1. The Respondent, Mr Scott Gregory, is directed to file and serve a written response to the attached application to vary redundancy pay, including any witness statements/evidence in support, copying in the Applicant, by no later than 4:00pm (AEST) 14 November 2025. This can be done either using the Form F1 (found on the Commission's website) or by a written document (using Microsoft Word or PDF)"

• [7] Both parties filed submissions in line with the directions.

• [8] The Respondent submits that the new position as an "Announcer" had a significant commute of driving an additional 19 km with substantial traffic in comparison to his commute for his current position, where his work site was located 5 km away. The Respondent also submitted that his new roster would be 9am to 4pm in comparison with his substantive position of working a roster from 9.30am to 5.30pm.

• [9] The Respondent submits these differences would have imposed a significant personal burden and would have disrupted his usual work-life balance. Specifically, the Respondent submits his refusal of the deployment was not 'out of unwillingness to work', but rather, he could not meet his parenting responsibilities as a single parent, specifically, he would be unable to pick up and drop off his children.

• [10] The Respondent also submits that the proposed Announcer role was significantly different to his skillsets as a Performer and stunt driver, contending that he struggled with his proposed position to the point of seeking assistance at the hospital. I note that no medical evidence or other evidence was filed in support of any of these contentions.

• [11] The Respondent also made submissions about the payment of long service leave and payment in lieu of notice. These are not issues that are within the scope of this matter and I have no power to deal with those issues.

• [12] It is well established that the question of whether the position offered was acceptable alternative employment must be "determined on an objective basis" and that "mere rejection of the alternative employment does not make employment objectively unacceptable."[3]

• [13] The Full Bench in Australian Chamber of Manufacturers v Derole Nominees Pty Ltd[4] held:

"Alternative employment accepted by the employee (and its corollary, alternative employment acceptable to the employee) cannot be an appropriate application of the words because that meaning would give an employee an unreasonable and uncontrollable opportunity to reject the new employment in order to receive redundancy pay; the exemption provision would be without practical effect.

Yet, the use of the qualification 'acceptable' is a clear indication that it is not any employment which complies but that which meets the relevant standard. In our opinion there are obvious elements of such a standard including the work being of a like nature, the location being not unreasonably distant; the pay arrangements complying with award requirements. There will probably be others."[5]

• [14] As put by Watson SDP in Feltex Australia Pty Ltd v Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union of Australia:[6]

"[89] I accept the proposition advanced by Feltex Australia that acceptable alternative employment is not necessarily identical employment and that the AIRC has previously found alternative employment to be acceptable notwithstanding inconvenience to employees and some detrimental alteration to the terms and conditions of employment."

• [15] In a similar vein, the Full Bench in Clothing and Allied Trade Union of Australia v Hot Tuna Pty Ltd[7] found that the determination of whether alternative employment is acceptable will involve a consideration of such matters as pay levels, hours of work, seniority, fringe benefits, workload and speed, job security and other matters including the location of the employment and travelling time.

• [16] In Sodexo Australia Pty Ltd T/A Sodexo,[8] Deputy President Sams considered various authorities in respect of the question of what constitutes "other acceptable employment" and helpfully summarised the principles in the following terms:

"•the test of what constitutes 'acceptable employment' is an objective one. It does not mean it must be acceptable to the employee.

• acceptable employment' is not identical employment, as no two jobs could be exactly the same.

• an employee must meaningfully cooperate with the employer in exploring or considering options for alternative positions.

• an employees prima facie entitlement to redundancy pay may be at risk if the employee refuses a role or position, which is found to be objectively 'acceptable.

• the acceptance of alternative employment by one or more persons in a group of redundant employees does not necessarily make the alternative employment acceptable for all of them. Each employee's individual circumstances must be taken into account.

• There are a range of factors of varying weight, according to an employee's particular circumstances, which may be taken into account to assess the acceptability of alternative employment.[9]

• [17] Having objectively considered all the relevant factors, I am satisfied that the Applicant obtained other acceptable employment for the Respondent within the meaning of s.120(1)(b)(i).

• [18] I accept that the position as "Announcer" based at the "Sea World" site was objectively an offer of acceptable alternative employment, considering:

1. the role of "Performer" was within the same classification under the relevant Award; > > 2. the hourly rate of pay was identical; > > 3. the hours of work for the role offered remained full time; > > 4. though the site at which the Respondent was offered employment was some 19 km further than the 5 km previously travelled, it would have been a reasonable distance to travel to work; and > > 5. e. the Respondent would have maintained his continuity of employment.

• [19] Having considered that section 120 of the Act is applicable, I must consider whether it is appropriate to reduce the amount of redundancy pay payable to the Respondent. As outlined earlier, this is a matter of discretion which is to be exercised having regard to all of the relevant circumstances of the particular matter.

• [20] In respect of the Respondent's circumstances being his carer responsibilities, I find that while there should be some reduction, the amount will not be reduced to zero. While the offer was an offer of acceptable alternative employment, I accept that the Respondent, Mr Scott Gregory, had carer responsibilities that affected his hours of work under his new work roster.

• [21] I am satisfied that it is appropriate to exercise power to reduce the redundancy amount and have determined that the redundancy payment should be reduced to an entitlement of four (4) weeks' pay, being an amount of $5,175.38. An Order to that effect is issued in conjunction with this decision. [10]

[3] Spotless Services Australia Limited [2013] FWC 4484; Australian Chamber of Manufacturers v Derole Nominees Pty Ltd (1990) 140 IR 128.

[4] Australian Chamber of Manufacturers v Derole Nominees Pty Ltd (1990) 140 IR 128.

[6] PR974699.

[7] (1988) 27 IR 226.

[8] [2016] FWC 4012.

[10] PR794372.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer