TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – genuine redundancy – ss.389, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 – applicant employed in Customer Service Team – Team included four Customer Support Advisors and a Team leader in addition to applicant – applicant only person made redundant as a result of September 2016 restructure – applicant argued redundancy was a sham – submitted no significant reduction in workload and no significant operational change – Commission found reduction in workload due to removal of Forward Order Program the removal of technical and training support and change in focus in national dealers key accounts – Commission accepted applicant submission that no reduction in her workload occurred prior to her redundancy – did not accept reason for applicant’s dismissal was her complaint about Customer Service Manager – Commission satisfied that reduction from five Customer Support Advisors to four was because of changes in the operational needs of the business and a rational projection of reduction in future workload – Commission satisfied redeployment not possible – Commission satisfied process invited and provided consultation about redeployment – not satisfied process invited or proposed any consultation about the operational changes themselves and measures to avert or mitigate the adverse effects of such changes – not satisfied the consultation requirements of the Clerks Private Sector Award 2010 were met – Commission found dismissal was not a genuine redundancy – satisfied dismissal was unfair – reinstatement not sought by applicant and opposed by employer – amount of severance package and earnings from other employment deducted from calculated amount – ordered compensation of $4,590.95, taxed accordingly. O’Shea v Stihl P/L
…
