the Applicant v Elegant Australian Group Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 2749
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
the Applicant was employed as a Facilities and Security Coordinator by Elegant Australian Group Pty Ltd (EAG) from July 2023 until November 2025. He applied for an unfair dismissal remedy after his role was made redundant in December 2025. EAG owns and manages real property assets, and the redundancy followed a review of operations prompted by a downturn in the commercial rental market. Grantral Enterprise Private Limited, EAG’s parent company in Singapore, instructed EAG to initiate the redundancy process. the Applicant had been on worker's compensation leave since June 2024.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that the Applicant was not unfairly dismissed. The Commission determined his dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy, meaning his role was no longer required due to operational changes and business decisions. While the consultation process with the Applicant was incomplete, this did not alter the finding of genuine redundancy. He received 12 weeks’ pay in lieu of notice and six weeks' severance pay.
What it means for employers
Employers must ensure redundancies are genuinely necessary and consider all redeployment options before dismissing employees. They should also follow proper consultation processes as outlined in awards or enterprise agreements, even if the employee is unavailable. Selective presentation of data to justify a redundancy can be viewed negatively by the Commission.
What it means for employees
Employees facing potential redundancy should actively engage in consultation processes and raise concerns about the necessity of the role's elimination. Even if an employee misses consultation meetings due to circumstances beyond their control, it is important to communicate this promptly to the employer.
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/2026fwc2749.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 →