the Applicant v Luxtralia Pty. Ltd.
Citation: [2026] FWC 2128
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant was employed as a Supervisor at Luxtralia Pty Ltd’s Rolex Sydney Airport boutique from December 2021 until January 8, 2026, when her role was made redundant due to the closure of the boutique following a commercial decision by Rolex. the Respondent claims this constituted a genuine redundancy and raised a jurisdictional objection to the Applicant's unfair dismissal application. Luxtralia conducted a consultation process involving meetings, written communication, and offering redeployment opportunities. the Applicant declined these roles citing concerns about working hours, remuneration, and job nature.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission is determining whether the Applicant’s termination was a genuine redundancy. the Respondent argues they complied with all requirements of the Fair Work Act regarding genuine redundancy, including consultation and exploring redeployment options. the Applicant contends that the Respondent failed to genuinely explore redeployment opportunities and did not disclose available roles at Sydney Airport. The decision will be made based on whether redeployment would have been reasonable in all circumstances at the relevant time.
What it means for employers
Employers must ensure redundancy processes are thorough, transparent, and demonstrate genuine efforts to identify suitable redeployment options for affected employees. Failing to consider or disclose available roles, even if recruitment is ongoing, can undermine a claim of genuine redundancy. Third-party approvals impacting role availability should be clearly communicated.
What it means for employees
Employees considering declining offered redeployment roles should document their reasons and maintain communication with the employer regarding their continued interest in alternative positions. Employees should also keep records of any advertised roles that may not have been presented to them during consultation.
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.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc2128.pdfWant 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 →