Team Members:

Ian Colgrave
icolgrave@normans.com.au

Sathish Dasan
sdasan@normans.com.au

Cecilia White
cwhite@normans.com.au

Michael Foley
mfoley@normans.com.au

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

top of page

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