The Fair Work Commission will not second guess an employer which determines that operational changes in its business have rendered an employee’s job redundant.
“[38] The Commission’s task is not to conduct a merits review of Enermech’s decision to make Mr Duffy’s position redundant. For the purposes of s.389 it does not matter whether the changes to Enermech’s operational requirements were optimal, or even commercially necessary (see [13]-[17] above). Enermech decided to reduce its workforce on the East Coast, and they had concerns about the performance of the East Coast operation more generally. Enermech provided evidence that was beyond mere assertions, including financial figures that are the subject of a non-publication order.
[39] Mr Duffy had the opportunity to test Enermech’s evidence and did so. Essentially Mr Duffy’s criticism of Enermech’s evidence was that it was not sufficiently comprehensive and that the evidence did not make a strong enough case to justify the redundancy – which is not the test.
[40] Enermech’s evidence was plausible and satisfactory in establishing that Mr Duffy’s position was made redundant to give effect to a change in the operational focus of his position to the benefit or advantage of the employer (per Mackay Taxi).”
Duffy v Enermech Pty Limited – [2025] FWC 2623 4 September 2025 per Easton DP