Concentrix Services Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 47 (8 January 2026)

Fair Work Act 2009

s.120 - Redundancy pay

Applications to vary redundancy pay - other acceptable employment - amount reduced to nil

• [1] Concentrix Services Pty Ltd (Concentrix) has made two applications to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) for a variation to the redundancy pay to be paid to Ms Tessa Adlam and Ms Ngahere Nahi (the Respondents).

• [2] The applications are made pursuant to s.120(b)(i) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) on the basis that Concentrix asserts that it obtained other acceptable employment for Ms Adlam and Ms Nahi, and this employment was refused by each of the Respondents.

• [3] The Respondents commenced employment with Concentrix on 23 January 2023. They live together as flat mates and since September 2023 have worked from their suburban Brisbane home. The work Concentrix had the Respondents perform was able to be done from home.

• [4] On 28 March 2025, Concentrix held initial discussions with the Respondents as to the likelihood of the work being performed by them ceasing 30 June 2025. This was then extended to 31 July 2025.

• [5] The Respondents are in Australia on visas and the future work that Concentrix was proposing could not be performed at home due to the Respondents' citizenship status; it was work to be performed for a Government client.

• [6] Concentrix sought to discuss with the Respondents their availability to work on-site, however transportation issues arose. From 24 June 2025, each of the Respondents requested that the only communication they receive from Concentrix be by way of email. The email correspondence from each of the Respondents was largely identical.

• [7] On 4 July 2025, the Respondents agreed to meet with two Concentrix managers regarding a new role involving a superannuation client which had just become available to Concentrix. The role would be performed in Melbourne. On 9 July 2025, the Respondents each declined the role, citing that it did not meet the criteria for suitable alternative employment, short notice and no consultation, and raised logistical concerns. The Respondents each confirmed that they would continue to work in their roles until 31 July 2025 and they were not resigning.

• [8] On 11 July 2025, Concentrix offered to the Respondents a later intake date for the work with the superannuation client, permitting work from home, and requested they respond by 15 July 2025. On 17 July 2025, each of the Respondents emailed, declining the offer. Their response was identical:

"Due to the ongoing lack of transparency and the pressure surrounding these decisions, I am no longer open to redeployment. This decision is based on how the process has been handled, not on an unwillingness to remain employed."

• [9] Concentrix confirmed in writing on 17 July 2025 to each of the Respondents:

"Your ongoing role of advisor being offered to you for some time now is a 100% WFH role, as a this was a primary limitation of yours..."

• [10] Each of the Respondents made a s.372 general protections application not involving dismissal to the Commission. A Commission Member convened a conference between the parties.

• [11] On 11 August 2025, each of the Respondents requested annual leave be applied from 21 July 2025; this request was granted.

• [12] On 28 August 2025, Concentrix asked each of the Respondents if they were pursing any court action and stated that there would be a further intake on the superannuation account on 22 September 2025. The Respondents were asked to advise if they were interested in the role and to respond by 1 September 2025. It was made clear that the work was to be performed at home.

• [13] On 1 September 2025, each of the Respondents emailed to say that they were still considering the offer and would advise if any court action was to be pursued. Concentrix requested the Respondents advise their position on the superannuation role by 15 September 2025.

• [14] On 26 September 2025, the Respondents returned their Concentrix work property.

• [15] On 20 October 2025, Concentrix emailed the Respondents to advise that work from home opportunities were available, however due to their citizenship status, they were not eligible. The Respondents were advised that there were some onsite roles available at Robina, if they were interested. The Respondents were requested to advise their interest by 27 October 2025. Concentrix did not receive a response from either of the Respondents.

• [16] On 5 December 2025, Concentrix emailed the Respondents and foreshadowed these applications being made.

• [17] Upon the applications being allocated to me, correspondence was sent from my chambers, informing the parties that a telephone conference would be convened on 22 December 2025. On 18 December 2025, the Respondents sent the following correspondence:

We write in relation to the above matter listed for telephone conference on Monday, 22 December 2025.

We respectfully advise that we do not wish to participate further in these proceedings and withdraw our participation effective immediately.

In light of this, we will not be attending the listed conference and request that the matter be dealt with on the papers or otherwise finalised as the Commission considers appropriate.

We thank the Commission for its time and assistance."

• [18] On 19 December 2025, correspondence was sent to the parties confirming that the conference was vacated and the applications would be determined on the papers.

