Ayam S.a.r.l. v Alpha Oriental Traders Pty Ltd

This matter concerned an appeal brought by Mr Ron Lever (the Appellant) against a decision of Deputy President Dean of the Fair Work Commission (FWC). The Deputy President had found that the Appellant's dismissal from his employment with BSI Learning Institute Pty Ltd (the Respondent) constituted a genuine redundancy under section 389 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), and consequently dismissed the Appellant's application for an unfair dismissal remedy. Permission to appeal was required under section 604 of the Act.

The legal issues before the Full Bench of the FWC were whether permission to appeal should be granted, considering the stringent public interest test under section 400 of the Act, and whether the Appellant had demonstrated an arguable case of appealable error in the Deputy President's decision. The Appellant raised numerous grounds of appeal, primarily alleging that the Deputy President failed to consider all evidence, made findings contrary to the facts, accepted the Respondent's assertions without sufficient basis, and erred in her findings regarding the genuineness of the redundancy, the consultation process, and the reasonableness of redeployment.

The Full Bench considered each of the Appellant's grounds of appeal and found that none disclosed an arguable case of appealable error or attracted the public interest. The Bench affirmed the Deputy President's reasoning that a reduction in assigned training hours constituted an operational change, that the process of selecting an employee for redundancy was not determinative of its genuineness, and that an employee's job could be redundant even if aspects of their duties were performed by others. The Bench also found that the Respondent had met its consultation obligations under the relevant award and that the Appellant had been offered alternative employment, which he rejected. Furthermore, the Bench addressed the Appellant's concerns regarding administrative errors in communication, concluding that these did not materially impact his capacity to present his case.

Permission to appeal was refused.