A Brisbane-based educator has lost out on an almost $19,000 redundancy payout after rejecting a new role that would reduce her work from home time. Amongst other complaints, the worker claimed that more in-office time would hamper her ability to do her studies and play sport.
This Fair Work Commission case – Mater Misericordiae Ltd Trading AS Mater v Robyn Tyler [2025] – provides a cautionary tale for workers facing redundancy who may be thinking of rejecting a reasonable offer of redeployment. Under the Fair Work Act 2009, employers have the right to reduce a redundancy payout if the worker rejects a reasonable offer.
This case also highlights that workers are not entitled to work from home unless they have a legitimate reason, as per the flexible working arrangement requirements of the Fair Work Act.
Robin Tyler began working for Catholic not-for-profit Mater in January 2019, initially on a 12-month contract. In June 2021, he stepped into the role of permanent part-time educator – curriculum design.
In January 2025, Mater initiated consultations with Ms. Tyler regarding structural changes within its education and training department. She was told that these changes would make her current role redundant and that she would transition to a new role. Ms. Tyler was asked to provide feedback on this prospect, which she did via email in February 2025.
In her email, Ms. Tyler expressed her worries about curriculum staff reporting to areas that might not fully understand the new role. She also pointed out that there was “great confusion” around changes to curriculum content. Ms. Tyler said that there was a lack of clarity of what the new role would involve. She also had concerns about having additional work on top of her normal teaching load.
Later in February 2025, Ms. Tyler was offered an alternative position as an Educator. The new role would have the same pay, hours and level of seniority. She was told that declining this offer would lead to an application to the Fair Work Commission to reduce her redundancy entitlement.
Ms. Tyler subsequently declined the alternative role because it would a negative impact on her work-life balance. She said she would no longer be able to accommodate her extracurricular sporting activities and postgraduate study. This was because of the new role’s requirement for onsite attendance during standard working hours.
In her old role, Ms. Tyler had been allowed to work from home two days per week. This would be cut down to just one day per week in the new role. As a result of declining the new role, Ms. Tyler’s redundancy case was taken to the Fair Work Commission to decide if her payout should be reduced.
Mater argued to the Fair Work Commission that Ms. Tyler’s new position constituted “other acceptable employment” as defined by section 120 of the Fair Work Act. It also submitted that ‘Acceptable employment’ is not identical employment, as “no two jobs could be exactly the same.” The organisation pointed out that the new role had the same hours, pay, seniority and work location as Ms. Tyler’s previous position. It would also not change any of the “fringe benefits” available to her, according to Mater.
Mater told the Fair Work Commission that it was not aware of any caring responsibilities or “family circumstances” that would render the new role unacceptable to Ms. Tyler. Mater acknowledged her concerns about flexible work arrangements. However, it highlighted that Ms. Tyler did not have an approved flexible working arrangement under section 65 of the Fair Work Act.
The organisation also argued that Ms. Tyler was “never contractually entitled” to remote or flexible working conditions beyond what was operationally feasible and approved by Mater. Mater contended that Ms. Tyler’s “personal scheduling preferences” did not amount to a valid reason for her to reject the new role. It said that full-time roles at the organisation were by default in-office positions. Work from home privileges were only granted when operationally appropriate, Mater said.
The Fair Work Commission was tasked with objectively assessing Ms. Tyler’s new role and determining if it constituted “other acceptable employment” under the Fair Work Act. The Commission found that it did, noting it had the same pay and hours, to be performed at similar times to her previous role. It also highlighted that the role had the same level of seniority and provided job security and ongoing continuity.
The Commission recognised that in her new role Ms. Tyler would transition from two days per week working from home to one day. However, it found that there “was no formal entitlement” to the existing working from home arrangement under the old role and that it was at the discretion of Mater.
The Fair Work Commission also looked at Ms. Tyler’s claim that she did not have clarity on what the new role would involve. However, the Commission sided with Mater on this point. It said that the organisation “had taken sufficient steps” to inform her of the requirements and expectations of the new role.
It also nixed Ms. Tyler’s complaints about a requirement to occasionally travel to Mater’s Education Hubs and a reduction in work from home time. The Commission said that those changes were “not sufficiently significant to detract” from the fact that her new role was objectively acceptable employment.
Ultimately, the Fair Work Commission concluded that the new role offered to Ms. Tyler was “acceptable employment.” It therefore found it appropriate to reduce her redundancy entitlement to zero. Ms. Tyler, who had been employed by Mater for approximately six years, was initially entitled to 11 weeks of redundancy pay. This amounted to $18,699.68.
Another Fair Work Commission case that involved WFH privileges and redundancy is Tom Byron v iSelect Services Pty Ltd [2025]. Tom Byron worked as a sales team leader at health insurance agency iSelect. He, like other team leaders at the company, had been working from home since the COVID-19 pandemic. Mr. Byron’s role involved supervising salespeople who also worked from home. This team arrangement had come into place when many businesses were forced to adopt remote working during COVID-19.
On 25 February 2025, Mr. Byron received a letter from iSelect stating his position was to be made redundant in three days’ time. He was offered an alternative team leader role, which would be based at iSelect’s Melbourne office, and was not a remote role. Mr. Byron, however, rejected this role and concluded his time with the company on 28 February 2025. He did not believe that his redundancy was genuine. He therefore lodged an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission.
Mr. Byron argued to the Fair Work Commission that he had been a “high performer” for iSelect and had driven significant revenue generation for the company. He believed that he had been “singled out” for redundancy. This was because he noticed that other team leaders, who also worked from home, were not made redundant. He believed that if his redundancy had been genuine, those roles would have been surplus to requirements also.