• [19] As noted above, the application is made pursuant to s.120 of the Act which provides the following:

"120 Variation of redundancy pay for other employment or incapacity to pay

(a) an employee is entitled to be paid an amount of redundancy pay by the employer because of section 119; and

(i) obtains other acceptable employment for the employee; or

(2) On application by the employer, the FWC may determine that the amount of redundancy pay is reduced to a specified amount (which may be nil) that the FWC considers appropriate.

(3) The amount of redundancy pay to which the employee is entitled under section 119 is the reduced amount specified in the determination."

• [20] Concentrix requests the Commission reduce each of the Respondents' redundancy payment from $6,194.76 to nil on account of it having obtained other acceptable employment for each of the Respondents.

• [21] Prior to the term in s.120 of the Act stating the Commission can make an order relevant to whether the employer obtains other acceptable employment, provisions in awards made pursuant to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 referenced the term 'acceptable alternative employment'. I consider it suitable to have regard to precedents where the consideration was, at that time, whether the employer obtained acceptable alternative employment.

• [22] In Spotless Services Australia Limited t/as Alliance Catering,[1] Deputy President Sams usefully identified the authorities relevant to "other acceptable employment" and the task to be performed by the Commission where he stated:

"[60] The question of what constitutes 'other acceptable employment' in the context of a redundancy situation, has been considered by the Commission and its predecessors in many and varied circumstances and industries over a number of years. In Derole Nominees, a Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) said at pp 128-129:

'What constitutes "acceptable alternative employment" is a matter to be determined, as we have said, on an objective basis. Alternative employment accepted by the employee (and its corollary, alternative employment acceptable to the employee) cannot be an appropriate application of the words because that meaning would give an employee an unreasonable and uncontrollable opportunity to reject the new employment in order to receive redundancy pay; the exemption provision would be without practical effect.

Yet, the use of the qualification "acceptable" is a clear indication that it is not any employment which complies but that which meets the relevant standard. In our opinion there are obvious elements of such a standard including the work being of like nature; the location being not unreasonably distant; the pay arrangements complying with award requirements. There will probably be others.

This approach to the test demonstrates that any alternative employment available to the eighteen former employees of the company cannot be regarded as "acceptable" merely because a number of other former employees took up employment at the new location. The relevant aspects of the job must be examined objectively to determine whether the employment is "acceptable".

The exemption provision imports the notion that an effort of a sufficient kind by an outgoing employer may cause his obligation for redundancy pay to be reduced; a decision by an employee not to co-operate with the employer may well disentitle the employee to all or some of the payment.' (my emphasis)

[61] In Oscar Oscar Group Services Pty Ltd v Lees [2012] FWC 3901 ('Oscar Oscar'), Commissioner Asbury (as Her Honour then was), said at paras [18]-[19]:

'[18] The question of whether alternative employment is acceptable, must be assessed on an objective basis. It is relevant to the assessment that redundancy payments are not made solely for the purpose of assisting employees to find alternative employment. Redundancy payments are intended to tide an employee over during the search for alternative employment, and to compensate the employee for loss of credits for sick leave, long service leave and other entitlements based on length of service. The question of whether previous service with the previous employer is recognised as service with the new employer, will also be relevant.

[19] Other considerations will be whether the alternative employment is of a like nature; a reasonable distance from the previous employment; whether pay and conditions are comparable; hours of work and job security in relation to the new position. The fact that an alternative position does not meet the personal preferences of an employee, may place the right to receive full redundancy pay at risk, where the employee refuses a position that is found to be acceptable on an objective basis.' (my emphasis)

[62] Senior Deputy President Watson in Feltex said at a para [33] and [89]:

'[33] The parties accept, as do I, that matters to be considered in assessing whether alternative acceptable employment has been obtained include matters such as pay levels, hours of work, seniority, fringe benefits, workload and speed, job security, the location of work, continuity of service and accruals and the application of probationary periods. The relevant authorities also demonstrate that this listing of matters is not exhaustive and the question of whether an employment is acceptable alternative employment will be decided on the peculiar facts of a matter. Further, the authorities suggest that acceptable employment is not synonymous with identical employment, although the basis of the 2004 variation of the TCR test case provision suggests that, whilst not identical, terms and conditions should be substantially similar and no less favourable, overall, than the terms and conditions applicable to the employee at the time of the redundancy.

[89] I accept the proposition advanced by Feltex Australia that acceptable alternative employment is not necessarily identical employment and that the AIRC has previously found alternative employment to be acceptable notwithstanding inconvenience to employees and some detrimental alteration to the terms and conditions of employment.'

