Tang v Woollahra Municipal Council [2019] NSWIRComm 1014

Industrial Relations Commission New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Tang v Woollahra Municipal Council [2019] NSWIRComm 1014 Hearing dates: 19 November, 20 December 2018 Date of orders: 22 February 2019 Decision date: 22 February 2019 Jurisdiction: Industrial Relations Commission Before: Murphy C Decision: (1) The unfair dismissal application of Yu Tang is dismissed.

(2) These proceedings are terminated. Catchwords: UNFAIR DISMISSAL – reorganisation of respondent's Finance Department – applicant's position deleted – genuine redundancy – applicant accepted redundancy package – termination of employment not unfair – application dismissed Legislation Cited: Industrial Relations Act 1996 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Yu Tang (Applicant)

Woollahra Municipal Council (Respondent) Representation: The Applicant represented herself with assistance of an interpreter

Mr D Gardner, solicitor, Bartier Perry (Respondent) File Number(s): 2018/00179332

DECISION 1. This is an unfair dismissal application pursuant to section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 by Yu Tang, a former employee of Woollahra Municipal Council. In her application, which was filed in the Office of the Industrial Registrar on 8 June 2018, the applicant stated as follows: As an Accounting officer, my role was to perform a variety of financial accounting tasks within the operational areas of the Finance Section. The accounting functions and tasks that I performed are essential to any business. All the functions and tasks performed by me in the old Finance Structure have been reallocated to the new positions by the re-structure. Although some positions were made redundant, all the functions and tasks are retained. There is no reduction in workload required, and no reduction either in the Council's business. The re-structure merely reorganizes functions and tasks among the positions. Termination to the current employees is unnecessary. The Council have to recruit at least as many people as they have terminated in order to perform equivalent functions and tasks (to keep the business running). Thus, I believe my dismissal by Woollahra Council was unreasonable. 1. In the employer's reply document which was filed by the respondent, Woollahra Municipal Council, it was stated that the applicant had not been dismissed. She had, on 9 May 2018, the day she signed her unfair dismissal application form, signed a written agreement confirming that she had voluntarily entered into, at her request, a redundancy arrangement where she was to take a period of leave and that her last day of employment with the respondent would be 6 July 2018. This occurred following a process of audit and review of the respondent's Finance Department which identified two occupied positions, including the applicant's position of Accounting Officer, as redundant. 2. It was stated that the applicant had agreed to redundancy payments, in addition to all accrued entitlements prescribed by the Local Government (State) Award 2017, including five weeks' pay in lieu of notice and 35 weeks' redundancy pay (instead of the award minimum entitlement of 34 weeks) to assist her transition to alternative employment. 3. The initial issue for determination is whether the applicant was dismissed from her employment as an Accounting Officer with the respondent or, as the respondent has submitted, whether she accepted a redundancy package following a restructure of the respondent's Finance Department.