TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – genuine redundancy – ss.389, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for relief from unfair dismissal – respondent submitted applicant’s dismissal was a genuine redundancy due to no longer requiring security services on Quill Way site – applicant conceded the requirements in s.389(1)(a) and (b) of FW Act had been satisfied – only issue in dispute was whether respondent had fully explored redeployment opportunities for applicant – respondent submitted it had no obligation to displace contractors to create a vacancy for applicant and it was not reasonable for respondent to explore redeployment outside of Western Australia – submission consistent with decision in Huang – Commission satisfied it was not reasonable in the circumstances for applicant to be redeployed to various casual positions and applicant refused the positions when offered – applicant did not express an interest in interstate or overseas redeployment prior to Determinative Conference and therefore the Commission found it was not unreasonable that respondent did not contemplate interstate or overseas redeployment – at the Determinative Conference the applicant first indicated that he would be prepared to consider interstate or overseas redeployment and that he believed that the respondent’s failure to consider such opportunities made his otherwise genuine redundancy not genuine – as a result of applicant’s failure to comply with the Directions of the Commission there was no evidence before the Commission on which it could find on the balance of probabilities that there was a job, position or other work within the respondent or an associated entity in Western Australia or elsewhere to which it would have been reasonable in all the circumstances to redeploy the applicant – found the dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy – application dismissed. Watson v G4S Secure Solutions P/L t/a G4S Security
…
