The workers kept their jobs, but their relocation terms raised another HR issue
The FWC found no redundancy after Toll closed a warehouse, but ruled its relocation measures fell short for five test employees.
In Toll Transport Pty Ltd v United Workers’ Union [2026] FWC 2519, issued on 9 July 2026, the Fair Work Commission considered a dispute over Toll Transport’s closure of its Altona warehouse and the relocation of employees to other Toll worksites.
Toll had operated the warehouse in Melbourne’s western suburbs to distribute Nike retail products. Nike advised Toll in 2022 that it would not renew its contract. The contract was ultimately extended to April 2025, and Toll closed the Altona operation that month after it did not secure a replacement customer.
The dispute concerned approximately 122 employees who had worked at the warehouse and were subsequently relocated. The United Workers’ Union argued that the closure and relocations triggered redundancy obligations under the applicable enterprise agreement. It also challenged Toll’s ability to relocate employees when some wanted the option of a redundancy payment instead.
Toll maintained that redundancy consultation and payments were not required because it had secured alternative work for the employees. The company’s position was that the employees remained employed and that no redundancy had occurred.
The Commission examined the circumstances of five test employees who had been moved to Toll sites associated with Kmart, healthcare products and Mars. It later observed that those employees were not representative of most of the relocated workforce.
The Commission found that the agreement’s redundancy provisions did not apply. Toll had neither terminated the employees’ employment nor made a definite decision that it no longer required their jobs to be performed. Instead, Toll intended to maintain employment by relocating its workforce.
That finding did not resolve the separate question of whether the relocations complied with the agreement’s restructuring requirements.
The Commission found that closing the Altona operation and transferring almost its entire workforce amounted to a “restructuring necessity” under the agreement. Although the test employees’ contracts permitted relocation, Toll’s contractual power was limited by that restructuring provision.
The provision allowed relocation as a way of maintaining employment, subject to its requirements. These included relocation within a reasonable distance and measures ensuring that employees would not be significantly disadvantaged.
The Commission accepted that the alternative sites were within a reasonable distance of Altona. However, it found Toll had not established measures ensuring the five test employees would not be significantly disadvantaged. It also concluded that their opposition to relocation was not unreasonable.
Each test employee missed a scheduled wage increase due on 1 July 2025. One also experienced a reduced shift loading, while three were assigned to roles with lower classifications than their previous Team Leader or second-in-charge positions. These findings formed part of the Commission’s assessment of the individual relocations.
The decision did not give the employees an entitlement to redundancy payments. The Commission expressly found there was no redundancy or decision to make anyone redundant. It also said Toll remained capable of taking steps to comply with the restructuring provision.
For HR teams, the decision draws a practical distinction. Preserving employment may mean redundancy provisions do not apply, but it does not automatically satisfy separate protections governing restructuring and relocation.
The findings turned on the wording of Toll’s enterprise agreement and the evidence concerning the five test employees. For HR leaders managing workplace change, the decision nevertheless highlights the importance of reviewing pay increases, shift loadings, classifications and other working conditions before finalizing a redeployment plan.
