Genuine Redundancy in an Unfair Dismissal Case: When a Senior Role Is Abolished but a Similar Job Is Advertised the Same Day, Does Redeployment Still Have to Be Offered?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case [2025] FWC 1074, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds. :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

Court of Hearing

Fair Work Commission

Presiding Judge

Commissioner Perica

Cause of Action

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009

Judgment Date

16 April 2025

Core Keywords

Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
Keyword 2: Genuine redundancy
Keyword 3: Redeployment reasonableness
Keyword 4: Operational requirements restructure
Keyword 5: Job versus duties distinction
Keyword 6: Misleading job advertisement terminology

Background

The Applicant was employed in a kitchen design business unit operated within a larger corporate group. After a promotion into a senior design leadership role, the Respondent later ended the Applicant’s employment on the basis of redundancy. The Applicant challenged that explanation, pointing to a job advertisement published on the same day as the termination, and arguing the Respondent could and should have redeployed him. The dispute therefore turned on whether the redundancy was real in law, and whether the Respondent’s redeployment approach satisfied the statutory test.

Core Disputes and Claims

The Court was required to determine a jurisdictional gateway question: whether the dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy within s 389 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which would operate as a complete defence to the unfair dismissal claim.

The Applicant sought reinstatement into a role he characterised as equivalent, or compensation. The Respondent sought dismissal of the application on the basis that the termination was a genuine redundancy, including that redeployment was not reasonable in all the circumstances.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The relationship began in a conventional way: the Applicant commenced employment as a designer within the Respondent’s business unit responsible for designing prefabricated kitchens, working at a particular site and reporting through the local management structure. Over time, the Applicant’s responsibilities expanded. He moved from an individual contributor role into a leadership position within the design function.

A key turning point occurred when the business unit’s financial performance deteriorated. Evidence described persistent underperformance against sales targets and significant monthly losses. Market conditions were also said to have worsened across the broader business, including a downturn in housing activity and rising operational costs. In that environment, the Respondent decided to restructure to reduce headcount and reallocate functions.

Against that background, the Applicant received internal communications about consolidation and site closure within the business unit. The messaging was described as optimistic and reassuring, and the Applicant’s evidence suggested staff were told further redundancies would not occur. Shortly thereafter, the Applicant was invited to a meeting framed as a business update, where he was informed his role was surplus to operational requirements and his employment would end that day. The Applicant described shock and a short meeting duration, then later located an external job advertisement posted on the same day, forming the foundation of his redeployment complaint.

The decisive moments that crystallised the litigation were therefore: the restructure decision, the abrupt meeting invitation and termination, and the post-termination advertisement that appeared, on its face, to resemble elements of the Applicant’s former responsibilities.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1. Employment history and role scope evidence
   The Applicant relied on his experience in kitchen design and leadership, including his responsibilities in leading designers, overseeing design processes, managing design software access and catalogue upkeep, and onboarding team members.

2. The termination meeting account
   The Applicant described being informed his role was impacted by restructure and he was being made redundant, with limited time to process, and little warning that termination was in contemplation.

3. The job advertisement evidence
   The Applicant tendered evidence of a job advertisement published on the same day as termination, first titled as a completions management role and later re-titled as a production management role with substantially the same requirements and responsibilities. The Applicant performed a point-by-point comparison between the advertised responsibilities and his own duties, asserting substantial alignment.

4. Organisational chart evidence
   The Applicant pointed to a post-restructure organisational chart showing vacant roles within a consumer or retail operational unit, contending his background suited redeployment into those roles.

5. The redeployment list evidence
   The Applicant acknowledged being shown a list of many vacancies across the corporate group, but explained none were attractive or aligned with his skills and career path, and that the process felt unrealistic and awkward immediately after termination was announced.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1. Operational requirements evidence
   The Respondent led evidence of financial losses and market downturn conditions, arguing the business unit could no longer justify the Applicant’s senior design leadership role.

