TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – genuine redundancy – ss.389, 394, 596 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for unfair dismissal remedy – applicant’s position declared redundant in May 2016 – received redundancy payment of $127,000 plus accrued entitlements – respondent objected on basis dismissal was a genuine redundancy – respondent’s representative sought leave to appear under s.389 FW Act – applicant opposed granting of leave – objected to level of ‘complexity’ – Commission granted leave to appear – found that lack of sufficient ‘legal and/or workplace relations expertise’ and failure by Commission to address the condition of ignorance of law, on any discrete finding, may lead to a ‘constructive denial of procedural fairness ‘ following Full Bench decision in [Titan Plant Hire P/L v Van Malsen] – found availability of detailed materials in public domain cannot be relied upon to inform unrepresented parties to the requisite degree – ‘workplace relations expertise’ requires ‘professional (not incidental or infrequent) engagement with the statutory regime’ – level of expertise short of this standard may warrant permission to appear being granted, unless Commission undertakes to guide an unrepresented party to each relevant statutory matter, interpretation and authorities – Commission considered meaning of ‘genuine redundancy’ – whether position would no longer be performed by anyone because of changes in operational requirements – whether respondent had complied with any consultation obligations – found that consultation obligations under clause 51 of the James Cook University Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016 were discharged – found that no other alternative position to which applicant could have reasonably redeployed was identified – application dismissed. Smith v James Cook University
…
