FWC cites 'reduced requirement for technical expert role'
A worker recently questioned the authenticity of his redundancy after he alleged that his employer hired multiple people to do his job.
The worker, Zhiming Yang, filed for an unfair dismissal remedy, alleging that his former employer, Telstra Limited (Telstra), dismissed him under the guise of a genuine redundancy.
Yang served as a technical expert in the employer's technology team, offering diverse technical support to Telstra's clientele. His termination was communicated via a letter on August 23, 2023, with an effective date of September 19, 2023.
Targeted for dismissal?
Yang then disputed the authenticity of the redundancy, saying that the employer hired four additional staff for his role within the preceding 12 months.
He also said the company made substantial investments in his department, and continuous growth in his team's workload.
Yang alleged he was unfairly chosen for redundancy based on a flawed performance evaluation conducted by his manager, Adnan Adnan.
He said that Adnan's assessment of his troubleshooting and issue resolution skills was inaccurate, leading to an unjust performance rating. Yang added that he raised his concerns about this assessment, leading to disputes with Adnan and other managers.
Meanwhile, the employer rejected Yang's claims. It said the company had restructuring initiatives, and that the latter's redundancy was a result of a genuine operational need to reduce costs, with changes announced on July 19, 2023.
It also said that its selection process was guided by merit-based assessments against specific criteria, leading to Yang being the lowest-ranked technical expert in his group and subsequently selected for redundancy.
Was there genuine redundancy?
In its decision, the FWC said that it recognised Telstra’s evidence that it “had a reduced requirement for technical experts in Yang’s area.”
“Yang was wrong to say that Telstra had hired four more people into his team. It had not done so. On the contrary, there was a reduced requirement for the technical expert role, and Yang had been selected based on the application of the redundancy selection criteria.”
“There were previously 26 employees in the role, this had been reduced to 23, and that remains the number,” the FWC said.
“The type of work that Mr Yang performed was still needed, but fewer people were needed to do it. Telstra’s operational requirements were such that it no longer needed as many technical experts, and the pool of such workers needed to be reduced,” it added.
“Yang is incorrect to say that because the type of work he was performing is still being done by others, his position could not really be redundant,” the FWC said.
“Reducing the number of positions of a particular class is a very common circumstance of redundancy,” it added. Thus, the FWC said that his dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy. It consequently rejected the worker’s application against the company.
