A casual salesperson started at WR Timbers Pty Ltd on 25 May 2026. At that time the business’s full-time manager was still working out the notice on his redundancy. The Fair Work Commission has found the redundancy was genuine and dismissed his unfair dismissal application.
Commissioner Yilmaz found the employer had a complete defence under s.389 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Under s.385 a dismissal that is a case of genuine redundancy cannot be unfair, so the Commissioner did not consider the merits.
The worker started as a salesperson in November 2022 and was promoted to manager on 5 December 2024. He was told on 15 May 2026 that his position was redundant, and his notice period ended on 4 June 2026. He applied for a remedy on 10 June 2026 and sought compensation, not reinstatement.
The employer said revenue had fallen substantially over two years and orders had dropped over 12 months. It said rising costs had made the business unprofitable. It initially planned three redundancies. One affected employee retired instead, so there were two redundancies, and none of the three positions was replaced. Director Mr Gordon gave evidence the business had 13 employees when the worker was dismissed.
(2) A person’s dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy if it would have been reasonable in all the circumstances for the person to be redeployed within: (a) the employer’s enterprise; or (b) the enterprise of an associated entity of the employer.
The worker did not dispute the business reasons or the consultation. The only contested question was redeployment under s.389(2). A “salesperson wanted” sign had stood outside the premises in photographs dated from 29 April to 15 May 2026. The worker passed enquiries from that sign on to the director.
that the advertised role covered sales duties he already performed. He said he was never told its hours or pay rate, never asked to apply, and never offered it in place of redundancy. He said the vacancy was filled externally while he was still employed, and that the employer “did not genuinely explore redeployment”.
that the role was a lower-level casual position and unsuitable for a full-time manager. He said there were no suitable full-time vacancies. He said he hired the casual because the worker booked surgery during his notice period while the sales consultant took sick leave, leaving the business without a sales team. He said the casual ceased after a four-week trial. He also said the worker never expressed interest in the role.
that “the purpose of consultation is for the employee to also raise potential opportunities to avert termination of employment”, and that the worker had not raised an interest in the sales role or asked whether he might be suitable. The Commissioner described it as “a substantially more junior role and not a full-time role”.
The Commissioner cited the Full Bench principle that a more junior vacancy can make a redundancy not genuine, but that the outcome depends on the facts of each case. On these facts, the Commissioner found: “For all practical purposes redeployment to the junior casual role would not have averted the redundancy.”
Whether the worker was covered by the Timber Industry Award 2020 was not established, because he was treated as an executive manager. The Commissioner noted the director had applied the consultation steps in clause 34 of that award in any event.
The employer also raised the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code (a ministerial code dealing with dismissals by employers with fewer than 15 employees). It did not press that objection at the hearing. The Commissioner observed that the code covers summary dismissals and dismissals for conduct or capacity, and that redundancy dismissals are dealt with under s.389. On the employer’s evidence, the worker started a new full-time job on 22 June 2026 after 18 calendar days out of work.
In this decision, the Commission treated an employee’s silence about a known vacancy during consultation as relevant to whether redeployment was reasonable under s.389(2). For related coverage, see genuine redundancy and job advertisements.
At a glance
- Parties: A former manager v WR Timbers Pty Ltd
- Citation: [2026] FWC 4061, Commissioner Yilmaz, Melbourne, 19 October 2026
- Section: Fair Work Act 2009, ss.385, 389, 394, 396
- Outcome: Dismissal found to be a genuine redundancy; application dismissed
- Who it affects: Employers making roles redundant while recruiting for junior or casual positions
The matter was heard in person in Melbourne on 30 September 2026.
Source: [2026] FWC 4061
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.