These passages from a recent unfair dismissal case in the Fair Work Commission are a good description of the concept of the redundancy of a job in circumstances where the functions of a particular job are distributed to other employees rendering the job redundant to the employer’s needs.
“[22] The first requirement of section 389 is section 389(1)(a). There are two parts to section 389(1)(a). The first part is whether the person’s employer no longer required the person’s job to be performed by anyone. The second part only arises for consideration if the first part is satisfied. The second part is that the job is no longer required to be performed by anyone because of changes in the operational requirements of the employer’s enterprise. That is, the second part is concerned with the reason/s for the job being no longer required. Both parts of section 389(1)(a) must be satisfied.
[23] The first part of the section 389(1)(a) was considered by a Full Bench of the Commission in Ulan Coal Mine Limited v Henry Jon Howarth and others [2010] FWAFB 3488 (Ulan). The Full Bench in Ulan observed that section 389(1)(a) refers to a person’s “job”.30 The Full Bench went on to distinguish the person’s job from the duties performed by the person.31 A job involves a collection of functions, duties and responsibilities entrusted, as part of the scheme of the employees’ organisation, to a particular employee.32 The effect of the decision of the Full Bench in UIan is that the first part of section 389(1)(a) must be approached by answering whether the Respondent no longer required Mrs Phan’s job – as so defined – to be performed by anyone.
[24] To the extent that Mrs Phan’s submissions engaged with section 389 of the FW Act, those submissions were focused on the requirement of section 389(1)(a). In summary terms, Mrs Phan’s argument was that much of the duties that she performed had not been eliminated and were still being performed.33 Mrs Phan estimated that 89% of her duties were still being performed.34 For example, Mrs Phan argued that the work was not eliminated, it was simply fragmented and re-distributed.35 Mrs Phan also contested the financial necessity for her redundancy and said that the process was targeted.
[25] On application of Ulan, the enquiry posed by the first part of section 389(1)(a) is to be determined by reference to Mrs Phan’s “job”. Ulan draws a distinction between a person’s job and their duties. As is the case with many self-represented applicants, Mrs Phan has not appreciated this distinction. It is irrelevant to the enquiry posed by section 389(1)(a) whether the duties that Mrs Phan performed continue to be performed and / or whether those duties have been redistributed to others. The enquiry is focused on the job – as so defined – in Ulan.
[26] Mrs Phan relied upon a document, which was entitled Appendix A: Task Analysis Summary.36 There are four columns in the Task Analysis Summary. The first column is entitled ’Description’. The second column is entitled ‘Hours required per month’. The third column is entitled ‘Overall percentage’. The fourth column is entitled ‘Re-assignment / New Classification’. In the rows below the first column, there are 26 tasks identified. These are the duties that the parties agreed that Mrs Phan performed. In the rows below the second column, Mrs Phan has estimated the time that she spent on the respective task per month. In the rows below the third column, Mrs Phan has estimated the overall percentage of time that she spent on the respective task. In answer to some questions from me at the hearing, Ms Soejanto agreed with Mrs Phan’s estimates in the second column and the third column. In the rows below the fourth column, Ms Soejanto had identified whether the 26 tasks performed by Mrs Phan were no longer required (which was identified by the words No Longer Required and marked in yellow), were to be automated (which was identified by the word Automated and marked in green), can be automated (which was identified by the words Task transferred to Systems Team and marked in light green), redistributed to either the Corporate Accountant or Accountant Support (and marked in grey) or whether a new report was to be introduced (which was identified by the words New Report and marked in blue). The Respondent relied upon a similar document in support of its argument that the duties performed by Mrs Phan had either been redistributed to other employees, streamlined or automated, or were no longer required.37 Ms Soejanta explained at the hearing that these documents emerged from a business review process.
[27] I am satisfied that the duties performed by Mrs Phan have either been redistributed to other employees, streamlined , automated, or are no longer required. That does not mean that Mrs Phan’s job – as so defined – is still required. The enquiry posed by section 389(1)(a) is focused on the job, not the duties. The job performed by Mrs Phan was that of Assistant Accountant. It is clear on the material before me, most obviously, the Task Analysis Summary, that the Respondent no longer required Mrs Phan’s job to be performed by anyone.
[28] The second part of section 389(1)(a) requires that Mrs Phan’s job was no longer required because of changes in the operational requirements of the Respondent. The FW Act does not define the term operational requirements. Operational requirements has been held to be a broad term that permits consideration of many matters including, but not limited to, past and present performance of the business, the state of the market in which the business operates, steps that may be taken to improve the efficiency of the business by installing new processes, equipment or skills, or by arranging labour to be used more productively, and the application of good management to the business.38”
Phan v Wesley Community Services Limited trading as Wesley Mission [2026] FWC 109 delivered- 14 January 2026 per Walkaden C