The Trustee for Airport Pharmacy Group Unit Trust 2 t/as Airport Express Pharmacy v Dao Xuan Duong

Case [2025] FWC 2788


[2025] FWC 2788

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.120—Redundancy pay

The Trustee For Airport Pharmacy Group Unit Trust 2 t/as Airport Express Pharmacy
v

Dao Xuan Duong

(C2025/7710)

COMMISSIONER MCKINNON

SYDNEY, 18 SEPTEMBER 2025

Application to vary redundancy pay obligation

  1. The Trustee For Airport Pharmacy Group Unit Trust 2 t/as Airport Express Pharmacy (AE Pharmacy) employed Ms Dao Xuan Duong from 17 May 2022 to 28 July 2025. Due to store closures at Sydney Airport’s Domestic Terminal, Ms Duong was notified of her redundancy on 27 June 2025.

  1. It is not in dispute that Ms Duong is entitled to an amount equivalent to 7 weeks’ redundancy pay following the termination of her employment.[1] AE Pharmacy has applied to the Commission under s.120 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) to reduce this entitlement to an unspecified amount on the basis that it obtained other acceptable employment for Ms Duong and she did not accept the offer of redeployment.

  1. The offer of employment made to Ms Duong was on equivalent terms and conditions of employment at a nearby location (Sydney International Terminal) but came with new heavy lifting requirements. These were described by AE Pharmacy as essential tasks that could not only be carried out by other team members. No adjustments were offered to accommodate Ms Duong’s condition in the new role. Ms Duong did not accept the offer because she was unable to perform the heavy lifting aspects of the role due to a known medical condition.

  1. At the hearing today, I dismissed the application and said that I would publish my reasons. Those are simply that I do not consider the offer of alternative employment made to Ms Duong to have been ‘other acceptable employment’ in the circumstances. Ms Duong could not have completed her duties in the new role to the satisfaction of the employer without placing her health and safety at risk, including because no reasonable adjustments were offered to Ms Duong to allow her to perform those duties safely.

  1. The application is determined accordingly.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Ms S Khoo for the applicant.
Ms D Duong on her own behalf.

Hearing details:

2025.
Sydney (by video using Microsoft Teams):
September 18.


[1] Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s.119

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR791850>

Details
AGLC
The Trustee for Airport Pharmacy Group Unit Trust 2 t/as Airport Express Pharmacy v Dao Xuan Duong [2025] FWC 2788
Case
[2025] FWC 2788
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Fair Work Commission, the Trustee for Airport Pharmacy Group Unit Trust 2 trading as Airport Express Pharmacy (AE Pharmacy) applied to reduce the redundancy pay owed to Ms Dao Xuan Duong, who was made redundant due to store closures at Sydney Airport’s Domestic Terminal. AE Pharmacy argued that it should not be required to pay full redundancy entitlements because it had offered Ms Duong alternative employment at a nearby location (Sydney International Terminal). Ms Duong declined the offer as it involved heavy lifting tasks that she could not perform due to a known medical condition, and no reasonable adjustments were made to accommodate her.

The legal issue for determination was whether the offer of alternative employment made to Ms Duong constituted 'other acceptable employment' under section 120 of the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the new role was suitable for Ms Duong given her health constraints and the employer's failure to make reasonable adjustments. The court examined the nature of the tasks required in the alternative role, the terms and conditions of employment, and the employer's responsibility to provide a safe working environment.

Commissioner McKinnon dismissed the application, ruling that the offer of alternative employment was not 'other acceptable employment' in the circumstances. The Commissioner found that Ms Duong could not perform the heavy lifting tasks safely without risking her health and safety, and no reasonable adjustments were offered by AE Pharmacy. Consequently, the employer's obligation to pay full redundancy entitlements remained unaffected.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.