[63] In Vicstaff Pty Ltd (t/as Stratco) v May [2010] FWA 3141; (2010) 204 IR 233 ('Vicstaff'), Bissett C said at paras [29]-[30]:

'[29] The determination of whether or not alternative employment is acceptable must be determined objectively and not subjectively from the perspective of the employer or employees. That the alternative employment may be rejected does not objectively make it unacceptable nor does the fact that the employment was offered make it, by virtue of the offer, acceptable. Further, that one of the persons out of a group may have accepted the employment does not make the employment acceptable for the others in the group. The reasons for the acceptance of alternative employment are many and varied and general conclusions should not be drawn from a particular circumstance.

[30] It is therefore incumbent upon the employer (Vicstaff) in this matter to demonstrate that the alternative employment is acceptable taking into account all matters relevant in such a consideration. Had the alternative work been considered acceptable to the individuals one imagines they would have accepted the work offered.'

[64] In DRW Investments t/as Wettenhalls v Timothy Richards & Others [2016] FWC 461, I said at para [183]:

'[183] Notwithstanding the above general principles, whether the alternative employment is acceptable, will likely include consideration of the following matters:

This list is not exhaustive. There may be other relevant factors.'

[65] The above decisions have some common features, including:

• The test of what constitutes 'acceptable employment' is an objective one. It does not mean it must be acceptable to the employee.

• 'Acceptable employment' is not identical employment, as no two jobs could be exactly the same.

• An employee must meaningfully cooperate with the employer in exploring or considering options for alternative positions.

• An employee's prima facie entitlement to redundancy pay may be at risk if the employee refuses a role or position, which is found to be objectively 'acceptable'.

• The acceptance of alternative employment by one or more persons in a group of redundant employees, does not necessarily make the alternative employment 'acceptable' for all of them. Each employee's individual circumstances must be taken into account.

• There are a range of factors of varying weight, according to an employee's particular circumstances, which may be taken into account to assess the acceptability of alternative employment."

• [23] In deciding the present matter, I adopt the approach set out by the Deputy President and the authorities referred to by him.

Were the Respondents "entitled to be paid an amount of redundancy" (s.120(1)(a))?

• [24] It is common ground between the parties that the work performed by the Respondents for Concentrix's banking client came to an end in mid-2025. Consequently, I am satisfied that the Respondents are each entitled to be paid an amount of redundancy pay by Concentrix because of s.119 of the Act. Section 120(1)(a) of the Act has been established. The amount is six weeks' pay.

Did Concentrix "obtain" other employment for each of the Respondents (s.120(1)(b)(i))?

• [25] Concentrix was earnestly attempting to have the Respondents agree to perform the work for its superannuation client from late August 2025, with an intake in September 2025. They had each been assured that their service would be continuous. I am satisfied that in so far as s.120(b)(i) requires an employer to "obtain" other employment, Concentrix did so for each of the Respondents. Therefore, part of s.120(1)(b) of the Act has been established.

Was the employment "acceptable" (s.120(1)(b)(i))?

• [26] The work for Concentrix's superannuation client was to be performed at home. Both Respondents were assured of the following:

"This position is similar to your previous role, and we believe that with the training provided, you would quickly regain confidence in your duties. Please let me know if this would be of interest to you."

• [27] In all of the circumstances, I am satisfied that the employment was acceptable.

Should the amount of redundancy pay be reduced (s.120(2))?

• [28] Section 120(2) of the Act invests the Commission with discretion to reduce the amount of redundancy pay by a specified amount. It does not automatically follow that a finding that the other employment obtained by Concentrix for each of the Respondents was acceptable will result in the redundancy pay being reduced to nil.

• [29] Having regard to the industry in which the Respondents work, being the contract call centre, it is expected that clients of the employer will come and go. Employees of a contract call centre are likely to need to learn new products and skills in order to service the clients of the employer.

• [30] The Respondents had been working from home, had desired to continue working from home and were offered a role allowing them to continue working from home in September 2025. There appears to me to be no sound reason for the Respondents to reject the offer. The Respondents have been offered the opportunity to inform the Commission of the reasons for rejecting the offer and have chosen not to do so.

• [31] Concentrix desired the Respondents to continue working for it, and with almost three years of experience, the Respondents' skills and experience is a loss to Concentrix. I do not consider it appropriate for Concentrix to be ordered to pay any redundancy to the Respondents given their failure to engage with Concentrix in late August and throughout September 2025 regarding performing work on the superannuation account.

• [32] I have determined that each of the Respondents' redundancy pay be reduced to nil.

An Order consistent with the foregoing will be issued in each matter at the same time as this Decision.

[1] [2016] FWC 4505.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer