Taleece Ajarne Paki v Howley Group Pty Ltd Summary

[2023] FWC 466

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

CORRECTION TO DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Taleece Ajarne Paki
v

Howley Group Pty Ltd

(U2022/11709)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT BOYCE

SYDNEY, 9 MARCH 2023

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy - whether dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy - job no longer required to be performed by anyone - redundancy a result of changes in operational requirements – s.389(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 satisfied - no requirement to consult under modern award as only singular redundancy and not “major change” - s.389(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 not applicable – reasonable redeployment options offered to the redundant employee rejected - s.389(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 satisfied – employer objection concerning genuine redundancy upheld – application dismissed – correction to signing date

The decision issued by the Fair Work Commission on 24 February 2023 [2023] FWC 466, is corrected by updating the signing date to 24 February 2023.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Taleece Ajarne Paki, sought a remedy for unfair dismissal from Howley Group Pty Ltd. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission, where the primary issue was whether Ms Paki's dismissal was genuinely redundant, as claimed by the respondent. Ms Paki alleged that her dismissal was unfair, while the respondent maintained that the dismissal was due to genuine redundancy.

The court examined whether the position held by Ms Paki was no longer required to be performed by anyone due to changes in the operational requirements of the business, as per section 389(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009. It also considered if the dismissal was part of a "major change" as defined in section 389(1)(b) of the Act, which would have necessitated consultation under the modern award. Furthermore, the court looked into whether the employer had offered reasonable redeployment options in line with section 389(2) of the Act, which Ms Paki had rejected. The court found that the dismissal was a genuine redundancy, as the position was no longer required due to operational changes. The respondent had offered redeployment options that were deemed reasonable, but Ms Paki had rejected these. Therefore, the court upheld the employer's objection that the dismissal was genuine and dismissed Ms Paki's application. An amendment was made to the signing date of the decision.

Taleece Ajarne Paki v Howley Group Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established