Section 389 of the Fair Work Act provides –

(1) A person’s dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy if:

(a) The person’s employer no longer required the person’s job to be performed by anyone because of changes in the operational requirements of the employer’s enterprise; and

(b) The employer has complied with any obligation in a modern award or enterprise agreement that applied to the employment to consult about the redundancy.

(2)  A person’s dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy if it would have been reasonable in all the circumstances for the person to be redeployed within:

(a) the employer’s enterprise; or

(b) the enterprise of an associated entity of the employer

The recent case of Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd v Bartley [2025] HCA 29 considers how far an employer can pursue a redundancy under section 389 of the Act.

Background

Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd (Helensburgh) operated a coal mine and engaged Nexus Mining Pty Ltd and Mentser Pty Ltd (the contracting companies) to provide services at the mine. After observing that the COVID-19 pandemic had significantly reduced demand for the coking coal extracted from the mine, Helensburgh embarked on a restructuring of its workforce by reducing the number of employees. This restructuring reduced the number of employees proportionately more than the number of contractors.

The issue

The primary question before the High Court of Australia was whether section 389 permits consideration of whether an employer can shift the use of its enterprise and workforce to make available a position for an otherwise redundant employee. In other words, can Helensburgh’s ability to shift the use of its contractors to make available a position for an otherwise redundant employee be considered?

The test is as follows:

1. ‘reasonable in all the circumstances’

The first limb for the section 389(2) inquiry is that redeployment of an employee must be ‘reasonable in all the circumstances’. The Court held that the broad nature of the phrase covers a breadth of considerations, and therefore does not preclude the Fair Work Commission from considering whether an employer could have made changes to how it uses its enterprise and workforce to make available a position for an otherwise redundant employee.

2. ‘employer’s enterprise’

The second limb for the section 389(2) inquiry is that redeployment must be within the ‘employer’s enterprise’. Edelman J held that the ‘employer’s enterprise’ should be characterised at an appropriate level of generality which is broad enough to cover the essential or important facets of the enterprise. Citing Steward J, Edelman J (with whom the majority agreed), held that policies, processes and procedures, strategies and business choices, are relevant to the characterization of an ‘employer’s enterprise’. This includes the employer’s ‘policies and practices in relation to the use of labour, including as to whether to use permanent employees, independent contractors, casual labour, or contractors’ at [131].

3. Combined effect

The broad meaning of the term ‘reasonable in all the circumstances’, (held to capture considerations as miniscule as employee skillsets, the employer’s preferred mix of contractors and employees and practical concerns), combined with the broad meaning applied to ‘employer’s enterprise’ by the Court, (held to be set at a level of generality that captures the employer’s policies and practices), means that  the FWC cannot consider redeployment of an employee that would cause change to the employer’s policies and preferred practices. To do so would not be ‘reasonable within all the circumstances’ within the ‘employer’s enterprise’.

What did this mean for Helensburgh?

The following characteristics of actions undertaken by Helensburgh lead the Court to determine that redeployment did not affect an ‘employer’s enterprise’ –

1. The contracting companies were supplied on an ‘as needs’ basis, and Helensburgh was under no obligation to continue supplying work to the contracting companies.
2. There was no evidence that Helensburgh had any policy or practice whereby jobs are performed by contractors and should continue to only be performed by contractors. In other words, Helensburgh was not ‘philosophically opposed to insourcing work to employees’ at [73].

For these reasons, preference for contractors did not form part of Helensburgh’s policies and practices in relation to their use of labour. As this was the characterisation of Helensburgh’s enterprise that the High Court adopted, redeployment of employees by restructuring the work of contractors was ‘reasonable in all the circumstances’ within the ‘employer’s enterprise’.

The appeal was dismissed.

The post Navigating Redundancy – Scope & Considerations | Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd v Bartley [2025] HCA 29 first appeared on Brand Partners.

Read more about KKJA Investments Pty Ltd v Yan Shi below:

The post “First come, first served” VS “You snooze, you lose”: How a Missed Caveat and Procrastination Cost a Lender Priority | KKJA Investments Pty Ltd v Yan Shi [2025] VSC 583 first appeared on Brand Partners.

Read more below for our latest update regarding Dadon v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd

The post Seminal decision on extending time limit in defamation: civil penalties just as serious as criminal charges first appeared on Brand Partners.

Read more below on what information you need to obtain your licence.

The post Up in Smoke? What You Need to Know About Victoria’s New Tobacco Laws first appeared on Brand Partners.

The post Trust and Transparency: Why Lawyers Shouldn’t Profit from the Wills They Draft first appeared on Brand Partners.

The post New Franchising Code of Conduct: What You Need to Know first appeared on Brand Partners.

The post Judges Untouchable? High Court Solidifies Judicial Immunity in Landmark Ruling first appeared on Brand Partners.

The post Termites eating out of house and home: the Henry v Bentley [2024] case first appeared on Brand Partners.

From 1 January 2025, many short stay accommodation providers in Victoria will be subject to a short stay levy (Levy), often referred to as the ‘Airbnb Tax’.

The Levy is a flat 7.5% of the total booking fees paid, including charges such as cleaning fee and GST, where applicable. The total booking fee does not include credit card surcharges.

It applies to all bookings made after on or after 1 January 2025 – bookings made on or before 31 December 2024, even if for a stay in 2025, will not be subject to the Levy.

The post Short Stay Operators take note – “Airbnb Tax” coming 1 January 2025 first appeared on Brand Partners.

The post Handshake Agreements: Legally Binding or Just a Gesture? first appeared on Brand Partners.