What your employees actually do matters more than their title in a redundancy
When your job title says manager but your daily work says designer, Fair Work's ruling of 21 April 2026 has a clear answer.
Priyansha Tuli joined Compass Group Management Services as Manager of Brand and Design on 18 September 2023, at grade 15 in the company's internal structure. On paper, she was a manager. In practice, she told the Fair Work Commission, she was substantially performing graphic design duties, with managerial responsibilities limited to running morning meetings and recording outcomes when her manager was away.
That distinction became the central tension of an unfair dismissal case Deputy President Farouque resolved on 21 April 2026, dismissing Tuli's application on the grounds of genuine redundancy.
The restructure began around 25 October 2025, when Compass Group decided to shift resources from design toward marketing. Tuli's grade 15 Manager of Brand and Design position was abolished, four Graphic Designer roles at grade 14 were created, and a new Marketing Brand Specialist position at grade 15 was established. On 12 November 2025, General Manager of Marketing and Engagement Jonny Neech and People Operations Manager Simon Francis met with Tuli to inform her of the restructure. A redundancy consultation letter, an FAQ document, and employee assistance programme information followed the same day.
Tuli's core argument was that her position could not be genuinely redundant because design duties continued to be performed by others after her dismissal. The Commission acknowledged this was understandable from a layperson's perspective, but found that redistributing duties to remaining employees is precisely what redundancy can look like under the law.
Two redeployment options were on the table. The first, Graphic Designer at grade 14, carried a lower salary, and Tuli made clear it was not suitable. The second, Marketing Brand Specialist at grade 15, matched her current salary grade. During a follow-up phone call on 14 November 2025, Neech made explicit that the role was marketing-focused, with negligible, and perhaps no, practical design work required. On 15 November 2025, Tuli emailed Neech to decline, writing: "After giving it some careful thought following our discussion yesterday, I've decided that I won't be applying for the newly created marketing brand specialist role. I don't believe it's the right fit for me as my expertise is in design and I'm concerned about potentially finding myself in the same situation a year from now if Compass Group chooses to dissolve this role as well."
On 18 November 2025, Compass Group issued a Reconfirmation of Redundancy letter confirming that Tuli's employment would be terminated on 9 December 2025. The Commission found that redeployment into either role would not have been reasonable in all the circumstances.
The job title question is what should give HR teams most pause. The Commission noted it was "at least arguable" that Tuli was employed as a graphic designer despite her title, and assessed the case on that basis. As Deputy President Farouque put it, "a person's title is not necessarily determinative of whether an Award or other industrial instrument applies to their employment. What is relevant is the range of duties that the applicant may be required to perform." The consultation process was assessed against the Graphic Arts, Printing and Publishing Award 2020 and found to have been properly conducted.
Although it was strictly unnecessary to go further once genuine redundancy was established, the Commission also considered whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable under s.387 of the Act and found that it was not. The restructure had been carried out for a genuine operational reason, within the employer's prerogative, and the process followed was conventional and properly resourced.
The application was dismissed.
For HR leaders, the case reinforces that what an employee actually does matters more than what their contract calls them. Documenting real duties is critical when Award coverage is in question during a restructure. Redeployment options need to be genuine, clearly explained, and supported by a written record of what was offered, discussed, and how the employee responded.
