Employer argues it had 'operational requirements' and 'financial struggles'
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an unfair dismissal claim of a worker who was made redundant without prior notice. She said that she only found out about her termination through a phone call and an email.
The worker, Mary-Ann Bowler, submitted an application to the FWC seeking redress, claiming unfair dismissal from her employment with Trojan Wake Ski and Snow Pty Ltd.
On August 16, 2023, Bowler was summoned to a meeting with the business owner, Roy Newlan, where she was informed that her position was deemed redundant. She received two weeks' pay in lieu of notice.
Bowler joined Trojan Wake Ski and Snow around December 2021, serving as a customer service representative, handling in-store customer service, online inquiries, rostering, and warranty-related matters.
In her witness statement, Bowler shared details regarding her dismissal, stating that on August 11, 2023, her manager, Dylan Dauncey, informed her via a phone call that the business was facing challenges.
She was tasked with brainstorming ways to increase company profits with other employees on that day.
According to records, there was no written communication given to her about any significant workplace changes or the potential redundancy of her position.
On August 16, 2023, during a meeting with the owner, she was informed about the financial struggles of the business and given two weeks' notice of termination.
When inquiring why her employment was terminated over casual employees, she was told it was because her role could be divided among the remaining staff.
The worker alleged that she received no prior notice of termination and did not receive any redundancy pay. She said she did not receive a termination letter on that day, only a text from her manager and an email from Newlan stating she was not entitled to redundancy pay as the employer was classified as a small business.
Before the FWC, the worker argued that “there was no operational basis for the employer to terminate her employment.”
“I was not consulted about my redundancy as a form of major workplace change, as required by [my relevant award.] There was no offer of alternative employment, including redeployment,” she said.
The FWC said that even if Bowler’s position “was lost because of the need to reduce staffing levels, questions still arise in relation to the fairness of that dismissal about which the employer could have given evidence but chose not to.”
“The kinds of matters that arise for consideration in a redundancy situation that is not a genuine redundancy include:
(1) whether permanent or casual staff should be reduced;
(2) whether staff with longer periods of service should have some priority over brand-new staff; and
(3) whether alternatives were available other than dismissal, such as reducing Bowler’s hours, and so on,” the Commission said.
Since the employer failed to properly inform and address Bowler’s termination, the FWC found that her dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable. Thus, it ordered the company to pay her compensation.