2. Job abolition evidence
   The Respondent asserted the Applicant’s job as a distinct role ceased to exist, because its leadership functions were redistributed and the design team was to be led under a different structure, with design tasks absorbed by remaining designers.

3. Consultation evidence
   The Respondent asserted there was no applicable modern award or enterprise agreement requiring consultation, and therefore s 389(1)(b) was satisfied by the absence of such an obligation.

4. Redeployment reasonableness evidence
   The Respondent relied on the nature of the advertised role, asserting it was not a replacement for the Applicant’s abolished design leadership job, but rather related to an installation-focused role requiring trade qualifications and substantial cabinet making experience. The Respondent pointed to the trade background of the predecessor and the eventual successful candidate, and cross-examined the Applicant on the absence of trade qualifications.

5. Timing and vacancy evidence
   For roles shown as vacant on an organisational chart, the Respondent argued those roles were not vacant at the time of termination, because the incumbents resigned later. Accordingly, redeployment into those roles was not available at the relevant time.

Core Dispute Points

1. Was the Applicant’s job no longer required to be performed by anyone because of changes in operational requirements?
2. Was there any award or agreement consultation obligation, and if so, was it complied with?
3. Would it have been reasonable in all the circumstances to redeploy the Applicant into:
   a. a role advertised on the termination day, described in completions or production terms, or
   b. roles shown as vacant in organisational materials, or
   c. any other roles across the broader corporate group.

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

The case demonstrates how written evidence, even when not labelled in everyday language as an affidavit, functions as the parties’ structured narrative vehicle. Each party used formal statements to anchor the dispute around a different legal question.

The Applicant’s written narrative was crafted as a practical comparison exercise. It treated the job advertisement as the “real world” indicator of what work the Respondent still needed done, and then overlaid the Applicant’s own work history onto the advertisement’s bullet points. This was a strategic attempt to shift the dispute away from abstract restructuring language and onto a tangible artefact that ordinary readers understand: a job ad.

By contrast, the Respondent’s written narrative was built around operational requirements and role architecture. It framed the restructure as a legitimate response to sustained losses and adverse market conditions. It then drew a sharp line between design leadership work and installation-focused work, emphasising that the advertised role belonged to a different functional domain requiring trade competency. This approach sought to ensure the Court assessed redeployment reasonableness by reference to essential qualifications and the true task content of the role, not the surface similarity of generic bullet points.

The strategic intent behind the procedural handling of written evidence in this matter was to force precision: to require each party to commit to what the job actually was, what the alleged alternative job actually required, and what was known or available at the time of dismissal. That focus is consistent with redundancy cases, where the employer’s knowledge and documents usually carry the evidentiary burden on operational change and redeployment possibilities.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Prior to the final hearing, the procedural management of the matter involved conventional steps for an unfair dismissal case where a genuine redundancy objection is raised, including:
1. Directions requiring the filing and service of witness statements and documentary materials supporting the jurisdictional objection and response.
2. Compilation of a digital court book, including contracts, role profiles, organisational charts, communications, and job advertisement evidence.
3. Listing of the matter for hearing, with the Applicant self-represented and the Respondent represented by a senior people and performance practitioner.
4. Cross-examination of the principal witnesses, including personnel involved in the restructure and redundancy meeting.
5. Determination of the jurisdictional objection as a threshold issue, capable of disposing of the unfair dismissal application without reaching the merits of harshness, injustice, or unreasonableness.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

The hearing proceeded in the familiar pattern of a redundancy objection: the Applicant tried to prove that the redundancy label masked a continuing need for substantially the same work, while the Respondent sought to prove that the job as a structured role ceased, and that redeployment was not reasonable.

