Redundancy due to business closure: Worker claims unfair dismissal

“While having found that (the employer) is a small business, there is no evidence on which I can be satisfied that (the employer) believed on reasonable grounds that (the worker’s) conduct was sufficiently serious as to justify immediate dismissal. Nor is there any evidence before me that (the worker) was warned prior to his dismissal that he was at risk of being dismissed due to his conduct or capacity.”

Genuine redundancy due to shut down

The FWC then looked at whether the dismissal was a genuine redundancy. While it was clear that the worker’s job was no longer needed due to the business closure, the FWC found that the employer had not put its consultation obligations under the relevant award.

The decision noted:

“(The worker’s) unchallenged evidence, which I accept, is that employees were advised on 17 May 2024 of their immediate dismissal. Contentions to the contrary in (the employer’s) Form F3 were unsupported by any evidence and as such I am satisfied that none of the consultation steps set out at clause 37 of the Award were undertaken by (the employer).”

Is it unfair dismissal?

In deciding whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, the FWC considered various factors. While the lack of consultation was noted, the FWC also thought about whether consultation would have changed the outcome, given the business closure.