Refusing redeployment outright cost this 57-year-old his job and his Fair Work case
A 57-year-old store manager turned down a redeployment offer and lost his unfair dismissal bid after the Fair Work Commission found his employer had complied with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code.
The Fair Work Commission handed down its decision on 24 April 2026, dismissing the claim of George Grech, a long-serving store manager at Maribyrnong Carpet Court. The employer, Matheson & Osman Pty Ltd, operates four franchises selling carpet and flooring to commercial and domestic customers, each under a different corporate entity. Commissioner Tran found the employer had complied with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code, even though no written warning was ever issued.
Grech had been with the business since 15 October 2018, starting as a Sales Consultant before stepping up to Customer Relations Manager / Store Manager around 2022/2023. According to the decision, the Maribyrnong store was the lowest performer among the four showrooms under director Sean Osman's management — Maribyrnong, Essendon, Coburg and Abbotsford. From August and September 2024, Osman began raising performance concerns and suggesting fixes, including how to follow customers up. Discussions resumed in January, February and March 2025, with Osman suggesting approaches such as approaching real estate agents for commercial work. Grech agreed there were regular weekly catch-ups about the store's performance, often by phone and lasting only a few minutes, but disputed that low sales were linked to his own performance.
On 5 May 2025, Osman emailed Grech a sales report showing April had been "a very low month," with the store sitting "considerably below our break-even point." In around mid-June 2025, Grech told Osman, "You can bring in anybody else and see if they do better", a comment the Commissioner relied on to find Grech was aware his own performance was being discussed alongside the store's.
The turning point came on Tuesday 1 July 2025. At a face-to-face meeting at a cafe, Osman told Grech the business was not doing very well and things had to change. Osman said he respected Grech's experience and time with the business and wanted to retain him. He proposed an alternative role: Operations Manager looking after the Maribyrnong and Essendon stores, with more discussions with suppliers and continued managerial responsibility for the same staff member, who already worked across both stores. Osman asked Grech to consider the matter overnight and meet again the following day.
On Wednesday 2 July 2025, Grech rejected the offer, saying words like, "it's store manager or nothing." Osman, concerned the Maribyrnong store would need to close, told him: "If this store closes, everyone loses their job." Grech told Osman to "Stop playing games" and said he could not be the one choosing, meaning he did not wish to choose who would lose their jobs. The discussion became heated when, after Osman replied "What are you talking about?", Grech said, "It's a saying in Australia that you are not familiar with." Osman ended the meeting at that point.
A termination email followed on 6 July 2025, giving Grech five weeks' notice (four weeks plus an additional week for employees over 45). Grech returned his store keys and work phone on 8 July 2025, and his employment formally ended on 8 August 2025.
Grech argued the dismissal was harsh because of his age (57 at the time of the dismissal) and because he was dismissed shortly before becoming entitled to a pro-rata long service leave payment on termination. Commissioner Tran agreed his age was a factor that made the dismissal harsh, and accepted the long service leave timing was harsh in outcome, but found neither weighed in favour of a finding of unfairness. The Commissioner specifically noted it was "clear enough that the employer did not dismiss Mr Grech to avoid making such a payment."
Where the parties' accounts conflicted, the Commissioner preferred Osman's evidence, finding him "frank and sincere" in the giving of his evidence, with a clear and detailed recollection that did not seek to embellish. Grech's reasons for refusing the alternative role were found "not credible," particularly given the Essendon store was a short distance from Maribyrnong and the sole staff member reporting to him already worked across both locations.
The Commissioner also acknowledged the employer's procedural shortcomings. There was no written warning, and Grech was not clearly informed that failure to improve would lead to his dismissal, nor provided with training or any clear support or targets to assist him to improve. Commissioner Tran said it would have been "prudent" to put the warning in writing, but found this is not required to comply with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code. Taking into account the size of the employer and the lack of dedicated HR specialists, the Commissioner was satisfied these factors had an impact on the procedures undertaken. The verbal warning that Grech's job was at risk if he refused the alternative role was otherwise clear, and Grech understood it.
Ultimately, the Commissioner found this was an unusual situation in which Grech had effectively invited the dismissal by refusing to consider any alternative to keeping on in his current role.
The decision is a reminder that small business employers can satisfy the Code without a paper trail of written warnings, provided the verbal warning is unambiguous and the employee understands the consequences. Offering a genuine alternative role can function as both a retention attempt and a procedural safeguard. And an employee's flat refusal to engage with redeployment options can weigh heavily against them, even when sympathetic factors like age and long service leave timing are in play.
