The applicant commenced proceedings in the Commission, claiming that she was harshly, oppressively, and unfairly dismissed from her employment with the respondent. The applicant, who lives with disabilities, was employed as a clerk at the respondent’s cleaning service from March 2022. Initially engaged part-time, she transitioned to full-time employment in February 2023, providing administrative support for cleaning operations, particularly for clients under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS). In April 2024, the respondent cited financial difficulties and proposed a reduction in the applicant’s working hours. The applicant agreed to the reduced hours. However, while on pre-approved annual leave, she received a new contract reflecting the change, including a lower pay rate. The respondent subsequently withdrew the offer of continued employment, effectively terminating the applicant’s employment.

The applicant claimed unfair dismissal, citing the abrupt withdrawal of employment, lack of consultation, and absence of proper notice or severance pay. She emphasised the impact on her wellbeing and future employment prospects. The respondent argued that the dismissal constituted a genuine redundancy necessitated by business cost-cutting, asserting that the business employed fewer than 15 staff and was therefore not obliged to pay redundancy entitlements. The respondent further stated that the applicant’s administrative duties were now shared between the respondent and her son.

Commissioner Walkington found on the evidence presented that the respondent failed to communicate the redundancy decision clearly, did not provide written notice, and maintained a facade of ongoing employment by offering a part-time contract before abruptly withdrawing it. The Commissioner found that the respondent’s actions did not meet the procedural fairness requirements for redundancy, including consultation, notice, and severance payment obligations. The respondent’s assertion regarding employee headcount was found to be incorrect, as casual employees should have been included, bringing the total to 18.

Commissioner Walkington concluded that, even if the termination was a genuine redundancy, the manner in which it was affected was harsh and unfair. The respondent failed to communicate the decision adequately, did not consult or consider alternatives, and did not provide the required notice or severance payment. The abrupt withdrawal of employment, especially given the applicant’s personal circumstances and challenges in securing alternative employment, rendered the dismissal harsh and unfair. Accordingly, the Commission concluded that the applicant was unfairly dismissed.

The decision can be read here.