Orientile Pty Ltd v the Applicant
Citation: [2026] FWCFB 162
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
- Awards cited
- MA000237
What happened
the Applicant was dismissed from Orientile Pty Ltd, a small tile importing business, after nearly 15 years of employment. The company cited slow sales as the reason for needing to reduce its sales representatives from three to two. the Applicant, who helped build the business, was informed of his dismissal with little warning and received only statutory entitlements. Orientile argued the dismissal was a genuine redundancy and followed the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code. However, the Deputy President found that Orientile failed to properly consult with the Applicant regarding the potential redundancy.
What was decided
The Full Bench dismissed Orientile’s appeal against an earlier decision finding the Applicant's dismissal unfair. The original Deputy President determined Orientile did not comply with consultation obligations under the Storage Service and Wholesale Award 2020, meaning a genuine redundancy wasn't established. The company’s failure to consult meant they didn't explore alternatives like job sharing or voluntary redundancies. Compensation of $31,652.93 was initially awarded, representing four weeks for consultation and twelve weeks wages based on a larger business redundancy payment scale.
What it means for employers
Employers, particularly small businesses, must adhere to modern award obligations regarding consultations about major workplace changes like redundancies. A technical non-compliance with these obligations can invalidate a claim of genuine redundancy, even if substantive efforts were made. Simply having a conversation does not constitute proper consultation; alternatives should be explored.
What it means for employees
Employees facing potential redundancy have the right to be properly consulted about proposed changes. Failure by an employer to consult can lead to a finding of unfair dismissal and compensation for lost wages and other impacts.
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/2026fwcfb162.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 →