Tribunal backs employer's restructure despite employee claims of broken promises
An employee declared he wanted no redeployment whatsoever, then sued for unfair dismissal anyway. The tribunal dismissed his case, vindicating the employer's restructure process.
Shaun Prakash spent three years managing member growth and retention for RT Health, a division of The Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia. That ended on September 18, 2025, when HCF made his role redundant as part of a restructure that absorbed his team into the broader Contact Centre Sales operation.
But the backstory matters. HCF had acquired RT Health back in November 2021. While some teams integrated immediately, others remained separate for years. By mid-2025, HCF decided the time had come to fully merge the RT Health Member Growth and Retention team into its existing sales structure.
The review concluded Prakash's role was no longer necessary. His duties would be distributed among other team leaders, and a new Contact Centre Sales Manager position would be created to oversee the combined operation.
Prakash saw it differently. He argued his role simply got repackaged under a new title. He pointed to earlier assurances from his manager that his position was safe. He complained that consultation was flawed because he never received the position description for the new role and wasn't allowed to apply for it. He also raised concerns that colleagues heard about his redundancy before he did.
The Fair Work Commission heard the case on January 13, 2026, issuing its decision a week later on January 20, 2026.
HCF's process began the day after the restructure was approved on September 1, 2025. The company met with Prakash on September 3, 2025, walking him through the changes and what they meant for his employment. The initial consultation period ran five business days, but after Prakash objected, HCF extended it to September 17, 2025.
During those two weeks, HCF provided everything required under the Banking, Finance and Insurance Industry Award. Prakash received a letter confirming the proposed redundancy, an estimate of his severance package, a full list of job vacancies across the organization, and information about support services. The company also clarified three separate times that he could apply for the newly created Contact Centre Sales Manager position if he wanted.
Then came the twist. On September 17, 2025, Prakash emailed HCF stating he "wanted make it, unequivocally clear that I have no interest in being reinstated or redeployed." During the hearing, he confirmed that by this point his trust in HCF had completely broken down.
Yet he still pursued his unfair dismissal claim.
Deputy President Roberts examined whether HCF had met the three requirements for genuine redundancy under section 389 of the Fair Work Act. First, was the job genuinely no longer required? Yes. The work Prakash performed was reallocated to other employees, and no one was hired to do his specific job. Second, did HCF comply with consultation obligations? Yes. Discussions started promptly, information was provided in writing, and the company responded to concerns. Third, would redeployment have been reasonable? No. Apart from Prakash's explicit rejection of any redeployment, HCF's review found no suitable vacancies matching his skills and salary level.
The application was dismissed. For HR professionals, the case underscores how thorough documentation and proper process can withstand scrutiny, even when employees dispute the business rationale behind restructuring decisions. The Commission found HCF's consultation genuine, its redeployment search adequate, and its ultimate decision sound.
