TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT – genuine redundancy – ss.389, 394 Fair Work Act 2009 – application for unfair dismissal remedy – respondent contended dismissal genuine redundancy – applicant covered by Victorian Public Health Sector (Health Professionals, Health and Allied Services, Managers & Administrative Officers) Enterprise Agreement 2011-2015 – Agreement contained consultation term which provided for discussion about reasons for proposed redundancy and consideration of measures to avert or mitigate – applicant’s salary claimed against BRAF project grant with three year funding – respondent obtained a separate program grant for period of five years – distinguishable from project grant in that provided funding across several teams rather than one project – respondent contended it was communicated to applicant that BRAF project would not continue beyond current project timelines and reinforced message in meeting with applicant in April and December 2014 – meeting in May 2015 applicant advised position would be made redundant in December 2015 – applicant claimed she was not consulted adequately – Commission satisfied applicant aware in May 2015 position would be redundant – satisfied intention to discontinue BRAF project clearly communicated to applicant – rejected applicant’s claim that subject to coercion to sign deed of release – respondent provided evidence based on rationale for decision to reduce priority on BRAF project – Commission accepted operational rationale for decision – satisfied various options about alternatives to redundancy discussed in number of meetings – found lack of real effort on part of respondent to achieve redeployment and that applicant could have been redeployed to one or other vacant positions – would have been reasonable in circumstances to redeploy applicant – found dismissal was for reasons of redundancy and consultation obligations met however not genuine redundancy due to failure to comply with redeployment requirements – applicant did not seek reinstatement – order for compensation $9570.73 taking into account viability of respondent and long service of applicant. Ferrao v Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute
