What this redeployment dispute reveals about managing project-based engineers
An engineer who refused to move to a near-identical role 12km away has had his redundancy pay cut to zero.
On 24 February 2026, in Civmec Construction And Engineering Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 599, Commissioner Lim of the Fair Work Commission decided that Civmec Construction and Engineering Pty Ltd could reduce a former employee's redundancy entitlement from six weeks to zero, after finding the company had obtained "other acceptable employment" for him. The matter was determined on the papers, with both parties agreeing that no oral hearing was necessary.
The case involved electrical projects engineer Syed Muhamad Hasan Raza Rizvi, who began working for Civmec in July 2023 and whose role was made redundant in late November 2025. He was based at the company's Henderson, Western Australia site and was working on two manufacturing projects when he was told in early November 2025 that both projects were ending and his role at Henderson was no longer needed.
At the same time, the company identified another electrical projects engineer position at its CSBP operations on Kwinana Beach Road. According to evidence from Civmec's group manager of HR and IR, Stephanie Baptist, the new role was on CSBP's sodium cyanide project, a brownfield development aimed at increasing the existing plant's production capacity. It was described as involving the same title, equivalent duties and pay, and eligibility for a 10 per cent project completion bonus. In an email on 19 November 2025, Civmec's HR adviser wrote that the new project would involve "the same responsibilities, remuneration and is located approximately 15 minutes from the Henderson Head Office".
The Commission accepted uncontested evidence that the change in commute would be marginal: around 31 minutes from Mr Rizvi's home to Henderson, compared with about 35 minutes to CSBP. It also accepted that the engineer's core duties would be effectively the same on a construction project as on his earlier manufacturing projects. Civmec's evidence further noted that Mr Rizvi had previously worked at CSBP.
Initially, Mr Rizvi told the CSBP project manager he did not want to move and would only accept the role with an extra $50,000. He also pointed out that another engineer had previously been offered a similar redeployment and was allowed to decline it, though Civmec said it was not familiar with that situation. He later emailed HR to say he would not resign and considered his existing role redundant. Over several days in November 2025, HR repeated that redundancy was not available because there was a suitable alternative role and warned that failure to attend work might be treated as resignation.
The Commission described Civmec's handling of the resignation question as "clumsy and at times misguided". Nonetheless, Civmec eventually confirmed that his role at Henderson was redundant effective 27 November 2025, and gave him until 28 November 2025 to accept the CSBP role starting 1 December 2025. In the same correspondence, Civmec noted it would pay Mr Rizvi's wages in full for the days he had been absent, despite his absence being unauthorised. When he did not respond, the company terminated his employment on 28 November 2025.
After termination, Mr Rizvi argued he had not refused a suitable role and needed more information to assess safety, risks and working conditions, including possible exposure to sodium cyanide. He asked for details on site location, whether the workshop was inside the CSBP boundary, the full position description, whether the role was construction based, the list of required inductions and any differences in hazards. Civmec later provided this detail and maintained the redeployment had always been suitable.
The Commission's reasoning
The Commission found that Mr Rizvi had a six week redundancy entitlement under section 119 of the Fair Work Act 2009. It then turned to section 120, which allows the Commission to reduce redundancy pay when an employer has obtained other acceptable employment. Applying the Full Bench decision in Australian Commercial Catering Pty Ltd Powell and Togia; Powell v Australian Commercial Catering Pty Ltd [2016] FWCFB 5467, the Commission used an objective test: whether the alternative role was acceptable in substance, rather than whether the employee personally found it acceptable. The Commission also drew on the summary of authorities in Spotless Services Australia Limited t/as Alliance Catering [2016] FWC 4505, which outlined the common features of what constitutes other acceptable employment.
On the evidence, the Commission concluded the CSBP role was other acceptable employment. It had the same title, similar duties and responsibilities, the same hours and pay, a modestly longer commute, and an additional project completion bonus. The role was office based and, on Civmec's uncontested evidence, did not change the employee's risk profile or expose him to hazardous substances. The Commission also observed that while Mr Rizvi later sought detailed information, he had already rejected the redeployment and did not present specific arguments before the Commission about why the role was unsuitable.
For workplace relations and HR decision-makers, the ruling highlights how closely the Commission will examine the real substance of a redeployment offer. It underlines the importance of clear written communication when employees are moved between projects, and confirms that if an objectively comparable role is declined, redundancy pay can be reduced to zero where the legal test is met.
