Employer says company had to restructure due to lower profits
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an unfair dismissal case involving a worker who alleged her position was made redundant ahead of other positions.
In its defence, the employer argued that the worker’s case was one of genuine redundancy. Hence, no unfair dismissal occurred.
Prior to the case, the worker’s role in the warehouse usually involved assisting in packing orders and repacking products to meet specific client requirements.
Around January 2022, the worker injured her ankle and at the time of her dismissal, could carry loads of up to 2 kg.
“It is unfair that my health limitations were the main reason for dismissal,” the worker argued. “This is in view that the forklift licence requirements were never mentioned during my time working there.”
According to the case, the employer offered voluntary redundancy across the whole warehouse and several employees took up such an option.
However, the worker was the only store person in the warehouse who was chosen to be made involuntarily redundant.
The worker argued that the employer used the restructuring as an excuse to make her role in the company redundant. Hence, she seeks reinstatement or redeployment.
“[The manager] said to me ‘you should work full time, if you aren’t back full time your colleagues are doing the job for you,’” the worker stated. “At the time I was still recovering from my injury.”
Despite such a claim, the employer explained that because the company’s appliances division, which was responsible for 40% of the revenue, was not sufficiently profitable and was not maintainable in the long term, they had to restructure the business.
“[The head of HR] was told on 23 March 2023 that the Appliances Division was going to be discontinued,” the case stated. “This restructure was announced to the market on 24 March 2023.”
The warehouse manager also denied that the worker was selected for redundancy because of her injury or her work performance. He noted that “it was about skillset and experience.”
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, arguing that he should have been redeployed if there was “genuine redundancy.”
After examining the case, the Commission decided that the worker’s dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy. Thus, there was no unfair dismissal.
The FWC was satisfied that the company had decided that it no longer required the worker’s job to be performed by anyone because of changes in the operational requirements of the employer’s enterprise.
“I am also satisfied that it would not have been reasonable to redeploy [the worker],” the Commission said, noting that the worker did not have the skills or experience to be deployed to any available role.
“[The company’s] decision to discontinue its appliances division and make 5 of 20 warehouse positions at Chullora redundant had nothing to do with [the worker’s] work performance, [the worker’s] conduct at work, her injury or that she did not have a forklift licence,” the FWC noted.
