| Summary |
DISPUTE – Applicant claimed respondent erred in calculation of redundancy compensation in settlement agreement - Claimed calculation should include non-superable supplement (“supplement”) applicant received during secondment – Respondent argued contractually obliged to calculate redundancy compensation based on salary and correct calculation did not include supplement – Length of service 25 years – During secondment, applicant received supplement as component of regular salary payments – Applicant raised personal grievance – Parties settled grievance by negotiated agreement – Settlement required payment of redundancy compensation “equivalent to 42 weeks salary” - Applicant argued made redundant from secondment position, not previous substantive provision – Applicant argued inconsistent that respondent included supplement payment for some settlement calculations but not others - Applicant argued contra proferentum rule applied, so when in doubt, meaning construed against respondent as document’s author – Respondent argued longstanding policy to exclude supplement – Respondent argued applicant knew or ought to have known what was excluded in calculation, as was given statement indicating quantum of entitlement - Authority found settlement referred to “salary” – Found supplement not part of a salary payment and was separate and distinct kind of payment – Found applicant seconded but retained option to return to substantive position – Found no evidence substantive position redundant or restructured – Found when seconded position untenable to applicant, applicant elected to leave rather than return to substantive position - Found redundancy structure adopted to facilitate common purpose – Found respondent entitled to exclude supplement from redundancy compensation calculation under settlement – COSTS – In unusual circumstances of case, Authority directed costs to lie where they fall – Senior lecturer |