In a recent decision the Fair Work Commission refused to reduce the redundancy amount payable to a physiotherapist who was asked to accept a redeployment position located 300 km away.
The Facts
The employer was a provider of allied health services that operated in various locations, including Gladstone and Maryborough.
The employee was a physiotherapist who had been employed at the employer’s Gladstone clinic for 14 months.
On 5 January 2026 the employer’s National Therapist Manager advised the employee that her position in Gladstone was at risk of redundancy and that a position was available in their Maryborough clinic, about 300 kms distant.
The employer asked the employee to respond by midday on 6 January. The employee replied requesting more information. The employer extended the “decision deadline” to 12 noon on 7 January.
On 7 January, the employee replied, stating that the timeframe was too short and requesting clarification about matters, including the costs of the relocation and her job security. Her email concluded with, “I remain open to discussion once these points are clarified.”
After further exchanges of emails, the employee notified on 8 January that she had decided against relocating to Maryborough and was unable to accept the redeployment.
On 9 January the employer notified termination of employment due to redundancy.
The employer applied to the Fair Work Commission under section 120 of the Fair Work Act for an order to reduce the amount of severance pay on redundancy from 4 weeks to nil.
About the Act
Section 120 of the Fair Work Act allows an employer to apply to the Fair Work Commission to reduce or eliminate an employee’s redundancy pay entitlement if the employer has obtained other “acceptable” employment for the employee.
The Hearing
The employer submitted that the Maryborough position was “acceptable” alternative employment because:
- The position and pay were the same.
- It had offered to pay the employee’s transportation and initial accommodation costs.
- The employee was given reasonable time to consider this role, including an option to provide alternate options, but she chose not to.
- The employee had refused the relocation offer because ‘Relocating to Maryborough [was] not a viable option for [her] due to personal and logistical reasons.”
The employee disputed the application, submitting that:
- Having only 3 days to make a decision was unreasonable.
- The new position was 3 hours’ drive away and required relocation rather than a simple transfer.
- She had an established life in her current location with existing commitments that could not be transferred or exited at short notice.
- The financial compensation offered for the relocation was inadequate so that accepting the relocation proposal involved substantial financial risk and uncertainty.
- She was not given an opportunity to respond, consult, or explore reasonable alternatives.
The Decision
The Commissioner declined to reduce the redundancy pay, finding that:
- Where to live is a personal choice that cannot reasonably be imposed by an employer.
- Accepting the proposed position would have meant the employee leaving her established social and support networks behind, with the uncertainty of re-establishing herself in a new location.
- The employer showed an overall disregard for the significance of such a move for the employee, focusing solely on its urgent requirement to fill the role in the Maryborough Clinic.
- The pressure placed on the employee to make such a significant decision within 3 days, and without all the information she requested, was unreasonable.
- The employee had meaningfully engaged with the employer regarding the proposed position and remained willing and open to other proposals or alternatives.
- As such, the employer had not obtained acceptable alternative employment for its employee.
The application was dismissed and the employer was required to pay the full redundancy amount.
Implications
Employers should be aware that in an application to reduce redundancy pay, factors such as distance and impacts of relocation can be taken into account.
Employers should provide relevant and helpful supporting information to the employee and allow a reasonable opportunity for the employee to consider the alternative position, considering the significance of the decision to the employee.
Employees should meaningfully engage in discussions regarding a proposed alternative position, though that does not necessarily require accepting the offer.
At WorkLegal our experienced team can answer your questions and put you on the right track. A range of fixed-price Initial Consultations will suit most people’s needs in quickly learning what their options are.