Worker refuses office role due to long commute as business shifts operations
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an unfair dismissal claim that highlighted the intersection of remote work arrangements and genuine redundancy.
A worker challenged their employer's decision to terminate their position, arguing they had been unfairly targeted despite being a strong performer who brought in substantial revenue.
The worker had performed their duties from home since the COVID-19 pandemic began. In February 2025, they received notice that their position was being made redundant, with only three days before their employment would end.
This sudden termination led the worker to question whether the redundancy was genuine or whether they had been singled out.
The employer defended the decision as a legitimate redundancy driven by operational necessities. They argued that changing business requirements meant the worker's role was no longer needed.
The worker had been employed as a team leader in the company's health insurance business, supervising sales consultants who also worked remotely. This arrangement had functioned since the pandemic forced many businesses to adopt home-based work models.
On 25 February 2025, the worker received written notice stating their position was redundant and employment would end on 28 February 2025.
In challenging the redundancy, the worker pointed to their strong performance history. They argued in evidence that "if his position had been genuinely redundant, the roles of others would have been impacted in the same way, but that he was singled out for redundancy." The worker observed that other team leaders continued in their positions, including some who also worked from home.
The worker raised concerns about the fairness and transparency of the process. While the company had offered an alternative position as an office-based team leader in the city, the worker considered this unreasonable due to the very long commute it would require.
They suggested the real reason for their redundancy was that they had become inconvenient to the business as it sought to return staff to office-based work.
The general manager of the health insurance business presented evidence about significant operational challenges facing the company. He testified that "in late 2024, the business was experiencing severe problems. There had been six consecutive years of revenue decline. There was high attrition among new hires, particularly those working remotely."
According to the general manager's evidence, remote team leaders struggled to provide real-time coaching and supervision to their consultants.
The general manager stated: "Team leaders who worked from home were unable to provide real-time coaching and supervision to support their consultants." This limitation affected business performance at a time when the company needed to reverse its declining fortunes.
The general manager testified that while remote work had served its purpose during the pandemic, by late 2024 the company concluded this model was no longer sustainable.
Following the November announcement, the sales manager met with the worker to discuss how the changes would affect their position.
The sales manager explained that the company would stop hiring remote sales consultants and the number of remote staff would gradually decrease. Eventually, the worker's role would become redundant.
The sales manager testified about presenting three options to the worker: accept redeployment to an office-based team leader role in Melbourne with financial relocation support, apply for voluntary redundancy, or continue in the current position knowing redundancy would eventually occur.
The worker indicated they might consider voluntary redundancy in the new year. The sales manager followed up with written confirmation and an estimate of the redundancy payment.
During this period, the worker's team diminished significantly. The sales manager's evidence, corroborated by the general manager, showed that by December 2024, the team had shrunk from approximately 10 consultants to just 4.
When the worker returned from long service leave in January 2025, only 2 consultants remained, and these were soon reassigned to other teams. Without a team to lead, the company gave the worker training duties instead.
The FWC analysed whether the dismissal satisfied the requirements for genuine redundancy under section 389 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The worker was covered by the Banking, Finance and Insurance Award 2020, which contains specific consultation obligations.
The FWC found the company had met these requirements. It stated: "I accept the evidence of [the general manager] and [the sales manager] about the meetings that were held and the correspondence that was sent to [the worker] about the changes."
On the substantive redundancy question, the FWC determined the company genuinely no longer required the worker's position. The FWC noted: "The other remote team leaders' roles were still required. [The worker's] was not, because he had no team." This distinction proved crucial in establishing that the worker hadn't been unfairly singled out.
The Fair Work Act states that a dismissal isn't genuine redundancy if reasonable redeployment opportunities existed within the employer's enterprise or associated entities. The worker suggested they could have performed corporate work remotely, pointing out that many corporate team members continued working from home.
However, the FWC found no evidence of specific corporate roles the worker could have filled. The only available position was the office-based team leader role in Melbourne, which the worker repeatedly declined due to commuting difficulties.
The sales manager testified that after the worker returned from leave, they had regular discussions about this option, but the worker maintained they couldn't work in the office.
The sales manager's evidence showed that while the worker's role had effectively become redundant in January 2025, the company extended employment into February to allow time for reconsideration.
On 24 February 2025, the sales manager asked for the worker's final decision on redeployment. When the worker confirmed office work wasn't feasible, the company proceeded with the redundancy the following day.
The FWC concluded the dismissal was genuine redundancy as defined in section 389 of the Fair Work Act.
It found the company no longer required the position due to legitimate operational changes and had properly consulted throughout the process.
The worker received 12 weeks of severance pay, which exceeded the period before they found new employment on 22 April 2025.
The FWC addressed the worker's performance argument directly: "There is no rule that requires an employer to keep higher performing employees until all others have been retrenched." This clarified that business performance doesn't prevent redundancy when operational requirements change.
