s.120 - Redundancy pay

Interact Australia Ltd Trading AS Interact Australia

• [1] On 30 October 2025 Interact Australia Ltd Trading As Interact Australia (IA) applied for an order under s.120 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) to reduce the redundancy entitlement of Ms Evie Lee (Ms Lee) from seven weeks to nil. Ms Lee was employed as a Recruitment Partner in IA's business from 7 March 2022.

• [2] Ms Lee worked for the company for 3 years and seven months and there is no dispute that she is entitled to seven weeks of redundancy pay of $8,748.74 pursuant to s.119 of the Act.

• [3] IA has applied to reduce Ms Lee's redundancy pay entitlement to nil because it submits it found other acceptable employment for her by way of a redeployment within its own business as an Employment Consultant at a new working location within their business. IA contends that this is other acceptable employment for the purposes of s.120(1)(b)(i) of the Act. Ms Lee opposes the application.

• [4] Section 120 of the Act gives the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) the discretion to vary a redundancy pay amount to which an employee would otherwise be entitled under s.119 of the Act. Section 120 applies if the employee is entitled to an amount of redundancy pay under s.119 (s.120(1)(a)) and the employer either obtains 'other acceptable employment' or cannot pay the amount of the redundancy pay (s.120(1)(b)). The Commission's discretion in s.120(2) to vary the redundancy pay to a specified amount (including a nil amount) that it considers appropriate can only be exercised if the conditions of s.120(1) are met. Where an order under s.120(2) is made, the reduced redundancy pay to which the employee is entitled will be the amount specified in the determination (s.120(3)).

• [5] In this matter, I need to consider whether IA obtained other acceptable employment for Ms Lee and if so, whether I should exercise my discretion to reduce this redundancy pay.

• [6] IA is a business operating in the labour market assistance sector in Melbourne providing employment, skills, education and support services that enable educational, economic and social participation. As a result of the Australian Government's new Inclusive Employment Australia (IEA) program, the current Disability Employment Services (DES) will be replaced. IA was not successful in securing IEA contracts in several regions of South Australia and as a result, required redistribution of the service locations. However, IA submits that there was opportunity for Ms Lee to continue to provide her work in a different location at 420 Main North Road, Blair Athol in South Australia.

Interact Australia Ltd Trading As Interact Australia

• [7] IA submits that it obtained other acceptable employment because the redeployment opportunity is like for like in all aspects of the role except for the working location and change in title. The redeployment opportunity as an Employment Consultant requires the same duties as Ms Lee's current role as a Recruitment Partner, it continues to be full time offering the same working hours, salary and seniority and also provides a company vehicle for use. For these reasons, IA submits the redundancy entitlement be reduced from 7 weeks to nil.

• [8] IA acknowledges that the travel time for Ms Lee's current role averages between 8 and 12 minutes one way. The redeployment opportunity provides a proposed travel time of between 58 minutes to 1 hour and 2 minutes one way.

• [9] Other factors IA relies upon are that they continually requested Ms Lee to provide details of any accommodations for consideration and alternatives such as reduced caseloads, flexible start and finish times and temporary work locations which could satisfy Ms Lee's specific requirements and that she did not respond to any of these suggestions.

• [10] There is no contest between the parties that IA's contract with the Federal Government does not allow for employees to work from home on a full time basis. Ms Lee maintains that the new location made any options unacceptable.

• [11] Ms Lee submits that IA has not obtained other acceptable employment. She submits her personal circumstances and caring responsibilities are relevant to the consideration of whether the other employment offered is acceptable. Ms Lee is a mother of three children aged 1, 5 and 12 years old and has significant caring responsibilities. These include dropping her younger children off at daycare and out of school hours care ("OSHC") before she commences her working day. The daycare and OSHC are at two separate locations. The length of time it would take for Ms Lee to drive to IA's new office premises from OSHC varies depending on traffic. She submits that an average trip may take around 1 hour and 5 minutes. During peak hour with additional traffic, the trip could take up to 1 hour and 25 minutes. Ms Lee submits that the increased travel time to the Applicant's new premises is significant and burdensome, particularly when factoring in the daycare and OSHC drop off before she even commences her drive to work.

• [12] Ms Lee's submissions also include the following:

• She does not have a partner nor family in South Australia who can assist with the caring responsibilities.

• The decision of Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union v DL Employment Pty Ltd [2014] FWC 4914 outlines that the personal circumstances of employees including caring responsibilities and increased distance of travel are significant factors in assessing whether the redeployment was acceptable.

• [13] There is no dispute, and I am satisfied that Ms Lee is entitled to be paid an amount of redundancy pay. Ms Lee's position with IA is redundant because IA no longer required the Recruitment Partner role at 3/33 Christies Beach Road, Christies Beach, South Australia performed by Ms Lee to be done by anyone.

• [14] There is no dispute that IA obtained the employment for Ms Lee as it was a position within their enterprise at a different location. The job obtained offers the same remuneration, working hours and seniority. The title change from Recruitment Partner to Employment Consultant is not material.

• [15] The issue in contention is whether the increase in travel time to the work location renders the employment obtained by IA 'unacceptable'. I am not satisfied that IA obtained other acceptable employment for Ms Lee. The role it offered her at 420 Main North Road, Blair Athol in South Australia increased her total daily commute from between 16 and 24 minutes to an average of about 2 hours and a maximum of 2 hours and 50 minutes during peak hour.

• [16] Ms Lee has children ranging from 1 years old to 12 years old. She is the sole carer for her children and does not have family whom she can rely on to help care for the children. Prior to commencing work, Ms Lee needs to drop off one child at daycare and the other one at OSHC. In the not uncommon occurrence that Ms Lee is required to collect one of her children in care due to an emergency or illness, the additional travel time from the proposed new work location is problematic. For these reasons, I am not satisfied that the other employment was acceptable.

• [17] As I am not satisfied that IA obtained other acceptable employment for Ms Lee, the application is dismissed.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer