TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – genuine redundancy – ss.389, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 – applicant employed as labourer – respondent submitted dismissal was genuine redundancy – operations of respondent altered in October 2016 to prevent double handling of work – work undertaken by applicant was reassigned to apprentices and boilermakers – satisfied of necessary casual connection between the changes in the operational requirements of Gonzalez Steel’s enterprise and the respondent no longer required applicant’s job to be performed by anyone – respondent met with applicant to discuss redundancy and option to undertake training to be redeployed with Algon Steel – Commission satisfied respondent did not comply with consultation obligations under the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2010 in relation to introducing changes to the work place in October 2016 – respondent did not provide applicant with written information in relation to changes and did not discuss the effects the changes would likely have on him – applicant not given opportunity to put forward alternative suggestions – Commission satisfied respondent genuinely wanted applicant to be redeployed as they paid for him to undertake training for redeployment however he did not complete course – respondent then terminated applicant’s employment by reason of redundancy – Commission satisfied requirements of s.389(1)(a) and (2) of FW Act were met by respondent however consultation requirements were not met as per the relevant award, therefore dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy – Commission found that if consultation had occurred in accordance with the award, ‘it would have made no difference to the ultimate outcome’ [Smith v Alice Care Care Centre] – dismissal not unfair – application dismissed. Gay v Gonzalez Steel P/L
…
