| Summary |
DISPUTE – Parties disputed interpretation, application or operation of guarantee of employment clause (“Clause”) in employment agreement (“EA”) – Applicant challenged technical redundancy claiming termination of employment by redundancy breached clause in EA – Clause an assurance given by applicant’s previous employer (“A”) to union – Clause expressly term of applicant’s EA at time of redundancy – Authority found for dispute to be resolved in favour of applicant, redundancy must have occurred for reasons “directly caused” by technological change – Applicant argued over long period technology affected workplace gradually until accumulation of changes responsible for redundancy – Applicant sought to link technological changes to when A first announced intention to introduce new computer equipment – Respondent argued clause did not apply to changes passively absorbed or accommodated as result of ongoing technological developments in commerce and industry generally – Authority found unlikely introduction of computers 25 years earlier still had direct flow-on consequences to positions of employment – Found improbable when guarantee of employment first given, anyone could have contemplated full extent and variety of technological change that would occur over next 25 years – Authority found individually or collectively such technological change not proximate or operative cause of disestablishment of applicant’s position – Found redundancy directly attributable to review of applicant’s division by respondent – Authority accepted respondent’s argument need for restructuring driven by cost reductions, operational efficiency, and improvement of customer service – Authority concluded strongest and most immediate link to redundancy was reorganisation of work methods and division of work ; technological change not primary force causing redundancy |