Fair Work backs Triple Zero after flawed redundancy process
MELBOURNE: When the Fair Work Commission handed down its decision on 29 April 2026, it delivered a ruling that should make HR leaders pause. An employer whose redundancy consultation process was found wanting, and which lost the “genuine redundancy” defence, still walked away with the dismissal upheld as fair.
The case involved a Senior Trainer at Triple Zero Victoria. He lodged his unfair dismissal application on 22 October 2025 after being terminated on 10 October 2025, following a restructure of the employer’s P&C Learning Centre. His role, along with eight other Senior Trainer roles, ceased to exist as the organisation transitioned its training delivery model from a mix of off-shift and on-shift delivery to predominantly on-shift delivery, with the support previously provided by Senior Trainers to off-shift trainers no longer required.
In an earlier decision, Deputy President Masson found the dismissal was not a genuine redundancy. While the employer no longer required the role to be performed by anyone, the worker was covered by an enterprise agreement and the consultation obligations under that agreement were not complied with. The Deputy President also found it would not have been reasonable in all the circumstances for the worker to have been redeployed within the employer’s enterprise.
The list of consultation failures was not minor. The employer belatedly advised him in writing of the start of his three-month redeployment period but failed to provide details of the process, his rights and obligations; failed to assign a case manager; failed to assess his skills, review his CV, or agree on job search criteria, locations and banding; failed to provide updates on vacancies; and failed to give feedback on why he was unsuccessful in roles he applied for.
So how did the employer still win?
The worker applied for three internal roles during the redeployment period, all at a higher band level than his own: Manager, Learning and Development (Band 5); Team Leader, Operations Training (Band 4); and Manager, Operations Resilience (Band 5). He was interviewed for the first two but was not shortlisted for the third. Under cross-examination, he agreed that internal vacancies were advertised in a weekly bulletin he reviewed every couple of weeks, that he could have applied for any role that interested him, and that he did not apply for or express interest in any Band 3 roles advertised during the redeployment period. He also declined a Call-Taker opportunity that came with a maintenance of earnings arrangement, without seeking clarification on the details despite being uncertain about them.
Deputy President Masson leaned on a key principle from earlier case law, citing Watson VP in Maswan v Escada Textilvertrieb T/A ESCADA: “In my view a decision to dismiss on account of redundancy will only be harsh, unjust or unreasonable if the rationale for the decision is seriously undermined or if there is a serious error in procedure such that renders the termination unfair in the circumstances.”
Applied here, the consultation failures, while real, would not have changed the outcome. The worker did not dispute the accuracy of the employer’s list of Band 3 roles advertised during his redeployment period and did not identify any of those roles as suitable for him. The Deputy President concluded that the redundancy of the worker’s position was ‘sound, defensible and well founded’ and that he would have still been dismissed had the Respondent fully complied with its consultation obligations.
Other arguments fell flat. The worker raised concerns about the employer’s conduct, his length of service, qualifications and employment record, his health, and an alleged breach of the enterprise agreement’s status quo provisions after his union, the CWU, filed a dispute on 8 September 2025. The Commission found insufficient material to determine whether the consultation failures were wilful or deliberate, and noted that the employer’s witness was not cross-examined on the point. His five years of service did not tell strongly in favour of harshness, and no evidence was led on his health. While the Deputy President accepted he held a range of qualifications which suggests he is motivated and well qualified, this was of unclear relevance given that no suitable roles had been identified for him during the redeployment period beyond the higher-banded roles he was unsuccessful in securing.
Severance also mattered. The worker received a severance payment of approximately 20 weeks’ pay totalling $44,324 in addition to his accrued leave entitlements, comprising 15 weeks redundancy and five weeks pay in lieu of notice.
The ruling is a reminder that procedural perfection is not always the deciding factor. What matters is whether the failures actually changed anything. Transparent vacancy advertising and a generous severance package can carry weight even when the consultation process falls short. But this is not a green light to skip the basics. The worker here simply could not point to a role he had missed out on during the redeployment period, and that, more than anything, is what saved the employer.
