Worker pockets $550 after false redundancy

Genuine redundancies rely on multiple factors, including an operational need and consultation before dismissal. The latter led to a court date for one employer who was ordered to pay $550.

The Fair Work Commission has scrapped the jurisdictional objection of a company under voluntary administration after the court found that it failed to consult an employee before making him redundant, rejecting the company’s claim that it had such urgency in reducing costs that it had no time for consultation.

Commissioner Damian Sloan awarded the worker his unfair dismissal claim and ordered his employer to pay him $554.85 plus superannuation in compensation, within a month.

The worker commenced employment as a disability support worker for CDNI Care in January 2023. After working in his role for over two years, his employer told staff that it was experiencing financial difficulties, which could require wage cuts and redundancies for workers who elected “not to accept redeployment under the revised terms”, Sloan found.

Following this informal announcement, the worker sought a voluntary redundancy, to which his employer responded, saying that this was “not then being contemplated”, the commission heard.

In August 2025, CDNI held an all-staff meeting, formally disclosing its financial difficulties and appointing a voluntary administrator to assist in preserving employment and continuing operations.

The voluntary administrator, Rajiv Ghedia of Westburn Advisory, sent a letter to some employees the next day, stating that it was business as usual and an immediate reduction in employee pay was deemed necessary.

This letter was not sent to the worker, who instead received a termination letter from Ghedia two days later, which was also sent to nine other workers, resulting in redundancy.

The administrator made a further 13 employees redundant one month later and docked the pay of the 90 remaining employees.

Several days after the worker filed an unfair dismissal application in September 2025, the company commissioned a proposed deed of company arrangement (DOCA) (executed in October 2025), under which the worker was projected to receive his outstanding entitlements and redundancy pay in April 2028.

No other CDNI employee who was made redundant had an application concerning their dismissal reach the commission for a hearing.

Although Sloan accepted that CDNI needed to reduce employee wages and overheads to secure ongoing viability, he scrutinised its decision not to consult or explain why the worker had been selected for redundancy, a requirement governed by the award covering the worker, Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010 (award).

The court rejected CDNI’s submission that “there was such urgency in reducing costs that there was no time to conduct any consultation,” determining that the dismissal was not a genuine redundancy.

The commission upheld the worker’s unfair dismissal application, ordering CDNI to pay him compensation for lost wages of $554.85, one week’s pay, plus superannuation, for the anticipated period of employment.