TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – genuine redundancy – ss.389, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for relief from unfair dismissal – applicant employed as IT Administrator – position made redundant on 17 October 2016 when respondent’s IT functions were outsourced to a contractor – jurisdictional objection to application – whether applicant’s dismissal a case of genuine redundancy – evidence of respondent’s difficult financial circumstances – general consultation with entire workforce – offer to discuss voluntary redundancy – offer to make cost savings suggestions – Commission found it would not have been reasonable in all the circumstances for the applicant to be redeployed within the respondent’s enterprise or an associated entity of the respondent – Commission considered whether respondent undertook appropriate consultation – QR considered – applicant and other employees not made aware of their names being identified for redundancy and being confirmed as redundant, until the day of the redundancy itself – no direct consultation with affected employees – Commission concluded that the failure of the respondent to consult the applicant prior to 17 October 2016 would not have changed the decision to dismiss him for operational reasons, directly relevant to its financial difficulties and the outsourcing of all the respondent’s IT functions – however, Commission held that respondent should have at least provided the applicant with the opportunity for response once applicant became aware of respondent’s decision to outsource his role – Commission found on a narrow basis that dismissal was not a genuine redundancy – no final view as to whether the applicant’s dismissal was ‘harsh, unjust or unreasonable’ – parties given three weeks for discussions – failing any agreed settlement, Commission will then consider what further steps are necessary to finally conclude the matter. Au v Sing Tao Newspapers P/L
…
