I have just discovered that although super is paid on annual leave, it is not paid on annual leave that is paid out upon termination. This seems unfair and to make no sense, and that there is also an easy way to get around this rule.
Let's say an employee has 4 weeks annual leave accrued, and is required to give two weeks' notice. Presumably, they could take their leave, and then halfway through, give notice to their employer. Simply by being aware of this rule, they would receive more payment via super than someone who just received their unused annual leave upon termination.
I am interested to know why this rule exists and if there is any plausible justification for it, if anyone else thinks its unfair or nonsensical, and whether an employee who takes annual leave and then resigns is rorting the system or simply being savvy.
33,748 views
2 replies