Richmond Fellowship Queensland Trading AS Richmond Fellowship of Queensland v Lyla Jamieson

[2025] FWC 1581

[2025] FWC 1581

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.120—Redundancy pay

Richmond Fellowship Queensland Trading AS Richmond Fellowship of Queensland

v

Lyla Jamieson

(C2025/4902)

COMMISSIONER SIMPSON BRISBANE, 6 JUNE 2025

Variation of redundancy pay – Acceptable employment offered –Reduction agreed by consent – Redundancy pay reduced.

1. This decision concerns an application by Richmond Fellowship Queensland Trading AS Richmond Fellowship of Queensland (RFQ/Applicant) under section 120 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) to vary the redundancy pay owing to an employee, Ms Lyla Jamieson (Ms Jamieson/Respondent).

1. Ms Jamieson has been employed by RFQ for approximately 3 years 9 months, entitling her to 7 weeks or $12,060.44 gross in redundancy payment.

1. RFQ submitted that Ms Jamieson had been offered a suitable alternative position, which had been rejected by Ms Jamieson and therefore the redundancy payment should be reduced to nothing.

Relevant Legislation

1. Section 120 of the Act states:

“120  Variation of redundancy pay for other employment or incapacity to pay

(1) This section applies if:

(a) an employee is entitled to be paid an amount of redundancy pay by the employer because of section 119; and
(b) the employer:

(i) obtains other acceptable employment for the employee; or
(ii) cannot pay the amount.

(2) On application by the employer, the FWC may determine that the amount of redundancy pay is reduced to a specified amount (which may be nil) that the FWC considers appropriate.

(3) The amount of redundancy pay to which the employee is entitled under section 119 is the reduced amount specified in the determination.”

Background

1. RFQ had made two NDIS roles (Coordinator and Rosterer) redundant, at the same office location. This decision was made based on a significant reduction of client numbers within the NDIS program at that location over a period of time. RFQ developed a new role that combined the abovementioned roles into the newly created role of NDIS Core Scheduling Coordinator.

1. Regarding the two redundant roles, the Coordinator role was vacant and the Rosterer role was occupied substantively by Ms Jamieson. However, from 25 November 2024, Ms Jamieson was acting in the Coordinator role whilst another employee acted in the Rosterer role. Ms Jamieson concluded acting in the Coordinator role on 2 May 2025 and returned to being a Rosterer for her remaining time at RFQ.  Ms Jamieson base rate of pay at the time of redundancy was $45.34/hour.

1. It was not that the first occasion that Ms Jamieson had been acting in the Coordinator role. Ms Jamieson had been acting in the role between 18 December 2023 to 8 January 2024 and between 4 March 2024 to 9 June 2024. Therefore, RFQ contended that Ms Jamieson was highly familiar and capable in both the Coordinator and her substantive Rosterer role.

1. RFQ contended that that viewed objectively the newly created NDIS Core Scheduling Coordinator role was a highly suitable redeployment, and other acceptable employment for Ms Jamieson under the circumstances and given the experience and skills needed for the newly combined role.

1. RFQ contended that Ms Jamieson had cited two reasons for not accepting the redeployment. Firstly, Ms Jamieson had raised concerns that that there would be too much work in the redeployed role. RFQ contended that Senior Operational Management had carefully considered the design of the redeployed role, and that Ms Jamieson was aware of the decline in client numbers and associated impact on the workloads of the Coordinator and Rosterer roles.

1. Secondly, Ms Jamieson had stated she was concerned about the reporting line of the redeployed role.  I am not satisfied that this concern would have been a basis to determine the role offered was not other acceptable employment. 

Reducing Redundancy Pay

1. RFQ was originally seeking to reduce the redundancy payment to zero due to Ms Jamieson failing to accept the redeployed role.

1. On 4 June 2025, the matter was listed for Directions/Mention. At this listing Ms Jamieson was represented by Mr Joseph Hall of the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union (ASU).  In the course of a private conference the parties arrived a consent position of a reduction in redundancy pay to from 7 weeks to 3 weeks, instead of reduction to zero.  Despite the parties arriving at consent position, it is still necessary for the Commission to be satisfied that the employment offered was other acceptable employment.  On the basis of the material before the Commission I am satisfied that it was, and I am also satisfied it would be appropriate to reduce the amount of redundancy pay to 3 weeks.   

1. Due to Ms Jamieson’s length of service of approximately 3 years 9 months and pursuant to section 119 of the Act, she would have been entitled to 7 weeks or $12,060.44 gross in redundancy payment but for the making or an order by the Commission. I am satisfied it is appropriate to make an order to reduce the redundancy pay to 3 weeks which is an amount of $5,168.76 in redundancy payment.

Conclusion

1. Ms Jamieson’s redundancy payment should be reduced to an amount of $5,168.76 gross. An Order to that effect is issued in conjunction with this decision.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

K McLachlan, of the Applicant
J Hall, from the ASU on behalf of the Respondent

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR788023>