Can an employer change the terms of the redundancy package offered to an employee?

[Lince]

My boss offered a full time employee two options: one day part time a week or 9 weeks notice period if she decided for redundancy. She obviously couldn't accept the 1 day a week so he told her its redundancy then.
After as she didn't agree to take days off to reduce her annual leave to 10 days from 20 days -obviously my boss wanted to pay her less at the end of her employment- he changed his mind and said she now has 4 weeks notice.
I feel really bad for her but my boss has requested me to find legal advice to cover himself on this. Is this legal?

[Cottoneyes]

Was anything given to the employee about the package being offered that did not state it was a draft only?

Also, by the notice period, do you actually mean the redundancy pay? Check NES 9 if you are unsure of the difference between the 2, however 4 or 5 weeks notice is the standard notice period and highly unusual for most organistions to pay more than this in notice period (and it can effect the taxation of the payment to the employee as well)

[dcemprel]

No it's not legal and your boss is in for a world of pain, as you've written "she" I would advise "the boss" to expect and budget for an EEO and unfair/unlawful dismissal claim. And damages are uncapped in HREOC.

[Lince]

Originally Posted by Cottoneyes

Was anything given to the employee about the package being offered that did not state it was a draft only?

Also, by the notice period, do you actually mean the redundancy pay? Check NES 9 if you are unsure of the difference between the 2, however 4 or 5 weeks notice is the standard notice period and highly unusual for most organistions to pay more than this in notice period (and it can effect the taxation of the payment to the employee as well)

The agreement was verbal but the boss then sent an email to the employee confirming this -9 weeks notice- to her provided she accepted to take the annual leave he wanted her to take. The employee told the boss the annual leave matter was not discussed on the meeting therefore it should not affect the offer the employee received when told of the redundancy.
As the company employs less than 15 employees, the employee is not entitled to redundancy pay.
The 9 weeks notice was offered as good will thing as per the employee has been working for the company for 6.5 yrs on full time basis.
I believed it was also offered as the boss will have to look for a replacement as it isn't easy to find one for 1 day a week all that quick.

[Qld IR Consultant]

I would be advising the boss to expect some pain to come from this. Especially if she is a member of a trade union.

[FWI]

Rundundancy intitlements can opperate totally different to that required by the NES. Depending on which state you are in and what the PMA (Pre modern Award) deemed payable in redundancy matters, could imake redundancy entitlements payable irrespective of the number of employees.

Also, requiring the employee to 'take annual leave' could also bring about a claim as the request could be 'unreasonable' and open up a claim to recover annual leave entitlements.

But it also needs to be clear are you talking about notice of termination or intent to terminate or redundancy an notice of termination, but again redundancy has different effects depending on the state you are in.

The statatory obligatin is that defined under the instrument that covers the employment, the NES sets the minimum, and an agreement may infact provide a higher notice period, so there are a number of factors to be clarified here.