A central contested moment concerned the lead-up to the termination meeting. There were competing recollections about whether the Applicant was told the meeting concerned a restructure impacting his role, whether the involvement of a people and performance practitioner was foreshadowed, and whether a support person option was meaningfully communicated. The factual dispute about the meeting framing mattered less to the ultimate statutory test than the Applicant may have expected, because the legal defence of genuine redundancy in this context turned primarily on job abolition, consultation obligations, and redeployment reasonableness.

Cross-examination then pivoted to the redeployment question. The Respondent’s strategy was to push beyond generic key responsibilities and into essential role requirements, particularly trade background and cabinet making experience. The Applicant conceded he did not hold cabinet making and joinery experience of the kind described, and did not have a trade background. That concession became a critical point of evidentiary separation between the Applicant’s former job and the advertised role.

Core Evidence Confrontation

The Applicant’s strongest visual evidence was the timing of the job advertisement: published on the same day as termination, and described in managerial language. The Applicant’s comparative analysis of bullet points created a persuasive surface impression that the Respondent still needed someone to do work connected with designers, spatial planning, and product knowledge.

The Respondent’s strongest counter-evidence was the internal “success profile” of the installation-focused role, the trade qualification emphasis, and the track record of the prior incumbent and subsequent appointee, who were described as trade-qualified with extensive cabinet making experience. This reframed the job ad as a recruitment artefact for a different role category, in a trades and services stream, rather than a rebadged design leadership position.

Judicial Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning turned on disciplined statutory steps and a caution against being misled by modern job advertisement language. The analysis required separating what appears similar on paper from what is essential in substance.

It is a regrettable recent phenomenon that buzzwords and neologisms replace words with discernible meaning in job advertisements and success profiles. This practice often makes it difficult to discern what the actual job entails.

This statement was determinative because it explained why the Court did not treat the job ad’s bullet points as the final answer to redeployment. The Court treated language inflation as a risk, then undertook a substance-based comparison anchored in qualifications, focus, and core functions.

The Court applied the statutory structure of s 389 by making stepped findings: first, job abolition due to operational requirements; second, consultation obligation compliance; third, redeployment reasonableness. It was determined that while some duties can persist and be redistributed, the legal question is whether the job as a role survives. It was further determined that the Applicant’s lack of trade qualifications and the installation-centric focus of the advertised role meant redeployment into that role was not reasonable in all the circumstances.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court determined that the dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy under s 389 of the Fair Work Act 2009. As a result, the dismissal could not be an unfair dismissal for the purposes of s 385, and the application for an unfair dismissal remedy was dismissed.

The Court also made practical observations directed to improving future redundancy processes, including the importance of clearer communication to employees about business risk and the shortcomings of opaque meeting descriptions and last-minute bulk vacancy lists.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis

This decision is jurisprudentially valuable because it shows how the genuine redundancy defence can succeed even when the optics look unfavourable to the employer, such as advertising a seemingly similar role on the day of termination. The decision demonstrates a disciplined insistence on the statutory architecture: the Court did not collapse the analysis into a single moral impression about fairness, but instead tested each legal element.

The case also underscores a modern workplace reality: job titles and advertisements can be curated to attract applicants and can use inflated language. The Court treated that reality as an evidentiary hazard, requiring deeper inquiry into true role function and essential requirements.

Judgment Points

1. The legal object is the job, not the continued existence of some duties
   The Court held that redundancy concerns whether the job as a collection of functions, duties, and responsibilities entrusted to a particular employee survives. It was determined that redistribution of tasks does not prevent a finding of job abolition where the role itself is no longer performed by anyone.

2. Operational reasons are assessed by evidence of enterprise change, not by employee preference
   The Court accepted evidence of sustained losses and adverse market conditions, determining that the employer no longer required the job due to operational requirements. The Court’s acceptance was grounded in concrete business evidence rather than generalised assertions.

3. Consultation is an element, but it depends on the existence of an applicable obligation
   The Court determined that s 389(1)(b) is satisfied if there is no applicable modern award or enterprise agreement consultation obligation. Where no consultation obligation applies, the statutory requirement is met by that absence, though good practice may still demand better communication.

