{"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, 596 Fair Work Act 2009 \u2013 application for unfair dismissal remedy \u2013 applicant's position declared redundant in May 2016 \u2013 received redundancy payment of $127,000 plus accrued entitlements \u2013 respondent objected on basis dismissal was a genuine redundancy \u2013 respondent's representative sought leave to appear under s.389 FW Act \u2013 applicant opposed granting of leave \u2013 objected to level of 'complexity' \u2013 Commission granted leave to appear \u2013 found that lack of sufficient 'legal and\/or workplace relations expertise' and failure by Commission to address the condition of ignorance of law, on any discrete finding, may lead to a 'constructive denial of procedural fairness ' following Full Bench decision in [Titan Plant Hire P\/L v Van Malsen] \u2013 found availability of detailed materials in public domain cannot be relied upon to inform unrepresented parties to the requisite degree \u2013 'workplace relations expertise' requires 'professional (not incidental or infrequent) engagement with the statutory regime' \u2013 level of expertise short of this standard may warrant permission to appear being granted, unless Commission undertakes to guide an unrepresented party to each relevant statutory matter, interpretation and authorities \u2013 Commission considered meaning of 'genuine redundancy' \u2013 whether position would no longer be performed by anyone because of changes in operational requirements \u2013 whether respondent had complied with any consultation obligations \u2013 found that consultation obligations under clause 51 of the James Cook University Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016 were discharged \u2013 found that no other alternative position to which applicant could have reasonably redeployed was identified \u2013 application dismissed. Smith v James Cook University<\/strong>","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT \u2013 genuine redundancy \u2013 ss.389, 394, 596 Fair Work Act 2009 \u2013 application for unfair dismissal remedy \u2013 applicant’s position declared redundant in May 2016 \u2013 received redundancy payment of $127,000 plus accrued entitlements \u2013 respondent objected on basis dismissal was a genuine redundancy \u2013 respondent’s representative sought leave to appear under s.389 FW Act \u2013 applicant opposed granting of leave \u2013 objected to level of ‘complexity’ \u2013 Commission granted leave to appear \u2013 found that lack of sufficient ‘legal and\/or workplace relations expertise’ and failure by Commission to address the condition of ignorance of law, on any discrete finding, may lead to a ‘constructive denial of procedural fairness ‘ following Full Bench decision in [Titan Plant Hire P\/L v Van Malsen] \u2013 found availability of detailed materials in public domain cannot be relied upon to inform unrepresented parties to the requisite degree \u2013 ‘workplace relations expertise’ requires ‘professional (not incidental or infrequent) engagement with the statutory regime’ \u2013 level of expertise short of this standard may warrant permission to appear being granted, unless Commission undertakes to guide an unrepresented party to each relevant statutory matter, interpretation and authorities \u2013 Commission considered meaning of ‘genuine redundancy’ \u2013 whether position would no longer be performed by anyone because of changes in operational requirements \u2013 whether respondent had complied with any consultation obligations \u2013 found that consultation obligations under clause 51 of the James Cook University Enterprise Agreement 2013-2016 were discharged \u2013 found that no other alternative position to which applicant could have reasonably redeployed was identified \u2013 application dismissed. Smith v James Cook University<\/strong><\/a><\/blockquote>\n