Resources: Blogs

Vexed variation


The FWC, COVID-19 and variations to redundancy pay

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has a vital role to play in the management of the current COVID-19 pandemic as it continues to impact employment relationships across the country.

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has a vital role to play in the management of the current COVID-19 pandemic as it continues to impact employment relationships across the country.

One aspect of the FWC’s role is the determination of applications by employers to reduce the amount of redundancy pay payable to employees.

In making such determinations, the FWC is tasked with exercising its discretion based on the facts and circumstances of the employer. Where an employer claims that it cannot afford to pay redundancy pay, it must able to demonstrate that fact to the satisfaction of the FWC.

In two recent applications for redundancy pay variation, two separate employers claimed that they were experiencing financial hardship as a result of COVID-19 and could therefore not afford to pay their redundant employees the full amount of redundancy pay they were entitled to receive.

Interestingly, the outcomes for the employers were different, with one application being granted and one being rejected.

In Mason Architectural Joinery Pty Ltd [2020] FWC 1897, the employer argued that it was experiencing significant financial hardship as a result of COVID-19 and had already taken many steps to reduce its overheads, such as selling a company car and reducing spending. The employer also advised the FWC that it was required to make two employees redundant and its application to vary redundancy pay related to one of those employees.

In determining the matter, FWC took into account the evidence of the employer, including that it had lost work and had gone some months between being paid for jobs. The FWC also considered the employee’s circumstances. Specifically, that he had received payment for notice, accrued annual leave and accrued rostered days off on termination of his employment. He had also secured new work at a higher rate of pay.

The FWC was satisfied the employer was experiencing significant financial stress and could not afford to pay the employee’s full redundancy pay. The employee’s redundancy payment was reduced from seven to one week’s pay.

In Worthington Industries Pty Ltd v Ablahad, Treloar and Subair [2020] FWC 1912, the employer applied to the FWC to vary the redundancy pay of three employees from four weeks’ pay to one week’s pay.

The employer claimed that all areas of its business (aside from its work in the rail industry) had been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and that there was an increase in competition. The employer argued that, as a result, it could not afford to pay the employees their full redundancy pay entitlement.

In dealing with the application, the FWC asked the employer to provide further material in support of its application, including a breakdown outlining how much of its alleged financial difficulty was due to the COVID-19 pandemic and how much was due to competition.

The employer responded with estimates of its projected downturn in sales and noted that it was unlikely that its landlord would be responsive to requests for a reduction in rent.

In a telephone conference with the FWC, a representative of the employer said that while the employer had money in the bank to pay the redundant employees their redundancy pay at the time, the employer would very soon be dealing with a deficit and she did not know how serious the employer’s cash flow problems could become.

The FWC brought to the employer’s attention the Federal Government’s JobKeeper Scheme and suggested the employer ascertain its and its employees’ eligibility to participate in the scheme. The FWC proposed staying the matter to enable the employer to investigate the scheme further.

However, the employer pressed for a decision on its application in the interests of providing certainty for those involved.

In reaching its decision, the FWC acknowledged the difficult circumstances of all of the parties but found the employer was in a position to pay the employees their redundancy pay and should do so. It rejected the employer’s applications.

Lessons for employers

Employers seeking to make such applications based on financial hardship resulting from COVID-19 should ensure that they are able to clearly demonstrate that their current position of financial hardship would make it impossible for them to pay the full redundancy pay entitlement.

Further, these decisions demonstrate that:

  1. the exercise of the FWC’s discretion can vary from case to case; and
  2. projected financial hardship is unlikely to satisfy the FWC that an employer cannot pay redundancy pay at the time it is due.


Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Similar articles

FWC warns that offers of redeployment should not be based on assumptions

Pride & Prejudice

An employee’s dismissal will not be a case of genuine redundancy if it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the employee to be redeployed within the employer’s enterprise or one of its associated entities.


Secure Jobs, Better Pay: 6 June 2023 - key changes for employers on this date

The passing of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 (Cth) has resulted in several significant changes to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). With some of these changes already in force, employers must now turn their minds to 6 June 2023 – the date of which the next wave of amendments will take effect.


Redundancies and the skills matrix

The Matrix is a system, Neo

When implementing redundancies, it is critical that the process for selecting employees for redundancy is a transparent and objective one. A skills matrix can assist employers in this regard by creating clear and objective criteria against which employees are to be assessed.


Commission confirms inappropriate touching constituted sexual harassment warranting summary dismissal

‘Scuse you

Sexual harassment in the workplace has been the subject of significant reform over the past few years, with an even greater onus on employers now to take proactive measures to minimise or eliminate the risk of sexual harassment in connection with work.


Employers delay sinks bid for injunctive relief

Speak now

When seeking to enforce a restraint, it is important that employers seek to enforce the restraint in a timely manner to prevent future or an ongoing breach. Any delay will be considered by the courts when assessing whether it is reasonable to enforce the restraint.


Two-year post-employment restraint on hairdresser found to be unreasonable

Splitting hairs

When it comes to drafting post-employment restraints in employment contracts, it is important for employers to consider the purpose of the restraint and whether or not the restraint reasonably serves that purpose.


Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.