4. Redeployment reasonableness is not a paper exercise
   The Court held that redeployment reasonableness can turn on skills, qualifications, and experience required to perform the alternative role. A surface match of generic key responsibilities is not sufficient if essential competencies are missing.

5. Timing of an advertisement is relevant but not decisive
   The Court treated the same-day advertisement as a legitimate trigger for scrutiny, but it was determined that the role advertised was not a replacement for the abolished job and had a different functional focus.

6. Post-termination vacancies do not prove redeployment options existed at the dismissal date
   The Court accepted evidence that roles shown as vacant later were occupied at the time of dismissal and only became vacant after resignations. Redeployment must be assessed on what was available and reasonable at the time of termination.

7. Mass vacancy lists presented without notice are weak evidence of meaningful redeployment engagement
   While not required as a legal element in the absence of an award or agreement obligation, the Court’s commentary signals that dumping a large vacancy list at the termination meeting has limited practical utility and can undermine perceptions of procedural integrity.

Legal Basis

The core statutory provisions were:
1. Fair Work Act 2009 s 385, which provides that a dismissal is not an unfair dismissal if it is a case of genuine redundancy.
2. Fair Work Act 2009 s 389, which defines genuine redundancy through:
a. job no longer required due to operational changes,
b. compliance with award or agreement consultation obligations, and
c. an exclusion where redeployment would have been reasonable in all the circumstances.

The Court also relied on established authority about the job versus duties distinction and about redeployment considerations, including:
1. Dibb v Commissioner of Taxation [2004] FCAFC 126, supporting the proposition that redistribution of duties does not prevent a finding that the job itself no longer exists.
2. Ulan Coal Mines Limited v Honeysett [2010] FWAFB 7578, supporting the relevance of qualifications, skills, and experience in the redeployment reasonableness assessment.
3. Jun Lei Kang v Shriro Australia Pty Limited [2023] FWC 1992, supporting the stepped findings approach and the evidentiary reality that relevant facts are often within the employer’s knowledge.

Evidence Chain

Victory Point 1: Proving job abolition with structural evidence
Conclusion: The employer no longer required the job to be performed by anyone.
Evidence: Role change evidence and post-restructure leadership allocation showing the design leadership job ceased as a standalone role and was not performed by any person in that form.
Statutory link: s 389(1)(a).
Why it mattered: This was the gateway. Without job abolition, the defence fails.

Victory Point 2: Proving operational requirements with concrete business conditions
Conclusion: The job was abolished because of operational requirements changes.
Evidence: Financial losses, sustained underperformance against budget, and market downturn factors including housing activity decline and cost pressures.
Statutory link: s 389(1)(a).
Why it mattered: It prevented the case being framed as an individual performance decision masquerading as redundancy.

Victory Point 3: Neutralising consultation attack by proving no applicable obligation
Conclusion: The consultation element was satisfied because no award or agreement consultation obligation applied.
Evidence: Uncontested evidence that the role was not covered by a modern award or enterprise agreement.
Statutory link: s 389(1)(b).
Why it mattered: It cut off a common redundancy challenge route.

Victory Point 4: Reframing the job advertisement as a different role family
Conclusion: The advertised role did not establish a redeployment obligation into an equivalent position.
Evidence: The advertisement’s classification in trades and services, internal success profile describing installation management functions, and evidence of trade background expectations.
Statutory link: s 389(2).
Why it mattered: It prevented the Applicant from collapsing redeployment into a headline timing argument.

Victory Point 5: Demonstrating essential qualification mismatch
Conclusion: Redeployment was not reasonable because the role required trade qualifications and cabinet making experience not held by the Applicant.
Evidence: Cross-examination concessions, success profile requirements, and evidence about trade qualification pathways and the trade-qualified successful candidate.
Statutory link: s 389(2).
Why it mattered: Reasonableness is contextual; essential requirements can be decisive.

