HR Consultant's Dismissal Highlights Importance of Fair Processes: A Lesson for All Employers

In a recent ruling, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has emphasised the critical need for fair and respectful treatment of employees during redundancy processes. The case involved an HR consultant at Como Glasshouse No2 Pty Ltd, an agricultural company, who was dismissed in a manner described as "crude" and disrespectful by Deputy President Peter Anderson. This case serves as a stark reminder of the responsibilities HR professionals bear in managing redundancies.

HR Consultant's Dismissal Highlights Importance of Fair Processes: A Lesson for All Employers

Background of the Case

The HR consultant, who was part of the Perfection Fresh farm division of Como, was made redundant from her role based in South Australia in February 2024. The consultant, one of eight HR team members spread between South Australia and Sydney, was informed about her redundancy under controversial circumstances.

In November, the consultant's manager announced her impending parental leave in 2024. By December, a "blind" advertisement for a temporary HR manager position appeared on Seek, which did not disclose the employer's identity. This move was interpreted by the consultant as an attempt by Como to bypass her and avoid transparency.

The Process

Deputy President Anderson noted that by January, the company's Chief People Officer (CPO) had decided that the HR team needed someone with specialist industrial relations (IR) knowledge. A new Queensland-based role was advertised, and the consultant was identified for redundancy.

On February 2, during a virtual HR team meeting, the CPO hinted at the Queensland role but did not mention any redundancies. Four days later, the consultant was summoned to a brief meeting where she was handed a termination letter citing redundancy due to the need for specific IR capacity.

Concerns of Transparency and Fairness

The redundancy process raised several issues:

- The consultant discovered the advertisement for her role accidentally and felt excluded from the recruitment process.

- The advertisement's "blind" nature was perceived as an attempt to obscure the true intentions from internal candidates.

- The consultant was given minimal notice for the redundancy meeting, with no opportunity for meaningful discussion or consultation.

Deputy President Anderson highlighted that while the redundancy was operationally justified, the process lacked fairness and transparency. The timing and manner of the dismissal suggested an absence of genuine consultation, which is essential even if not legally required.

The Verdict

Deputy President Anderson concluded that the dismissal was unfair due to the failure to consider reasonable redeployment options and the inadequate notice provided to the consultant. He criticised the HR team's handling of the situation, calling it a "stark and abject failure" that should prompt serious reflection among HR professionals.

Lessons for Employers

This case underscores the importance of:

- Transparent and fair redundancy processes.

- Genuine consultation with affected employees.

- Consideration of redeployment options where feasible.

HR professionals play a crucial role in ensuring fairness and minimising adverse impacts on employees during restructures. Employers must recognise the value of respectful treatment and thorough communication to maintain trust and morale within their organisations.

Conclusion

The FWC's ruling in this case serves as a powerful reminder of the ethical and procedural responsibilities employers have towards their employees. Fair and respectful handling of redundancies is not just a legal obligation but a cornerstone of good HR practice. Employers must strive to uphold these standards to foster a positive and just workplace environment.