{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"OHS Daily News","provider_url":"https:\/\/ohsdaily.com.au\/core","title":"TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT \u2013 genuine redundancy \u2013 ss.389, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 \u2013 application for unfair dismissal remedy \u2013 whether applicant's dismissal was a genuine redundancy \u2013 applicant employed as long-distance truck driver \u2013 applicant informed he faced redundancy due to work practice breaches and company restructure \u2013 applicant requested chance to improve but was made redundant \u2013 Commission considered s.389 of FW Act \u2013 found no person was required to perform applicant's job due to change in operational requirements \u2013 satisfied it was not reasonable for the applicant to be redeployed within the respondent's enterprise \u2013 Honeysett considered \u2013 Commission found dismissal was genuine redundancy \u2013 application dismissed. <strong>Smith v Don Watson P\/L<\/strong>","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><a href=\"https:\/\/ohsdaily.com.au\/core\/smith-v-don-watson-pl\/\">TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT \u2013 genuine redundancy \u2013 ss.389, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 \u2013 application for unfair dismissal remedy \u2013 whether applicant&#8217;s dismissal was a genuine redundancy \u2013 applicant employed as long-distance truck driver \u2013 applicant informed he faced redundancy due to work practice breaches and company restructure \u2013 applicant requested chance to improve but was made redundant \u2013 Commission considered s.389 of FW Act \u2013 found no person was required to perform applicant&#8217;s job due to change in operational requirements \u2013 satisfied it was not reasonable for the applicant to be redeployed within the respondent&#8217;s enterprise \u2013 Honeysett considered \u2013 Commission found dismissal was genuine redundancy \u2013 application dismissed. <strong>Smith v Don Watson P\/L<\/strong><\/a><\/blockquote>\n<script type='text\/javascript'>\n<!--\/\/--><![CDATA[\/\/><!--\n\t\t!function(d,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,n=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(d.addEventListener)e=!0;if(d.wp=d.wp||{},!d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage)if(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(t)if(t.secret||t.message||t.value)if(!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var r,i,a,s=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),c=0;c<n.length;c++)n[c].style.display=\"none\";for(c=0;c<s.length;c++)if(r=s[c],e.source===r.contentWindow){if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(a=parseInt(t.value,10)))a=1e3;else if(~~a<200)a=200;r.height=a}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(i=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),i.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,o.test(a.protocol))if(a.host===i.host)if(l.activeElement===r)d.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),d.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(!n){n=!0;for(var e,t,r=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),i=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),a=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),s=0;s<a.length;s++){if(!(e=a[s]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))t=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t);if(r||i)(t=e.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),e.parentNode.replaceChild(t,e)}}}}(window,document);\n\/\/--><!]]>\n<\/script><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/ohsdaily.com.au\/core\/smith-v-don-watson-pl\/embed\/\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT \u2013 genuine redundancy \u2013 ss.389, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 \u2013 application for unfair dismissal remedy \u2013 whether applicant&#8217;s dismissal was a genuine redundancy \u2013 applicant employed as long-distance truck driver \u2013 applicant informed he faced redundancy due to work practice breaches and company restructure \u2013 applicant requested chance to improve but was made redundant \u2013 Commission considered s.389 of FW Act \u2013 found no person was required to perform applicant&#8217;s job due to change in operational requirements \u2013 satisfied it was not reasonable for the applicant to be redeployed within the respondent&#8217;s enterprise \u2013 Honeysett considered \u2013 Commission found dismissal was genuine redundancy \u2013 application dismissed. &lt;strong&gt;Smith v Don Watson P\/L&lt;\/strong&gt;&#8221; &#8212; OHS Daily News\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe>"}