Recent case highlights important dismissal defence for employers
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case involving a senior project accountant whose role was made redundant following an organisational restructure.
The worker challenged his dismissal, claiming it was not a genuine redundancy as defined under the Fair Work Act 2009.
At the heart of the worker's argument was a serious allegation that his former employers had shared "illegally obtained private information" with his current employer as part of an "illegal investigation" into him. He argued that this, rather than operational requirements, was the real reason for his termination.
Worker's absence weakens redundancy challenge
The worker had been employed as a senior project accountant from September 2023 to September 2024 at Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd (Monadelphous). On 20 September 2024, his role was made redundant and his employment ended. In the lead-up to the hearing on 13 February 2025, the worker repeatedly requested that the matter be determined without a hearing.
The FWC's Chambers advised him that "a party's failure to attend the hearing may impact on the weight that can be attributed to their evidence." Despite claiming the employer's witness statements contradicted his account, the worker still chose not to attend.
When the worker didn't appear at the hearing, the FWC treated all his materials as submissions with "little to no evidentiary weight." The decision highlighted that the worker "had been informed of the purpose of the hearing and expressly told that for a witness statement to have weight, it needed to be affirmed and tested at a hearing."
The FWC noted: "it is not the Commission's role to run a party's case for them in their absence." This practical reminder underscores the importance of attendance at unfair dismissal hearings, particularly when contesting factual accounts.
Importantly, the worker had been offered access to the Workplace Advice Service for legal guidance but did not take up this offer, further limiting his ability to effectively present his case.
Monadelphous is an Australian engineering group operating in the resources, energy and infrastructure sector. The worker was assigned to the onshore component of the Woodside Project, handling accounting duties including reviewing claims, compiling monthly financials, and performing cost control functions.
Section 389 of the Fair Work Act 2009 establishes three key requirements for a genuine redundancy: the employer no longer requires the job performed due to operational changes; any consultation obligations have been met; and redeployment wasn't reasonable in the circumstances.
The FWC applied established principles about redundancy, noting:
"It is well-accepted that a job or role is a collection of functions, duties and responsibilities. Functions, duties and responsibilities may cease to be a part of a job or role through a reorganisation or restructure of duties."
This principle was particularly relevant to the worker's argument that his duties were simply redistributed rather than eliminated. The FWC clarified: "Where there is no longer any function or duty for an employee to perform, their job becomes redundant; or, put another way, [the employer] no longer requires [the worker's] job to be performed by anyone due to changes in the enterprise's operational requirements."
Monadelphous presented evidence through two witnesses: the operational support manager and the senior human resources advisor. Their evidence detailed a restructure triggered by the retirement of a senior manager in the Energy Business Unit, which led to a series of role changes throughout the organisation.
Prior to the restructure, there were two senior project accountants on the Woodside Project – one handling the onshore component (the worker's role) and another handling the offshore component. The restructure determined that only one position was needed going forward.
The worker argued his position wasn't genuinely redundant because his duties continued to be performed by others. The FWC addressed this directly, noting that in restructures, "the question is whether the previous job has survived the restructure, not whether the duties have survived in some form."
Between 11-20 September 2024, Monadelphous actively sought redeployment options for the worker. The human resources team emailed various departments and followed up with recruitment specialists. The operational support manager personally called the commercial manager of another division regarding a potential opportunity.
When this potential opportunity was identified, the worker explicitly rejected it, texting: "Hi, good thanks. All good, if it's okay with you Friday is my termination date/last day with Monos. If I'm not obligated contractually I rather just be made redundant and on leave from here."
The FWC found "it was not reasonable or available for [the worker] to be redeployed within [the employer] or an associated entity" given his clear rejection of the opportunity presented.
After considering all evidence, the FWC concluded: "I find that there were operational changes that meant [the employer] no longer required [the worker's] role to be performed by anyone." The FWC determined the dismissal met all requirements of a genuine redundancy under section 389, and dismissed the application.
