A redundancy handled largely through text messages met the consultation obligations of the Electrical, Electronic and Communications Contracting Award 2020, the Fair Work Commission has found. The finding ended an unfair dismissal claim by an Electrical and Instrumentation Technician whose job disappeared when Metric PCM Pty Ltd lost its contract with EDL Energy.
Metric PCM delivers projects for clients in mining, infrastructure and energy. The worker joined the company full-time on 27 March 2024 and was based mostly at EDL Energy’s Mandalong Power Station at Lake Macquarie, New South Wales. EDL Energy stopped requiring his services on 2 December 2025. An EDL Energy operations supervisor wrote that as the site moved into normal operations, “the requirement for supplementary operational support is no longer required.”
From 3 December 2025 to 9 January 2026, Metric PCM kept him on non-billable tasks for an MSM Milling Plant Expansion project. He continued working until 2 February 2026, when the company’s director told him there was no work available. The worker took leave without pay from 3 February 2026.
In a text exchange on 24 February 2026, after the worker asked for work, the director wrote: “Your contract was contingent that you got a role with EDL. We were effectively in a labour hire arrangement to facilitate employment until you had an offer from them.” Metric PCM issued a termination letter on 25 February 2026 and processed his final pay on 2 March 2026, including two weeks’ pay in lieu of notice. No redundancy payment was included. He lodged his application under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 on 13 March 2026.
- 2 Dec 2025 EDL Energy stops requiring the worker’s services.
- 3 Feb 2026 Worker begins leave without pay.
- 25 Feb 2026 Termination letter sent.
- 13 Mar 2026 Unfair dismissal application filed.
- 19 Oct 2026 Application dismissed.
that the dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy under s.389, so the worker could not have been unfairly dismissed.
that some of his duties were still required, pointing to the hiring of a casual employee after his dismissal. He denied being offered a redeployment role at Manildra on the MSM project.
that all three elements of s.389 were met. Applying Ulan Coal Mines Limited v Henry Jon Howarth and others [2010] FWAFB 3488, he said a position can cease to be required even where some of its tasks continue, and that the temporary tasks over Christmas did not show the job remained.
On consultation under clause 27 of the award, the director conceded at the hearing that the process could have been handled better. The Commissioner agreed, given it was conducted verbally and by text rather than in formal correspondence, but found “the substance of the consultation process was genuine and meaningful”. On redeployment, he preferred the director’s evidence, noting the worker never corrected a text saying remote work “doesn’t work for your current situation.”
The director told the hearing Metric PCM had decided to process a redundancy payment of four weeks’ pay. The Commissioner said that “should have already occurred” under s.119, and that it was conceivable the worker might not have pursued the claim had the payment been made with his final pay on 2 March 2026.
The Commissioner accepted that the effect of the dismissal on the worker might be seen as unfair, but said fairness generally plays no part in deciding whether a dismissal is a genuine redundancy. He said the worker lost his job “through no fault of his own”. The Commissioner upheld Metric PCM’s jurisdictional objection and dismissed the application. The hearing was held by video on 8 October 2026, and the decision was issued in Newcastle on 19 October 2026.
At a glance
- Parties: An Electrical and Instrumentation Technician v Metric PCM Pty Ltd
- Citation: [2026] FWC 3937, Commissioner Crawford
- Section: Fair Work Act 2009, s.394, s.389, s.385, s.119
- Award: Electrical, Electronic and Communications Contracting Award 2020, clause 27
- Outcome: Genuine redundancy found; application dismissed
- Who it affects: Employers whose staff are tied to a single client contract
Source: [2026] FWC 3937
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.