A mine worker who was made redundant has won a $71,000 unfair dismissal payout because his employer failed to redeploy him to a role he was qualified for. The Fair Work Commission also found his employer conducted an “inappropriate” consultation because it began during his rostered time off. The worker’s redundancy was found not to be genuine, having left him without a job for around six months.
In this article, we look at this Fair Work unfair dismissal case Yorston v NRR Services Pty Ltd [2026]. Later, we look at a cybersecurity lead who was awarded $56,306 after his redundancy was found not to be genuine.
Read more: Redundancy Pay Fights: One Worker Wins, One Loses
Brogan Yorston started with NRR Services Pty Ltd in December 2023 as a pit technician. He was promoted to mine surveyor on 4 December 2024. He worked at the Nathan River Mine in the Northern Territory, under the Mining Industry Award 2020. In October 2025, NRR Services reviewed multiple roles across the company as it entered the wet season. It concluded it no longer needed Mr Yorston’s full-time mine surveyor role.
On 29 October 2025, while Mr Yorston was rostered off work, NRR Services sent him a redundancy consultation letter via email. It said that “no final decision has been made” and invited him to a virtual meeting. Mr Yorston said the email went to his junk folder, and that he had no mobile device to monitor email on his break. He emailed questions on 2 November 2025. The next day, his project manager stopped him at Darwin Airport from boarding his flight to the mine site, on the basis that a mine surveyor was not required for the wet season.
NRR Services replied to Mr Yorston in writing on 4 November 2025, then confirmed he would be let go on 12 November 2025. The company offered him $22,442.93 in redundancy pay, pay in lieu of notice and annual leave.
In his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Mr Yorston argued:
In response to the Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, NRR Services lodged a jurisdictional objection arguing that the termination of employment was a genuine redundancy. It contended that Mr Yorston’s duties could be redistributed and that no suitable redeployment roles existed. The company also claimed that it had performed an appropriate redundancy consultation.
The jurisdictional objection to Mr Yorston’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was decided by the Fair Work Commission in June 2026. It ruled that his redundancy was not genuine based on the following findings:
Read more: Redundancy Pay Fights: One Worker Wins, One Loses
In October 2026, the Fair Work Commission decided on financial compensation. Mr Yorston said he was unemployed for around six months and now works as a casual labourer earning about $1,800 per week less. He sought $78,555, being 26 weeks at his average earnings over his previous 26 weeks.
NRR Services was placed in administration in May 2026, and all of its known employees had been terminated. The Commission found Mr Yorston would have remained employed until then, about 28 weeks, and that the company’s viability was no longer relevant. Maximum compensation is 26 weeks, so the Commission awarded 26 weeks at that rate, or $71,000.02, plus superannuation.
In Patel v Prospa Advance Pty Ltd [2026], a cybersecurity employee was let go as part of his employer’s business restructure. In the lead up to his dismissal, the employee had made several complaints about a coworker. The Fair Work Commission found the redundancy was not genuine because the employer had not consulted him in accordance with his award. It also found that he was let go as “a means of managing the conflict” between the worker and his colleague. He was awarded an unfair dismissal payout of $56,306.
Jay Patel started with business loan firm Prospa Advance in October 2022. At the time of his termination of employment, he was its security operations and response lead, earning $200,000 plus superannuation per year. In late 2024, Mr Patel complained about a colleague’s inappropriate conduct in a meeting, and she later apologised. He made further complaints in 2025, alleging that she was withholding information from him to intimidate him.
On 5 August 2025, Mr Patel and the colleague had an argument in the office. He said she swore at him in front of colleagues, and reported it to his manager, asking for a formal investigation. The manager told Mr Patel that the company “would deal with it internally as per last time.” The colleague provided a written apology a few days later.
On 15 September 2025, Mr Patel was told by phone to attend a meeting the next day about “workplace changes.” In the meeting, he was told his role was at risk because of a division-wide restructure. Prospa would replace his role, and that of his colleague, with a single security engineering manager role. He was given until 4pm the next day to express interest in applying for that role. The letter he received at the meeting already specified his termination of employment date of 19 September 2025.
Mr Patel was interviewed for the role on 18 September 2025. He described the process as constrained, said he was repeatedly cut off and said he was asked no technical questions. The next day, Mr Patel was told he was unsuccessful. Within two hours, he was terminated effective immediately. Prospa offered him a $20,000 pre-approved bonus and an ex gratia payment of two weeks’ pay ($7,692), but only if he signed a deed releasing it from legal claims.
In his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Mr Patel argued:
Mr Patel’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was decided by the Fair Work Commission in August 2026. It found that his termination of employment did not meet the standard of a genuine redundancy and was unfair, based on the following findings:
The Commission found reinstatement was inappropriate. It determined Mr Patel would have remained employed for six months, given the conflict in the workplace and his dissatisfaction with the way it was handled. Prospa was ordered to pay Mr Patel a $56,306 unfair dismissal payout.
A redundancy is genuine only if the employer no longer needs the job to be performed because of changes in the operational requirements. It must also comply with any obligation in an award or enterprise agreement to consult about the redundancy. A dismissal is not a genuine redundancy if it would have been reasonable to redeploy the employee within the enterprise.
In Yorston v NRR Services Pty Ltd [2026], a mine surveyor was told his job was made surplus to requirements before the wet season. The Fair Work Commission found the employer consulted him while he was on his rostered time off. It also found he should have been redeployed into another role that the employer filled weeks later. The redundancy was therefore not genuine, and the employer was ordered to pay $71,000 in compensation plus superannuation.
A person earning above the Fair Work unfair dismissal high income threshold can bring a claim if an award or enterprise agreement covers them. Coverage depends on the work actually performed, and the Fair Work Commission looks at the award’s classification descriptions.
In Patel v Prospa Advance Pty Ltd [2026], Mr Patel’s salary exceeded the unfair dismissal high income threshold. However, he was found to be covered by the Banking, Finance and Insurance Award 2020, therefore making him protected from unfair dismissal.
Not every redundancy is genuine. If your employer has not consulted you, or did not consider redeploying you, you may have grounds for a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim.
A Whole New Approach represents employees across Australia in unfair dismissal, general protections and forced resignation matters. Tight time limits apply, including 21 days to lodge an unfair dismissal claim, so it pays to get advice early.
Our first consultation is free, and every consultation is private and confidential. We act on a no-win, no-fee basis. Call 1800 333 666 any day of the week.
