the Applicant v Oasis Dental Group Pty Ltd
Citation: [2026] FWC 2818
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
- Awards cited
- MA000153
What happened
the Applicant was employed by Oasis Dental Group Pty Ltd from September 30, 2024, initially working 30 hours per week and later reduced to 25 hours at a rate of $60 per hour. Her role as Patient Experience Specialist was eliminated on November 17, 2025, with the company citing a restructure and redistribution of her duties among other team members. She received four weeks’ pay in lieu of notice and two weeks' redundancy pay. the Applicant argued that her position was not genuinely made redundant because her duties continued to exist and she wasn't consulted about redeployment opportunities.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that the Applicant’s dismissal was unfair. The Commission dismissed a jurisdictional objection raised by Oasis Dental Group, arguing the redundancy was genuine. While the company restructured its operations and redistributed the Applicant’s duties, the Deputy President determined her position had ceased to exist due to operational changes. The Commission considered evidence regarding the redistribution of duties and found that some aspects of the Applicant's role were no longer performed by anyone within the organisation. Compensation was ordered.
What it means for employers
Employers must ensure genuine redundancies are properly documented and communicated, demonstrating a clear need for restructuring and changes to operational requirements. Consultation obligations under relevant awards or enterprise agreements must be strictly adhered to when considering redundancy processes. Simply redistributing duties does not automatically constitute a genuine redundancy.
What it means for employees
Employees facing potential redundancy should carefully review any documentation provided by their employer, ensuring the reasons for the redundancy are clearly explained and that consultation requirements have been met. If there is doubt about whether a position is genuinely redundant, employees can seek legal advice and challenge the decision through Fair Work Commission.
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/2026fwc2818.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. 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 today sorted? A Day Pass is 25 questions over 24 hours, no account. Get a Day Pass — $4.99
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