Work volume significantly decreased by 50% compared to the previous year, says employer
A business support officer with just over a year of service challenged her dismissal after her employer advised that her position had been made redundant following a business review.
The worker contended that no redeployment options were provided to her and there was no consultation about the redundancy, meaning her dismissal was unfair.
The employer maintained the worker's role was genuinely redundant because the volume of dispute matters had significantly decreased by approximately 50% compared to the same period the previous year.
The worker also argued that her dismissal was a retaliatory action arising from internal politics or that she was dismissed on the basis that the employer considered her to be underperforming.
Termination meeting and operational changes
On the morning of 27 May 2025, a meeting was held between the worker, her manager and the executive general manager. At this meeting, the worker said she was advised that due to a significant decrease in sales, her position had been made redundant.
The termination letter dated 27 May 2025 referred to a "recent review" of the employer's business operations and structure, and a decision to make a number of changes aimed at improving efficiencies, streamlining operational flow and aligning the business structure with business targets.
The letter stated that as a result of this process, they had identified several roles that would be impacted in the new structure, and unfortunately, the worker's position was one of them.
The letter stated this decision was based solely on the role and not a reflection of her individual performance or contributions. The worker said that no redeployment options were provided to her, nor was there any consultation.
The executive general manager gave evidence that the worker's key responsibility in the role of business support officer was to manage all customer, supplier and subcontractor disputes brought by or against the employer, including representing the employer in proceedings at tribunal bodies.
When the worker was employed, the employer was experiencing high volumes of customer dispute matters with more than 75 disputes at one body, 15 with another body and 3-4 new dispute matters each week, which was a historical high for the business.
Business review and decreased dispute volume
The executive general manager said that by several months later, the pipeline of work that had commenced during the pandemic had largely been completed.
Her evidence was that the number of active new home builds was 30% lower than the number of active new home builds the previous year.
Further, due to reasons including high inflation, rising interest rates and decreased customer confidence, the employer suffered a downturn in new home sales.
In May 2025, the employer commenced a business review to identify operational efficiencies. The review identified that the volume of dispute matters had significantly decreased, with approximately three dispute matters being commenced against the employer per fortnight, a decrease of approximately 50% compared to the same period in 2024.
The review determined that the role of business support officer was likely no longer required in light of this decreased workload and that the residual functions of the role could be absorbed and performed by other employees, or outsourced to external legal providers where necessary.
Following discussions with the employer's senior management, including the worker's manager, a decision was ultimately made to proceed to make the business support officer role redundant.
The worker rejected that her job was no longer required and said that the role of business support officer was ongoing.
The worker contended that the tribunal disputes only comprised a component of her role, and the evidence before the Commission did not support a conclusion that the employer's business review considered the other tasks she performed.
Worker's contentions about role duties
The worker said she implemented an internal customer care team for the purposes of avoiding complaints being made through the tribunal bodies, which was a successful endeavour, and she was extremely busy dealing with these complaints.
The worker also contended that her manager did not attend her weekly meetings and accordingly, did not have sufficient knowledge of the duties performed in the business support officer role.
The Commissioner accepted the worker's submission that the role of business support officer included tasks beyond representing the employer at tribunal bodies, including conflict resolution and business support.
The Commissioner also accepted that the worker's role evolved somewhat during her employment through the implementation of the internal customer care team, which was established with the worker's support for the purposes of avoiding formal tribunal proceedings where possible.
Notwithstanding this, the Commissioner was satisfied that tribunal work remained as a prominent feature of the business support officer role, and there had been a decrease of approximately 50% in the number of dispute matters commenced against the employer per fortnight.
The relevant issue for determination was whether the role the worker was performing was no longer required to be performed by anyone.
The Commissioner was satisfied on the evidence that there had been a change in the operational requirements of the employer's enterprise.
The reasons the executive general manager provided for the worker's redundancy were rational and convincing.
The employer restructured its relevant operations to improve efficiencies, streamline operational flow and better align its operations with business needs, having regard to the decrease in new construction work, which translated to fewer formal dispute matters for the business support officer to manage.
Role absorbed and redistributed to other employees
The evidence before the Commission did not support a finding that the role of business support officer was ongoing, as the worker submitted.