Victory Point 6: Defeating organisational chart vacancy argument by timing logic
Conclusion: Redeployment into purported vacant roles was not reasonable because those roles were not vacant at dismissal time.
Evidence: Evidence that incumbents resigned only after the Applicant’s dismissal and were not replaced.
Statutory link: s 389(2).
Why it mattered: It showed the redeployment question is time-bound and evidence-specific.

Victory Point 7: Using the applicant’s own evidence to show redeployment list was not realistically engaged
Conclusion: Even where the employer showed vacancies, redeployment was not reasonable in circumstances where the Applicant did not identify roles of interest, and roles did not align with skills and aspirations.
Evidence: Applicant’s evidence that roles were not aligned with his design leadership profile and that none were identified for redeployment.
Statutory link: s 389(2).
Why it mattered: Redeployment is not automatic; reasonableness can include practical fit and genuine availability.

Judicial Original Quotation

The test is not whether the functions or duties themselves continue, but whether the job itself survives.

This was determinative because it is the doctrinal hinge that defeats many redundancy challenges based on the continued performance of some tasks. It instructs decision-makers to evaluate role survival, not task persistence.

It is well settled that qualifications required to perform a job and the employee’s skills, qualifications and experience can be part of an assessment of whether redeployment could be considered reasonable.

This was determinative because it explains why the Court prioritised trade qualification and cabinet making experience over generic overlaps in advertised responsibilities. It anchored redeployment reasonableness in capability and essential requirements, not optics.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The Applicant’s case failed primarily because it was constructed around a surface-level similarity argument rather than proving that redeployment was reasonable in substance at the relevant time.

1. The Applicant relied heavily on bullet-point similarity in an advertisement, but the Court treated modern advertisement language as unreliable without deeper inquiry into core functions and essential requirements.
2. The Applicant could not establish he met essential trade requirements for the advertised role, and concessions in cross-examination reinforced that gap.
3. The organisational chart vacancy argument failed on timing, because the relevant roles were not vacant at the dismissal date.
4. The broader vacancy list did not support an obligation to redeploy where the Applicant did not identify a suitable role and the roles did not align with the Applicant’s skill profile.
5. The Applicant’s strongest emotional point, same-day advertising, did not overcome the statutory logic that genuine redundancy can exist even where other recruitment occurs for materially different roles.

Implications

1. Redundancy disputes often turn on evidence, not impressions. A job advertisement can look similar, but courts will examine what the role truly requires and what work it truly performs.
2. If you challenge a redundancy, focus on proving that the alternative role was genuinely available at the dismissal date and that you were realistically capable of performing it.
3. Employers should assume that unclear communication creates unnecessary conflict. Even where the law does not impose consultation obligations, transparency reduces escalation risk.
4. If you are offered redeployment materials, treat them as a strategic moment. Document what roles you asked about, why you were suitable, and what response was given.
5. In workplace disputes, the law rewards specificity. The clearer your evidence about duties, requirements, timing, and capability, the more powerfully your story translates into legal proof.

Q&A Session

Q1: If an employer advertises a role on the same day as termination, does that automatically prove the redundancy was not genuine?

No. The key legal question is whether the original job was no longer required due to operational changes, and whether redeployment into the advertised role would have been reasonable in all the circumstances. Advertisement timing can raise suspicion, but the Court will assess the true function and essential requirements of the advertised role.

Q2: What is the difference between a job and duties, and why does it matter?

A job is the structured role within an organisation, comprising functions, duties, and responsibilities entrusted to a particular employee. Duties can continue and be redistributed while the job itself disappears. This distinction matters because genuine redundancy turns on whether the job survives, not whether some tasks continue.

Q3: What makes redeployment reasonable or not reasonable?

