Where a conglomerate business is split and each part continues to function as before with employees performing the same functions on the same terms and conditions for a successor employer, the positions have not become redundant even though the identity of the employer has changed.

If there is a transfer of business under s311(3), a transferring employee would have the required minimum employment period for unfair dismissal protection, and the fact that the last months of employment were as a casual employee could not detract from the minimum employment period achieved through prior service with the old employer.

A change in employer between associated entities or a change in workplace location does not automatically terminate the prior employment relationship or prevent counting of service where there is a transfer of employment within three months.

The word 'arrangement' should be interpreted broadly. For an arrangement to exist, one party must have assumed a moral obligation, or given an assurance or undertaking that it will act in some way.

The transfer of business provisions in the Act are to be broadly interpreted and are not intended to focus on whether the new employer had taken over the business or part thereof but whether there has been a transfer of work between the two employers and the reason for the transfer of that work.

Any application of s.311(5) should focus upon the work done by the transferring employee rather than any broader contemplation of outsourcing any particular business activity or functions. The test is whether the work of the transferring employee had ceased to be outsourced (in-sourced), not whether the new employer had in-sourced all of the transferring work.

The legislative emphasis in s.384(2)(b)(iii) is upon the provision of information to the employee who, as a consequence of the change in employment, loses access to beneficial legislation. In circumstances where the new employer fails to provide information, the employee should generally be entitled to believe that they had not lost any service-based entitlements.

A transfer of employment consequent on a transfer of business may operate to deem service continuous; however, where an employee resigns and is subsequently re-employed (without a transfer of business), the statutory scheme may create an anomaly whereby service is not preserved, though this is a policy matter for the legislature.

Section 384(2)(b)(iii) requires an unambiguous written statement specifically addressing that service with the old employer will not be recognised; a probation period clause in a letter of offer or contract does not satisfy this requirement.

Oral explanation cannot cure or make up for any defect in written notice required by the Act.

An unambiguous statement in a letter of offer might have great significance in circumstances involving a transfer of business where the old and new employers are not associated entities, such that section 384(2)(b)(iii) would be invoked and the period of service with the old employer would not be recognised.

Where an employee transfers to a new employer following a business transfer, prior service with the transferring business counts toward the minimum employment period requirement if the employee was not given written notice prior to commencing employment that the prior service would not be recognised, and the prior employer was a national system employer.