the Applicant v Blade Repairs Australia Pty Ltd (No 2)
Citation: [2010] FCA 688
At a glance
- Penalty
- $1,000
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
The Applicant was employed as a fibreglass technician from March to November 2008. He initially worked for Vestas, then was employed by Total Blades and subsequently Blade Repairs, which took over the work. Vestas approached Blade Repairs to lay off one team of workers due to reduction in contract work. On 26 November 2008, the director advised the Applicant his employment was being terminated due to the reduction in work from Vestas. The Applicant claimed the director said Vestas 'don't want young blokes working on the wind farms anymore', but the director denied making this statement.
What was decided
The Federal Court found that the Applicant was not terminated because of his age but due to genuine redundancy caused by reduction in work. The director's evidence was accepted over the Applicant's claim about what was said. The court found no contravention of age discrimination provisions in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). However, the court found the Respondent breached the Applicant's employment contract and ordered it to pay damages of $24,607.72 and a penalty of $1,000.
What it means for employers
While redundancy due to genuine reduction in work is a lawful reason for termination, employers must ensure all procedural fairness requirements are met and handle the dismissal process correctly. Even where dismissal is ultimately lawful, breach of contract provisions can result in damages awards.
What it means for employees
If dismissed due to redundancy, employees should carefully document what they are told about the reasons and the circumstances. While redundancy may be a lawful termination ground, the employer must comply with contractual notice and payment requirements.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2010/2010fca0688Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. The full FWC and Federal Court library behind every advisor answer is on Pro.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Just need this week sorted? A 7-Day Pass is 50 questions over 7 days, no account. Get a 7-Day Pass — $14.99
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections