Worried executive reading a letter sitting in a coffee shop

Redundancy – the need to get it right and the risks of getting it wrong

Victoria Quayle, ||

The Federal Government has recently announced it will extend JobKeeper payments for some businesses beyond September 2020 and into 2021, in order to keep the economy moving.

Despite this lifeline, businesses are likely to continue to review their operational requirements and ongoing financial viability over the coming months, especially in light of growing COVID-19 “pockets” that are popping up across the state, and the lockdown currently in place in Victoria.

To this end, it cannot be stressed enough that businesses who are considering making a role or some roles redundant engage in a thorough and considered consultation process with impacted employees (and their representatives, if he/she has one) in line with the consultation requirements contained a modern Award or Enterprise Agreement. Strict compliance with consultation obligations are required irrespective of whether key decision makers think no alternate options are available but termination by way of redundancy.

A case which illustrates the importance of consultation is Freebairn v TJL Business Advisors & Accountants [2020].

The Facts

TJL is a financial and accountancy services provider.

Ms Freebairn was a long-standing part-time Administration Assistant.

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, TJL suffered a significant reduction in revenue and needed to cut costs swiftly in order to survive. The team that would be impacted most was Administration; work had dried up and office hours needed to be reduced. As a result, TJL decided that Ms Freebairn’s administrative duties could be distributed amongst the rest of the administration team, making her role no longer required.

On 18 March 2020, an all staff meeting was held to inform employees that TJL was considering ways to ensure its viability into the future, which meant that immediate changes were required. TJL assured staff that they would continue to be kept abreast of intended changes with a further meeting held a week later.

On 25 March 2020, the partners of TJL had a meeting where it was decided that hours had to be reduced for all administration staff. Later that afternoon, a meeting was held with Ms Freebairn and a colleague to discuss the impacts the pandemic was having on the business. During this meeting, the partner indicated that Ms Freebairn would be better off financially if she did not remain employed by TJL and seek the JobSeeker payment. Ms Freebairn was then asked if she had any questions which she didn’t and her employment was terminated.

The Commission found that TJL did not engage in a proper consultation under the Clerks – Private Sector Award 2020. The Commission stated:

“The trigger for an employer to give notice of changes to employees who may be affected by the changes and to hold discussions with the employees is the making of a “definite decision”. The only “definite decision” made by TJL in this case was the decision it made on the morning of 25 March 2020 to reduce the work hours of administrative staff in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, the discussions TJL had with all staff on 18 March 2020 did not satisfy, or contribute in the satisfaction of, its consultation obligations under clause 38.1 of the Clerks Award because the trigger for the discussions had not occurred, and did not occur until the morning of 25 March 2020.”


Had TJL genuinely consulted with Ms Freebairn (for more than the 15 minute meeting on 25 March 2020), an entirely different result would have yielded. TJL did not properly explore the option of reducing Ms Freebairn’s part-time hours further (which she was open to).

Accordingly, the Commission found that the redundancy was not genuine and awarded Ms Freebairn compensation of $3,189.01 (equivalent to what she would have received by way of JobKeeper payments had TJL properly consulted with Ms Freebairn).

Please note that if a business needs to make 15 or more employees redundant, employers have an obligation under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) to advise Services Australia (formerly Centrelink) of this, before it embarks upon any redundancy process. Notification is done by completing and submitting a form, with accompanying documentation.

If you’re thinking about making a position redundant, please reach out to a member of Coleman Greig’s Employment Law Team, for further advice to ensure that you complete the process right to avoid any potential claims that may be made by an employee.


Send an enquiry

Any personal information you provide is collected pursuant to our Privacy Policy.


More posts

Proposed changes to building and construction law in NSW

The Building Bill 2022 (the Bill) is the key avenue through which the NSW Government has proposed to reshape the culture of the building and construction industry by eliminating poor performance and improving the quality of building statewide.

Can you dismiss an employee who fails to return to the office?

Slowly but surely, most employers are requiring employees to return to the office for at least a portion of their working week. Some employers continue to struggle with employees resistant to returning to the office or those who have an expectation that they can continue to work from home whenever it suits them.

New powers to combat phoenixing in construction

The rise of phoenixing in the building and construction industry in Australia in recent years has proved a significant challenge to regulators. Mismanagement of time or cashflow can quickly propel businesses into insolvency.

The NSW Building Commission’s extraordinary powers

In late 2023, the NSW Government passed the Building Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 (Amendment Bill). The Amendment Bill established the NSW Building Commission and granted it extraordinary powers to enter construction sites, inspect work and take away information and materials.

© 2024 Coleman Greig Lawyers   |  Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation. ABN 73 125 176 230