The Commissioner accepted the evidence of the executive general manager that the business support officer function had been absorbed, and the role responsibilities were redistributed, such that the worker's job no longer existed.
Nor did the Commissioner accept that the role of business support officer was "rebadged" but with identical tasks, as the worker contended.
The relevant duties were broadly absorbed by an employee responsible for managing the construction team, who the Commissioner accepted had capacity to take on the functions of the business support officer role in addition to those previously being performed.
It was within the employer's prerogative to break up the collection of duties and responsibilities attached to the business support officer role and distribute them among other roles. The employer's current corporate hierarchy demonstrated that this is what occurred in this case.
It followed that the Commissioner was satisfied that the employer no longer required the worker's job to be performed and that her job was not being performed by anyone else. The role of business support officer had not been filled.
The fact that the employer advertised for the role of customer experience coordinator the day after the worker's redundancy and referred to the employer as "one of the fastest growing and successful housing companies" did not contradict this conclusion, as the worker contended.
Alleged retaliatory dismissal and ulterior motive
There was no evidence before the Commission that drew a causative link between the redundancy of the worker's role and the worker's allegation that the redundancy was in retaliation for raising concerns about ethical and lawful conduct during her employment.
The executive general manager gave evidence that she was unaware of any formal complaint made by the worker during her employment.
Further, the worker contended that her dismissal was personally motivated by an incident in relation to recruiting an additional staff member involving the executive general manager.
The executive general manager rejected the contention that the redundancy of the worker's role was personally motivated or related to the above incident.
The executive general manager said that the issue raised by the worker concerned the worker's failure to follow her direction on the hiring of new staff.
The Commissioner recorded these matters, noting they reflected concerns held by the worker about the genuineness of her selection for redundancy.
However, the Commission should not determine contentions as to unfair selection procedures at this stage of the proceedings.
The Commissioner recorded the view that there was no ulterior motive for the worker's dismissal, on the evidence before the Commission. Nor was the Commissioner persuaded that the worker was in fact dismissed for performance reasons, which the worker also contended.
Customer experience coordinator not reasonable redeployment
The termination letter stated that the employer "carefully considered whether there are any suitable alternative roles available within the business, but unfortunately, there are none at this time."
However, the worker contended that the employer did not adequately consider redeployment opportunities for her.
In her written material, the worker did not identify an alternative job, position or work which existed at the time of the dismissal to which she could or should have been redeployed.
However, during cross-examination, the worker's evidence was that had she been advised of the customer experience coordinator role, she would have accepted that role "until the business improves again."
The Commissioner accepted the executive general manager's evidence that the employer conducted an assessment of the available managerial roles that matched the worker's skills and capabilities, having regard to her experience and expertise.
The employer concluded that there were no reasonable redeployment opportunities for the worker within the company and its associated entities.
The Commissioner did not consider the customer experience coordinator role to have been a job, or a position, or other work within the employer's enterprise to which it would have been reasonable in all the circumstances to redeploy the worker.
The advertised salary for the role was approximately half of the worker's salary, and it involved administrative duties.
The worker had had a successful career for over 25 years in the industry, holding senior management roles and a building degree.
Genuine redundancy found
By any measure, the worker's skills and experience well exceeded the requirements of the customer experience coordinator position.
A further relevant circumstance was the worker's evidence that she would have considered it only a temporary arrangement until the employer's business improved.
Absent agreement between the parties, the Commissioner did not consider the customer experience coordinator to have been a reasonable redeployment opportunity if the worker would only agree to the arrangement temporarily, pending the possibility of altered or improved business conditions.
The Commissioner was satisfied that it was not reasonable in all of the circumstances for the worker to be redeployed within the employer's enterprise or the enterprise of an associated entity.
Having regard to the above matters and the conclusions reached, the Commissioner was satisfied that the worker's dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy within the meaning of the Act. It followed, by reason of the Act, that the worker was not unfairly dismissed.
The worker's application for an unfair dismissal remedy was dismissed.
The Commissioner found that the employer no longer required the worker's job to be performed by anyone because of changes in the operational requirements of its enterprise.
