Traffic controller claims unfair dismissal, wins after initially accepting redundancy

The Fair Work Commission found a traffic controller’s dismissal was unfair and ordered compensation, despite earlier upholding it as a genuine redundancy.

Kauri Taumaunu commenced employment with United Personnel Traffic Pty Ltd (United) on 28 November 2022 as a casual employee and with a permanent conversion occurring sometime in 2024.

In a text message sent from Tihema Miller, operations manager at United, to all of United’s permanent employees on 19 November 2024, two options were given to these employees: either have their permanent role reverted to a casual one or accept a redundancy.

Through this text, Miller told these employees: “Due to current capacity constraints, from today we are unable to maintain all full-time positions at this time.”

On 13 December 2024, Taumaunu sent an email to Miller accepting the redundancy “effective immediately”.

In Taumaunu’s original hearing before the Fair Work Commission, commissioner Sharon Durham heard the reversion of his role to casual was “not viable” due to the “insecure nature” of casual employment.

The decision was successfully reversed on appeal.

A change of mind?

On 1 January 2025, Taumaunu applied for an unfair dismissal remedy with the Fair Work Commission, claiming that he was unfairly dismissed by United on 13 December 2024 despite choosing the redundancy option through his email to Miller.

This application led to a determinative conference held on 16 May 2025 by the Fair Work Commission to determine whether or not the redundancy was “genuine”.

During the conference, Taumaunu submitted evidence outlining that there was no consultation or discussion made with him about the prospect of keeping his permanent position.

Miller submitted that there was a business downturn in the lead-up to the state election in October 2024, continuing after this time due to uncertainty surrounding several large projects.

Commissioner Durham found: “Mr Miller suggested that this downturn meant he did not have certainty that he had the work required to keep his permanent employees engaged full time.”

“I accept that the nature of the work, including particular client requests, and the irregularity of work available meant that it was not reasonable to expect Mr Miller could simply have reduced the number of casual employees to keep the permanent employees engaged.”

The commissioner dismissed Taumaunu’s application, upholding the redundancy.

Genuine redundancy objection

In her 16 May 2025 conference, the commissioner acknowledged Miller’s evidence that United did not have enough work to maintain the roles of its 13 permanent employees and that the 32 casual employees who were employed “did not work full-time hours and did not work on a regular and systematic basis”.

Taumaunu applied for an appeal on this decision, pressing a genuine redundancy objection, filing a written outline of submissions on 13 June 2025 to “enliven the public interest”.

The appeal hearing was held on 14 August before a full bench consisting of vice president Mark Gibian, deputy president Amber Millhouse, and deputy president Peter Hampton.

Taumaunu submitted that United failed to consult with him and the union and that it did not comply with consultation obligations under his enterprise agreement.

In light of this evidence, the full bench found that based on correspondence sent from United, employees were not guaranteed to have “received, in writing, all relevant information about the change, and any other matters likely to affect the employees”.

The commission concluded that on evidence, Taumaunu was not provided with information about the matter in writing as required by the agreement.

During the appeal, the full bench considered that commissioner Durham erred in her decision – ruling that United failed to comply with consultation obligations.

The full bench ruled that the dismissal was not a genuine redundancy, reopening Taumaunu’s unfair dismissal case.

Compensation for lost wages

In the reopened hearing held on 24 December 2025, commissioner Durham held the position that United failed to provide procedural fairness by failing to follow the consultation provisions applicable to Taumaunu’s enterprise agreement, constituting an unfair dismissal in line with section 394 of the Fair Work Act (2009).

Following this ruling, the commission found that reinstatement would be an inappropriate remedy, and thus ordered United to compensate Taumaunu for two weeks of lost wages equalling $4,830.77 gross, plus superannuation to be paid within 28 days of the decision.

The case citation: Mr Kauri Taumaunu v United Personnel Traffic Pty Ltd (U2025/13).