He had not been told by anyone that his employment would not continue after March 2025, despite knowing the manager would return around that time, and this expectation was consistent with the clear contract terms.
Finance approval delays create timing misalignment
A critical finding emerged regarding the timing mismatch between the manager’s return and the worker’s contract end date. The employer’s head of HR operations gave evidence that there had been a delay caused by the finance department in approving the event specialist role that was filled by the worker, with the organisation having “a very arduous sign-off process for approving any jobs.”
The Commission found this delay created an inevitable excess job in the team structure, given that the organisation understood the manager was returning in March 2025, some three to four months before the worker’s contract end date. Without this finance approval delay, it appeared the worker would have ceased employment at or around the same time the manager returned from leave.
The FWC determined: “It was this delay that created an inevitable excess job in the team in circumstances where [the employer] understood that [the manager] was returning to work in March 2025, which was some three to four months before the end date specified in [the worker’s] Contract. Without the delay, an excess job in the team was unlikely.”
FWC rejects genuine redundancy claim
The FWC examined whether the dismissal met the genuine redundancy requirements under employment legislation, specifically whether the employer no longer required the worker’s job to be performed due to changes in operational requirements.