The FWC found the redundancy was not genuine
A NSW warehouse worker questioned her redundancy and was fired mid-shift. On 17 April 2026, the Fair Work Commission ruled it unfair.
Mask Co. Pty Ltd, a fragrance manufacturing business in New South Wales, was ordered to pay former warehouse storeperson Emma Hooper $8,664.24 in compensation after Deputy President Wright found the company had unfairly dismissed her in a case decided as Emma Hooper v Mask Co. Pty Ltd, [2026] FWC 1322.
Ms Hooper had worked at Mask since 17 June 2024, starting in a casual dispatch role before transitioning to a part-time contract in the same department around 2 October 2024, and then moving to a storeperson role around 20 January 2025. At the time of her dismissal she was working 30.4 hours across four days a week. On 23 July 2025, CEO and founder Jason Morrisby emailed her to advise her storeperson role had been made redundant, with 8 August 2025 as her final day.
She pushed back. On 25 July 2025, Ms Hooper emailed Morrisby challenging the process and noting she had lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission. Within hours, Morrisby responded by flagging her attendance and conduct as potential grounds for dismissal. Ms Hooper replied, denying misconduct and raising a complaint about a manager named Jordan, who she said had made inappropriate comments to her at work.
When the two met in person on 29 July 2025, Ms Hooper says she was told to leave mid-shift. Mask claimed she had behaved disruptively, loudly criticising staff, operations and management, distressing nearby employees. Ms Hooper denied this. In the termination email sent that same day, Morrisby wrote that he would "take your concerns regarding Jordan into consideration" but did not address the complaint substantively. At the determinative conference on 27 January 2026, Morrisby confirmed the termination was due to redundancy, not misconduct.
The Commission found the redundancy was not genuine on three grounds. First, there was insufficient evidence the decision was driven by a genuine change in the operational requirements of the business. Morrisby cited a 48 per cent revenue decrease from 2024 to 2025 and the completion of setup work following Mask's move from a 600 square metre warehouse to a 1,500 square metre warehouse, but the Commission found it "more likely than not that Mask has simply relied on these matters to retrospectively justify its decision to make Ms Hooper's position redundant." Second, Mask failed to meet its consultation obligations under the Storage Services and Wholesale Award 2020, which requires employers to discuss proposed changes with affected employees and provide relevant information in writing. A single notification email did not satisfy that requirement. Third, redeployment was never considered. Casual employees were performing warehouse and forklift duties at the time of dismissal, and the Commission found it would have been reasonable to offer Ms Hooper that work.
Mask summarily dismissed Ms Hooper on 29 July 2025 without notice or payment in lieu, breaching its obligations under the Fair Work Act. The Commission described the conduct as "extremely serious and potentially exposes it to penalty orders under s.546 of the FW Act." Ms Hooper said the dismissal caused serious financial hardship, including difficulty paying rent and an unsuccessful attempt to access her superannuation early. The Commission calculated her compensation by deducting the $21,337.08 she earned in casual work following the dismissal from the estimated $32,001.32 she would have received at Mask, with a further $2,000 reduction for casual income fluctuations, arriving at $8,664.24 gross plus superannuation, less taxation as required by law. Mask is required to pay this amount to Ms Hooper on or before 1 May 2026.
When it comes to managing restructures, the case offers critical reminders. A genuine business case for redundancy must exist before a decision is made, not be assembled afterwards. Consultation must go beyond a notification email, and award obligations are specific and enforceable. Where casual employees are performing similar duties, redeployment should be explored and documented. And where an employee raises concerns, how they are managed carries significant legal weight.
