the Applicant v Minghui Education Pty. Ltd.
Citation: [2026] FWC 2572
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
- Awards cited
- MA000030
What happened
the Applicant was dismissed from her role as Operations Director at Minghui Education Pty. Ltd. in January 2026. The company, employing between 38 and 43 staff, conducted a review of its operational structure due to increasing compliance requirements. As a result, the Operations Director position was made redundant, with responsibilities redistributed among existing staff and external consultants. the Applicant received a letter outlining the redundancy and was paid in lieu of notice. She claims the dismissal was unfair and lacked proper consultation.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that Minghui Education Pty. Ltd. did not comply with its obligations to consult regarding the redundancy. While the company argued the role was genuinely redundant due to operational changes, they failed to adequately consider redeployment options for the Applicant. The Commission dismissed a jurisdictional objection and ordered compensation. A copy of the previous structure and new structure depicting the removal of the Operational Director role was filed.
What it means for employers
Employers must demonstrate genuine consideration of redeployment opportunities before making a redundancy decision. Proper consultation with affected employees is crucial, even in smaller businesses. Failing to do so can lead to findings of unfair dismissal and compensation orders.
What it means for employees
Employees facing potential redundancies should ensure they are consulted about proposed changes and given the opportunity to suggest alternatives. If redeployment options exist, employers must genuinely consider them before proceeding with a redundancy.
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/2026fwc2572.pdfSend your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
Want 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. The full FWC and Federal Court library behind every advisor answer is on Pro.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Just need this week sorted? A 7-Day Pass is 50 questions over 7 days, no account. Get a 7-Day Pass — $14.99
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