Resources: Blogs

Pride & Prejudice


FWC warns that offers of redeployment should not be based on assumptions

An employee’s dismissal will not be a case of genuine redundancy if it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the employee to be redeployed within the employer’s enterprise or one of its associated entities.

An employee’s dismissal will not be a case of genuine redundancy if it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the employee to be redeployed within the employer’s enterprise or one of its associated entities.

It is for this reason that employers must approach the implementation of redundancies cautiously, considering all available redeployment opportunities and where reasonable, making offers of employment to the impacted employees.

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has recently warned that a redundancy is not likely be genuine if employers assume or apply their own prejudices when considering the potential redeployment opportunities available to an employee.

In Khliustova v Isoton Pty Ltd [2023] FWC 658, the FWC heard that an employee, who was a Software Engineer for Isoton Pty Ltd (the Employer), was made redundant as a result of a restructure prompted by significant financial challenges requiring a reduction of future costs.

Some six months prior to the employee’s redundancy, the Employer had expanded its operations to India creating a new technical support function which was led by one of its related entities.

The employee was notified of her redundancy during an online meeting with the Employer and three other impacted employees. The employee was then blind copied into an email setting out the reasons as to why her position was being made redundant and confirming her final date of employment.

The employee subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal application. The Employer raised a jurisdictional objection, arguing that the employee’s dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy.

In the jurisdictional hearing, the Employer conceded that during the restructure, its related entity had continued to recruit for a reduced number of positions in its Indian operations. It submitted that it did not offer the employee those available redeployment opportunities because it assumed that she would not accept an overseas position with a lower remuneration.

However, the FWC did not accept this argument, finding that the work performed by the employee would have enabled her to perform at least one of the roles available in India.

The FWC was also critical of the online meeting conducted by the Employer, finding that it did not satisfy the consultation requirements specified under the modern award of which the employee was covered. Instead, the FWC considered the meeting to be “at best a perfunctory exercise” in circumstances where the Employer had already made the decision as to the employee’s redundancy.  

The FWC found that had the Employer engaged in consultation and provided the employee with the opportunity to be heard or to express her views, it may have learnt that the employee was in fact keen to work in different cultures and experience the position overseas, notwithstanding the lower remuneration.

The FWC was highly critical of the Employer in this regard, warning that: “It is dangerous for Employers with redeployment options to fetter offers based on their own prejudices”.

It is on this basis that the FWC found that the Employer had failed to offer the employee a role that was available in its associated entity and would have been reasonable in all the circumstances for the employee to be redeployed in.

Therefore, the FWC dismissed the Employer’s jurisdictional objection on the basis that the redundancy was not genuine and referred the matter for further conciliation.

Lessons for employers

When implementing redundancies, employers must have regard to whether it is a reasonable in the circumstances to offer redeployment within its organisation or an associated entity. What is deemed reasonable will depend on a variety of factors including, but not limited to, location, remuneration, qualifications and experience.

Interestingly, this decision suggests that a cautious approach should be taken by employers when considering these factors and that care should be taken to not make assumptions as to whether or not an employee will accept a redeployment opportunity, particularly when it relates to subjective factors such as location and remuneration.

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Similar articles

Redundancies and the skills matrix

The Matrix is a system, Neo

When implementing redundancies, it is critical that the process for selecting employees for redundancy is a transparent and objective one. A skills matrix can assist employers in this regard by creating clear and objective criteria against which employees are to be assessed.


What can employers do when employees pre-emptively commence proceedings

The empire strikes back

Managing disgruntled employees can often be a difficult and drawn out process. It may often also be difficult to see the path forward when an employee who is subject to management action seeks retaliation by lodging grievances or commencing proceedings against their employer.


Court finds employer took unlawful adverse action against redundant employee

Selection deception

As part of any redundancy process requiring a selection of employees, it is critical that employers consider only matters that are objectively related to an employee in their role and not any of the prohibited reasons under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).


First Intractable bargaining order made by the Full Bench

How did it end?

Enterprise agreement making under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requires bargaining representatives to bargain in good faith. Under the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 (Cth), the Fair Work Commission was provided with new powers to arbitrate and issue a workplace determination to resolve intractable disputes about terms and conditions of proposed enterprise agreement in circumstances where there are no reasonable prospects of the parties reaching an agreement.


Federal Court finds employee was not demoted due to his exercise of workplace rights

The final decision

Employees are protected from adverse action because they have exercised, or propose to exercise, the workplace right to make a “complaint” or “inquiry” in relation to their employment within the meaning of section 341(1)(c)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).


Employer successfully rebuts presumption in adverse action claim

Return to sender

An employer has successfully defended an adverse action claim brought by a former employee as the court was satisfied that the employee was not dismissed for a prohibited reason.


Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in workplace law and sports law.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.