Educator who turned down a transfer over her puppy’s care loses redundancy pay as Queensland Police Citizens Youth Welfare Association wins variation

An educator who refused a transfer to another centre because of care requirements for her puppy will receive no redundancy pay. The Fair Work Commission granted her employer’s application to reduce the entitlement to nil.

The worker was employed as an Educator at Norfolk Village Out of School Hours Care (OSHC) in Queensland, and her employer was Queensland Police Citizens Youth Welfare Association. The association told the Commission the centre was closing on 11 September 2026. The worker was given formal notice of the closure at a consultation meeting on 31 August 2026.

The association offered her redeployment to an Educator role at Caningeraba OSHC, and confirmed the offer in an email dated 31 August 2026. The worker turned the role down by email on 1 September 2026, citing care requirements for her puppy. According to the association, she asked instead to be moved to Beenleigh OSHC because it was nearer her mother’s home, where she left the puppy each day. There was no vacancy at Beenleigh.

The association applied on 17 September 2026 under s.120(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009. Section 120 allows an employer to ask the Commission to reduce redundancy pay where the employer obtains “other acceptable employment” for the employee. Under directions issued on 2 October 2026, the worker had until 9 October 2026 to put on any material opposing the application. She did not file anything.

Deputy President Lake first found the worker was entitled to redundancy pay under s.119(1)(a), because the closure meant the association no longer needed an Educator at Norfolk Village. The question was then whether the Caningeraba role was acceptable employment.

Drawing on earlier Commission decisions, the Deputy President set out that the test is objective. “Other acceptable employment does not mean that the role must be acceptable to the employee.” Acceptable employment is not identical employment, and a role can be acceptable despite “some inconvenience or some detrimental alteration to the terms and conditions of employment”. Factors that may be compared include pay, hours, duties, travelling time, location of work and loss of flexibility, such as caring responsibilities. The decision also noted that employees “should not unreasonably refuse offers of alternative employment merely because they wish to access the benefits of redundancy pay”.

Schedule 1 of the QPCYWA Enterprise Agreement 2024 places both jobs in the classification “OSHC Employees – Educators”. The association said the two jobs were the same position, carrying identical hours and wages. The Deputy President did not have a complete list of duties for either role, but found they appeared to sit at an equivalent competency level under the Children’s Services Award 2010.

On location, the Deputy President noted the Caningeraba centre was nearer the worker’s home than the Norfolk Village centre, “which I consider indicates that the role was objectively acceptable”.

The Deputy President was satisfied the redeployment role was acceptable alternative employment, with “the same rate of pay, the same classification level, and the same hours”, and ordered the redundancy pay reduced to nil. The decision applies the objective test to a refusal based on care arrangements for a pet, and sets out the list of comparison factors the Commission draws on in s.120 applications.

Source: [2026] FWC 4157

General information only. OnNotice reports developments in Australian industrial relations, human resources and workplace law. This article is for education purposes only and is not intended to form professional advice. Always confirm against the primary source and seek specific advice relating to your circumstances.