ARTICLE
24 April 2015

Redundant? Really? The risks of ignoring proper redundancy procedure

The risks of ignoring a proper redundancy procedure were starkly illustrated in the Federal Court last week.
Australia Employment and HR
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The risks of ignoring a proper redundancy procedure, or using it to conceal the real reason for a dismissal, were starkly illustrated with the Federal Court last week sounding a warning to employers looking to manipulate a redundancy process to get rid of unwanted staff.

The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) failed to persuade Justice Peter Gray that the dismissal of one of its professors was not caused by her decision to exercise her workplace rights, specifically a complaint of bullying and intimidation by the new head of school.

RMIT's Vice-Chancellor, Professor Margaret Gardner, who made the "redundancy" decision, told the court that she was motivated primarily by financial considerations, as the professor's area was running at a loss.

Justice Gray was unconvinced and felt that the dismissal involved "reasons other than those to which she referred explicitly" and there was no clear connection between the financial deficit supposedly relied upon and the selection of that employee for redundancy. The absence of any criteria for the making of that decision clearly did not help.

Justice Gray was also unimpressed by Professor Gardner's determination to ignore the new head of school's obvious animosity towards the professor and to control the process to ensure her decision prevailed.

The penalty of $37,000 reflected the need for deterrence and the fact that RMIT, in particular Professor Gardner, had shown no contrition. Justice Gray stressed that making redundancy the excuse for getting rid of unwanted employees will not be tolerated if the real reason for dismissal would be prohibited by the Fair Work Act.

He ordered the professor to be reinstated to a position where she would be able to avoid reporting directly to the person against whom she had complained.

She was not awarded further compensation for reputational damage as she had been paid a substantial sum on dismissal and her reputation would be restored by the judgment.

NTEU v Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology[2013] FCA 451 (16 May 2013)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Kott Gunning is a proud member of

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More