Transmission of business appeals to go ahead

News

Transmission of business appeals to go ahead

The Federal Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews said this was a concern because there was ‘no commercial connection between Gribbles and the outgoing employer, except both were involved at different times with a third party who licensed them to use the premises and equipment’.

WantToReadMore

Get unlimited access to all of our content.

Source: WorkplaceOHS

 

Full Federal Court decisions ordering Amcor and Gribbles to make transmission of business redundancy payments are now subject to High Court appeals which will be determined sometime in 2004.

The High Court ruled last Friday that the appeals could go ahead. 

Amcor Limited

The Full Federal Court decision found that while Amcor had sold its business to Paper Australia, and Paper Australia offered employment to Amcor employees on the same terms and conditions, employees were still entitled to redundancy payments.

Law firm Clayton Utz said, the Full Federal Court found: ‘Under the Amcor certified Agreement, an employee was redundant when Amcor no longer required any person to perform the work which the employee had up to that point been doing.

‘Since Amcor no longer needed the employees or anyone else to perform those jobs, they were redundant.’

It didn’t matter that the employees were doing exactly the same tasks for Paper Australia that they did for Amcor.

The Federal Government believes that employees should only receive redundancy payments if they become unemployed through no fault of their own. But in the case of Amcor no one was unemployed.

The Federal Workplace Relations Minister, Kevin Andrews, said that in the Change and Redundancy Test Case before the AIRC, the ACTU and employer groups have agreed that when employees are offered employment on ‘substantially similar terms and conditions’, after a transmission of business, they won’t be entitled to redundancy payments.

Gribbles

The Full Federal Court decision found that Radiography company Gribbles was bound by the Private Radiology - Victoria Award, and required to make redundancy payments to four of its employees, even though Gribbles was not named as a party to the Award.

Under the Federal Workplace Relations Act, Gribbles was found to be a successor to another radiology business MDIG.

Gribbles carried out its business in clinics previously occupied by MDIG.

The law firm representing Gribbles, Clayton Utz, said the Full Federal Court found Gribbles to be a successor because it ‘assumed the business activities conducted at the clinic by MDIG’.

Also, the third party that operated the clinics at which Gribbles provided services ‘had conferred on Gribbles all the rights and facilities it required to operate the radiology services which MDIG had previously provided’.

The Federal Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews said this was a concern because there was ‘no commercial connection between Gribbles and the outgoing employer, except both were involved at different times with a third party who licensed them to use the premises and equipment’.

 

 

 

Post details