Case discusses if there was 'genuine redundancy' or not
The Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission has recently dealt with the case of a worker who said she was unfairly dismissed by her employer even after the latter said there was “genuine redundancy.”
The worker said her role still existed after she left, with another person being hired to perform the same responsibilities.
Background of the case
The employee began working with the company in March 2020 as a coordinator on an ongoing contract.
However, on 26 February 2021, she received the news that her position was no longer needed due to a change in circumstances, resulting in her immediate termination.
The employer sent her a letter that said: “The operational requirements of this organisation have changed due to circumstances outside of our control, and your position is no longer supported.”
“The business currently does not currently [sic] provide the services you were engaged to deliver to the above circumstance and therefore you have become redundant.”
Former employee comes forward
The applicant argued that her termination was unjust because it was not a genuine redundancy.
In the applicant's case, a former employee of the company provided evidence. This employee had previously held the coordinator role from 2018 to 2020, before the applicant.
He stated that the company contacted him in December 2020 and offered him the position again. He resumed his employment as a coordinator, explaining that his responsibilities were the same as when he first held the role and the same as the applicant's position.
The employer countered that the applicant's termination was not unfair because she was made redundant since her position was no longer necessary.
HRD previously reported about the case of an area manager who filed for unfair dismissal after the business said the role was no longer required. He argued that he should have been redeployed if there was “genuine redundancy,” also citing that he held a managerial position.
The Commission’s decision
In its decision, the Commission said that the applicant's job termination wasn't a true redundancy because the role they held still existed and hadn't undergone any changes. In fact, the company quickly hired someone else to fill the same position right after letting the applicant go.
“The role of coordinator continued to exist and had not been changed or modified in any way. The employer did not abolish the role, rather, it engaged another person to undertake the role immediately after terminating the worker’s employment,” the decision said.
Thus, “the termination of her employment was not a genuine redundancy,” it added.
Based on the evidence presented, the Commission acknowledged that reinstating the applicant was “not practicable.” However, they recognized that the applicant had suffered financial loss due to the unfair dismissal.
As a result, the Commission decided to award the applicant a sum of $39,750.95, which is the maximum amount allowed under the state’s Industrial Relations Act 1979.
