Overqualification concerns cannot justify refusing reasonable redeployment, says FWC
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case where a landscaping company's attempt to dismiss a senior learning and development manager as a genuine redundancy failed after the Commission found the employer should have offered redeployment to a more junior role despite the worker being overqualified.
The case arose when the company eliminated the worker's head of learning and development position during a business restructure, arguing it constituted genuine redundancy that prevented unfair dismissal claims.
The worker challenged the genuine redundancy classification, arguing it was reasonable for the company to redeploy him to the advertised learning and development facilitator role, even though he acknowledged this represented a demotion with 15-30 percent lower pay and reduced responsibilities.
The company contended that redeployment was unreasonable given his overqualifications and their preference to recruit someone better suited to the junior role.
The Commission dismissed the genuine redundancy objection, finding that while the worker's original position was legitimately eliminated due to operational changes, the company's failure to offer redeployment to an available junior role meant the dismissal could not be classified as genuine redundancy, allowing unfair dismissal proceedings to continue.
Business restructure eliminates senior learning role
The company implemented broad strategic changes following the appointment of new executive leadership in November 2024, conducting a restructuring in three stages that eliminated five roles, including the worker's head of learning and development position, by March 2025.
The worker, who commenced employment in November 2023 on $165,000 annually, including superannuation, initially reported to the chief people officer before being reassigned to report to a newly created head of organisational development role.
The restructure fundamentally changed the worker's responsibilities, with strategic learning and development functions transferred to the new organisational development head, while the worker's role was reduced in scope and seniority.
The worker expressed frustration with these changes and his removal from leadership meetings, leading to workplace tensions and performance concerns from his new supervisors.
The Commission accepted the company's evidence that the original head of learning and development position was genuinely no longer required due to operational changes, with strategic functions redistributed and the role's purpose fundamentally altered.
This finding satisfied the first requirement for genuine redundancy under employment law, establishing that the job elimination was legitimate and based on bona fide business restructuring decisions.
Junior facilitator role creates redeployment opportunity
On 13 March 2025, one day before the worker's dismissal took effect, the company advertised for a learning and development facilitator role with a base salary between $120,000-$140,000, representing a significant reduction from the worker's previous remuneration.
The facilitator position involved operational tasks, including booking venues, organising catering, providing administrative support, and delivering training programs, rather than strategic design responsibilities.
The Commission found this junior role was available at the time of dismissal and that the worker possessed the necessary qualifications, skills, and experience to perform the required duties despite being overqualified.
Evidence showed the facilitator role would have previously reported to the worker's eliminated position, creating an unusual situation where redeployment would involve supervising his former subordinates' responsibilities.
The company preferred to recruit externally for the facilitator role, hoping to hire someone closer to the minimum salary range who would be better suited to operational rather than strategic work.
Management expressed concerns that the overqualified worker might become bored, seek higher-paid alternatives elsewhere, or prove less productive than a candidate specifically matched to the junior role requirements.
Commission restricts employer preference for ideal candidates
The Commission ruled that employer preferences about ideal candidates cannot override redeployment obligations under genuine redundancy provisions, emphasising that section 389 of the Fair Work Act restricts companies from making decisions based solely on what they consider their best business interests.
The decision noted that even legitimate concerns about overqualification, productivity, and retention risks cannot justify refusing reasonable redeployment opportunities.
Legal analysis highlighted that redeployment does not require positions to be "dressed up" with preserved entitlements or transitional arrangements, with workers expected to accept offered terms or face termination.
The Commission acknowledged that redeploying overqualified employees can create management challenges, including reduced productivity and increased turnover risk, but emphasised these become the employer's post-redeployment problems rather than valid grounds for refusal.
The ruling established that redeployment assessments focus on whether reasonable opportunities exist rather than whether those opportunities represent optimal business solutions or worker satisfaction outcomes.
This approach prioritises employment continuity over employer convenience, requiring companies to offer available positions regardless of their strategic hiring preferences.
Performance concerns and workplace friction documented
Evidence revealed significant workplace tensions during the restructure period, with supervisors reporting that the worker deliberately withheld information, showed reluctance to perform operational tasks, and appeared frustrated with reduced responsibilities.
The worker's performance was characterised as "static rather than spectacular" with concerns about his engagement with administrative duties that would comprise the facilitator role.
Management documented incidents where the worker halted work activities and failed to progress agreed deliverables, with evidence suggesting he considered certain tasks beneath his qualifications once strategic responsibilities were removed.
The worker's response to personality assessment exercises and general workplace demeanor indicated dissatisfaction with his changed circumstances and reduced organisational status.
Despite these performance and attitude concerns, the Commission determined that workplace friction and management challenges could not justify refusing redeployment where the worker remained capable of performing available duties.
The decision emphasised that post-redeployment management issues represent business risks rather than legal barriers to offering continued employment in alternative roles.
Redeployment failure invalidates genuine redundancy defense
The Commission's finding that reasonable redeployment opportunities existed prevented the company from claiming genuine redundancy protection against unfair dismissal applications.
This outcome demonstrated how failing to offer available alternative employment can transform legitimate business restructuring into potentially unfair dismissal despite valid operational reasons for eliminating specific positions.
The worker did not apply for the advertised facilitator role after learning of it on his final employment day, though the Commission noted no evidence that he was prevented from applying.
His failure to pursue the position did not affect the legal analysis of whether the company should have proactively offered redeployment as part of the redundancy process.
The case proceeds to conciliation for potential unfair dismissal resolution, with the company having lost its primary defense against compensation claims.
The decision illustrates how genuine business restructuring can still result in unfair dismissal liability when employers fail to properly consider redeployment obligations before implementing terminations.