Mr. Byron took particular issue with the fact that iSelect’s offer of alternative employment was an office-based role. He told the Fair Work Commission that the role was “not reasonable” because it would involve a “very long commute” to the Melbourne CBD office. He also believed he had been made redundant because he “had become inconvenient” to iSelect. Mr. Byron said that the new owners of the business wanted people to work in the office.
He said that many other colleagues were allowed to work from home still and that iSelect never proposed moving him to a remote role. Mr. Byron believed there were more redeployment options available that were never discussed with him.
iSelect, meanwhile, provided evidence to support the idea that Mr. Byron’s redundancy was genuine. This included evidence of the company’s financial difficulties, including “six consecutive years of revenue decline.” The company also pointed out that it had a “high attrition among new hires,” in particular those who worked from home.
iSelect also pointed out that remote work made team leader roles less effective. It said that working from home made them unable to provide “real time coaching and supervision” to the salespeople they supervised. The company said that this impacted business performance.
iSelect also told the Fair Work Commission that its CEO had made the decision to transition the company’s workforce to an office-based operating model. This was after the success of doing the same thing at its related entity, Compare the Market. The company had a full staff briefing in November 2024 for all sales consultants and team leaders, informing them of the upcoming change.
This included Mr. Byron. The briefing announced that the company would move to an office-based model from January 2025. This would see the consolidation of existing remote employees into the Melbourne office over time.
iSelect also argued that Mr. Byron had been sufficiently consulted about the transition from working from home arrangements and his potential redundancy. It said that following the November 2024 briefing Mr. Byron was told the company would not hire remote salespeople anymore. He was also told that the number of remote salespeople would “diminish” and that his role would “eventually” become redundant.
iSelect said that it presented Mr. Byron with three options at this point. He could be redeployed to an office-based team leader role with financial relocation support. Alternatively, he could take a voluntary redundancy or remain in his current role with the understanding of future redundancy once his team became unviable. The company said that Mr. Byron responded to this by indicating that he “might reconsider” a voluntary redundancy “in the new year.”
iSelect told the Fair Work Commission that Mr. Byron’s team reduced its headcount from 10 to just 4 by December 2024. During Mr. Byron’s long service leave from 10 December 2024 to 17 January 2025, his team further decreased to only two consultants. These two consultants were then reassigned to in-office roles. By January 2025, Mr. Byron no longer had a team. He was subsequently assigned training duties.
Upon his return from leave, iSelect said it regularly discussed the prospect of moving to an in-office role with Mr. Byron. The company told him that he could not be redeployed to a work from home role. However, it said that Mr. Byron consistently maintained he “could not work in the office.”
iSelect also pointed out that despite Mr. Byron’s role effectively becoming redundant in January 2025, the company kept him on. It claimed this was “as a courtesy” to give him time to consider redeployment to an in-office role. In late February, iSelect said it asked Mr. Byron to tell them once and for all if he would take a new role. However, he replied that working in the office “was not an option for him.”
Consequently, on 25 February 2025, Mr. Byron was told that his position was redundant and that he would be dismissed due to rejecting an available office-based role. Mr. Byron was paid 12 weeks of severance pay.
The Fair Work Commission concluded that Mr. Byron’s dismissal met the criteria for genuine redundancy under section 389 of the Fair Work Act 2009. It found that iSelect “no longer required” Mr. Byron’s job to be performed by anyone due to changes in its operational requirements. It concluded that the company had a valid reason, as it did not need a team leader to manage Mr. Byron’s team that “no longer existed.” The Commission also agreed with iSelect that the shift to an in-office working model was a legitimate business decision.
The Fair Work Commission next turned to Mr. Byron’s argument that his redundancy was not genuine due to the continued employment of other remote team leaders. It concluded that these remote team leaders were still required by iSelect, and that Mr. Byron was not, because he “he had no team.” The Commission also noted that Mr. Byron’s status as a “good performer” did not alter the fact that his remote team leader position was no longer needed.
The next question the Fair Work Commission looked at was whether iSelect conducted a sufficient redundancy consultation. This requirement was outlined in the Banking, Finance and Insurance Award 2020. The Commission found that the company had complied with this requirement, having provided Mr. Byron with “sufficient information” about the changes to his role.
The Commission also determined that it would not have been reasonable to redeploy Mr. Byron to another position. The only available and identified work was the office-based team leader role in Melbourne, which Mr. Byron consistently declined. The Commission found no evidence of any specific remote corporate roles that Mr. Byron could have filled, despite his suggestion.
Ultimately, the Fair Work Commission found that Mr. Byron’s dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy. It stated that even if a different conclusion had been reached on genuine redundancy, the dismissal would still not have been deemed unfair. This was because of iSelect’s “good and legitimate reason” for his dismissal – being that Mr. Byron’s job was no longer needed.
The Commission also noted that the severance payment Mr. Byron received further supported the conclusion that the dismissal was not unfair. His application was therefore dismissed.
Were you recently made redundant and suspect it was not genuine? As a leading national force in workplace representation across Australia, we at Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives offer a completely free initial consultation to help you understand your rights and determine if your redundancy was truly legitimate.
With over three decades of experience, we have assisted with thousands of employee claims, specialising in resolving disputes related to ingenuine redundancy. We understand that not all redundancies are what they seem, and our expertise can help you uncover whether your dismissal was in fact unfair.
We can help you secure the best possible outcome for you, including maximum compensation. Contact us today on 1800 333 666.
