Lack of HR expertise leads to Classic Sports paying $23k for unfair dismissal

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an unfair dismissal case involving well-known sporting brand Classic Sports, based on whether the redundancy of its employee was “genuine”.

Classic Sports Industries (Classic Sports), whose apparel represents numerous iconic sporting clubs across Australia, was involved in a recent unfair dismissal case after its former employee filed an application questioning her redundancy.

The employee – who operated as the coordinator of elite process and timelines – was made redundant on 25 November 2024 after a meeting with the company’s CEO. The chief executive claimed the redundancy arose after a review of the company’s operations revealed that the position was no longer needed “due to organisational changes” – causing the employee quite a “shock.”

In a letter given to the employee shortly after, Classic Sports claimed that there were no suitable alternative positions available within the company for her. The employee was paid one week in lieu of notice and her accrued annual leave entitlement.

Shortly after, however, the employee challenged her final pay, asserting that she was also due four weeks’ pay for redundancy – however, the chief executive clarified that her tenure at Classic Sports ended on 26 November, marking her just nine days short of a year at the company, meaning she was not entitled to redundancy pay.

During the proceedings with the FWC, the employee identified that there had been two new roles created that she believed would’ve been suitable for her skill set. The chief executive retorted that these roles had been advertised well before the employee’s redundancy – to which the employee claimed if she had known that the restructure would affect her job, she would have applied for one of these roles.

Looking into the redundancy, the FWC found that the employee falls under the Clerks – Private Sector Award 2020, meaning the employee should have been notified about her role being made redundant – as she then could have been redeployed to another role.

Deputy president Tony Slevin, therefore, rejected “the proposition that [the employee’s] dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy”.

In viewing if the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, Slevin pointed towards the fact that Classic Sports lacks HR expertise and misunderstood the redundancy process.

“Classic Sports did not have dedicated human resource specialists. If it did, I expect it would not have taken the course that it did and would have complied with its obligations to consult and/or redeploy [the employee] into the new role. I find this to be a factor in favour of a finding that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable,” said Slevin.

In this matter, the employee did not seek reinstatement, and due to the dismissal being found harsh, unjust, and unreasonable from a lack of consultation and failure to consider redeployment – the employee was awarded compensation of $23,586.58.