Hypotheticals by Manny Wood. Published in the Coffs Coast Advocate on 27 August 2016.
Linda gets a job at Big Mart Pty Ltd in August 2007. She begins as a casual employee working different hours on different days each week, depending on when she is needed. Linda is fast learner and a hard worker, so she is soon recognised by her manager, Howard, as an employee he can rely on.
In October 2008, Howard starts giving Linda regular shifts on the same days each week. For the next six years she works 24 hours per week, on a set roster.
In October 2012, Linda is offered a permanent, full time position. She will no longer receive 25% casual loading, but she will work more hours and receive paid annual leave and sick leave benefits. Linda happily accepts.
However, in July 2016, just after her 45th birthday, Linda’s manager gives her a letter from head office stating that her Big Mart store is moving to a new, smaller location. As a result, Linda has been identified as surplus to the requirements of Big Mart and her position is now redundant, effective immediately.
The letter goes on to state that Linda will be paid, in addition to any accrued annual leave, the equivalent of seven weeks pay as a redundancy entitlement. Linda is worried about finding a new job within seven weeks and decides to seek legal advice about her entitlements.
Linda’s solicitor informs her that, because she worked regular and systematic hours as a casual employee since October 2007, she may be entitled to long service leave and additional redundancy pay. Linda should also have been given more notice of her redundancy. Her Solicitor sends a letter to Big Mart demanding:
- 5 weeks’ pay in lieu of notice of termination,
- A further 6 weeks’ redundancy pay, and
- 6.5 weeks’ pay for accrued long service leave.
The letter also warned that Big Mart Pty Ltd may be subject to pecuniary penalties if the matter proceeds to court.
After some back and forth with Big Mart, they agree to pay Linda a further 17.5 weeks’ pay.
