Less than 48 hours from notification to termination proved too narrow for the global employer
AECOM made a valid redundancy decision and paid proper entitlements. The consultation process still failed, and it cost them at the Fair Work Commission.
Sanjay Kumar Ram Rakhiani had worked as a Senior Civil Designer at AECOM's Melbourne office for seven years when his team leader called him into a meeting on June 3, 2025. He had no idea what it was about.
Just after midday, Rakhiani sat down with his team leader and a human resources manager who delivered the news: his position was likely redundant as work on the M80 Ring Road project wound down. During the meeting, he received a letter outlining his potential redundancy package and access to current vacancies across AECOM. The letter said a follow-up meeting would happen on June 5, 2025 to discuss his options.
That meeting never took place.
The next day, HR manager Ms Ferguson called Rakhiani at 1:30pm. What was said during that call became disputed, but the outcome was not. By 6pm that evening, Rakhiani received written confirmation: his position was redundant, effective immediately. The timeline from notification to termination was less than 48 hours.
Rakhiani took his case to the Fair Work Commission, arguing he was rushed through the process and denied genuine consultation. He said Ferguson was on "Mission Termination" and that she failed to help him explore redeployment opportunities.
AECOM had legitimate business reasons backing the decision. The company had made 14 redundancies in Rakhiani's Victorian and South Australian Transportation Team since June 2024. His team had shrunk from 25 people to just five since January 2025. Team leader Mr Williams reviewed workload requirements and determined there was only enough work for one of three Senior Civil Designers.
In his decision handed down January 13, 2026, Commissioner Connolly accepted the business case. He found the redundancy was "a sound and reasonable business decision, made after due consideration, in response to a decline of company performance and changes in the operational requirements of the business."
But there was a problem. AECOM had failed to meet consultation requirements under the Professional Employees Award 2020. The award required employers to give notice of changes before discussing them, provide written information about their nature and impact, and discuss ways to reduce adverse effects on employees.
AECOM initially disputed whether the award even covered Rakhiani, but the Commission found it did based on his engineering qualifications and the work he performed.
The Commission determined Rakhiani first learned about the redundancy during the June 3, 2025 meeting itself. He got no advance notice. He received minimal written information beyond a basic letter. And despite that letter promising a June 5 meeting, Ferguson confirmed his termination on June 4 because she believed he had agreed no suitable redeployment existed.
Commissioner Connolly ruled AECOM had not properly consulted Rakhiani, meaning the termination could not be classified as a genuine redundancy under the Fair Work Act.
In an unexpected turn, the Commission still dismissed Rakhiani's unfair dismissal claim. Commissioner Connolly concluded that even with proper consultation and more time, Rakhiani likely would have been made redundant anyway given the business circumstances.
For HR teams managing restructures, the case sends a clear message. Valid business reasons and correct entitlement payments do not guarantee a safe redundancy outcome. Process matters. Award coverage must be properly identified. And when consultation obligations exist, they must be genuinely met. The 48-hour window from Tuesday to Thursday proved too narrow, even when the underlying decision was right.
