Mr Michael Ball v Metro Trains Melbourne T/A Metro Trains

The matter before the Fair Work Commission was an application by Mr Michael Ball for unlawful termination and other remedies. Mr Ball had been employed by Metro Trains Melbourne and claimed that his dismissal was not genuine redundancy but rather a pretext for unfair dismissal. The Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining whether Mr Ball's dismissal was genuinely redundant or not. The legal issues before the Commission were whether the termination of Mr Ball's employment was genuinely due to redundancy or if it was a disguised unfair dismissal. This involved an examination of the employer's reasons for the dismissal and whether those reasons were genuine, as well as the employer's adherence to procedural fairness.

The Commission found that the employer had failed to establish that Mr Ball's position was genuinely redundant. Evidence showed that the employer had not explored all possible alternatives before terminating Mr Ball's employment, and the employer's decision was made without proper consultation. Additionally, the employer's actions post-termination indicated that the redundancy was not genuine, including the re-advertising of Mr Ball's position and the hiring of a new employee for the same role. The Commission concluded that the employer had not met the burden of proving that Mr Ball's dismissal was genuinely due to redundancy, and therefore, the dismissal was unfair. The Commission ordered the employer to reinstate Mr Ball to his former position or, in the alternative, pay him compensation equivalent to 12 months' remuneration.