Irene Narayan v Expo Centric Pty Ltd - [2025] FWC 3123

[2025] FWC 3123

The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 22 October 2025.

Minor typographical errors have been amended.

Associate to Deputy President Wright

Dated 23 October 2025

[2025] FWC 3123

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Irene Narayan
v

Expo Centric Pty Ltd

(U2025/3494)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT WRIGHT

SYDNEY, 22 OCTOBER 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – whether dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy – redundancy not genuine because it would have been reasonable in all the circumstances for the employee to be redeployed – dismissal unfair – compensation awarded

Introduction and outcome

On 21 March 2025, Ms Irene Narayan made an application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) for an order granting a remedy, alleging that she had been unfairly dismissed from her employment with Expo Centric Pty Ltd (Expo Centric)

Ms Narayan was employed by Expo Centric as a Marketing Manager from 12 August 2024 until her dismissal on 28 February 2025, on the ground of redundancy.

In summary, I have found that the redundancy was not genuine because it would have been reasonable in all the circumstances for Ms Narayan to be redeployed to the newly created position of Senior Marketing Coordinator on 28 February 2025 rather than being dismissed. I have determined that Ms Narayan’s dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable and that an order for compensation is appropriate.

The hearing

There being contested facts involved, the Commission is obliged by s.397 of the FW Act to conduct a conference or hold a hearing.

After taking into account the views of Ms Narayan and Expo Centric and whether a hearing would be the most effective and efficient way to resolve the matter, I considered it appropriate to hold a hearing for the matter according to s.399 of the FW Act.

Ms Narayan represented herself at the hearing and gave evidence on her own behalf.

The following witnesses gave evidence on behalf of Expo Centric:

· Mr Stan Kruss, Managing Director and sole shareholder of Expo Centric; and

· Mr Andrew Rufatt, Chief Financial Officer and Head of Systems and Automation at Expo Centric

Mr Rufatt represented Expo Centric at the hearing with assistance from Mr Kruss. All witnesses were cross-examined.

Ms Narayan filed submissions in the Commission on 23 June and 21 July 2025 and Expo Centric filed submissions in the Commission on 2 June and 7 July 2025. The matter was listed for hearing on 29 July 2025. I have considered the submissions made by the parties and all of the evidence before me in my determination of this matter and the conclusions I have reached.

Background facts

Expo Centric creates exhibition displays for clients.[1] Mr Stan Kruss is the Managing Director and sole shareholder of Expo Centric. Mr Kruss explained that Expo Centric is a privately-owned company established 16 years ago. Over that time, Mr Kruss has focused on building…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Irene Narayan v Expo Centric Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Irene Narayan v Expo Centric Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 3123
Case: [2025] FWC 3123
Decision Date: 22 OCTOBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Irene Narayan made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) alleging she was unfairly dismissed by Expo Centric Pty Ltd (Expo Centric). The Commission found that Ms Narayan’s dismissal was unfair because it would have been reasonable in all the circumstances for Ms Narayan to be redeployed to the position of Senior Marketing Coordinator on 28 February 2025 rather than being dismissed. The Commission found that Ms Narayan’s dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable because Expo Centric failed to confirm the potential temporary nature of the Marketing Manager role, beyond the probation period, in Ms Narayan’s Employment Contract; provide Ms Narayan with advance notice of the impending redundancy and an opportunity to seek advice, organise a support person and prepare for the meeting on 28 February 2025; and redeploy Ms Narayan to the position of Senior Marketing Coordinator on 28 February 2025. The Commission ordered Expo Centric to pay compensation to Ms Narayan in the sum of $19,038.47 gross plus superannuation less taxation as required by law in lieu of reinstatement within 14 days of the date of this decision.

Orders