Worker argues her duties were redistributed to other staff, questioning if there was any genuine redundancy
A senior staff support officer challenged her dismissal, arguing her role was replaced and duties redistributed rather than eliminated.
The worker contended she was presented with unacceptable alternative roles with significantly reduced hours and pay.
The employer maintained that the role was no longer required due to an 18% revenue decline and a failed contract application, with duties absorbed by the director and existing officer, and shift allocation transferred to an external contractor.
Employment and redundancy process
The worker commenced employment in June 2022 as a disability support worker, before moving into a staff support officer role in August 2023. She was promoted to senior staff support officer in December 2024, working full-time at $49.20 per hour.
The employer's director stated the promotion arose from multiple coinciding events, including the termination of another staff member and the proposed expansion of services. The employer had applied to provide services to the Department of Veteran Affairs.
That application in 2025 was unsuccessful. Added to this was the loss of several clients and workers between February and June 2025, which saw an 18% reduction in revenue.
The director consulted with an external HR consultant on the appropriate process for dealing with the worker's role in light of operational and financial changes. As there were no other roles at a similar level in the organization, it was determined to make the worker's role redundant.
On 26 June 2025, the worker was sent an email inviting her to attend a meeting on 27 June 2025 to discuss significant impacts on her role. At the meeting, the director attended with the HR consultant, while the worker attended with a support person.
The worker was advised that her position was to be made redundant and that she was given the option of taking a redundancy or accepting a different role as a disability support worker, either part-time or casually.
An email was sent to the worker by the HR consultant shortly after the meeting, to which a letter was attached. The email emphasized that the matter was confidential and should not be discussed with other staff until impacts were finalized and a formal announcement was made.
The letter stated the worker's current role was no longer required and would be made redundant, and this change was not a reflection of her performance or contribution, but rather a necessary step to realign the workforce with business requirements.
Alternate roles and worker's response
Following receipt of the email, the worker responded on 27 June 2025, requesting that the meeting scheduled for Monday, 30 June 2025, be postponed as she would not be making any decisions over the weekend. In a subsequent email on 30 June 2025, the worker sought further information on the roles offered, including details of hours that could be guaranteed.
The HR consultant responded, providing a breakdown of each option. The part-time option provided five hours per week at $33.82, which reflected a step down from the current senior classification. The casual option offered no guaranteed minimum at $42.28 per hour, inclusive of 25% casual loading.
A further meeting was conducted on 4 July 2025, at which the worker informed the director and HR consultant that she had decided to accept redundancy effective immediately and that she was planning to finish at the end of the day.
The HR consultant confirmed that the worker would finish her employment at 4 p.m. that day. The HR consultant also reminded the worker that she should not contact staff or participants until after the business had made a formal announcement. The director stated the worker agreed to this, and the meeting ended at 1:37 p.m.
Farewell email sent before redundancy confirmed
The director stated that at 4:05 p.m. on 4 July 2025, she sent a message to all staff and clients to inform them that the worker had left the business by way of redundancy. Soon after sending this message, she received messages from two participants advising that they were already aware because the worker had already told them.
This led the director to access the worker's work email account, where she found an email the worker had sent to all her participants at 1 p.m. on 4 July 2025, in which she included her private email address and encouraged the participants to contact her. In sending the email, the worker also disclosed the personal email address of a participant in the "To" field rather than the "BCC" field.
On 9 July 2025, the HR consultant sent an email to the worker to which she attached a letter raising concerns regarding the worker's conduct in sending the email to participants at 1 p.m. on 4 July 2025. The worker was invited to a meeting to discuss the concerns.
The letter stated the employer had identified that the worker contacted participants to inform them of her departure prior to any formal decision being communicated by the business. This contact occurred despite clear written directions provided on 27 June 2025 not to discuss the redundancy process or any potential outcomes with staff or clients until the company had the opportunity to manage these communications appropriately.
On 9 July 2025, the worker responded by email, confirming that she had sent a farewell email to the participants she was supporting, simply to inform them of her last day working. She stated this was standard professional practice when concluding a working relationship with clients.
In her message, she did not mention any reasons for her departure and only provided her personal email address, should any participant choose to contact her in the future. She stated that she would not be attending any further meetings, as her employment officially ended on Friday, 4 July, at 5:00 p.m.
