Resources: Blog

What is proper notice of termination and when does the exception to redundancy pay apply?


Turn around

Some employers operate exclusively on a continuous rotation of cycling client contracts won and lost regularly, but what does it mean for the employees engaged to perform work under those contracts?


The loss of client contracts can be devastating for businesses – it can also be par for the course.

Some employers operate exclusively on a continuous rotation of cycling client contracts won and lost regularly. Of course, this a perfectly reasonable way of conducting a business, but what does it mean for the employees engaged to perform work under those contracts?

What is the status of their employment if a client contract is lost? And what are their entitlements if their employment is terminated as the result of a lost contract?

These questions were examined in a recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia in the decision of United Voice v Berkeley Challenge Pty Limited [2018] FCA 224.

This matter concerned a group of employees who worked for Berkeley Challenge Pty Limited (Berkeley), part of the Spotless Group of Companies, to provide cleaning and security services at the Sunshine Coast Plaza Shopping Centre.

In August 2014, Spotless was required to re-tender for the cleaning and security services work at the shopping centre and was unsuccessful. As a result, Spotless, on behalf of Berkeley, issued the employees with a “Notification of Loss of Contract.”

The Notification letter informed the employees that Spotless (on behalf of Berkeley) had been unsuccessful in the re-tender process and was required to exit the shopping centre by the end of September 2014. The Notification letter advised that Spotless would attempt to redeploy employees where possible and that the new contractor was keen to receive applications for existing employees. However, in the event that no alternatives presented themselves, the employees’ employment would be terminated at the end of the current contract period as a result of the loss of the contract.

The end date of the contract was slightly delayed, but on 7 October 2014 Berkeley ceased its operations in the shopping centre and the employees it engaged to work there had their employment terminated.

Berkeley had held the contract to provide cleaning and security services to the shopping centre for more than 20 years prior to the end of this contract. The length of service of the employees ranged from four years to 21 years.

On termination, none of the employees were paid redundancy pay.

United Voice acted on behalf of the employees in this case and argued that Berkeley had contravened the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) in that it had failed to give the employees proper notice of the termination of their employment or pay them the redundancy pay to which they were entitled.

Berkeley claimed that the Notification letter was proper notice of termination of employment and that it was not required to pay redundancy pay because the termination of the employees’ employment was “due to the ordinary and customary turnover of labour” – an exception to the obligation to pay redundancy pay found in s119(1) of the FW Act.


Notice of termination of employment

The Federal Court examined the Notification letter against the relevant provisions of the FW Act and found that it was not proper written notice of termination of employment. The Court found that it was primarily notice of the loss of the contract for the work at the shopping centre and contained unclear statements about the future of the employees’ employment. Judge Reeves said, “I do not consider the Notice Letter made it unambiguously clear to the affected employees that their employment with Berkeley was being terminated.”


Redundancy pay entitlement

In regards to Berkeley’s reliance on the “ordinary and customary turnover of labour” exception to paying redundancy pay, the Court reviewed the relevant case law, the evidence put forward by the parties and considered the appropriate interpretation of the exception.

The Court found that in order for the exception to apply, an employer would need to demonstrate that the decision to terminate an employee’s employment with respect to its labour turnover was “both common, or usual, and a matter of long-continued practice” for their business specifically, regardless of what was common or usual for their industry or related companies.

In other words, the employer must be able to demonstrate that it is, and has been for a long time, in the nature of the employer’s own business to experience regular turnover of labour without the need to pay redundancy pay.

The Court found that Berkeley had failed to demonstrate this. Specifically, Berkeley’s contractual relationship with the shopping centre had lasted more than 20 years and the employees had been employed throughout that entire period. In contrast to the requirements of the exceptions, the Court found that “the termination and the connected job redundancies were, for Berkeley, as the employer, uncommon and extraordinary and not a matter of long-continued practice.”

Berkeley did not have a regular turnover of staff and it was not common practice for terminations to occur as the result of a lost contract.

Accordingly, the Court held that the employees were entitled to redundancy pay and Berkeley had contravened the FW Act by not paying them their entitlements.

The Court ordered that Berkeley pay compensation to the employees for both its failure to give proper notice of termination and for failing to pay the redundancy pay which it owed to the employees.


Lessons for employers

There are two main lessons to take away from this case:

  • When providing employees with notice of termination, it should always be written and in unambiguous terms. The employee receiving the notice of termination should be able to understand that their employment is being terminated and when the termination will take effect.
  • Employers should first seek legal advice before pressing ahead with reliance on the exception to pay redundancy pay “due to the ordinary and customary turnover of labour”.


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

Commission finds termination letter sent to inactive email address was not notification of dismissal

You've got mail!

Given the serious nature of matters such as dismissals, employers should, as far as reasonably practicable, communicate such matters in person to ensure that there is no confusion about when the employee was made aware of any issues with their employment.


Fair Work Commission rejects extension of time application after finding that the date of dismissal was made reasonably clear to the employee

Time's Up

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) imposes a strict 21-day time limit for employees to file unfair dismissal applications in the Fair Work Commission. The statutory limit starts from the date the dismissal takes effect.


Fair Work Commission finds dismissal was disproportionate to the gravity of an employee’s heat of the moment remark

You’re bacon me crazy

In the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, the primary remedy is reinstatement. This means the employer is ordered to return the employee to their employment in the position they held immediately prior to their dismissal or another position on no less favourable terms.


Offers of alternative employment in redundancy cases

An offer you can refuse

In most cases of redundancy, employers have an obligation to consult with affected employees about the proposed redundancy and consider whether or not anything can be done to mitigate or minimise the impact on the employee, such as redeployment or obtaining other acceptable employment for the employee.


FWC finds that employee’s employment ended at end of fixed term and was not dismissed

Time goes by so slowly

Access to the unfair dismissal jurisdiction under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is on the basis that the employee is “dismissed” from the employment. A jurisdictional objectional can be raised if the employee has not been actually dismissed by the employer.


Commission finds employer’s suspicion of an employee’s misconduct was not a valid reason for dismissal

Under suspicion

If considering taking disciplinary action due to an employee’s misconduct, it is critical that an employer makes a decision based on wrongdoing as opposed to a mere suspicion of wrongdoing.


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.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.