Resources: Blog

Voluntary redundancies prove too popular


Let me go

While it is often an unpleasant process, in some circumstances (depending on the nature of the workforce) employers may choose to call for expressions of interest for voluntary redundancies before moving to compulsory redundancies.

Making a decision to restructure operations, particularly where it may result in a reduction in the number of positions, is not easy for businesses.

While it is often an unpleasant process, in some circumstances (depending on the nature of the workforce) employers may choose to call for expressions of interest for voluntary redundancies before moving to compulsory redundancies. This process may be desirable for employers where an immediate reduction in the number of positions is required and the employer anticipates that employees will favourably consider voluntary redundancies.

An expression of interest process was recently undertaken at the Streets Ice-Cream Minto production facility in NSW. In bargaining for the new Unilever Australia Trading Ltd, (trading as Streets Ice Cream, Minto) Enterprise Agreement 2007 (the Agreement), it was agreed that 50 full-time positions would be made redundant.

Under the Agreement, the redundancy provisions set out the requirements for the selection process, including that initially there was to be a call for applications for voluntary redundancy. In this matter, it was agreed that preference was to be given to employees:

  • where their positions no longer existed or had significantly or substantially changed; or
  • where they had compassionate grounds because of the effect of new roster arrangements on their personal or family circumstances.

The expression of interest process resulted in a greater number of applicants than required and after an initial review, the employer identified the employees who satisfied the preferences above. However, 15 employees lodged an appeal against the initial review, seeking that their applications for voluntary redundancy be preferred.

The matter was considered by the Fair Work Commission in “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) v Unilever Australia Ltd T/A Streets Ice-Cream, Minto [2018] FWC 752 (Streets decision).

After giving each employee an opportunity to provide further submissions, Commissioner Riordan assessed each application. He ultimately determined that 6 applicants should be offered voluntary redundancy due to compassionate grounds because of the effect the new roster would have on their health or personal circumstances. Applications which were rejected included where an employee argued that the new roster was going to have an adverse impact on playing golf on Saturday, and where the personal circumstances were not affected by the new roster.


Lessons for employers

Where an employer chooses to offer the opportunity for employees to volunteer for redundancy, it is helpful to first develop selection criteria in order to identify the skills which will continue to be required by the business. The selection criteria will then be used to assess the applications received. This will also ensure that selections are determined objectively. Of course, like in the Streets decision, the employer may also be required to provide consideration to the personal circumstances of employees, such as health issues or family/carer responsibilities.


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

Fair Work Commission rejects extension of time application after finding that the date of dismissal was made reasonably clear to the employee

Time's Up

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) imposes a strict 21-day time limit for employees to file unfair dismissal applications in the Fair Work Commission. The statutory limit starts from the date the dismissal takes effect.


Fair Work Commission finds employer’s failure to comply with its consultation obligations rendered an employee’s dismissal to be unfair

Pick up the phone

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented effect on Australian businesses. Employers have had to, with little notice, adapt to these changing circumstances to try and minimise the adverse impact of lockdowns on the business and its employees.


Fair Work Commission accepts that role with additional travel time was acceptable redeployment employment

The daily commute

Employers have long known that they are obliged to try to find new employment opportunities for employees who are faced with the redundancy of their current role.


Commission applies test confirmed by High Court in distinguishing between employee and contractor

Sham slam

In a recent decision, the Fair Work Commission has applied the test recently confirmed by the High Court of Australia in CFMMEU v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 1 and ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek [2022] HCA 2, in distinguishing between employees and contractors.


Full Bench looks at meaning of dismissed for the purposes of the unfair dismissal jurisdiction

Down but not out

The question of whether a demotion will constitute a dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) was considered by the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission NSW Trains v James [2022] FWCFB 55.


Employer fails to disprove adverse action claim

Step back

A recent decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia has reaffirmed the standard of proof that is required to disprove allegations of unlawful adverse action under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).


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.