The redundancy process that failed every step of its own policy checklist
Triple Zero Victoria's redundancy defence failed at the Fair Work Commission after its People and Culture team didn't follow its own redeployment policy.
In a decision handed down on 10 March 2026, Deputy President Masson of the Fair Work Commission rejected Triple Zero Victoria's genuine redundancy defence in the dismissal of Senior Trainer Gawaine Lee.
Lee had worked at the organisation's Ballarat facility since 17 July 2020, earning $115,244 under the Emergency Services Telecommunications Authority Support Staff Enterprise Agreement 2021. He was dismissed on 10 October 2025 following a budget repair-driven restructure that disbanded the Learning Centre and removed all nine Senior Trainer positions across the organisation.
The Commission accepted the Senior Trainer role had genuinely been abolished. The key dispute was whether Triple Zero Victoria had complied with its consultation obligations under the enterprise agreement, specifically around redeployment.
Lee's first request for a meeting, sent on 12 June 2025, went unanswered for weeks. The Communication Workers Union wrote to the employer in late June 2025, noting that Lee's meeting request had drawn no response and that the Union had not been briefed on the changes or given an opportunity to make submissions. When the employer did reply, it emailed Lee to say that Payroll was preparing a redundancy payment estimate, apparently under the mistaken impression he had requested redundancy details rather than redeployment.
Lee was also excluded from a Resume and Interview Coaching workshop held on 21 August 2025. When he applied for three roles and was unsuccessful, he found out via a general all-staff email, with no prior individual notification.
The Commission found that contrary to Triple Zero Victoria's own Redundancy and Redeployment Policy, Lee was never assigned a case manager, no skills assessment was conducted, job search criteria were not agreed, and no feedback was provided on his unsuccessful applications.
The enterprise agreement required that "appropriate consultation (including on termination and change), will occur between the parties." The Commission found this obligation extended well beyond notifying staff of a proposed restructure, requiring genuine engagement with redeployment matters raised by the employee.
Lee raised two separate concerns about qualification requirements for the Operations Training Team Leader role. The internal Position Description listed a Certificate III in Public Safety as mandatory while the external Seek advertisement did not. Separately, both documents stated applicants should possess or be "willing to obtain" a TAE50116 Diploma of Vocational Education and Training. Lee's broader redeployment argument rested on the external advertisements' statement that applicants need only be "willing to obtain" the Certificate III in Public Safety, a qualification he did not hold but said he was prepared to pursue. He also stated his belief that the two successful candidates at Ballarat and Williams Landing did not possess the TAE50116 Diploma, an allegation the Commission did not address. The Commission found his assertion of suitability for all three roles was unsupported by any real evidence, noting each was at a more senior band level than his former position.
The Commission also rejected the only roles formally offered to Lee — Call Taker positions — as reasonable redeployment. The base salary of a Call Taker, excluding shift and weekend penalties, was approximately $60,000 per year below Lee's remuneration. On the broader redeployment question, the Commission concluded it would not have been reasonable in the circumstances to redeploy Lee, as no comparable roles to the Senior Trainer position had been identified by either party.
The Commission found that "the Respondent singularly failed to meet with the Applicant in a timely manner as requested by him to discuss his redeployment. Nor did it comply with significant elements of the R&R policy." The genuine redundancy defence was rejected, and the matter will proceed to a full unfair dismissal hearing.
For people and culture teams, the ruling establishes that enterprise agreement consultation obligations extend to redeployment discussions, not just the initial announcement of change. The Commission also noted Triple Zero Victoria "led no evidence" to rebut the employee's account, underlining the importance of documenting each step of a redeployment process.
