//
[2026] FWC 1109
General information, not legal advice.
Fair Work Commission
2026-03-31
Original judgment source is linked above.
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy - dismissal a genuine redundancy - dismissal not unfair - application dismissed.
[1] Mr Jordan Christie was employed with XCircle Pty Ltd as an electrical designer and as a first-year electrical apprentice. On 11 December 2025, XCircle ended his employment due to redundancy. Mr Christie says his dismissal does not meet the definition of genuine redundancy in s 389 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). He says his dismissal is unfair.
[2] I conducted a hearing on 24 March 2026. Mr Christie gave evidence for his case. Mr Simon Grantham, Chief Financial Officer, gave evidence for XCircle.
[3] Having considered the relevant evidence and submissions of the parties, I find that Christie's dismissal was a genuine redundancy and his dismissal was therefore not unfair.
[4] The detailed reasons for my decision follow.
2. Was Mr Christie's dismissal a genuine redundancy?
(a) Mr Christie had completed the minimum employment period and was covered by the Manufacturing and Associated Industries and Occupations Award 2020. He was protected from unfair dismissal under s 382 of the Act;
(b) Mr Christie made his application within the time prescribed in s 394(2); and
(c) XCircle was not a small-business employer, so the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code did not apply.
3.1 Section 389(1(a): Did XCircle no longer require Mr Christie's role to be performed because of changes in its operational requirements?
[8] XCircle is in the sheet metal manufacturing industry, manufacturing modular systems for clients. The parties agree that at the time of Mr Christie's dismissal, XCircle employed 25 full-time employees.
[9] Mr Christie's evidence is that he spent about two-thirds of his time on electrical design/drafting, and the rest of his time as an electrical apprentice. During cross-examination, Mr Christie's evidence was that he was initially employed as an electrical designer and later began an electrical apprenticeship with XCircle.
[10] Prior to November 2025, the XCircle Electrical Division consisted of one electrical supervisor, a fourth-year apprentice, and Mr Christie. Sometime in November 2025, another fourth-year apprentice was employed. Mr Christie's evidence is that the new fourth-year apprentice performed the same core tasks that he did as part of his electrical apprentice role, as well as higher-level tasks that Mr Christie was not qualified to do. The new fourth-year apprentice did not do any electrical design work.
[11] Mr Christie's evidence is that in a boardroom meeting in late November/early December, employees were told that there was "no shortage of work in the pipeline". Further, that around this time he met with the CEO, Mr Justin Kellerman, and Mr Grantham, where Mr Kellerman told Mr Christie that they were happy to have him on board and hoped that Mr Christie would continue with the company. Mr Christie's evidence is that a week before his redundancy, at a workshop morning meeting the senior workshop supervisor told the staff that their jobs were secure.
(a) There were operational shortages in a particular machine operation; press brake supervisory coverage; and qualified electricians.
(b) There was only a need for two apprentices in the electrical section, and there was a possibility that the "lowest qualified apprentice may need to be made redundant to align headcount with the new operating model". The noted outcome was that the "redundancy of the lowest qualified apprentice is to be considered as part of the restructure".
(c) The meeting reviewed all signed orders and active projects, confirming that all current packages included full electrical design and drafting. This removed the need for in-house electrical design or drafting. This meant that there was no need for an in-house electrical designer role.
(d) Action items to be followed up included reviewing apprentices against capability and qualification level to prepare a redundancy recommendation for the lowest qualified apprentice and commencing the redundancy process for the electrical designer role.
[13] During cross-examination, Mr Grantham explained that approximately 75% of XCircle's work comes from one client (Eaton Electrical). The 'Eaton job' did not require an electrical designer as the client had provided the designs to XCircle as part of its brief; XCircle just had to manufacture the designs. XCircle's other significant order was a rail project that also did not require an electrical designer. Mr Grantham's evidence was that there were other small jobs, but that they were minor in the scheme of XCircle's overall business.
[14] After this meeting, Mr Grantham prepared a "XCircle Redundancy Rationale Pack". The Rationale Pack outlines that there were two roles affected by the restructure, the Electrical Designer, which was Mr Christie, and the lowest qualified apprentice, which was Mr Christie. The Rationale Pack also details the alternatives to redundancy the Electrical Designer role as follows:
[15] The Rationale Pack also said the below about the number of apprentices:
The optimised electrical model required for safe and efficient operation is two qualified electricians and two apprentices. Current staffing exceeds apprentice demand, while the business is short on qualified electricians. Maintaining more than two apprentices dilutes supervision ratio and productivity. Conclusion: One apprentice position is surplus to operational requirements."[5]
[16] The selection criteria for redundancy was also discussed in the Rationale Pack as follows:
Selection basis: role-based redundancy (job function ceases). No competitive selection is required because the function is eliminated.
