TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – genuine redundancy – ss.389, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 – applicant dismissed after working for respondent for five years – applicant’s employment appeared to be without recorded incident or complaint – applicant called in to the respondent’s place of business on a day she was not rostered to work to attend a meeting with three representatives of the respondent – advised that her position was being terminated because of a serious deterioration in the financial position of the retail operation – respondent submitted that the termination of the applicant was consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code (the Code) and was a genuine redundancy – Commission found applicant’s dismissal not consistent with the Code as she was not provided with any opportunity to offer alternative suggestions to address the concerns of the respondent – no evidence provided by the respondent upon which the Commission could conclude that the financial difficulties of the respondent necessitated the reduction of one employee – no evidence that the respondent had complied with the requirements of s.389(i)(b) of the Act – abrupt nature of the applicant’s dismissal would fail to provide even the most elementary level of consultation – dismissal not a genuine redundancy – respondent’s initial response document made reference to a number of performance and conduct matters as the basis for dismissal which were not raised at hearing – Commission persuaded that these concerns were the actual basis of the applicant’s dismissal – dismissal harsh and unreasonable because the applicant was not provided with the true reason for her dismissal – the dismissal was implemented in a manner which denied the applicant an opportunity to provide any response to the reasons for her dismissal – compensation appropriate – 25 weeks compensation ordered – order issued. Tarbuck v Frockk P/L t/a Frockk
…
