Commission examines if there’s a genuine need to remove the executive’s position after the teams merged
A senior sales executive was dismissed for redundancy on 11 March 2025, taking effect on 29 April 2025, after the employer merged two sales teams, requiring the reduction of one position from nine employees.
The employee had achieved over 300% of his sales targets in 2024 and was selected for an exclusive recognition for the top 1% of performers globally. On 2 December 2024, a new hire joined the employee's work team as a senior sales executive and the employee was asked to mentor the new hire, with recruitment for that position having begun in June 2024.
The commission examined whether the dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy after the employee argued there was a miscalculation in required head count given the recent hire.
Employee achieved top performance in 2024
The commission found the employee was employed by the employer as a full-time employee on 6 May 2024 in the position of senior solution sales executive.
The commission found his annual salary during his employment was $176,954 per annum and his manager during his employment was the head of business transformation management. The commission found the employee completed his probationary period on 6 November 2024.
The commission found that during his employment the employee achieved over 300% of his sales targets in 2024 and was also selected for an exclusive recognition for the top 1% of performers at the employer globally.
The commission found as a result of his 2024 results, the employee received commissions for Q3 and Q4 of 2024 of approximately $320,000 AUD, averaging to $160,000 AUD per quarter with a quota plan and defined sales territory.
Teams merged requiring one position reduction
The commission found that during his employment, the employee would have regular meetings with his manager on a weekly basis and had an active quota plan that included a defined territory that allowed him to complete his work and achieve his targets in 2024.
The commission found the employee's team worked closely with another team, and at the end of 2024, the two teams merged. The commission found there were 9 solution sales executives in the merged team, and a reduction of one sales executive was required.
It found the employee claimed that after coming back from annual leave on 20 January 2025, he was left waiting for his territory and quota plan while all other members of his team were receiving theirs for the year. The commission found his quota plan was only provided after his redundancy notice and without a clearly defined territory.
The commission found that the employee stated in Q1 2025 that he worked on leftover accounts from his 2024 territory while assisting with other accounts, without definitive ownership or recognition.
Dispute over meeting regularity in 2025
The commission found there was a dispute between the parties as to the regularity of one-on-one meetings in 2025. The commission found the employee claimed his first official meeting with his manager in 2025 occurred on 11 March 2025, during which a representative from HR joined the call to advise the employee that his role had been made redundant, with a final day of 29 April 2025.
The commission found the manager stated he had one-on-one catch-up meetings with the employee in Singapore on 22 and 23 January 2025 and then in Bangkok on 19 and 20 February 2025.
It found on around 13 February 2025, after she was informed about the possible redundancy, the people relations partner asked the manager to complete a position elimination justification questionnaire in line with the employer's practice for potential redundancies.
The commission found the people relations partner received the questionnaire on 14 February 2025 and then requested that the manager complete a job skills assessment also in line with the employer's practice for potential redundancies.
Assessment identified employee with lowest score
The commission found the manager conducted the assessment of the nine solution sales executives together with another manager. The commission found the other manager assessed the skills of the six employees from one team only and therefore not the employee, while the manager assessed all nine solution sales executives as he had experience in working with both teams and as a result was considered to have had enough information to assess both.
The commission found the people relations partner received the final version of the assessment from the manager on 3 March 2025, which identified the employee as having the lowest score and alignment in his team with the competencies required of his role.
The commission found on 5 March 2025, the people relations partner reviewed and discussed the questionnaire and assessment with the head of people and culture in line with the employer's practice for redundancies, to ensure that she agreed with the selection of the employee's position for redundancy based on his scores.
Employee argued recent hire showed miscalculation
The commission found the employee succinctly summarised his case, stating his position was that he saw they made a redundancy, but what he could see was they made a hire very recently to the redundancy, so he felt that there was a miscalculation in their required headcount and that hire was proceeding through changes in the organisation.
The commission found the employee stated that, as a result, he lost his job when someone just joined a month ago, and there was actually a clause in their contract where they were measured for suitability for six months, which he passed in November 2024.
The commission found in the above quotation that the recent hire was the new employee who joined on 2 December 2024, and the clause in the contract was the probationary clause. The commission found the employee confirmed that there was a reduction of one employee in the headcount of the new merged teams, and agreed that he was disgruntled because he was the person chosen.
Commission finds dismissal was genuine redundancy
The commission found it was clear and the employee appeared to accept that in the week commencing 20 January 2025, the employer undertook a restructure to merge the two sales teams, after which there would no longer be an operational requirement for one of the nine solution sales executives.
The commission found, arising from the questionnaire and the assessment between 14 February and 3 March 2025, the employee was identified as having the lowest score and alignment in his team with the competencies required of his role.
It found the employee's complaint that the more recent hire should have been made redundant, traditionally referred to as "last on first off", and ignored the employer's detailed assessment of alignment and competencies within the newly merged team.
The commission found that, insofar as the employee complained that after coming back from annual leave on 20 January 2025, he was left waiting for his territory and quota plan while all other members of his team were receiving theirs, and of a lack of engagement by his manager, it considered that delay was not of significant duration and understandable in the circumstances of the restructure.
The commission found there existed a genuine need to reduce the relevant part of the workforce of the employer by one position. The commission found it was not a circumstance where redeployment of the employee could have been considered, given the small size of the relevant part of the workforce.
The commission found that, for these reasons, the employee's dismissal fell within the definition of a genuine redundancy, and the application was dismissed.
