How should employers handle redundancies after a business acquisition? FWC clarifies
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a redundancy dispute where a worker questioned whether her dismissal was genuine.
The worker, who had been in her role for over 18 months, argued that her employer failed to properly consult with her and didn't adequately explore redeployment options before making her position redundant.
The case raised important questions about consultation timeframes and redeployment opportunities during organisational restructures.
It tested the boundaries of what constitutes proper consultation under workplace laws and highlighted the obligations employers must meet when making positions redundant.
The employer was a care and support services organisation providing assistance to people with special needs. The worker started in July 2022 and held various roles before becoming a support coordinator. In September 2023, another company bought her employer, leading to organisational changes.
The chief executive officer explained that after the acquisition, they conducted an in-depth review of staffing needs. This review concluded that several positions, including the worker's role, were no longer required.
The consultation process began on January 29, 2024, when the employer sent the worker a letter about her possible redundancy. They scheduled meetings for January 31 and February 1, 2024, allowing her to bring a support person to these discussions.
The Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010 (SCHADS Award) required specific steps during redundancy consultations. These included providing written notice about changes, sharing relevant information, discussing impacts, and considering issues workers raised.
The worker's sister, who had been the operations manager before also losing her job to redundancy around the same time, provided evidence supporting the worker's position. She stated: "I did not hear any discussions about [the worker's] position being made redundant."
Despite the short timeframe, the FWC found the employer met their consultation obligations. The employer provided written notice and held discussions with the worker, giving her until February 1 at midday to suggest alternative roles.
The chief executive officer gave evidence about their redeployment process, stating: "We thoroughly assessed potential options for redeployment during this process. However, no suitable alternative roles were available within the organisation.
Additional to this, [the worker] was similarly unable to identify any suitable redeployment opportunities herself within the organisation."
While the worker and her former colleague suggested potential roles as a support worker or support coordinator, the FWC found this evidence wasn't specific enough.
The Commission noted that this "general and high-level evidence" couldn't override the detailed evidence from the employer about the lack of available positions.
The FWC examined whether the job was truly no longer needed, if proper consultation occurred, and whether other suitable positions were available.
After considering all evidence, they determined this was a genuine redundancy under section 385 of the Fair Work Act, meaning the worker had not been unfairly dismissed.
