TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – genuine redundancy – ss.389, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 – four applications for unfair dismissal remedy – 12 employees made redundant in July 2016 – four employees made unfair dismissal applications – respondent raised jurisdictional objection to applications on basis dismissals were cases of genuine redundancy – respondent submitted employer taken decision to restructure unprofitable position of warehouse – submitted restructure resulted in abolition of 12 jobs no longer required to be performed – submitted decision to implement redundancies made 5 July 2016 and on same day employer sent invitation to members of joint consultative committee to attend meeting on 11 July – respondent submitted there were no vacant warehouse roles and other roles were not suitable to applicants’ circumstances – applicants strongly challenged that respondent had complied consultation requirements of enterprise agreement – applicants submitted respondent had not consulted in any meaningful way, nor had it properly pursued reasonable deployment [CEPU v QR Limited] – applicants submitted dismissals were unfair because applicants were selected for redundancy via process that was severely flawed to extent they had no opportunity to challenge basis for their selection – Commission found no evidence of concern about budgetary underperformance of warehouse – found no proper opportunity for discussion about measures that might avert or mitigate adverse effects of decision to implement redundancies – found at no stage did respondent invite employees to give their views about impact of change – Commission found evidence unequivocally established respondent’s actions in respect to implementation of redundancies were so significantly noncompliant as to be grossly deficient – found no evidence of examination of potential redeployment opportunities – evidence demonstrated in December 2016 respondent employed 19 new permanent warehouse employees because of a requirement under enterprise agreement – found new employees engaged in jobs that were made redundant – would have been reasonable for applicants to have been redeployed into positions which had to be filled under obligations arising from enterprise agreement – dismissal of applicants were not cases of genuine redundancy and were harsh, unreasonable and unjust – applicants sought reinstatement as remedy – Commission found reinstatement appropriate – consequential orders for maintenance of continuity of employment and restoration of lost pay to be issued. Williams and Ors v Staples Australia P/L
…
