Resources: Blog

Redeployment not appropriate for employee who did not trust manager


Living together in (im)perfect harmony

Most employers have a clear understanding of the importance of cultural “fit” to having a happy and productive workforce. Questions about “fit” usually arise during the recruitment process, but are rarely addressed in circumstances involving redundancy and redeployment.

Most employers have a clear understanding of the importance of cultural “fit” to having a happy and productive workforce. Questions about “fit” usually arise during the recruitment process, but are rarely addressed in circumstances involving redundancy and redeployment.

The requirement to implement redundancies usually results from an organisational restructure where an employee’s role is simply no longer required by their employer. This process is often objective in nature and does not require the evaluation of any variable, subjective criteria.

Redundancies of this strictly objective kind are generally considered to be “genuine redundancies” for the purposes of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), subject to certain other criteria being fulfilled – including the exploration of redeployment options.

For example, a redundancy will not be considered to be a genuine redundancy if it would have been reasonable in all the circumstances for the employee to be redeployed within the enterprise or an associated entity. When assessing the reasonableness of redeployment, the courts have generally considered factors such as:

  • the nature of the position in question;
  • the qualifications necessary to perform the position;
  • the employee’s skills, qualifications and experience;
  • the location of the position;
  • the remuneration which is offered;
  • hours of work; and
  • direct reports/reporting requirements.

However, a recent decision of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has highlighted the importance of organisational “fit” and workplace harmony in redundancy and redeployment situations.

In Velasquez v Cabrini Health Limited [2017] FWC 5965, a social worker claimed that his dismissal was not a genuine redundancy because his employer did not redeploy him into suitable alternative employment that was available at the time.

The case for the employer was that the social worker had a problematic relationship history with the manager that would supervise the available position.

The employer was concerned about this history and sought to discuss this with the social worker at his interview for the available position. The employer provided the social worker with a copy of a letter he had written two years prior, in which he had stated that he believed the manager was behind a “witch hunt” mounted against him and had made it clear that he neither trusted nor respected her at all.

The employer asked the social worker whether his history with this manager would have any impact on his ability to work in that team. The social worker, taken aback by this, simply asserted that the matter had been resolved by their HR department two years ago.

The employer ultimately elected not to redeploy the social worker into the position for a number of reasons. Relevantly, the employer remained unconvinced that the social worker had moved on from the earlier relationship issues and was also not convinced that he no longer harboured any ill will towards the manager. The employer had therefore concluded that he would not be an appropriate “fit” for the team.

The FWC, whilst critical of the employer’s redeployment process, found that it would not have been reasonable for the social worker to be redeployed into that position.

The FWC stated that, in addition to the objective factors to be considered, it is also relevant for an employer to consider the likely impact of redeploying a person on the cohesiveness of the work group and its efficiency and productivity.

The social worker argued that a mere “personality clash” was not a sufficient excuse to refuse redeployment. However, the FWC disagreed and stated that that phrase “personality clash” severely understated the level of distrust and disrespect that the social worker had for the manager. The potential impact of his redeployment on the efficient and harmonious operation of the team and the probability that it would result in further workplace conflict meant that the redeployment would have been untenable in the circumstances.


Lessons for employers

Consideration of redeployment opportunities can be akin to the recruitment of a new employee. The employer should take a wholistic approach by considering whether the employee is aptly qualified and suited to the role and also whether the employee is an appropriate “fit” for the team or department into which they might be redeployed.


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

Workplace Relations Review

Cases and Legislation September 2020

The Queensland Government recently passed legislation amending the Criminal Code Act 1899 (the Code) to criminalise wage theft by employers in Queensland.‍The Criminal Code and Other Legislation (Wage Theft) Amendment Bill 2020 (the Bill) was introduced to the Queensland Parliament in response to a Report released in 2018 by the Queensland Parliamentary Education, Employment and Small Business Committee following an inquiry into wage theft in Queensland. The Report identified critical issues in wage theft as well as deliberate action taken by employers to frustrate employees’ attempts to recover entitlements.


Workplace Relations Review

Cases and Legislation August 2020

‍NEWS ALERT - Paid Pandemic Leave introduced into Health Sector Awards Over the course of 2020, the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission (the Full Bench) has heard and determined applications to vary modern awards to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.


The FWC, COVID-19 and variations to redundancy pay

Vexed variation

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has a vital role to play in the management of the current COVID-19 pandemic as it continues to impact employment relationships across the country.


FWC upholds objection to constructive dismissal claim

Construction zone

In order to access the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, an employee must be “dismissed” from their employment by the employer. One of the instances in which an employee may be “dismissed” from their employment is if they were forced to resign because of the employer’s conduct or course of conduct.


Court penalises accountant for involvement in employer’s failure to keep employee records

Put your records on

The Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) impose a number of obligations on employers with respect to the making and keeping of employee records and pay slips.


The onus and presumption in adverse action matters

It’s on you

Under the general protections provisions in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), it is unlawful for a person to take adverse action against another person for a proscribed reason. One of the features of the general protections provisions under the FW Act is the presumption that adverse action was taken for a proscribed reason unless it is proven that the adverse action was not taken for that 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 Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.