TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – genuine redundancy – remedy – ss.389, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for relief from unfair dismissal – applicant commenced employment with respondent on 4 July 2014 – covered by Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010 (Award) – respondent objected to application on basis of genuine redundancy due to pending loss of clients and therefore not in position to generate enough funds to sustain applicant’s full time wage – Commission satisfied that dismissal was due to financial difficulties experienced by respondent but there was no evidence that it complied with consultation requirements of Award – consultation obligations required by s.389 not met and therefore dismissal could not be regarded as genuine redundancy – whether dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable – valid reason for dismissal as applicant dismissed as result of her job no longer being required to be performed due to changes in operational requirements – as respondent failed to consult with applicant in manner required by Award, Commission concluded that termination of employment was harsh, unjust or unreasonable – application granted – question of remedy – applicant did not seek reinstatement and Commission satisfied that it was not appropriate, particularly in light of closure of respondent – compensation of $824.38 ordered. Dignon v Community Caring P/L t/a Carers That Care
