Substantial" roster changes prevent redundancy pay cuts

The FWC has refused to reduce two FIFO workers' redundancy pay, finding that redeployment offers did not amount to "other acceptable employment" because they were given insufficient time to consider roster changes that would also have reduced their time at home.

Ozland Mining Services Pty Ltd applied to the Commission to reduce two dump truck operators' redundancy pay from six weeks and four weeks respectively, to nil.

Both operators worked on a FIFO basis at Miralga Creek in Western Australia, the first of them starting his role in December 2021 on a two-weeks-on, one-week-off roster.

When he relocated to the Gold Coast the following year, a supervisor arranged to move him onto a three-weeks-on, two-weeks-off roster.

Substantial" roster changes prevent redundancy pay cuts

In mid-to-late February this year, Ozland told the operator it would be making him redundant on March 1, and made a redeployment offer on February 19, which he declined.

Ozland offered him redeployment on a two-weeks on, one-week off roster.

The operator told the Commission that on his previous 3/2 roster he did 10 return flights a year, but a 2/1 roster would involve 17 return flights a year.

Like his previous contract, his redeployment offer from Ozland would have only covered the cost of flights between the site and Perth, leaving the operator to cover the cost of the arrangements to travel from the Gold Coast to Perth.

Due to the time required for travel, along with flight departure and arrival times, he would need to arrive in Perth the day before his swing began, which would have required him to pay for a motel overnight.

The change in the roster and the additional travel time would have increased the time he spent away from his family.

He also would have worked more hours and received $16,644 more a year, a portion of which he would have spent on the increased travel and accomodation costs.

Commissioner Pearl Lim ruled that the redeployment offer did not constitute other acceptable employment because "it would have meant more time spent travelling and more time away from home and family", noting that "rosters, and how family friendly they are, are a significant consideration".

Enough time required "to make suitable arrangements"

The other operator worked an eight-days-on, six-days-off roster and Ozland offered her redeployment on a two-weeks-on, one-week-off FIFO basis.

The role offered increased her work hours and wages, but the dump truck operator declined.

Commissioner Lim noted that the redeployment offer would have increased the operator's time on site by six days per swing, while only increasing her time at home by one day.

The commissioner observed that a 2015 Western Australian Education and Health Standing Committee parliamentary inquiry "recognised that rosters of greater compression pose significant risks to workers' mental health and well-being and should be reduced, and even-time rosters encouraged" (see Related Article).

She found the redeployment offer with the altered roster amounted to a "substantial change" compared to the operator's original role and could not be considered "acceptable employment".

Commissioner Lim said that even if she found both redeployment offers acceptable, she still would not have reduced the operators' redundancy pay because Ozland only made the redeployment offers 10 and 11 days before each redundancy took effect, which gave the workers insufficient time to consider the roster changes.

"Where an employer wishes to change the roster pattern for an employee, especially a FIFO employee, there must be enough time given for the worker to make suitable arrangements for their personal circumstances," Commissioner Lim said.

"This is especially so where the change of that roster is to reduce the amount of time spent at home."

Application by Ozland Mining Services Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 1439 (31 May 2024)

Application by Ozland Mining Services Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 1440 (31 May 2024)