The job he should have been moved into was filled weeks later
A worker who lost his job in what his employer called a redundancy has been awarded more than $71,000 in compensation - because the role he should have moved into was filled just weeks after he left.
The Fair Work Commission handed down the compensation order on October 14, 2026, after finding earlier this year that NRR Services Pty Ltd failed to make a genuine redundancy when it terminated the worker in November 2025.
The core issue was simple. An operator position opened up at the company shortly after the worker was let go. The Commission found he should have been redeployed into it.
Instead, he spent more than six months without work.
When he eventually landed a new role, it was casual labouring - at roughly $1,800 a week less than his previous earnings. Before the termination, his ordinary weekly pay sat at $2,730.77.
The worker asked for 26 weeks' pay, totalling $78,555, based on his average earnings over the prior 26 weeks. But the Commission calculated the figure differently.
Because no evidence was put forward about the pay rate or overtime attached to the operator role he should have filled, the Commission used his ordinary weekly earnings as the baseline - leaving out the regular overtime he had clocked in his old job.
Then came the twist. An administrator - BRI Ferrier - was appointed to NRR Services on May 26, 2026. All known employees of the group were terminated on that date. The Commission found the worker would realistically have kept his job until then, a stretch of roughly 28 weeks from his November 2025 dismissal.
But the Fair Work Act caps unfair dismissal compensation at 26 weeks. Twenty-eight weeks of lost work compressed into a 26-week payout.
The final order: 26 weeks at $2,730.77, totalling $71,000.02, plus superannuation.
One factor the Commission considered was whether the payout would hurt the employer's ability to keep operating. Normally that carries weight. Here, it was beside the point - BRI Ferrier confirmed the company was no longer operating.
The Commission applied the Sprigg formula, a well-established method for working out unfair dismissal payouts. It steps through what the worker would have earned, what they have earned since, and whether any discounts should apply. But the Commission noted it is not meant to be applied rigidly - the Act requires all the circumstances to be taken into account.
The first decision in the case, handed down on June 26, 2026, had already settled the central question: the worker was unfairly dismissed because his termination was not a genuine redundancy. This decision dealt only with what he was owed.
For HR teams, the case puts a dollar figure on a missed redeployment conversation. The operator role existed. It was filled weeks after the worker left. That gap between calling it a redundancy and actually looking for redeployment options turned into a $71,000 order - and the company was not even around to contest it.
