Long-serving worker disputes genuine redundancy after branch closure
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently examined a case where a banking employee of 15 years challenged the genuineness of her redundancy after a branch closure. The case involved assessing whether the employer met their consultation obligations under their enterprise agreement.
The worker argued she wasn't provided sufficient information about a redeployment opportunity at a nearby branch. She maintained that without more detailed information about the role and its impact on her working conditions, she couldn't make an informed decision about accepting the position.
After declining the redeployment offer, her employment ended and she filed an unfair dismissal application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The case focused on whether her redundancy was genuine under section 389 of the Act and if proper consultation requirements were met.
The worker began her employment with St George Bank in August 2009, eventually working as a part-time customer service officer at Bank of Melbourne Pakenham branch for 30 hours weekly. Her employment was covered by the Westpac Group Enterprise Agreement 2023.
Her daily commute involved travelling 170km round trip from her home in Cowes, Victoria, to the Pakenham branch. This distance later became relevant when discussing redeployment options.
The enterprise agreement contained specific requirements about consultation during workplace changes, including obligations to discuss changes with employees and provide relevant information in writing.
In early 2024, Westpac decided to close the Bank of Melbourne Pakenham branch. The regional general manager held a staff meeting on April 18, 2024, where employees received a detailed consultation document about the closure.
Following this announcement, the regional general manager contacted affected staff about placement preferences, writing: "When looking for placements over the next couple of months I may be in position to make other region moves to accommodate personal preferences."
The worker responded expressing her preference for redundancy rather than redeployment. The regional general manager replied: "We have the exact same role as you are currently performing at WBC [Westpac Banking Corporation]. In fact I see the experience you would bring to WBC branch as a massive bonus for the branch."
The worker requested more detailed information about the proposed role, stating in an email: "Before we discuss anything further I would like more information about the significant effects of the re-structure and re-location as a consequence of the [branch] closure and how this will impact myself."
She later added: "I am not in a position to 'Accept or Decline' until we have had this meeting as I feel up until now, there has not been sufficient or adequate discussions in relation to this significant change."
The employer maintained they had provided comprehensive information through various communications. They emphasized that the offered role was at a Westpac branch located just 300 metres from her current workplace.
The FWC examined whether the consultation obligations under the enterprise agreement were met. The Commission found: "I find that [the employer] complied with its obligations to consult with [the worker] about the redundancy. It provided her with detailed information about the nature of the change, the affected business units, the expected effects of the change and other matters that were likely to affect her."
On the worker's concerns about insufficient information, the Commission stated: "While it did not go into the detail [the worker] required, the information was tolerably clear that [the worker's] terms and conditions would remain the same in the offered role as in her current role."
The Commission ultimately determined: "I am satisfied that there was a genuine redundancy within the meaning of s 389 of the Act as [the employer] no longer required anyone to perform [the worker's] job at Bank of Melbourne Pakenham due to closing the branch. [The employer] did have an obligation to consult in accordance with [its] enterprise agreement, and I find that it complied with its obligations."
The worker's application for unfair dismissal remedy was dismissed.