Selection basis: headcount reduction within the same classification. Objective criteria to be documented in a scored matrix include:
No discriminatory or subjective factors are to be used."[6]
[17] During the hearing I asked the witnesses if XCircle had engaged any new apprentices since Mr Christie's redundancy. Mr Christie was not aware of any new apprentices. Mr Grantham's evidence was that one boilermaker apprentice had been engaged, but no new electrical apprentices. Mr Grantham also explained that after Mr Christie's dismissal, XCircle had engaged one electrician, consistent with the outcomes of the December review. This was on the basis that there would be two electricians who could supervise the two electrical apprentices.
[18] Mr Christie effectively put to Mr Grantham during cross-examination that XCircle could have kept Mr Christie employed as an electrical apprentice until the two fourth-year apprentices had passed their capstone assessment. Mr Grantham's evidence was that one of the fourth-year apprentices is not due to finish their apprenticeship until mid-2026, and the other fourth-year apprentice is not due to finish until late 2026. I accept this evidence.
[21] XCircle submits that as a result of its review, there was no longer a need for a role for an electrical designer. Further, that XCircle only required two electrical apprentices.
[22] Mr Christie submits that core apprentice and electrical work continued after his dismissal and was performed by others. Mr Christie contends that, "the statutory question is practical, electrical work tasks, not title label".
[23] Mr Christie's submission is misguided and at odds with the principles outlined in [19] - [20] above. Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that XCircle conducted a review of its operations. That review identified that there was a need to recruit a press brake supervisor and a qualified electrician. Further, that there was no ongoing need for an electrical designer and that XCircle only needed two electrical apprentices to sustain the Electrical Division. I accept Mr Grantham's evidence.
[24] Mr Christie also submitted that XCircle engaging a fourth-year apprentice prior to his redundancy shows that his redundancy was effectively a sham. In some other circumstances, that might be the case. However, in this case I accept that Mr Grantham and Mr Kellerman reviewed the business operations shortly after Mr Grantham started working with XCircle, and that the operational changes they identified and implemented were genuine. XCircle's submission is that the review focused on optimising capacity coverage in the Electrical Division, and it is not controversial that a fourth-year apprentice is qualified to complete a wider range of tasks than a first-year apprentice. I accept this submission.
[25] I also note that Mr Christie largely protests that XCircle did not continue his electrical apprenticeship, when by his own evidence he spent the bulk of his time in his electrical designer role. Mr Christie did not specify what continuing or current projects required an electrical designer, while Mr Grantham was able to provide details about specific projects and how the clients had provided their own designs.
[26] For completeness I note that even if I accept Mr Christie's evidence that in November, he had been told that there was plenty of work and his job is safe, that does not mean that the review and resulting operational changes weren't genuine.
[27] I also accept the uncontested evidence that no new electrical apprentices have been engaged since Mr Christie's dismissal. I find that XCircle no longer required Mr Christie's role as either an electrical designer or as an electrical apprentice to be performed due to operational requirements.
3.2 Section 389(1(b): Was XCircle bound by a duty to consult?
[28] XCircle had to follow clause 41 of the Award, which provides that where an employer makes a definite decision to make major changes that are likely to have significant effects on employees, the employer must give notice in writing of the changes to employees who may be affected by them; and discuss with the employees the introduction of the change, their likely effect on employees, and measures to avoid or reduce the adverse effects of the changes on employees. Discussions must commence as soon as practicable after a definite decision has been made
[29] Mr Grantham's evidence is that a decision was to pursue redundancies and new hires at the meeting on 3 December 2025. There were then a few days for XCircle to prepare the Rationale Pack. Mr Grantham explained that there were a few days before XCircle informed Mr Christie as it is a small business with limited HR capacity. I accept this evidence and explanation.
[30] On 8 December 2025, Mr Kellerman and Mr Grantham called Mr Christie to a meeting, where they informed him that his role was at risk of redundancy. Mr Christie's and Mr Grantham's evidence of the meeting largely align, in that it was brief; Mr Christie asked what his options were; and Mr Christie was asked to propose any alternatives he wanted XCircle to consider.
XCircle is restructuring to align staffing with signed work in hand and current operational requirements.
A review of all signed orders and current projects confirms that each package already includes complete client-provided electrical design and drafting, and there is no requirement for in-house electrical design or drafting within the signed backlog. As a result, the Electrical Designer function is no longer required on current or foreseeable signed work, and your position may become redundant.
