variations
to the minimum severance pay standards in a range of South Australian
Awards.
The application to vary the Awards (including Clerks (SA) Award,
the Hotels, Clubs Etc Awards, the Wine and Spirit (SA) Award
and the Health Services Employees Award) was made by the LHMU
and the ASU seeking to vary minimum severance pay standards,
together with variations to some other related provisions.
The Respondents to the Application were a range of employer
and industry groups, including Business SA.
The parties reached an agreement in respect of the variations
sought, which was approved by the Full Bench. (The Unions’ initial
claim was for a maximum of 16 weeks pay for employees with 6
years or more service.) As a result, the new minimum severance
pay standards in respect of the subject Awards are:
Period of Continuous Service
|
Severance Pay
|
Less than 1 year
|
Nil
|
1 year and less than 2 years
|
4 weeks’ pay
|
2 years and less than 3 years
|
6 weeks’ pay
|
3 years and less than 4 years
|
7 weeks’ pay
|
4 years and less than 5 years
|
8 weeks’ pay
|
5 years and less than 6 years
|
10 weeks’ pay
|
6 years and less than 7 years
|
11 weeks’ pay
|
7 years and over
|
12 weeks’ pay
|
Further, employees with 10 or more years of continuous service
who are over 45 years of age will be entitled to 16 weeks’ severance
pay, in recognition of the need to assist older employees who
are made redundant.
The decision varies current minimum standards in South Australian
Awards which prescribe a maximum of 8 weeks severance pay for
employees with 5 or more years service.
It should be noted that employers with 15 or less employees
are exempt from the standards and that the previous minimum
standards will still apply to those employers.
Other noteworthy changes include the introduction of a “contrived
arrangement” clause, which allows the Commission to order
the employee be paid in accordance with the above scale where
an employer attempts to deprive the employee of that entitlement
(For example, the Commission referred to concerns about contrived
arrangements through corporate restructuring intended to avoid
the liability to make severance payments. Although the Commissioner
considered such attempts only occur “infrequently”,
it did see the merit in a new provision directed at dealing
with such circumstances when they arise.) Further, the “incapacity
to pay” provision has been included whereby the Commission
may vary the severance pay prescription upon the application
of a group of employers, (the previous provision only allowed
for such an application to be made by a single employer).
As a term of the settlement agreement reached, the Unions
agreed not to support or make any further application to vary
severance pay standards prior to 30 June 2007.
Implications for employers
Despite the fact that the matter could not ultimately be given
the status of a “Test Case” (given that it was
the subject of a mutual agreement) and, consequently, the new
minimum standards apply only in respect of the specific Awards
that were the subject of the application, the Full Bench foreshadowed
that the decision will have a wide “flow-on” effect.
If the matter had been run as a Test Case, it would have established
prime facie entitlements for all awards of the Commission.
What can be expected is that applications on behalf of Unions
to amend further Awards will quickly ensue, to bring minimum
severance pay standards in line with those set by the Commission
in this case. In such cases, the Commission would inevitably
be bound by the terms of agreement approved by the Commission
in this case.
There may well be considerable haste applied to such applications,
with the threatened removal of state industrial relations systems
by the Federal Government now that they control the legislature.
A copy of the decision can be viewed at: www.industrialcourt.sa.gov.au.
If you require further detail in relation to the specific Awards
to which the decision will apply, please contact us.
For further information about issues covered
in this article, please contact our Employment Team, Ian Colgrave,
Sathish Dasan, Cecilia White or Michael Foley on 8210 1200
Which Brieflys would you like to receive?
If you wish to:
- subscribe to additional Brieflys,
- unsubscribe to any you are currently receiving
please visit the Norman
Waterhouse Subscriptions Page
Brieflys are produced in the following categories:
Business
Employment
Environment and Planning
Hospitality
Local Government
Personal Services
TechLaw
We respect your right to privacy. You can view our Privacy Information
Notice on our website and our Privacy Policy is available on
request from our Privacy Officer at privacy@normans.com.au The
contents of this newsletter are for information only and should
not be taken as advice on the law.
© Norman Waterhouse 2005. All Rights Reserved. You may not reproduce all
or any part of this newsletter without our prior consent. Requests should be
directed to the Editor of this newsletter Cecilia White.
Norman Waterhouse
Lawyers
Adelaide
Level 15
45 Pirie Street Adelaide
GPO Box 639 Adelaide
South Australia 5001
Telephone +61 8 8210 1200
Facsimile + 61 8 8210 1234
Sydney
Level 10
135 King Street Sydney
New South Wales 2000
Telephone +61 2 9023 0100
Facsimile + 61 2 9023 0199
click
here to unsubscribe from this publication
|