the Applicant v Telstra Corporation Limited
Citation: [2019] FCAFC 103
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant was employed by Telstra. In August 2017 he was made redundant as part of an internal reorganisation. the Applicant alleged the redundancy was not genuine and was adverse action taken because he complained about his managers. He claimed the same work was still being performed by other employees post-restructure, suggesting his position was not truly redundant but he was targeted for exercising workplace rights.
What was decided
The Federal Court found no breach of the Fair Work Act. The court accepted Telstra's evidence that the role itself was redundant, even though similar work continued (the role's scope had been redefined and consolidated). the Applicant's complaints about managers were found not to be the reason for selection. The application was dismissed. No breach of s 340 or unfair dismissal was established.
What it means for employers
Genuine redundancy exists where the job title or role is no longer required, even if similar work continues under different organisational structures or titles. Restructures that result in role elimination, even with work reassignment, can constitute genuine redundancy.
What it means for employees
To challenge redundancy as adverse action, the Applicant must show the real reason was exercise of a workplace right, not genuine operational change. Employer witnesses' evidence about the nature of restructure will be accepted if credible.
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/full/2019/2019fcafc0103Want 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. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
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 →