the Applicant v Secure Journeys Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 2406
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 8
What happened
the Applicant was employed by Secure Journeys Pty Ltd as a Talent Manager Coordinator. In September 2025, her role was made redundant due to a restructure of the Human Resources division following a contract awarded to Management & Training Corporation (MTC). MTC reviewed the HR function and recommended changes, including eliminating eight roles, including the Applicant's. She participated in consultation discussions and expressed interest in a specific vacant position but it was filled externally. Discussions about another role did not occur due to absences of both parties.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission has upheld Secure Journeys’ objection that the Applicant’s dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy, dismissing her unfair dismissal application. the Commissioner found that MTC's review demonstrated the company no longer required the Applicant’s role due to changes in operational requirements and that she had been consulted about the restructure. The Commission did not consider whether redeployment would have been reasonable.
What it means for employers
Employers must ensure redundancy decisions are genuinely based on operational needs, not simply a desire to eliminate roles. Thorough consultation with affected employees is crucial, even if no suitable redeployment options exist. Documenting the reasons for redundancy and demonstrating compliance with any relevant modern awards or enterprise agreements is essential.
What it means for employees
Employees facing potential redundancy should actively participate in consultations and explore redeployment opportunities. However, a lack of successful redeployment does not automatically mean the dismissal was unfair if the employer can demonstrate genuine redundancy based on operational needs.
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/2026fwc2406.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 →