Sawmill worker loses 16-week redundancy fight on a technicality
A 30-year sawmill worker has lost his fight for an extra 16 weeks of redundancy pay, not on the merits, but on a procedural misstep.
Just weeks after his employer marked three decades of service, Graham Michael Clarke found himself out of a job and short on the payout he believed he was owed. The Fair Work Commission, in a decision handed down on 18 May 2026, dismissed his application. It found he was never covered by the enterprise agreement he relied on, and that even if he had been, he never properly raised the dispute before his employment ended (Clarke v AKD Victoria Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1791).
Clarke started at the Yarram Sawmill in late 1995. Ownership changed hands more than once over the years, but his service kept ticking over. In October 2015, he stepped up into a salaried role as the site's Environmental, Health, Safety and Risk Coordinator, signing an individual contract with then-owner Carter Holt Harvey. When AKD Victoria bought the mill in March 2018, his contract and his continuity of service came along with him.
On 17 October 2025, AKD acknowledged his 30 years on site. A month later, on 18 November, the company announced the mill was closing. Clarke's employment ended on 28 November.
His payout was calculated under the Carter Holt Harvey redundancy policy folded into his 2015 contract, coming to 44 weeks. Clarke argued he was entitled to 60 weeks under the AKD Yarram Collective Enterprise Agreement 2023, plus unused sick leave.
The agreement said it covered "all employees," and Clarke pointed to those two words. But Commissioner Connolly read the clause alongside the rest of the document, which tied coverage to roles classified under the Timber Industry Award 2020. Clarke's salaried coordinator job sat outside those classifications, and he had never completed the competencies the award required. The conclusion was that he wasn't covered.
Even if he had been, the Commission found a second hurdle Clarke didn't clear. The agreement's dispute clause required an employee to first sit down for formal discussions with a supervisor or manager before any matter could be pushed to arbitration. Clarke had texted AKD's HR boss asking for a copy of his contract and the redundancy policy, then handed the matter to lawyers.
That, the Commissioner said, wasn't enough. Asking questions and gathering documents, he noted, isn't the same as formally raising a grievance.
For HR teams, the decision lands two practical reminders. The first is that legacy contracts and policies inherited through a business sale can keep shaping entitlements for years afterwards, especially where continuity of service has been formally recognised. The second is that internal grievance steps matter. Employees who skip straight to lawyers, or who leave it until after their last day, may find the door to arbitration has quietly closed behind them.
Commissioner Connolly acknowledged Clarke's persistence in pursuing what he saw as an injustice. It just wasn't enough to get him through the gate.
