Steele v Ennesty Energy Pty Ltd T/A Ennesty Energy

The case of Steele v Ennesty Energy Pty Ltd T/A Ennesty Energy involved the appellant, Steele, who brought a claim for unfair dismissal against his former employer, Ennesty Energy. Steele argued that his dismissal was not for genuine redundancy but rather a result of discriminatory conduct. The matter was heard by the Fair Work Commission, and subsequently, the Full Bench of the Federal Court. The central issue for the court was whether Ennesty Energy had genuinely considered the appellant for alternative positions before deciding to terminate his employment.

The court needed to determine if the employer had adequately explored all possible alternatives before concluding that Steele's position was redundant. This involved assessing whether Ennesty Energy had genuinely offered Steele other available roles and if the employer had acted reasonbly in its decision-making process. Additionally, the court examined the employer's overall conduct and whether it demonstrated a genuine belief that Steele's role had become redundant.

In its decision, the court found that Ennesty Energy had not genuinely considered Steele for alternative positions, nor had it adequately explored all possible alternatives. The employer's decision to terminate Steele's employment was thus not based on a genuine redundancy. The court concluded that the dismissal was unfair, as it did not meet the criteria for genuine redundancy. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Steele's claim for unfair dismissal was upheld.