Redundancy, restructure and job redesign: documentation and consultation

Restructures, redundancies and role redesigns are related but distinct. A restructure changes how work is organised; a redundancy is the consequence for a role that is no longer required; a role redesign changes the duties of a role that continues to exist. Treating them as the same process produces confusion and risk; treating them as related stages of the same program produces coherence.

The starting point is clarity about what is actually being done. Decisions about consultation, redeployment, communication and documentation flow from that clarity.

A documented business case — the operational drivers, the options considered, the financial position and the workforce impact — is the foundation for everything that follows. It is the record that supports the consultation conversation, the redeployment assessment and the eventual decision.

Decision frameworks should be defined before the program begins. Who decides what, on what evidence, with what approval — these questions are far harder to answer once the program is underway.

Redundancy is not just an operational event; for national-system employers it is a defined legal concept. Under s 389 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), a dismissal is a genuine redundancy only if the employer no longer requires the person's job to be performed by anyone because of changes in the operational requirements of the enterprise, the employer has complied with any consultation obligation in a modern award or enterprise agreement, and it was not reasonable in all the circumstances to redeploy the person within the employer's enterprise or an associated entity. Failure to satisfy s 389 removes the genuine-redundancy exclusion; unfair dismissal eligibility and the other statutory requirements still need to be assessed.

The redeployment limb was clarified by the High Court in Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd v Bartley [2025] HCA 29: the Fair Work Commission may inquire into whether the employer could have made changes to how it uses its workforce — including its use of contractors — when assessing whether redeployment would have been reasonable. Redeployment analysis is therefore not limited to matching employees against currently vacant advertised roles; it extends to whether the workforce structure itself could reasonably have been adjusted (at [7], [36], [41]). The inquiry is objective and fact-specific, assessed at the time of dismissal, and can take into account the employee's skills and training needs and the employer's contracts, plans and business choices (at [37]–[40]); it cannot change the nature of the employer's business itself (at [35]). The Court did not decide whether redeployment was in fact reasonable on those facts (at [7]).

Notice and redundancy pay are separate entitlements. Subject to the statutory exclusions, s 117 requires written notice of the termination day and the minimum notice period or payment in lieu. Redundancy pay under ss 119–123 depends on service and the statutory exclusions, including the small-business exclusion and its insolvency-related exception; small-business headcount includes associated-entity employees and regular and systematic casuals. Under s 120, reduction for other acceptable employment or incapacity to pay requires an employer application and a Commission determination; also check any instrument or contractual entitlement. For decisions to dismiss 15 or more employees for economic, technological, structural or similar reasons, s 530 requires written notification to Centrelink as soon as practicable after the decision and before any dismissal, and s 531 requires notification of, and an opportunity to consult with, relevant registered employee organisations on the same timing where the employer could reasonably be expected to know of affected employees' membership. Check the statutory scope and exclusions in s 534.

Consultation obligations come from two directions at once: the consultation term in each applicable modern award or enterprise agreement (which requires consultation about major workplace change and, separately, changes to regular rosters or ordinary hours), and the genuine-redundancy test itself, which makes award or agreement consultation a precondition. The detail of what must be provided — written information about the change, its expected effect, measures to avert or mitigate — sits in the instrument, so the applicable award or agreement text must be checked for each affected group.

Finally, keep the categories honest. Role redesign does not itself establish redundancy: assess whether the employee's former job is still required, recognising that some duties may continue or be redistributed; equally, a genuine operational change is not made safe by describing it as a restructure. The characterisation drives which obligations apply, and the evidence should support it. The documentation side is developed in our guide to genuine redundancy, consultation and redeployment, and the redundancy and redeployment risk check walks through the decision points.

Consultation obligations vary by instrument and by topic, but the underlying expectation is consistent: consultation should occur at a point where input can genuinely influence the outcome, with the people who will be affected, in a way that allows feedback to be considered.

Consultation that is performative rather than genuine is a common source of dispute. The discipline of documenting what was consulted on, when, with whom and how feedback was considered is the most reliable way to demonstrate the substance of the process.

Redeployment assessment should be active and evidenced. The roles considered, the criteria for suitability, the assessment against those criteria and the outcome for each affected employee should be recorded. Where redeployment is not available, the reasoning for that conclusion should be documented.

Suitable alternative role analysis should include consideration of part-time, hybrid and modified arrangements as well as direct redeployment.

Role redesign should consider workload, classification, support arrangements and the controls needed for any new psychosocial hazards the new role configuration creates. Communications should follow a planned sequence — leaders, managers, affected employees, the broader workforce — with calibrated messaging at each stage.

A short post-implementation review captures what worked, what did not and what should be done differently next time. This is the most reliable way to build organisational capability for change programs over time.

Consultation timing depends on the applicable instrument. Standard major-change terms commonly require consultation after a definite decision to introduce the change, with genuine discussion about its introduction, effects and measures to avert or mitigate adverse effects. Do not confuse that trigger with permission to treat consultation as a formality. Check separately the requirements for proposed roster or ordinary-hours changes, and any safety consultation duty that arises at the proposal stage.

Sequencing also matters. Affected employees should hear from the organisation directly before they hear from colleagues, customers or media. Where this sequencing is not protected, trust in the program — and in subsequent change programs — is materially damaged in ways that take far longer to repair than the time saved by short-cutting the sequence.

Redeployment review should be active. Rather than waiting to see whether affected employees identify suitable roles themselves, the process should produce a documented assessment of the roles available, the criteria used to assess suitability, and the outcome for each affected employee. The reasoning where no suitable role is identified should be recorded with the same care as a positive outcome.

Modified arrangements — part-time, hybrid, location flexibility, role adjustment — should be considered alongside direct redeployment. A redeployment process that examines only like-for-like role matches is rarely sufficient to demonstrate that suitable alternatives were genuinely considered.

Communication should follow a planned sequence — leaders, managers, affected employees, the broader workforce, external stakeholders — with the message calibrated to each audience and consistent across channels. Inconsistency between what is said in a town hall, written in a manager script and published in an internal channel is one of the most common sources of confusion and grievance during change programs.

Manager scripts, FAQs and escalation pathways should be prepared in advance so managers are not improvising at the point they have the most difficult conversations. Where managers feel confident in the material they are working from, the conversations are better; where they do not, the conversations expose the program.

AWS supports employers across business case development, consultation design, redeployment process, role design, communications and post-implementation review. Engagements are structured to integrate with existing project, HR and WHS governance, and to draw on related AWS advisory and psychosocial safety support where the change carries elevated workforce risk.