But My Job Still Exists – Why the Fair Work Commission Still Found Genuine Redundancy
When Lydia was told her job was being made redundant, she didn’t just accept it. She questioned the decision. She asked for alternatives. She provided evidence. She believed her role still had value—and she wasn’t alone in thinking so. But in a recent decision by the Fair Work Commission, her application for unfair dismissal was dismissed. Despite her arguments, the Commission found her termination was a genuine redundancy under the Fair Work Act, showcasing how complex redundancy decisions can be.
Lydia worked as the Operations Manager of the Busselton Shopping Centre. After about seven months in the role, she was told the company was changing how it staffed the centre. The owners wanted to reduce costs, and her full-time onsite position was being removed. She proposed a new structure that would allow her to stay on in some form. That proposal was rejected. Shortly after, she was formally told her position was redundant. But Lydia believed the role still existed in all but name. She saw colleagues performing some of her former duties. She provided video footage. She argued that her job hadn’t really disappeared—it had just been redistributed.
She also raised concerns that the redundancy may have been connected to earlier complaints she had made at work.
Under the Fair Work Act, a dismissal is a genuine redundancy if:
The employer no longer needs the job to be done by anyone.
The employer has complied with any relevant consultation obligations.
It wouldn’t have been reasonable to redeploy the employee within the business or its associated entities.
In Lydia’s case, there was no applicable award requiring formal consultation. So the key issues were: did her job truly no longer exist? And could she have been redeployed? The Commission found that while some of Lydia’s duties continued in some form, her specific role no longer existed. Two employees did visit the shopping centre after her departure. But both had been in those roles for some time and were already responsible for multiple properties. Their visits were occasional—not a replacement for Lydia’s previous full-time presence. The Commission noted that some tasks may have been picked up temporarily or shared around, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the job itself still exists.
Lydia also believed the company should have considered her for other roles. She also said she was willing to work part-time or in a modified version of her role. But the Commission found no clear evidence that other suitable jobs were available, and her proposal, while well thought out, didn’t address the core issue: the centre’s owners no longer wanted to fund a permanent position. Although the Commission acknowledged that her suggestion deserved some consideration, it ultimately found the company was not legally required to accept or create a new role just to retain her.
The Commission accepted that the process was deeply upsetting for Lydia and acknowledged how much effort she put into challenging the decision. It recognised that she genuinely believed the redundancy wasn’t legitimate. However, the Commission’s role is limited by law. Once it determines a dismissal is a genuine redundancy, it has no power to assess whether it was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.
What Employees Should Know
This case highlights a few important points for employees:
A role can be made redundant even if some duties are passed to others.
Proposing an alternative role is helpful—but it must align with the employer’s operational changes.
Redeployment claims need clear evidence of available positions.
Covert recordings carry risk and may not be accepted.
Even strong feelings of unfairness can’t override legal definitions of redundancy.
If you’ve been made redundant and you’re not sure it’s genuine, contact Workplace Justice. We’ll help you assess your options before time runs out to act.
