TLDR (but please do):
Hi,
I'm here somewhat out of desperation.
I moved my family and I from SA to QLD for a full-time job (I had already been working for over two years for the company in question, but as a contractor). The role required that I move.
I had agreed in writing that I would be reimbursed some percentage of my moving costs through the fringe benefit tax scheme. However, this never happened. The employer instead have me a single, small, token payment when I pestered them for reimbursement. Thereafter, nothing.
I was made redundant just before Christmas (on the 11th, with my final day being conveniently on the 31st so that I was not employed for more than a year). When I questioned the remaining monies owed, I was told it was no longer relevant because "that was an agreement with an employee and you will no longer be an employee".
I sought legal help, but that was a huge mistake. I sunk another few thousand into James McConvil & Associates, only for their argument to be dismissed with embarrassing speed when brought before the Fair Workers Commission. Basically, the argument hinged on unfair dismissal, but the employer is a small business, so the rules didn't apply. My original complaint - that I was owed monies from moving costs - was lost and was not relevant to the FWC.
I decided to do this on my own, if at all. I rang the Fair Workers Ombudsman and they suggested perhaps section 325 of the Fair Work Act might be relevant:
Reading this, I can't help but think I shouldn't have incurred any costs for moving. It says right there in 1A(a) that I shouldn't have had to pay monies in connection with employment. I moved to QLD for the job, fullstop.
Am I reading this wrong?
I'd appreciate any help provided here.
Thanks
- moved interstate for a job on my own dime, but with an agreement in writing that I would be reimbursed for a percentage thereof
- pestered employer for payment the entire time I was employed with them
- employer only made a single, token payment
- was made redundant just before Christmas 2018
- employer refused to acknowledge that they still owed me for moving costs
- employer is a small business
Hi,
I'm here somewhat out of desperation.
I moved my family and I from SA to QLD for a full-time job (I had already been working for over two years for the company in question, but as a contractor). The role required that I move.
I had agreed in writing that I would be reimbursed some percentage of my moving costs through the fringe benefit tax scheme. However, this never happened. The employer instead have me a single, small, token payment when I pestered them for reimbursement. Thereafter, nothing.
I was made redundant just before Christmas (on the 11th, with my final day being conveniently on the 31st so that I was not employed for more than a year). When I questioned the remaining monies owed, I was told it was no longer relevant because "that was an agreement with an employee and you will no longer be an employee".
I sought legal help, but that was a huge mistake. I sunk another few thousand into James McConvil & Associates, only for their argument to be dismissed with embarrassing speed when brought before the Fair Workers Commission. Basically, the argument hinged on unfair dismissal, but the employer is a small business, so the rules didn't apply. My original complaint - that I was owed monies from moving costs - was lost and was not relevant to the FWC.
I decided to do this on my own, if at all. I rang the Fair Workers Ombudsman and they suggested perhaps section 325 of the Fair Work Act might be relevant:
325 Unreasonable requirements to spend or pay amount
(1) An employer must not directly or indirectly require an employee to spend, or pay to the employer or another person, an amount of the employee’s money or the whole or any part of an amount payable to the employee in relation to the performance of work, if:
(a) the requirement is unreasonable in the circumstances; and
(b) for a payment—the payment is directly or indirectly for the benefit of the employer or a party related to the employer.
Note: This subsection is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4‑1).
(1A) An employer (the prospective employer) must not directly or indirectly require another person (the prospective employee) to spend, or pay to the prospective employer or any other person, an amount of the prospective employee’s money if:
(a) the requirement is in connection with employment or potential employment of the prospective employee by the prospective employer; and
(b) the requirement is unreasonable in the circumstances; and
(c) the payment is directly or indirectly for the benefit of the prospective employer or a party related to the prospective employer.
Note: This subsection is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4‑1).
(2) The regulations may prescribe circumstances in which a requirement referred to in subsection (1) or (1A) is or is not reasonable
(1) An employer must not directly or indirectly require an employee to spend, or pay to the employer or another person, an amount of the employee’s money or the whole or any part of an amount payable to the employee in relation to the performance of work, if:
(a) the requirement is unreasonable in the circumstances; and
(b) for a payment—the payment is directly or indirectly for the benefit of the employer or a party related to the employer.
Note: This subsection is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4‑1).
(1A) An employer (the prospective employer) must not directly or indirectly require another person (the prospective employee) to spend, or pay to the prospective employer or any other person, an amount of the prospective employee’s money if:
(a) the requirement is in connection with employment or potential employment of the prospective employee by the prospective employer; and
(b) the requirement is unreasonable in the circumstances; and
(c) the payment is directly or indirectly for the benefit of the prospective employer or a party related to the prospective employer.
Note: This subsection is a civil remedy provision (see Part 4‑1).
(2) The regulations may prescribe circumstances in which a requirement referred to in subsection (1) or (1A) is or is not reasonable
Reading this, I can't help but think I shouldn't have incurred any costs for moving. It says right there in 1A(a) that I shouldn't have had to pay monies in connection with employment. I moved to QLD for the job, fullstop.
Am I reading this wrong?
I'd appreciate any help provided here.
Thanks