Termination reason revised to serious misconduct
On 11 July 2025, the HR consultant sent the worker an email to which was attached a letter notifying the outcome of the disciplinary investigation. The letter stated the employer's investigation had established that, before formal confirmation, and while the worker was still actively employed, she sent an unauthorized farewell email to 12 participants.
The farewell email was timestamped at 1:00 p.m. on July 4, 2025, approximately 20 minutes before the worker verbally confirmed her acceptance of redundancy during the meeting at approximately 1:20 p.m. that day.
This timing was important, as it demonstrated that at the point the worker contacted participants, no formal decision had been made, and she remained employed and bound by the lawful and reasonable instructions in place.
The letter stated that during the finalization meeting, the worker was once again reminded not to contact any staff, participants, or stakeholders until the business had made a formal announcement. The worker did not notify or advise the employer that she had already done so before joining the meeting, which the employer considered to be a willful deception.
The farewell email provided the worker's personal contact details to participants and included language that raised serious concerns about professional boundaries and potential solicitation.
The email also disclosed the personal email address of one participant to all other recipients by placing their email address in the visible "To" field rather than the blind copy field, constituting a clear breach of participant confidentiality and privacy.
The letter stated after carefully considering all information, the employer had determined that the worker's actions constituted serious misconduct based on failure to comply with lawful and reasonable directions, breach of participant confidentiality and privacy, and conduct that undermined the organization's ability to manage sensitive communications in line with standards.
Accordingly, the reason for termination of the worker's employment had been revised on the grounds of serious misconduct, effective 4 July 2025. The letter stated that the previous confirmation that the worker's role was terminated by way of redundancy was null and void.
No notice period or payment in lieu of notice applied. The director stated that the employer made a top-up payment on 10 October 2025 to the worker of three weeks' pay in lieu of notice.
Duties absorbed, not replaced
The worker contended that the employer had employed a staff support officer at the time of her dismissal. She further claimed that the employer had hired two staff support officers since her dismissal.
Other witnesses called by the worker gave evidence that the employer had employed staff since the worker's dismissal to perform the duties formerly performed by the worker. Former workers referred to an employee who had been employed since the worker's dismissal and with whom they liaised regarding shift allocations.
The director was cross-examined on the distribution of the worker's former duties. She explained that prior to the worker's dismissal, the employer had contracted an external service provider to provide support in answering calls and organizing shifts after hours.
It was decided to transition to another contractor. In engaging the new contractor around the time of the worker's dismissal, the shift allocation duties formerly undertaken by the worker were transferred.
The director estimated that this work involved four to five hours per week. The director confirmed that one of the contractor's employees who interacted with the employer's staff and participants in respect of shift allocations was the person witnesses referred to.
The director further explained that the majority of the worker's duties had been absorbed into the director's role, with some responsibilities passed to another staff support officer who was a full-time employee who was employed prior to and at the time of the worker's dismissal.
The director confirmed that no other staff had been hired to undertake the senior duties formerly undertaken by the worker.
Genuine redundancy found
The Commissioner was satisfied that the senior role formerly held by the worker was removed as a consequence of the restructure initiated by the employer in response to the deterioration in the employer's revenue position. The director gave unchallenged evidence on both the 18% decline in the employer's 2025 revenue and its failure to secure a sought-after contract.
The director also gave evidence that the Commissioner accepted that these operational circumstances led her to conclude that the worker's senior role could no longer be sustained.
The Commissioner did not accept the worker's evidence that her position was replaced. The director gave unchallenged evidence that she personally took on the majority of the work formerly undertaken by the worker.
She also passed some of the duties to another existing staff support officer and transferred the shift allocation work to an external contractor. Reference by the worker and witnesses to a new employee was mistaken.
She was not an employee of the employer, but an employee of the contractor who performed work which the director estimated involved four to five hours per week.
The Commissioner was satisfied that while the former duties of the worker's senior role were still required, her role was not. Those duties were absorbed by the director and the existing staff support officer, with the exception of shift allocation work, which was added to the work performed by the contractor.
The Commissioner was satisfied that the senior role had not been replaced and was no longer required to be performed by the employer for operational reasons.
The Commissioner was satisfied that the employer complied with consultation obligations and the worker's dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy. The application was dismissed.
