the Applicant v ISS Integrated Services Pty Ltd
What happened
the Applicant was employed by ISS Integrated Services Pty Ltd as a Water Treatment Plant Operator at Saraji Mine in Queensland since October 2020. In March 2025, ISS informed employees about an open tender for their services contract with BHP Mitsubishi Alliance (BMA). Following the tender process, another company won the contract, and ISS’s services were to end on August 31, 2025. the Applicant was on leave when this occurred. He received a letter stating his employment would cease unless he accepted redeployment. ISS offered three FIFO roles in Perth but the Applicant was unsuccessful in obtaining one and subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal claim.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission dismissed the Applicant’s application for an unfair dismissal remedy. Deputy President Lake found that a jurisdictional objection, regarding whether a genuine redundancy existed, had been upheld. The Commission determined ISS no longer required the Applicant's role due to the loss of the BMA contract and that this met the requirements under section 389(1) of the Fair Work Act. The Commission did not consider the merits of the unfair dismissal claim.
What it means for employers
Employers must ensure they can demonstrate a genuine redundancy if relying on this as a reason for termination. This includes showing that the role is genuinely no longer needed due to operational changes, and not simply transferring work to other employees or contractors. The decision highlights the importance of adhering to consultation obligations outlined in enterprise agreements or modern awards.
What it means for employees
Employees should carefully review any redundancy notices and understand their rights regarding consultation and redeployment opportunities. If an employee believes a redundancy is not genuine, they can challenge this during a Fair Work Commission process.
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.