Consultation and Redeployment: Critical Redundancy Criteria

| April 7, 2026

A recent Fair Work Commission decision highlights the importance of genuine consultation and properly assessing redeployment options when implementing redundancies.

In a Fair Work Commission (FWC) decision handed down on 12 January 2026, it was found that an Operations Supervisor in NSW had been unfairly dismissed after her employer:

• failed to consult, as required by the Award covering her employment, about the proposed redundancy of her position; and

• failed to properly assess all available redeployment options in the course of terminating her employment due to redundancy.

The applicant in this matter, Ms Caycee Horsnell (Ms Horsnell), commenced employment with CEVA Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd (CEVA), a company specialising in freight management and warehousing, on 17 June 2024 at its Erskine Park location in Sydney.

Ms Horsnell’s employment was terminated by CEVA on 10 June 2025 at the end of an annual leave period. A key witness for CEVA, Rita Keteku (Ms Keteku), an HR Business Partner, told the FWC that she had identified 18 vacant roles in CEVA’s internal careers newsletter in the days preceding the dismissal, but opined that Ms Horsnell could not reasonably have been redeployed into any of them.

On the basis of CEVA’s failure to properly consult with Ms Horsnell about her redeployment options, Commissioner Walkaden concluded that CEVA was in breach of section 389(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act) and ordered payment of compensation to Ms Horsnell in the gross amount of four weeks’ wages, being $7,439.23 plus superannuation.

How the Employer Breached s 389(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act

This section of the Act requires employers to comply with any obligation to consult with an employee about a proposed redundancy, as governed by the consultation obligations set out in the relevant modern award (or enterprise agreement).

On close examination of the Operations Supervisor role performed by Ms Horsnell, Commissioner Walkaden concluded that she was covered by the Road Transport and Distribution Award 2020 (RTD Award) and classified as a Distribution Employee Level 4.¹

As such, pursuant to clause 30.1(b)(iii) of the RTD Award, CEVA was required to engage in consultation with Ms Horsnell.

Failure to Satisfy Consultation Obligations

After two “very brief meetings” held with Ms Horsnell on 5 and 10 June 2025, Commissioner Walkaden found that CEVA had not complied with its consultation obligations for the following reasons:

• CEVA did not provide Ms Horsnell with written information about the proposed changes, including matters likely to affect employees, as required under clause 30.2(c) of the RTD Award. Instead, Ms Keteku merely read out a letter of proposed redundancy at the meeting on 5 June 2025.

• CEVA did not comply with its obligation under clause 30.1(b)(iii) to discuss with Ms Horsnell the options it had considered, nor did it actively seek her views on those options.

• CEVA did not provide Ms Horsnell with a reasonable opportunity to propose measures to avoid or reduce the adverse effects of the change as part of a genuine and participative process.

Failure to Satisfy Redeployment Obligations

A termination due to redundancy will not be considered a genuine redundancy if it would have been reasonable to redeploy the employee. Commissioner Walkaden found that:

• CEVA failed to properly assess all available redeployment options before terminating Ms Horsnell’s employment;

• CEVA did not discuss the 18 vacant roles identified by Ms Keteku with Ms Horsnell; and

• CEVA placed the onus on Ms Horsnell to identify redeployment opportunities herself, despite her not having access to her work computer between the two meeting dates. As a result, she was unable to access internal job information that could have mitigated the effects of the proposed redundancy.

What the FWC Found

The Commission found that CEVA had 18 vacant roles at the time of the redundancy, including a Yardsperson position in NSW that Ms Horsnell was qualified to perform (albeit at a lower classification).

However, CEVA incorrectly assumed that Ms Horsnell could not reasonably be redeployed into any of those roles and, as a result, did not provide her with relevant internal job information.

CEVA also assumed that Ms Horsnell could access information about alternative employment opportunities via the careers website, rather than ensuring she was directly provided with that information.

Ultimately, CEVA breached its consultation obligations by failing to discuss redeployment options or seek Ms Horsnell’s views, as required under the RTD Award.

Key Takeaways for Employers

An employer may rely on the defence of genuine redundancy when responding to an unfair dismissal application. However, this defence will only succeed where all elements of a genuine redundancy are satisfied.

Under section 389 of the Act, these elements are:

• the employer no longer requires the job to be performed by anyone due to operational changes;
• the employer has complied with any applicable consultation obligations; and
• it would not have been reasonable to redeploy the employee within the business or an associated entity.

In this case, the Commissioner found that CEVA had not satisfied the requirements of a genuine redundancy. Key lessons for employers include:

• Employers must engage in genuine and meaningful consultation, including proactively discussing redeployment opportunities and providing all relevant information.
• Failure to comply with consultation obligations may render a redundancy non-genuine and expose the business to unfair dismissal claims.
• Employers have a positive obligation to communicate redeployment opportunities, even where the role may involve a reduction in duties, remuneration, or status.

Practical Considerations

Redundancy processes require more than identifying that a role is no longer needed. Employers must ensure that consultation obligations are properly met and that all reasonable redeployment options are actively considered and discussed.

Taking a structured and well-documented approach to consultation and redeployment can help reduce the risk of disputes and ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act and applicable industrial instruments.

If you are reviewing your redundancy processes or would like guidance on meeting your obligations, the team at IRiQ Law is available to assist. Contact us today.

Footnote

¹ Caycee Horsnell v CEVA Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 70 [41] – [58]