Employee’s objection to ‘genuine redundancy’ rejected

A “dual-role” worker’s unfair dismissal application has been rejected by the Fair Work Commission after the worker claimed that her retrenchment was not a “genuine redundancy”.

On 29 October, Fair Work Commission deputy president Lyndall Dean dismissed an employee’s unfair dismissal application after her employer made her two roles redundant.

Dual role worker

From 21 November 2023, Penny Chronopoulos worked part-time at Aris Zinc Group as a people and culture officer for one day a week and a senior consultant for two days.

Chronopoulos’ people and culture officer role consisted of HR responsibilities, while her senior consultant role primarily involved her with the company’s NDIS business.

Dean heard that Aris Zinc Group’s founder and managing director, Manoj Achuthan, owned and operated the company and “various legal entities that provide recruitment and payroll services, professional and managed services, and NDIS services”.

As a result of a downturn in the market and changes to service panels and other government arrangements, Achuthan was forced to close about 40 per cent of his operations.

Achuthan gave evidence that Chronopoulos recommended that he close his NDIS business; however, she did not “propose alternatives in terms of her ongoing work with the respondent, as her consulting work related to the NDIS business,” despite being provided an opportunity to by Achuthan, Dean heard.

Contended redundancy

On 9 June 2025, Chronopoulos received a redundancy letter from Achuthan, which granted her three weeks of pay in lieu of notice, and the opportunity to spend time with her family for the full duration, with no requirement to work during this time.

At the hearing, Chronopoulos gave evidence that prior to her being made redundant, Achuthan had “replaced” or “readvertised” her role.

Dean found that while Achuthan had posted job advertisements for full-time and casual roles following the employee’s redundancy, the deputy president heard that Chronopoulos did not want to work full-time and was not qualified for the advertised casual positions.

In addition, Chronopoulos gave evidence that she had not been granted a “genuine redundancy”, as she was not provided with opportunities for redeployment within the business, nor was she consulted prior to her termination.

In light of this claim, Achuthan gave evidence that he had offered to help Chronopoulos to “look for other contracts” and to assist her in finding alternative employment, as set out in the redundancy letter.

Further, Dean found that Chronopoulos’ role lacked a modern award or enterprise agreement that applied to her employment; hence, Achuthan was not required to consult with her on the redundancy decision.

Upon full consideration of the case, the deputy president found that Chronopoulos’ dismissal arose from a genuine redundancy, and therefore she was not protected from unfair dismissal.

Dean upheld the redundancy, dismissing Chronopoulos’ application.

In the case: Penny Chronopoulos v Aris Zinc Group Pty Ltd (U2025/10879)