Can company change redundancy policy?

[Minor_Threat]

So the mob I work for has announced a change to the company redundancy policy (obviously not in favour of the person being made redundant), quite dodgy I believe as it is well known that there are a lot of redundancies coming.

Can they do this? I am quite sure the "details" of the redundancy policy are not contained within my contract, however I was under the impression that the policies in place at the time of commencing employment would apply.

Is anyone knowledgeable in these matters?

[Ron Burgundy]

My understanding is that if you have an EA those provisions would be outlined in that document and would generally (but not always) override anything in your contract anyway. If not, as long as it meets the Fair Work Ombudsman redundancy provisions they can pretty much do what they like.

[TheNuclearOne]

This is the page you need in easy to understand terms.

http://www.fairwork.gov.au/Ending-employment/redundancy

[Tongueboy]

Just spread your cheeks and be prepared to be shafted.

[yoyo]

Senior flex

[Minor_Threat]

This is the page you need in easy to understand terms.

http://www.fairwork.gov.au/Ending-employment/redundancy
This page doesn't really answer my question.


Just spread your cheeks and be prepared to be shafted.Thanks mate, this is pretty much the sentiment of this mob.

Basically they have capped redundancy severance payments after 5 years of service. Too bad to everyone else that has 5+ years under their belt.

[coalesce]

The cynic in me says that if they have bothered to announce a change in policy, it is probably because they know what they can legally get away with. If they were complete cowboys they would just have tried to do something dodgy without pre-announcing it.

The lot I used to work for were masters of this kind of strategy - if there was an innocuous announcement of a change to something, you knew it was because there was something else coming we weren't going to like...

[jimandr]

My understanding is that if you have an EA those provisions would be outlined in that document and would generally (but not always) override anything in your contract anyway. If not, as long as it meets the Fair Work Ombudsman redundancy provisions they can pretty much do what they like.

I think this is the right answer. Redundancy provisions are usually in an Enterprise Agreement.

But, this very circumstance is the reason why unions will continue to exist. Individuals simply do not have any power to negotiate redundancy conditions, while an organised group can do so on behalf of the workforce.

To some extent the health of the employer is also important. If we are dealing with a large company who have simply identified a business need to reduce staff, they will want to encourage existing staff to take the package, so the package will be good and might get better.

If you have a company in deep trouble making a last ditch effort to stay in business, the first offer might be the only offer.

MT, I hope you don't work for a Nathan Tinkler business. If you do, take what you can get now.

[IanO]

The company I work for has changed the redundancy payout policy twice in the past 5 years, and never in favour of the employee (of course). As long as they meet Govt guidelines then they can do what they like it seems.

[Minor_Threat]

I think this is the right answer. Redundancy provisions are usually in an Enterprise Agreement.

But, this very circumstance is the reason why unions will continue to exist. Individuals simply do not have any power to negotiate redundancy conditions, while an organised group can do so on behalf of the workforce.

To some extent the health of the employer is also important. If we are dealing with a large company who have simply identified a business need to reduce staff, they will want to encourage existing staff to take the package, so the package will be good and might get better.

If you have a company in deep trouble making a last ditch effort to stay in business, the first offer might be the only offer.

MT, I hope you don't work for a Nathan Tinkler business. If you do, take what you can get now.

Yes it is a very large company, it is quite odd because it targets a certain range of employees employed for 'x' duration. Before that period old policy applies, < 5 year employees not affected anyway.


The company I work for has changed the redundancy payout policy twice in the past 5 years, and never in favour of the employee (of course). As long as they meet Govt guidelines then they can do what they like it seems.
Yes they are very keen to point out that it meets and surpasses the government guidelines, however it is substantially less than the previous policy.. :roll:

[BenM]

It's crap isn't it. I reckon what's in your contract when you sign up should be the deal - don't get why employers are allowed to change it without repercussions. At the very least if the change disadvantages the employee they should get the chance to renegotiate other stuff.

A previous employer of mine changed the commission structure partway through my employment, so that we had to forfeit entire months of commission if we didn't make targets etc (which was not what was in my contract) and the targets were set arbitrarily - often unattainable. I didn't hang round too long after that, it cost me a fair bit and my commissions were only small fry compared to some.

[markTHEblake]

To be fair, redundancy requirements are there to protect both the employer and the employee. In some cases (and obviously not all) a company may not be able to survive if there were no provisions for redundancy. Surely none of you would prefer to see your company liquidate if there was no option for them to let go of some of the workforce.

At least some of you have this protection, have you considered that any company less than 15 people does not have to provide any redundancy payments. My employer can send me on my bike any time with 4 weeks notice for no reason, and I can be made to work that to completion. It does not matter if i have been there 6 months or 20 years. That should keep one on their toes, right! :-)

The intent of redundancy is not an entitlement for a extended holiday at the ex-bosses expense, its to help you out if it takes you a while to find another job.

[Minor_Threat]

To be fair, redundancy requirements are there to protect both the employer and the employee. In some cases (and obviously not all) a company may not be able to survive if there were no provisions for redundancy. Surely none of you would prefer to see your company liquidate if there was no option for them to let go of some of the workforce.

At least some of you have this protection, have you considered that any company less than 15 people does not have to provide any redundancy payments. My employer can send me on my bike any time with 4 weeks notice for no reason, and I can be made to work that to completion. It does not matter if i have been there 6 months or 20 years. That should keep one on their toes, right! :-)

The intent of redundancy is not an entitlement for a extended holiday at the ex-bosses expense, its to help you out if it takes you a while to find another job.
Not sure where anyone has debated the intent of redundancies? It is obvious though in the world of stock price, Lean manufacturing, Efficiency, Synergy blah blah that the average workers efforts over a long period are not appreciated. I can guarantee that CEO or even the level below won't be missing out if things go pear shaped.

No need for the violin with this mob they are an ASX 50 company with 10 of 1000's of employees.

[gameboy]

more details here on redundancy benefits

http://www.fairwork.gov.au/Ending-employment/Redundancy/redundancy-pay-and-entitlements