The ruling sets a clear precedent for employers navigating mass restructures
A Fair Work ruling has confirmed that wiping out an entire management layer constitutes genuine redundancy.
On 26 February 2026, Deputy President Dean of the Fair Work Commission dismissed an unfair dismissal application by Sabrina Kohli, a former Development Manager at STLP Consulting Pty Ltd, ruling her termination a case of genuine redundancy.
Kohli had been with STLP Consulting since 21 August 2021, stepping into the Development Manager role in March 2023. When the company moved to restructure, she received written notice on 22 August 2025 that her position was at risk. Consultation meetings followed on 25 August 2025 and 1 September 2025, the day her employment ended.
The company's reasoning was operational. As the Commission noted, the CEO explained there are now no "middle management" positions within the business, reflecting a shift from a "start up" to a more "mature" business focused on scaling and achieving profitability. The entire Executive Leadership team had been removed in 2024. Senior leadership positions followed in 2025. Kohli's role was among them.
Kohli pushed back, arguing the redundancy was not genuine. She pointed to the short consultation window and a private message exchange between the CEO and another employee around 15 August 2025, which she claimed was proof the decision had been locked in before any consultation began. The Commission was not convinced. The message, it found, related to restructuring and redundancy more broadly and was not specifically about Kohli.
Her duties did not disappear after she left. Others absorbed parts of her role. But the Commission was firm on this point: that alone is not enough to undo a redundancy. "The test is whether the job previously performed by the employee has survived the restructure or downsizing, not whether the duties have survived in some form." The position itself no longer existed, and that settled the matter.
Redeployment was also put to the test. During consultation, the CTO raised a possible part-time service delivery manager role. He was subsequently informed by a member of the HR team that the role was not actually available, as it was already occupied by another employee, and he communicated this to Kohli. With nothing else available, the Commission found redeployment was not a reasonable option and dismissed the application.
The ruling carries clear lessons for the profession. A solid operational rationale matters, but so does the breadth of the restructure. The Commission found just over one week of consultation adequate here, given there were no redeployment opportunities and the operational requirements had made most of the company's leadership positions redundant.
Confirm that any redeployment options are actually available before raising them with an affected employee. Flagging a role that turns out to be occupied creates confusion and adds legal exposure. That step belongs before the conversation, not inside it.
Internal messages during a restructure are also fair game as evidence. The CEO's exchange with a colleague ended up at the centre of these proceedings. Every communication during a restructure should be accurate, considered and defensible.
