The applicant union applied for assistance to resolve a dispute with respondent regarding the eligibility of its member, a Parking and Information Officer, for severance payments after the member's job was abolished. The key questions to be answered included whether the role of Community Patrol Officer was suitable alternative employment under the City of Stirling Inside Workforce Agreement 2019, and if so, whether the member was entitled to reject the offer and be paid a redundancy payment.

Commissioner Walkington determined that the test for assessing whether an alternative position is suitable alternative employment is an objective one. The applicant argued that the role of Community Patrol Officer was not suitable alternative employment because it was significantly different from the Parking and Information Officer role, involving a broader range of duties and addressing anti-social and criminal behaviour. The respondent, however, contended that the two roles were similar in classification, salary, and status.

The Commissioner found that the role of Community Patrol Officer was not similar to the Parking and Information Officer role. The Parking and Information Officer role had a specific focus on enforcing parking rules and regulations, while the Community Patrol Officer role had a broader focus on addressing crime and antisocial behaviour, requiring interaction with people in a variety of situations. The Commissioner concluded that the scope and responsibilities of the Parking and Information Officer were less than those of the Community Patrol Officer.

Commissioner Walkington found that the respondent had repudiated the applicant member’s employment contract by failing to provide suitable alternative employment, and therefore had terminated her employment. However, the Commissioner found that a determination of redundancy entitlements fell outside of the jurisdiction of the Commission.

The decision can be read here.