Industrial Relations Commission New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Williams v City of Sydney [2019] NSWIRComm 1090 Hearing dates: 28 October 2019 Decision date: 12 December 2019 Jurisdiction: Industrial Relations Commission Before: Commissioner Murphy Decision: Application dismissed Catchwords: UNFAIR DISMISSAL – review of business unit – restructure of operations – complaint of lack of consultation – termination of employment due to genuine redundancy – termination not harsh unreasonable or unjust Legislation Cited: Industrial Relations Act 1996 Local Government Act 1993 Cases Cited: Huseyin Arslan and others and Berkely Challenge (Commercial) Pty Limited and Others [2001] NSWIRComm 45 Outboard World v Muir [1993] 51 IR 167 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Rosbyn Williams (Applicant) City of Sydney (Respondent) Representation: Applicant in person Mr B Robson, Local Government NSW (Respondent) File Number(s): 2019/00232448 DECISION 1. The applicant, Rosbyn Williams, commenced employment as a Venue Officer in the Venue Management Unit of the respondent, City of Sydney ("City"), on 5 April 2016. On 9 May 2018, employees in the Venue Management Unit were advised that all aspects of that business unit were under review. As a result of that review, a revised business unit structure was developed and several positions, including the position held by the applicant, were identified as being surplus to capacity. This was announced to affected employees, including the applicant, at a staff meeting held on 7 May 2019. Present at that meeting were Peter Rugg, Manager, Venue Management, and Zoe Stanton, Senior Human Resources Business Partner, representing the City's management. 2. The applicant applied for other available roles within the respondent but his applications were unsuccessful. His position was made redundant with his last day of work being 5 July 2019 and he was paid redundancy entitlements in accordance with the provisions of The City of Sydney Wages/Salary Award 2017 ("City Award"). On 26 July 2019, the applicant filed an unfair dismissal application in which he claimed that his dismissal by the respondent was harsh. Background 1. The Venue Management Unit is responsible for business development for events held in various City venues and the managing of the operational needs of events. 2. Following the presentation to staff on 9 May 2018, eight workshops and meetings took place between that date and 7 May 2019 at which the applicant was present. According to the respondent, the review incorporated feedback from staff, internal data analysis and an external review of operations conducted by a consultant with industry experience. 3. Following the announcement of the planned restructure on 7 May 2019, affected employees were asked to provide feedback on the proposed changes by 14 May 2019. On that date, the United Services Union ("USU") provided an extensive written submission prepared by the applicant to Monica Barone, the Chief Executive Officer of the City, expressing the concerns of the workers with respect to the proposed changes. 4. By letter dated 28 May 2019, Isabel Lozo, Manager, Corporate Human Resources, responded to the applicant's concerns. On the following day Ms Lozo again wrote to the applicant and confirmed that the proposed restructure would be implemented and that four roles within the new structure would be advertised externally. The applicant was encouraged to apply for those positions if he was interested and believed that he met the selection criteria. The applicant applied for the Business Support Officer and Outdoor Events and Filming Coordinator roles. 5. On 7 June 2019, the applicant made further written representations to Ms Barone via the USU alleging that, as an African American, he had been subjected to racial vilification as an employee of the City about which he had made a formal complaint. On 18 June 2019, Ms Lozo provided a response to the union. Ms Lozo noted that the applicant's complaint was lodged in January 2017 and she stated that it had been managed in accordance with the City's applicable policies. 6. By letter dated 5 July 2019, Ms Lozo confirmed with the USU that seven positions, including the position occupied by the applicant, were no longer required by the City. On the same day, the applicant and another affected employee were provided with further detail of the reasoning behind the restructure by way of email from Ms Stanton. Also on that day, Ms Lozo wrote to the applicant. That letter contained the following: Rosbyn, as notified during the week commencing 1 July 2019, you have not been successful in securing appointment to the Business Support Officer and Outdoor Events and Filming Coordinator roles. Unfortunately, this means effective 5 July 2019, your position of Venue Officer (DW20140) will no longer be required. 