A recent redundancy case failed simply because the employer rushed the consultation.
THE CASE: Horsnell v Ceva Logistics (Australia) Pty Ltd [2026] FWC (U2025/10563), Decision 12 January 2026, Commissioner Walkaden
THE FACTS
Horsnell supervised ten workers at CEVA’s Erskine Park warehouse and had just under twelve months’ service. CEVA restructured their NSW operations for profitability. Her role was redundant.
☰ Thursday, 5 June 2025 – HR delivers redundancy proposal letter in a brief meeting
☰ Weekend + Public Holiday (Monday 9 June 2025)
☰ Tuesday, 10 June 2025 – Second brief meeting. Horsnell reads a two-page response. Was handed termination notice.
☰ Effectively, one business day of actual consultation.
The redundancy itself was right. The execution was wrong.
THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS
Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (sections 119, 385, 389), a redundancy must satisfy three core tests to be considered “genuine” and lawful.
- The employer no longer requires the person’s job to be performed by anyone because of changes in the operational requirements.
- The employer has complied with obligations under any applicable modern award or enterprise agreement to consult about the redundancy.
- It would not have been reasonable in all the circumstances for the person to be redeployed within the employer’s enterprise or an associated entity.
☰ In this case, the first test was passed.
☰The second test failed because the consultation was ineffective. Consultation is not notification. This distinction matters.
☰The third test was also problematic because there were 18 positions vacant at the time of the redundancy. They were listed on the company portal, but Horsnell couldn’t access the portal from her laptop at home.
One cannot make informed decisions without information. One cannot have genuine consultation without disclosure.
The Commission found the dismissal was not a genuine redundancy. It was harsh, unjust and unreasonable.
This finding merits attention. Commissioner Walkaden noted that:
- Horsnell’s employment would likely have ended even after proper consultation.
- The role genuinely was redundant.
- Yet CEVA’s failure to consult properly converted a lawful termination into an unfair dismissal.
QUESTIONS TO ASK OURSELVES
- Is it a genuine redundancy?
- Have we allowed adequate time and information for genuine consultation?
- Have we considered redeployment options?
If you have to navigate through a redundancy in your organisation, reach out to us.
