Redundancy Decisions in the Age of Remote Work
As flexible and remote working becomes a common fixture, employers must reconsider what “acceptable employment” means during a redundancy process. Recent decisions from the Fair Work Commission (FWC) provide important guidance on how remote work can affect whether a redeployment offer is considered suitable.
At The BelRose Group, we have reviewed two recent cases that highlight the complexities employers face in this space.
“Redundancy decisions require more than flexibility alone. When employers balance business needs with fair and suitable redeployment options, they build clarity, compliance, and confidence in the process.”
Understanding ‘Other Acceptable Employment’
Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), an employer may apply to the FWC to reduce redundancy pay if suitable alternative employment is offered. The Commission assesses this objectively, considering:
Location and hours
Pay and seniority
Continuity of service
The employee’s family responsibilities
The decision ultimately hinges on whether the redeployment offer represents fair and reasonable employment in the circumstances.
Case Law in Practice
Case 1: Permanent Remote Role – Not Suitable
TAE Aerospace Pty Ltd v David Vanner [2025] FWC 953
An employee’s in-person role was made redundant, and the employer offered a full-time remote role based in Melbourne while the employee resided in Brisbane. Although the employee had previously worked remotely on a secondment, he had made clear that family responsibilities prevented him from continuing this arrangement long-term.
The FWC agreed, finding that the redeployment was at a lower level, with reduced benefits, and that the original role required physical workplace access.
Outcome: The remote role was deemed unsuitable. The application to reduce redundancy pay was dismissed.
Case 2: Remote Work Preference Not Enough
Mater Misericordiae Ltd v Robyn Tyler [2025] FWC 1396
In this matter, an employee was offered a new on-site role with the same pay and hours. She declined, preferring to work remotely part-time to support her studies.
The FWC noted that her remote work arrangement had been informal and not contractually guaranteed. Because the redeployment matched the pay and conditions of her original role, redundancy pay was reduced to zero.
Outcome: A personal preference for flexibility, without contractual basis, was not sufficient to reject the role as unsuitable.
Key Considerations for Employers
These cases show that remote work is only one factor in determining whether redeployment is acceptable. Employers should carefully assess the full context:
Assess all aspects
Compare location, hours, pay, and level of responsibility to the original position. If flexible work was a formal entitlement, this carries greater weight.Consider personal circumstances
Legitimate concerns, such as family care duties, must be taken into account. The FWC places significant emphasis on these factors.Clarify informal arrangements
Where flexible or remote work has been informal, employers retain discretion. Clear communication is essential to manage expectations.Consult and communicate early
Early, genuine consultation is not only a requirement under Fair Work legislation, it also helps reduce disputes and supports defensible decisions.
Need Advice on Redundancy and Redeployment?
The BelRose Group assists employers in assessing redeployment options and managing redundancies with fairness and compliance in mind. We help organisations balance their operational needs with employee entitlements, ensuring a clear and considered approach.
If you are facing redundancy decisions in the era of remote work, we are here to support you.