[2025] FWCFB 231
Citation: [2025] FWCFB 231
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
- Awards cited
- MA000113
What happened
Leesa Zaicos was employed by the Tamworth Dementia Respite Service Inc (TDRS) from March 2021 as Managing Coordinator of Operations. By April 2025, the TDRS faced financial difficulties, including unpaid superannuation and taxation. Andrew Barnden was appointed voluntary administrator. He made the decision to terminate Ms Zaicos’ employment due to the TDRS’s financial position. Ms Zaicos was on work cover leave at the time and claims she was not consulted about the restructure. The TDRS initially indicated in its response to the unfair dismissal application that the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010 (SCHADS Award) applied.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission Full Bench (FWCFB) allowed an appeal against a Deputy President’s decision that Ms Zaicos’ dismissal was a genuine redundancy. The Deputy President had found that the TDRS complied with consultation obligations under the SCHADS Award, either because no award applied or because consultation wouldn’t have changed the outcome. The FWCFB found the Deputy President erred in this assessment. The FWCFB determined the dismissal was not a genuine redundancy and allowed the appeal, effectively overturning the Deputy President’s decision.
What it means for employers
Employers must carefully consider and comply with obligations under modern awards or enterprise agreements, particularly regarding consultation requirements in redundancy situations. Failing to consult, even in circumstances of voluntary administration, can invalidate a claim of genuine redundancy. The FWC will scrutinise whether consultation would have made a difference, even if the employer believes it wouldn't.
What it means for employees
Employees should be aware of their rights regarding consultation in redundancy situations, as outlined in applicable awards or enterprise agreements. Even if an employer claims a genuine redundancy, employees have the right to challenge the process and argue that consultation obligations were not met.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2025fwcfb231.pdfWant more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The full dataset, with structured fields for awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts, is available through the Business API. FairWork Mate AI answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. API + AI access is a paid product. Contact us for pricing or a 50% off first month.
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 by AI 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 →