the Applicant v Tesa Group Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 2439
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 4
What happened
the Applicant was employed by Tesa Group Pty Ltd, a labour hire company contracted to Glencore, as a Mineworker Level 3 under the TESA Group Enterprise Agreement 2022 from January 28, 2020. He initially started as a Trainee, then worked as a casual Experienced Operator until October 26, 2024, when he converted to full-time employment. His role ended on August 22, 2025. Tesa decided to remove four experienced operators, including the Applicant, from the Bulga mine due to Glencore’s direction and spent six weeks seeking alternative roles without success.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the Applicant's application for an unfair dismissal remedy. The Deputy President found that Tesa no longer required his job to be performed because of changes in operational requirements, fulfilling the criteria for a genuine redundancy under s.389 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The decision hinged on whether Tesa needed someone performing the Applicant’s duties, not just if the title remained. The Commission noted that Tesa had the contractual right to change his position and location.
What it means for employers
Employers must carefully document and demonstrate changes in operational requirements leading to redundancies. Simply changing a job title isn't enough; the actual work performed needs to be eliminated. Employers also need to ensure they comply with any obligations in modern awards or enterprise agreements regarding consultation during redundancy processes.
What it means for employees
Employees should understand that a genuine redundancy occurs when the employer no longer requires the specific duties of their role to be performed, regardless of job title. Employees have the right to challenge whether a dismissal is genuinely due to redundancy if they believe work continues to exist or could be redeployed.
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/2026fwc2439.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 →