If the change proceeds, it may result in the redundancy of your position. No final decision has been made. Consultation is taking place while options remain open.
[32] The letter regarding Mr Christie's electrical apprentice role relevantly stated:
The electrical section is being re-optimised to a sustainable structure of two qualified electricians and two apprentices. Current staffing exceeds apprentice requirements while the second remains short of qualified electricians. One apprentice role may therefore be surplus.
If the change proceeds, it may result in the redundancy of one apprentice position. No final decision has been made. Any selection will be based on objective criteria such as apprenticeship stage, competencies achieved, safe work performance, and attendance.
[33] Both letters invited Mr Christie to a consultation meeting on 11 December 2025 and asked for his views on the proposals and any alternatives to avoid redundancy or reduce impacts, including redeployment or training options.
[34] Mr Christie, Mr Kellerman and Mr Grantham met again on 11 December 2025. Mr Christie told them he wanted to continue his apprenticeship. Mr Christie's evidence is that Mr Kellerman then told him that he was being terminated.
[36] XCircle submits that it has complied with the consultation requirements in the Award.
[37] Mr Christie submits that consultation was not meaningful and was unreasonably compressed, such that Mr Christie was not given a genuine opportunity to influence the outcome. Mr Christie did not explain what a potential different outcome would have looked like, other than him staying on as an electrical apprentice.
[38] I am satisfied that XCircle notified Mr Christie of the proposed changes and likely effect on him. XCircle did not discuss measures to avoid or reduce the adverse effects; however, I am satisfied from Mr Grantham's evidence that XCircle had turned their mind to this and there weren't any measures they could identify. I am also satisfied that XCircle gave notice in writing as required under clause 41.2 of the Award.
[39] I understand why Mr Christie felt ambushed and upset by the process. Losing your job is rarely easy. However, based on the evidence before me, I find that XCircle did comply with clause 41 of the Award.
3.3 Section 389(2): Reasonable redeployment
[40] Mr Grantham's evidence is that management considered alternatives to redundancy such as redeployment, reduction of hours and job redesign. However, due to the structure and size of the business, there were no vacant roles available that could reasonably accommodate Mr Christie's continued apprenticeship pathway. Mr Grantham's evidence is that a first-year apprentice is not interchangeable with a third or fourth-year apprentice in terms of competency, supervision requirements and operational contribution.
[41] Mr Christie submits that redeployment would have been reasonable because the work he was performing continued; he wanted to remain employed; and XCircle did not offer redeployment options consistent with Mr Christie continuing his apprenticeship. However, during the hearing Mr Christie conceded that he was not aware of any other jobs that XCircle could have redeployed him into.
[42] Based on the evidence from Mr Grantham and Mr Christie, I am satisfied that there was no position for XCircle to redeploy Mr Christie into.
[43] Having considered the evidence and submissions from the parties, I find that there were operational changes that meant XCircle no longer required an Electrical Designer and no longer needed three apprentices. Mr Christie was unfortunately in the middle of that Venn diagram. I find that XCircle no longer required Mr Christie's role to be performed by anyone.
[44] I appreciate that the redundancy process took Mr Christie by surprise. However, I find that XCircle complied with the consultation requirement in the Award. I similarly find that there were no available roles for Mr Christie to be redeployed in.
[45] This means that XCircle's dismissal of Mr Christie meets the definition of a genuine redundancy under s 389 of the Act and Mr Christie was not unfairly dismissed. Mr Christie's unfair dismissal application is therefore dismissed.
[1] Ulan Coal Mines Limited v Honeysett and others [2010] FWAFB 7578 [26].
[2] See: Kieselbach v Amity Group Pty Ltd PR973864 (AIRC, Hamilton DP, 9 October 2006) [34]; Teterin v Resource Pacific Pty Ltd [2014] FWCFB 4125 [23]-[29].
[3] Digital Court Book 66-68.
[7] Jones v Department of Energy and Minerals [1995] IRCA 292; (1995) 60 IR 304 308; cited in Ulan Coal Mines Ltd v Howarth [2010] FWAFB 3488; (2010) 196 IR 32 [17].
[9] Dibb v Commissioner of Taxation [2004] FCAFC 126; (2004) 136 FCR 388 404-405.
[10] Kekeris v A. Hartrodt Australia Pty Ltd T/A a.hartrodt [2010] FWA 674 [27].
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
Mr Jordan Christie
Xcircle Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1109
(2010) 196 IR 32
(2004) 136 FCR 388
(1995) 60 IR 304