One day's delay turned a routine contract closure into a costly court order
One day. That was all that separated B.I.C. Services Pty Ltd from avoiding a redundancy payout, in a case decided on 8 April 2026.
The Industrial Court of New South Wales ordered the Sydney cleaning company to pay former part-time cleaner Malinee Kalapakdee $4,304.37, after finding her employment had ended on 15 December 2024 and that an offer of alternative work the following day came too late to change that outcome.
Kalapakdee had been employed by B.I.C. Services as a part-time cleaner since 22 July 2022, working at a client site at 1 Farrer Place, Sydney. On 12 November 2024, the company's People and Culture Manager, Hernando Cabrera, notified her in writing that cleaning services at the site would cease. The letter stated: "Should we fail to relocate your services, please consider this letter as your formal notification that your position will no longer be available with BIC Consolidated as at the date outlined above." That date was 15 December 2024.
No alternative work was offered before or on that date. Kalapakdee worked her last shift on 13 December 2024 and was paid her accrued entitlements, with no redundancy payment included.
At 3.27pm on 16 December 2024, she received an offer of alternative employment at a Martin Place worksite, same hours and days as her original role but with a 30-minute earlier start and finish. A second offer followed on 30 December 2024, for a South Eveleigh site on the same terms. The evidence before the court did not indicate whether she responded to the second offer. She had already told the company, in response to the first, that she had made alternative arrangements on the basis that her employment had ended, and requested redundancy pay.
The company, represented by solicitors Russell Kennedy, maintained she had remained employed and was rostered to work on 16 December 2024. It also argued its alternative employment offers should reduce any redundancy liability under the Fair Work Act 2009, though no application had been made to the Fair Work Commission to formally seek that reduction. Kalapakdee, represented by the United Workers' Union, did not seek a civil penalty against the company.
Taylor J, President of the Industrial Court, rejected both positions. The November 2024 letter was a binding notice of termination, effective 15 December 2024, conditional only on alternative work being offered before that date. None was. The company's own payslip confirmed 15 December 2024 as the termination date, and the court was direct on the post-termination offers: "That the respondent offered suitable alternative employment to the applicant after that date is immaterial in circumstances where her employment had already been terminated at the initiative of the respondent."
On the redundancy reduction argument, the Fair Work Act does provide a mechanism for employers to seek a reduction in redundancy pay where alternative employment has been found, but it requires a proactive application to the Fair Work Commission. B.I.C. Services had not made one, despite the matter being before the courts since October 2025. The court also found the company had contravened the Fair Work Act by failing to pay the redundancy entitlement.
The single court order was for $4,304.37, comprising $3,895.20 in redundancy pay (equivalent to six weeks' ordinary pay) and $409.17 in interest calculated from 16 December 2024 to 8 April 2026.
For People and Culture leaders managing contract losses or site closures, the case establishes that termination letters operate on their stated terms, redeployment offers made after a nominated end date will not undo a redundancy obligation, and any move to reduce a redundancy entitlement through alternative employment requires a formal Fair Work Commission application filed well before proceedings commence.
