the Applicant v Australian Broadcasting Corporation
Citation: [2026] FWC 3023
What happened
the Applicant, an Editor, Audio Distribution at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), initiated a dispute regarding changes following a merger of teams in December 2024. The Applicant claims the ABC failed to properly consult her about the merger, which resulted in the elimination of her position, and questions whether her role is redundant or if the ABC intends to redeploy her. The dispute couldn't be resolved through conciliation and proceeded to arbitration. Key documents and witness statements were presented during hearings on May 19th and June 18th, 2025.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission is currently considering several questions related to the Applicant’s dispute with the ABC. These include whether her position is redundant under clause 54.2.1 of the Enterprise Agreement, if the ABC's actions have triggered a section 119(1)(a) breach of the Fair Work Act, and whether the ABC still requires someone to perform her former duties. The Commission acknowledged the Applicant raised an issue regarding s.119(1)(a) of the FW Act even though it wasn’t initially presented at the workplace level. They also noted that industrial disputes can evolve during proceedings.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure they adhere to consultation requirements when implementing major changes affecting employees, as outlined in clause 53 of the ABC Enterprise Agreement. Failure to consult adequately regarding potential redundancies or significant role alterations could lead to disputes and legal action. Employers must also be prepared for industrial disputes to evolve during proceedings.
What it means for employees
Employees should actively engage in consultation processes when employers propose major changes that may impact their roles. If employees believe they haven't been properly consulted, or if redundancies are handled inappropriately, they have recourse to raise a dispute with the Fair Work Commission. It is also acceptable for disputes to evolve during proceedings.
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/2026fwc3023.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 →