Reasonableness depends on the circumstances at the dismissal time, including genuine vacancies, location, the employee’s skills and qualifications, and whether the alternative role is materially different. Essential requirements, such as trade qualifications, can make redeployment not reasonable even where some responsibilities overlap on paper.

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype: Unfair Dismissal, Genuine Redundancy Defence, Redeployment Reasonableness Dispute
Judgment Nature Definition: Final judgment on a jurisdictional objection determining the application cannot proceed

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

③ Employment and Workplace Disputes (Industrial Relations Law)

Core Test: Unfair Dismissal, Fair Work Act 2009

Step 1: Is there a dismissal and is the applicant protected from unfair dismissal?
1. Identify whether the employment relationship ended at the initiative of the employer, or whether a resignation was forced.
2. Confirm the applicant completed the minimum employment period.
3. Confirm award coverage, enterprise agreement application, or earnings below the high income threshold.
4. Confirm any jurisdictional exclusions, such as genuine redundancy, are engaged.

Step 2: Was there a valid reason related to capacity or conduct, or was this a redundancy?
1. If the employer asserts redundancy, require clarity on whether the basis is operational change rather than performance management.
2. Seek documents showing business reasons, restructure design, and role mapping before and after change.
3. Confirm whether the employer can articulate why the job ceased as a role, not merely why the employee was selected.

Step 3: If redundancy is asserted, test genuine redundancy under s 389
1. Job no longer required to be performed by anyone because of changes in operational requirements
a. Identify the job as a role, including its bundle of responsibilities and organisational position.
b. Examine whether the role ceased, merged, or was reallocated.
c. Test whether the work moved entirely to others while the role continued in substance.
d. Assess whether the reason was operational change, such as downturn, cost cutting, structural consolidation, loss of clients, technology change, or closure of a site.

1. Compliance with any award or enterprise agreement consultation obligation
   a. Identify whether a modern award covered the employment at termination.
   b. Identify whether an enterprise agreement applied.
   c. If an obligation exists, check whether consultation occurred before a final decision, whether the employee was told about the change, invited to give views, and whether views were genuinely considered.
   d. If no obligation exists, confirm the absence is proven by credible evidence, ideally by a senior HR practitioner or industrial relations specialist.

2. Redeployment reasonableness under s 389(2)
   a. Identify available roles within the employer’s enterprise at the time of dismissal, not roles that emerge later.
   b. Identify roles within associated entities at the time of dismissal.
   c. Test whether the employee had the skills, qualifications, and experience to perform the alternative role, or could reasonably be trained within a practical period.
   d. Test whether essential requirements, licensing, trade qualifications, or regulatory prerequisites create a barrier.
   e. Test geographic practicality, remuneration and status differences, and whether the role is materially different in core function.
   f. Consider whether the redeployment process was genuine, including whether roles were meaningfully discussed, not merely listed.

Step 4: If not a genuine redundancy, assess harsh, unjust, or unreasonable dismissal
1. Examine whether there was a valid reason, notification, and opportunity to respond.
2. Examine procedural fairness, including whether a support person was offered where relevant.
3. Examine proportionality between alleged reason and termination outcome.
4. Consider personal and economic impacts, while keeping focus on the statutory criteria.

Core Test: General Protections, Fair Work Act 2009

Step 1: Identify whether adverse action occurred, such as dismissal, injury in employment, or discrimination.
Step 2: Identify whether the employee exercised a workplace right, such as making a complaint, taking leave, or seeking entitlements.
Step 3: Assess whether the adverse action was taken because of that workplace right, noting reverse onus principles tend to make employer evidence critical.
Step 4: Evaluate whether the employer can prove the prohibited reason was not a substantial and operative reason.

