Company issued a profit warning, resulting in the loss of 450 jobs worldwide
An executive assistant challenged her dismissal, arguing the termination did not constitute a case of genuine redundancy.
The worker contended the position descriptions showed the redundancy was not genuine; she was initially advised she did not have the skillset for the new role, and the role was Canberra-based while she had just relocated to Nowra.
The employer maintained that the worker's role was no longer required because of changes in operational requirements; the role was one of around 60 roles made redundant worldwide, and the worker's duties were combined with the former Chief of Staff role to create one merged role.
Employment and global restructure
The worker commenced employment with the employer in November 2021 in the position of Executive Business Partner to the Managing Director. Her employment was terminated by reason of redundancy, effective 8 August 2025.
The employer's parent company issued a profit warning on the London Stock Exchange on 17 March 2025. As a result of the profit warning, a global restructure was announced on 30 March 2025, which would result in the loss of 450 jobs across the business worldwide.
In early May 2025, the employer's Acting Chief Executive, to whom the worker reported, made a number of decisions about her leadership team and the business structure.
One of those decisions was that the worker's role as Executive Assistant was no longer required, along with around 60 other roles within the employer's enterprise.
The Chief Executive also decided to remove the role of Chief of Staff from her leadership team and instead create one merged role, combining the Chief of Staff and the worker's role, with the title of Chief Executive Operations Manager. The employer's evidence was that the worker's role was no longer required because of changes in the operational requirements of its enterprise.
Letter stated role at risk of redundancy
On 14 July 2025, the worker and her support person met with the Chief Executive and the Chief People Officer at which time she was told that her role was at risk of redundancy.
She was subsequently given a letter stating: "As you are aware, since the organisation issued a profit warning in March, the organisation has been focused on a significant company restructuring activity with the intention of building a stronger future by improving the way we work and our competitiveness. Within the Australian sector, this activity has included a particularly strong focus on reducing our overhead costs in order to create a more sustainable cost base for our organisation."
"In view of this, we have already taken the decision to remove the Chief of Staff role from the Australian sector. Upon further review, we are now proposing to combine some of the Chief of Staff's responsibilities with the responsibilities that are currently within the remit of the Executive Assistant to the Chief Executive role and create a new role of Chief Executive Operations Manager. I am very sorry to advise that as a result of this proposal, your role as Executive Assistant to the Chief Executive is now at risk of redundancy," the letter added.
The letter continued: "We would now like to enter into a redundancy consultation period with you. During this period, we will meet with you again to provide you with the opportunity to ask any questions you may have and to provide feedback regarding our proposal. This includes providing you with the opportunity to put forward any suggestions that you may have regarding reducing or avoiding the impact of this proposal. Please be aware that if, following the consultation period, we are unable to find a way to avoid the impact of this change, your employment will be terminated by reason for redundancy, with effect from Tuesday 22 July."
That same day, the Chief People Officer provided the worker with a list of all current vacancies that were available as redeployment opportunities. The worker sought further information about the Chief Executive Operations Manager role, including a copy of the position description.
The worker sent an email to the Chief People Officer on 15 July 2025, indicating she had the skills to perform the Chief Executive Operations Manager role and had previously performed many of the duties while working for the employer's previous Chief Executives.
The Chief People Officer responded, indicating that she and the Acting Chief Executive were unaware of the worker having previously undertaken those duties, and invited her to apply for the role.
Worker chose not to apply for new role
A further meeting took place on 16 July 2025, during which the worker was invited to provide feedback on the employer's proposal. Between 14 and 29 July 2025, there were a number of email exchanges between the worker and the Chief People Officer in which the worker sought further information regarding the Chief Executive Operations Manager role and other aspects of the redeployment process.
The worker was advised by email when the Chief Executive Operations Manager role was open for applications; however, she did not submit an application for the role or for any other roles that were available.
On 5 August 2025, a further meeting took place during which she was informed that her employment was terminated on the ground of redundancy. She was then provided with a letter stating:
"As you are aware, we recently met with you to inform you that, as a result of the organisational design activity, your role was at risk of redundancy. We commenced a consultation process with you in order to provide you with the opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback/suggestions on how we might mitigate your proposed redundancy."
"We also invited you to participate in our redeployment process, to enable you to seek out a suitable new role within the organisation. As you are also aware, you chose not to express interest in any of the redeployment opportunities available within the organisation, and we have not identified any other means by which your redundancy could be mitigated. As a result, I regret to confirm that your employment will conclude on the grounds of redundancy, effective 8 August 2025," the letter added.
The worker's evidence set out some background to her employment with the employer, which included her annual performance ratings and an outline of the duties she had previously performed.
She explained that she had sought a flexible working arrangement in April 2025 so she could relocate from Canberra to Nowra, which was approved, and as a result, she terminated her lease in Canberra and relocated to Nowra in early May 2025. The worker had taken personal leave from 20 May to 10 July 2025 as a result of her direct report being removed from her on 19 May 2025.
The worker confirmed in her evidence that she chose not to apply for the Chief Executive Operations Manager role. Her reasons for not doing so were that the position descriptions showed that the redundancy was not genuine, she was initially advised by the Chief People Officer that she did not have the skillset for the Chief Executive Operations Manager role, and the role was Canberra-based while she had just relocated to Nowra, although other staff were still able to enjoy flexible working arrangements.
Genuine redundancy found
The Commissioner noted that in considering the question of whether an employer "no longer requires the person's job to be performed by anyone because of changes in the operational requirements of the employer's enterprise", it was well established that the test could be met when job functions were retained but were redistributed.
An employee's job may be genuinely made redundant when the employee's duties, or aspects of them, were still being performed by other employees. The test was whether the job previously performed by the employee had survived the restructure or downsizing, not whether the duties had survived in some form.
The Commissioner found that consideration of whether the employer no longer required the person's job to be performed by anyone because of changes in the operational requirements of the enterprise did not involve a merits review of the employer's decision to make the person's job redundant.
It was not to the point that it may have been open to the employer to make a different operational decision, which may have allowed the relevant employee's job to be retained.
What the Act required was for findings of fact to be made as to whether, firstly, the employer had made the decision that the relevant employee's job was no longer required to be performed by anyone and, secondly, whether that decision was made because of changes in the operational requirements of the enterprise.
Having considered the evidence and submissions, the Commissioner was satisfied and found that the worker's Executive Assistant role no longer existed after the restructure. It was one of around 60 roles that were made redundant. The duties were combined with the former Chief of Staff role and as such, her role did not survive the restructure.
The restructure was clearly a change to the operational requirements of the employer's enterprise. The employer gave evidence that the worker was not covered by a modern award or enterprise agreement, and this was not disputed by the worker.
As a result, the Commissioner was satisfied that the employer was not required to consult; however, it was clear from the matters set out earlier that the worker had been consulted.
The worker was given a list of possible redeployment opportunities, including for the Chief Executive Operations Manager role; however, she did not apply for any of the available roles.
The Commissioner was satisfied that the worker's employment came to an end for the reason of a genuine redundancy. As a result, the worker was not an employee who was protected from unfair dismissal, and the application was dismissed.
