Application by Medhealth Pty Limited
At a glance
- 1
What happened
Medhealth Pty Limited (the Applicant) sought to vary the redundancy pay of its former employee, the Respondent. The Applicant argued that the Respondent obtained acceptable alternative employment. The Respondent was a Senior Rehabilitation Consultant with SIS Rehab Group (SIS) and was promoted to Team Leader in or around August/October 2024. Her role involved managing a team and clinical caseload. The Applicant closed its SIS business unit, leading to the Respondent’s redundancy. The Applicant contends the alternative employment is acceptable, while the Respondent argues it is not. The parties dispute the exact date of the Respondent's commencement with the Applicant and the reasons for her promotion.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) considered whether the Respondent’s alternative employment was acceptable and, if so, whether her redundancy pay should be reduced. The FWC found that the question of whether the alternative employment is acceptable is objective. The Commission considered factors like travel time, carer responsibilities, and differences in job roles. The FWC did not make a finding on whether the alternative employment was acceptable or not, and therefore did not reduce the Respondent’s redundancy pay. The decision was made on the papers, based on written submissions and witness statements.
What it means for employers
Employers seeking to reduce redundancy pay by claiming an employee has obtained acceptable alternative employment must demonstrate that the employment was secured by the employer's actions, not just facilitated. A mere opportunity to apply for a job is not sufficient. Employers should also be aware that factors like increased travel time and family circumstances are relevant when assessing whether alternative employment is acceptable.
What it means for employees
Employees entitled to redundancy pay should be aware of their rights and the factors considered when an employer seeks to reduce that pay. If an employer claims an employee has found acceptable alternative employment, the employee can challenge this claim. The FWC will consider the objective impact of the alternative employment on the employee’s circumstances.
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.
Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. FairWork Mate may receive a referral fee from Liquid Legal. 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.
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.
Renews monthly at A$29.99 until you cancel. By continuing you agree to our Terms.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.