CANCER SUFERRER DENIED REDUNDENCY

[AussieMark]

Cancer sufferer 'denied redundancy'

A MAN dying of cancer was denied a $50,000 redundancy payout when his employer discovered his illness was terminal, the federal industrial court heard today.

The Australian Industrial Relations Commission was told Boral Plasterboard, in Port Melbourne, had offered Fernando Pozo, 52, a redundancy package when he became ill about 18 months ago.

But the court heard the company withdrew the offer when it discovered Mr Pozo's condition was terminal, saying he was eligible for a death benefit instead.

The plant's 70 workers went on strike yesterday, vowing not to return until the company reversed the decision.

But Boral called on the AIRC to force an end to the strike, saying it was a breach of the workers' enterprise agreement and was costing the company $250,000 a day.

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union said the company's denial of Mr Pozo's redundancy, after 22 years of service, was a "heartless act by a major corporation".

But Louise Russell, for the company, said the death benefit - which could be paid out before he actually died - was the proper form of payment.

"Nobody is underplaying the circumstances he is in but this is clearly the case where there is a benefit ... and this is exactly the case that benefit was provided for," she told the court.

"Clearly his position is not redundant and he is not entitled to a redundancy payment."

The death benefit referred to by the company is worth about the same as the original redundancy offer.

But the union argues Mr Pozo's family would receive the benefit anyway through his superannuation scheme.

Ms Russell said the company was fighting the claim as a matter of principle, as it did not want to set a precedent for other workers.

She said workers at the plant had failed to follow agreed dispute resolution procedures and a union organiser had said they were "holding a knife" to the company's chin.

But CFMEU industrial officer Jesse Maddison said Mr Pozo's plight was of serious concern for workers and, given the circumstances, the dispute resolution procedures were "somewhat less significant".

He said Mr Pozo had declined the original redundancy offer because at that stage, he had not known his illness was terminal.

Mr Maddison told the court Boral had recently posted a 47 per cent increase in profits and could easily afford the redundancy payout.

The company had offered to help Mr Pozo with cleaning and gardening but "these are not things that are of use to Mr Pozo", Mr Maddison said.

Commissioner Gareth Grainger recommended the workers return to work and that the company "recognise the unique circumstances of Mr Pozo's case and be prepared to exercise significant compassion" in negotiating a payment to him.

[stormchazer]

Cancer sufferer 'denied redundancy'

A MAN dying of cancer was denied a $50,000 redundancy payout when his employer discovered his illness was terminal, the federal industrial court heard today.

The Australian Industrial Relations Commission was told Boral Plasterboard, in Port Melbourne, had offered Fernando Pozo, 52, a redundancy package when he became ill about 18 months ago.

But the court heard the company withdrew the offer when it discovered Mr Pozo's condition was terminal, saying he was eligible for a death benefit instead.

The plant's 70 workers went on strike yesterday, vowing not to return until the company reversed the decision.

But Boral called on the AIRC to force an end to the strike, saying it was a breach of the workers' enterprise agreement and was costing the company $250,000 a day.

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union said the company's denial of Mr Pozo's redundancy, after 22 years of service, was a "heartless act by a major corporation".

But Louise Russell, for the company, said the death benefit - which could be paid out before he actually died - was the proper form of payment.

"Nobody is underplaying the circumstances he is in but this is clearly the case where there is a benefit ... and this is exactly the case that benefit was provided for," she told the court.

"Clearly his position is not redundant and he is not entitled to a redundancy payment."

The death benefit referred to by the company is worth about the same as the original redundancy offer.

But the union argues Mr Pozo's family would receive the benefit anyway through his superannuation scheme.

Ms Russell said the company was fighting the claim as a matter of principle, as it did not want to set a precedent for other workers.

She said workers at the plant had failed to follow agreed dispute resolution procedures and a union organiser had said they were "holding a knife" to the company's chin.

But CFMEU industrial officer Jesse Maddison said Mr Pozo's plight was of serious concern for workers and, given the circumstances, the dispute resolution procedures were "somewhat less significant".

He said Mr Pozo had declined the original redundancy offer because at that stage, he had not known his illness was terminal.

Mr Maddison told the court Boral had recently posted a 47 per cent increase in profits and could easily afford the redundancy payout.

The company had offered to help Mr Pozo with cleaning and gardening but "these are not things that are of use to Mr Pozo", Mr Maddison said.

Commissioner Gareth Grainger recommended the workers return to work and that the company "recognise the unique circumstances of Mr Pozo's case and be prepared to exercise significant compassion" in negotiating a payment to him.

Not sure how to look at this thing. On one side, the company is correct, but I think they did not consider the public relations disaster they were creating. Cancer is a severe emotional issue and they would have been better served to pay the package.

[opera ghost]

May I ask what redundancy package is before I reply further? What is it's normal use?

[AussieMark]

Its like a pay out package