# LAW-0002 Response

## Answer

For a full-time employee of a national-system employer (not a small business employer), aged under 45, with 6 years of continuous service, whose position is made genuinely redundant:

**(a) Minimum notice of termination: 4 weeks**

**(b) Redundancy pay: 11 weeks of base pay**

## Controlling law

The controlling Act is the **Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)**. The two relevant sections are:

- **Section 117** - minimum period of notice of termination.
- **Section 119** - redundancy pay.

## Working

### (a) Notice of termination - s 117

Section 117(3) sets the minimum notice period by reference to the employee's period of continuous service with the employer at the end of the day notice is given:

| Period of continuous service | Notice period |
|------------------------------|---------------|
| Not more than 1 year | 1 week |
| More than 1 year but not more than 3 years | 2 weeks |
| More than 3 years but not more than 5 years | 3 weeks |
| More than 5 years | 4 weeks |

The employee has 6 years of service, which is "more than 5 years", giving a base notice period of **4 weeks**.

Section 117(2) further provides that the period is increased by 1 week if the employee is over 45 years old and has completed at least 2 years of continuous service. Here the employee is under 45, so the additional week does **not** apply.

The notice period is therefore **4 weeks**. The facts state the employer pays out the notice rather than having the employee work it. Section 117(2)(b) permits payment in lieu of notice; this changes how the notice obligation is satisfied (a payment instead of worked time) but does not change the length of the entitlement, which remains 4 weeks.

### (b) Redundancy pay - s 119

Section 119(2) sets the amount of redundancy pay by reference to the employee's period of continuous service on termination:

| Period of continuous service | Redundancy pay |
|------------------------------|----------------|
| At least 1 year but less than 2 years | 4 weeks |
| At least 2 years but less than 3 years | 6 weeks |
| At least 3 years but less than 4 years | 7 weeks |
| At least 4 years but less than 5 years | 8 weeks |
| At least 5 years but less than 6 years | 10 weeks |
| At least 6 years but less than 7 years | 11 weeks |
| At least 7 years but less than 8 years | 13 weeks |
| At least 8 years but less than 9 years | 14 weeks |
| At least 9 years but less than 10 years | 16 weeks |
| At least 10 years | 12 weeks |

The employee has 6 years of continuous service, which falls in the "at least 6 years but less than 7 years" band, giving **11 weeks** of redundancy pay (paid at the base rate of pay for the employee's ordinary hours of work).

Note the well-known feature of the scale: redundancy pay drops from 16 weeks (9 to less than 10 years) to 12 weeks at 10 years or more. That quirk is not engaged here, but it confirms the scale is being read correctly.

Because the redundancy is genuine, the entitlement is payable; the s 119 scale is the controlling measure of the amount.

## Summary

- **Act:** Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
- **(a) Notice - s 117:** **4 weeks** (more than 5 years' service; no over-45 loading because the employee is under 45). Paid out in lieu, but the entitlement length is unchanged.
- **(b) Redundancy pay - s 119:** **11 weeks** of base pay (at least 6 but less than 7 years' service).

## Note on approach

I worked directly from the two statutory scales in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). For notice (s 117) I applied the four-band service scale, took the top band for "more than 5 years" (4 weeks), and confirmed the over-45 loading in s 117(2) does not apply because the employee is under 45. For redundancy (s 119) I applied the service-based scale and read off the "at least 6 but less than 7 years" band (11 weeks). I noted that payment in lieu of notice satisfies but does not reduce the notice entitlement, and that the redundancy is genuine so the entitlement is payable. This is a benchmarking hypothetical, not legal advice.