Ms Sonia Tyndale v Freerange Future Pty Ltd - [2025] FWC 1206

[2025] FWC 1206

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Ms Sonia Tyndale
v

Freerange Future Pty Ltd

(U2025/1584)

COMMISSIONER PLATT

ADELAIDE, 31 JULY 2025

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – jurisdictional objection - whether termination was a genuine redundancy – redundancy not genuine – jurisdictional objection dismissed – whether dismissal unfair – dismissal harsh, unjust and/or unreasonable – compensation awarded.

On 14 February 2025, Ms Sonia Tyndale (the Applicant) lodged an application pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) seeking a remedy for an alleged unfair dismissal by her former employer, Freerange Future Pty Ltd (the Respondent or Freerange). At the time of her dismissal, the Applicant was engaged as a full time Account Manager at a salary of $80,000.00 per annum.

On 21 March 2025, my Chambers issued a Notice of Listing to the parties advising a Jurisdictional & Merits Hearing was listed on 30 April 2025 and provided Directions for the filing of material.

On 17 April 2025, the parties participated in a Member Assisted Conciliation before Deputy President Clancy. The matter was unable to be resolved.

The Applicant filed submissions, a witness statement and gave evidence. Freerange submitted submissions, a witness statement and reply statement from Mr Nicholas Crowther (Managing Director) who also gave evidence.

The material filed was collated into a Digital Court Book (DCB) and distributed to the parties prior to the Hearing. The entirety of the DCB was received into evidence, with appropriate weight given to all evidence after an assessment of its relevance and its character (e.g. hearsay, opinion/submission).

A Hearing was conducted on 30 April 2025. Ms Tyndale represented herself, the Respondent was represented by Mr J Catchpole (of Counsel). Permission was granted pursuant to s.596(2) of the Act on the grounds of complexity and efficiency. In order to mitigate my decision to grant permission for the Respondent to be represented, the Hearing was conducted as a Determinative Conference.

The Respondent contends that the Applicant’s dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy within the meaning of s.389 of the Act (by way of its jurisdictional objection), and in the alternative, that the Applicant has not been unfairly dismissed.

The Applicant disputes the characterisation of her dismissal as a genuine redundancy, and contends that her dismissal was unfair, and seeks compensation.

Genuine Redundancy

Section 389 of the Act details the meaning of genuine redundancy and is relevant to the Respondent’s jurisdictional objection:

“389 Meaning of genuine redundancy
389(1) A person’s dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy if:

(a) the person’s employer no longer required the person’s job to be performed by anyone because of changes in the operational requirements of the employer’s enterprise; and

(b) the employer has complied with any obligation in a modern award or enterprise agreement that applied to the employment to consult about the redundancy.

389(2) A person’s dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy if it would have been reasonable in…

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 Ms Sonia Tyndale v Freerange Future Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Ms Sonia Tyndale v Freerange Future Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 1206
Case: [2025] FWC 1206
Decision Date: 31 JULY 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Sonia Tyndale, a full-time Account Manager for Freerange Future Pty Ltd (Freerange), brought an application for an unfair dismissal remedy under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Freerange contended that Ms Tyndale's dismissal was a genuine redundancy, invoking section 389 of the Act, and, in the alternative, that the dismissal was not unfair. Ms Tyndale disputed both characterisations and sought compensation for unfair dismissal. The central issue was whether Ms Tyndale's dismissal was a genuine redundancy or if it was unfair. The Fair Work Commission assessed the case based on the statutory criteria for redundancy and the principles governing unfair dismissal. The Commission concluded that Freerange had failed to meet the requirements of section 389(2) of the Act because it would have been reasonable to redeploy Ms Tyndale into the Senior Brand Designer role, which was available at the time of her dismissal. Furthermore, the Commission found that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, and/or unreasonable under section 387 of the Act, primarily due to the failure to offer Ms Tyndale the opportunity to be redeployed into a suitable role. The Commission awarded Ms Tyndale compensation of $15,384.60, equivalent to 10 weeks' pay, reflecting her potential performance in the Senior Brand Designer role with a discount for any potential shortfall in meeting the role's requirements within a reasonable period.

Orders