# Redundancy Ex Gratia Payment Implied Terms in Employment Contract ?



## mac2010 (23 May 2013)

I am at risk of redundancy in my company. I joined the company in 2006. 
There was redundancies paid out in 2007 and 2009 where 6 weeks per year of service was paid.People made redundant in 2012 were paid 5 weeks per year of service. 


The company is offering 4 weeks this time. 


Does the company have any legal obligation to pay me 6 weeks per year of service ? 

Since employees who started after me have been paid 6 weeks in the past does this not mean that it is now implied in my employment contract that I deserve to be treated the same and get 6 weeks ? 


The company is a multi national and the parent company is cash rich.


----------



## Setanta12 (23 May 2013)

Simple answer. No. (Why would you think otherwise?) (Same reason as why your colleagues are paid more for the same job.)


----------



## mac2010 (23 May 2013)

I am not being treated fairly as my colleagues who joined the company after me were given a larger payment in the past.


----------



## mandelbrot (23 May 2013)

mac2010 said:


> I am not being treated fairly as my colleagues who joined the company after me were given a larger payment in the past.



Yes, and they lost their jobs, whereas you on the other hand got to keep yours.


----------



## mathepac (23 May 2013)

Pretty much as above. You have earned extra years' salary and paid extra superannuation contributions to transfer and you will have extra years' of service to use when calculating your lump sum, admittedly at a lower rate. This scenario is not untypical.


----------

