| Summary |
UNJUSTIFIED DISADVANTAGE – Applicant claimed respondent failed to calculate pay in accordance with employment agreement, specifically by wrongly taking into account superannuation when determining total remuneration – Respondent wanted to introduce new approach to remuneration – Applicant’s pay reviewed under old system - Assessed as entitled to $2,000 pay increase – Informed by respondent if did not accept new terms would remain on existing salary – Applicant declined new terms - Employment agreement required annual salary review – Fair and reasonable employer who failed to remunerate employee in accordance with results of review disadvantaged employee – Disadvantage would only be justified in unusual circumstances because, having committed itself contractually to a review, a fair and reasonable employer would ordinarily implement results – Applicant was refused pay increase because declined new employment agreement, this constituted breach of employment agreement – No point having review if any pay rise conditional on agreement to new terms and conditions of employment – No reference to need to agree new or amended employment agreement as part of remuneration setting policy – Applicant entitled to have remuneration increased – For subsequent years respondent entitled to set remuneration taking into account superannuation because policies changed – Applicant could have no legitimate expectation superannuation would still not be taken into account – Respondent to pay salary increase of $2,000 per annum with effect from date of review, plus interest – Length of service before disadvantage seven years three months – Managerial position |