When a redeployment offer makes things worse, not better, for an employer
A casual job offer after redundancy seemed like a clean solution. The Fair Work Commission, and then its Full Bench, saw it differently.
Recording Oasis Pty Ltd, a business trading as Gold Coast Plastic Surgery, made its Digital Marketing Manager redundant in August 2025. Believing it had softened the blow by offering the employee a casual replacement role she had accepted and then backed out of, the company argued she had never been dismissed at all. On 4 March 2026, the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission handed down its decision, refusing permission to appeal and leaving that argument where it fell.
Kirsten Kae Beck had worked at the company from 26 February 2024. When her full-time role ended on 1 August 2025, she was offered a position as a casual Social Media Coordinator, eight hours per week, remote, with no guaranteed minimum hours. She signed the contract, then changed her mind before her start date of 6 August 2025.
The company, along with Barbara Sotiriadis, contended that the employment relationship had never truly ended and that Beck's decision not to start the casual role was, in effect, a resignation. Commissioner McKinnon rejected that argument in December 2025. On 4 March 2026, the Full Bench found no arguable case of appealable error and refused permission to appeal.
"The separate offer of casual employment, which was accepted by Ms Beck before she decided not to proceed with that offer, is a distraction," the original decision read.
The Full Bench agreed. The two roles were not the same employment relationship. The original was full-time management. The replacement offered eight hours a week, no guaranteed work, fewer responsibilities and a fully remote arrangement. The casual contract never commenced. Beck was dismissed when her Digital Marketing Manager role ended on 1 August 2025.
The employer's own correspondence helped seal it. A formal letter dated 31 July 2025 was titled "Variation to Terms and Conditions of Employment" and said nothing about termination. But an email sent the same day by Ms Sotiriadis told Beck: "In line with your entitlement, payment of two weeks in lieu of notice will be made into your nominated bank account on Monday 4 August."
The company had also locked Beck out of her existing work email, issued her a new one and required her to sign a fresh employment contract. The Commission treated these as clear signs the original employment had ended.
There is a larger issue still unresolved. Beck alleged that her redundancy was unlawful because it was motivated by reasons related to her pregnancy. The 4 March 2026 decision only determined whether she was dismissed. The pregnancy discrimination allegation has not been heard and remains live.
For HR leaders managing redundancy processes, the decision raises questions worth sitting with. A redeployment offer does not neutralise a dismissal when the new role is substantially inferior in hours, rank and security. The gap between a full-time management position and eight casual hours with no guaranteed work is not a minor distinction.
When redundancy and pregnancy intersect, every step in the process matters more. And every piece of correspondence, whether a formal letter or a quick email confirming a payout, forms part of the legal record. In a dispute, both carry equal weight.