Core Test: Sham Contracting

Step 1: Identify whether the worker is labelled as a contractor but functions as an employee.
Step 2: Examine control, integration, provision of tools, financial risk, and ability to work for others.
Step 3: Assess whether the arrangement is a disguised employment relationship.
Step 4: Consider statutory consequences, including penalties and entitlements recalculation.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

If an unfair dismissal claim is blocked by genuine redundancy, alternative avenues may still exist depending on facts. These avenues carry varying prospects and tend to be fact sensitive.

Procedural Fairness

1. If the claim shifts into an administrative or quasi-administrative setting, principles of natural justice may become relevant, including the right to be heard and apprehended bias.
2. In employment contexts, procedural fairness may also arise indirectly, for example in enterprise agreement disputes or internal policy-based grievances, though enforceability depends on contractual incorporation and statutory context.

Ancillary Claims

1. If an unfair dismissal claim fails, assess whether the factual matrix supports a General Protections claim, particularly where the employee had recently exercised workplace rights or made complaints. The reverse onus framework can change the evidentiary dynamics.
2. Consider whether there is a contractual claim for unpaid entitlements, bonus disputes, or notice disputes if the redundancy payout calculation is contested.
3. Consider misleading representations claims where an employer’s communications about job security induced reliance, noting that success depends on proving a clear representation, reliance, and loss, and that such pathways can carry relatively high complexity and uncertain prospects.

Promissory or Proprietary Estoppel

In employment, estoppel arguments may arise where an employer made a clear and unequivocal representation, the employee relied to their detriment, and it would be unconscionable to depart from it. These claims tend to face relatively high risk unless the promise is specific, reliance is substantial, and detriment is clearly quantified.

Unjust Enrichment and Constructive Trust

These doctrines are less commonly suitable for ordinary employment redundancy disputes, but may be relevant where there is a discrete transfer of benefit outside wages, such as a personal contribution to a specific asset, or an employer retaining a benefit in circumstances that are against conscience. The fit must be evaluated with care.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds

1. Unfair dismissal application filing time limit is relatively strict, and late applications tend to face relatively high risk unless exceptional circumstances are established.
2. The genuine redundancy defence requires the applicant to defeat one of the statutory elements, which often requires strong employer-document analysis.
3. Redeployment arguments require proof of suitable vacancies at the time of dismissal and the applicant’s practical capability to perform them.

Exceptional Channels

1. Where consultation obligations exist under an award or enterprise agreement, failure to consult can materially weaken the genuine redundancy defence.
2. Where redeployment opportunities existed but were concealed or not meaningfully explored, the redeployment reasonableness limb can defeat the defence.
3. Where a redundancy is used to mask prohibited reasons, a General Protections claim may provide an alternative path, though it requires careful evidence construction and carries variable prospects.

Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim simply because the employer says redundancy. Carefully map the job abolition evidence, the consultation framework, and the redeployment landscape at the dismissal date. Exceptions and evidentiary weaknesses are often where viable arguments emerge.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle

This authority is useful in submissions where the dispute concerns:
1. the job versus duties distinction in redundancy;
2. redeployment reasonableness where essential qualifications are missing;
3. the evidentiary weight of job advertisements and role profiles;
4. timing disputes about whether vacancies existed at the dismissal date.

Citation Method

As Positive Support: Where your matter involves a restructure abolishing a role while duties are redistributed, cite this authority to support the proposition that task redistribution does not prevent a redundancy finding where the job no longer exists.
As a Distinguishing Reference: Where the opposing party relies on this authority, emphasise differences such as the existence of an applicable consultation obligation, the presence of an available vacancy at the dismissal date, or the employee’s possession of essential qualifications for the alternative role.

Anonymisation Rule: When discussing parties in your own material, use Applicant and Respondent.

Conclusion

This case shows that redundancy disputes are won and lost on disciplined statutory analysis and evidence that speaks to the reality of roles, not the marketing language of job ads. The decisive lesson is that genuine redundancy can still be established where a business recruits for a different role family with essential requirements the dismissed employee does not hold.

Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Fair Work Commission ([2025] FWC 1074), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.