The employer had 18 vacant roles it never told the worker about
A rushed redundancy consultation spanning just one business day has landed CEVA Logistics with an unfair dismissal finding and a compensation order.
The Fair Work Commission decision, handed down on 12 January 2026, offers a cautionary tale for HR professionals navigating redundancy processes. It demonstrates how procedural shortcuts, even in otherwise legitimate restructures, can unravel an employer's defence.
Caycee Horsnell worked as an Operations Supervisor at CEVA Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd's Erskine Park warehouse in New South Wales, supervising approximately 10 workers. She had been employed for just under 12 months when the company moved to restructure its NSW operations to improve profitability. Her role was marked for redundancy.
What followed was a consultation process that Commissioner Walkaden found wanting.
On Thursday 5 June 2025, a HR employee met with Horsnell and delivered a letter outlining the proposed redundancy. The meeting, according to evidence accepted by the Commission, was "not long." Monday 9 June was a public holiday in New South Wales. On Tuesday 10 June, Horsnell attended a brief second meeting, read aloud a two-page letter she had prepared, answered some brief questions, and was then handed her termination notice.
Excluding the weekend and public holiday, the Commission noted, this was one day after the first meeting.
The central problem was not the restructure itself, which the Commission accepted was driven by genuine operational requirements. The problem was what CEVA failed to do during consultation.
At the time of Horsnell's dismissal, CEVA had 18 vacant jobs across the business. The HR employee had reviewed internal career newsletters on 4 June 2025 and formed the view that Horsnell could not have been reasonably redeployed to any of them. Yet CEVA never told Horsnell these vacancies existed. It never provided the newsletters. It never discussed any of these roles during consultation.
Horsnell, recovering from a broken toe, did not have access to her work laptop during this period. CEVA assumed she could access the company's internal careers portal remotely. She could not.
The Commission found CEVA had breached consultation obligations under the Road Transport and Distribution Award 2020, which requires employers to discuss measures to avoid or reduce the adverse effects of major workplace changes.
"The error with the approach taken by CEVA is that CEVA did not discuss or otherwise notify Ms Horsnell of the options that it had considered," Commissioner Walkaden wrote.
The Commissioner went further, observing that it would "appear difficult for an employer to succeed on a merits argument that a dismissal is not harsh, unjust or unreasonable" where it has failed to comply with consultation obligations under an industrial instrument.
CEVA was ordered to pay $7,439.23 plus superannuation. The modest sum reflected the Commission's finding that Horsnell's employment would likely have ended by reason of redundancy anyway following a proper consultation period.
For HR teams managing redundancies, the decision reinforces that consultation is not a formality to be dispensed with quickly. It requires genuine engagement, transparent discussion of alternatives, and adequate time for employees to respond meaningfully.
Assumptions about what employees can access or discover on their own are no substitute for direct communication.