1. The applicant was paid severance entitlements in accordance with the relevant provisions of the City Award. Case for the applicant 1. In his unfair dismissal application, the applicant claimed that his dismissal was harsh because: - employees had no knowledge of the redundancy; - the City had not explained the legitimate reasoning why the decision was made; - employees were made redundant but the City used Restaurant Associates ("RA"), a company contracted to provide catering services to the City, to do the jobs of the redundant employees; - the jobs which were offered to the applicant to apply for were only offered to comply with the redundancy procedures and the applicant never had a chance of getting a job; and - RA offered to and were allowed to do the jobs of the redundant employees while they were still working there. 1. In his witness statement, which was tendered into evidence, the applicant referred to the meeting of 7 May 2019 and claimed that, prior to this meeting, all the managers had a meeting "about the harsh news, before it was relayed to us". The witness statement then continued as follows: My reasoning for this unfair dismissal claim is to highlight the unfair mistreatment of myself and other co workers that's went through this process. With unjustified reasoning behind these decisions. Leading up to us finding out about these workplace changes, there were no indications of any redundancies being made. We had 8 months worth of workshops based solely on how to better the department with skills of customer service, the business, and the clients experience working with venue management. The question was asked at the time about employees losing their jobs and the answer from Peter Rugg was "No" that want be happening. So there was never a proper consolation about the possibility of jobs being lost. This is the reasoning behind this claim. Every implementation about this decision was giving to me and others last minute, the union was alerted about this decision 1 hour before we were. It was being rushed through, so the city of Sydney council could proceed with the removal of staff. By accentuating a decision hasn't been fully made but indeed it already has. They then asked for feedback being that it was part of the ward process with no intention of taking any of our feedback into consideration. We were forced out with no regard of our lively hood outside of work. They implemented that we should apply for vacancies within the new structure, in which I responded to Peter and Zoe that I didn't feel that I would get a fair chance at these jobs because of previous racial issues i had within the department. And just like I thought I feel that was the case for me. The procedure for a someone who's applied for a job at the city of Sydney council is the recruitment department let's you know by email not you being told by Zoe, then getting escorted off the premises like your a criminal. I was emailed by recruitment on the 30th of July, I was never going to be considered for a my of those jobs, as I highlighted to Peter and Zoe in previous weeks. Then comes the question on how is the job going to get done, which there was no answer, that indicated to me that this process and the particulars was just a last minute planning. They knew all along but didn't tell the employees who would of been effected by this. Peter tried to use our kindness and love for the job against us by asking could we train Restaurant Associates to do our job. That's the respect we were shown, Peter even had them do our job while we were still working for the council. No respect or regard for any of the hard work and devoted time we put into venue management, just pure disrespect. This is the so called process that we dealt, which had no justification to do so, in my feedback I responded to Peter's reasoning for the restructure, which he always claimed the process as being fair and not personal. It was never explained to me, why did the evaluation of venue management only allow extra staff be hire in the offices but make your frontline guys redundant. What was the evaluation process including number of hours, revenue, expenses, etc, show your employees how these decisions were made, but it was never a decision based off facts, it was personal based solely off individuals, and that's why only 1 person got a job. 1. At the hearing of the unfair dismissal application on 28 October 2019, the applicant put the following oral submission: APPLICANT: Okay. My whole thing with the whole process was about not being informed properly. Previous to that we had meetings and workshops talking about getting ideas of some things that we need to fix with the department, ways that the - we need to go, things that need to change, what could help the department become stronger, more profitable. That happened. We had workshops for 8 months. Not once was there any mention of positions being moved, positions being made redundant. Even two colleagues asked the particular question, "Would there be jobs lost?" and the answer was no. So that kind of put our mind at ease during that process. I'm of the mindset for myself and for also the other colleagues that got made redundant if there was any indication that this could be a possibility we would've at least tried to come up with some sort of scenario to make it where we wouldn't be - either move on or try to get another job within the council. So that was the situation that we were in. So when we - we kind of got blindsided on 9 May. We didn't know because it kind of caught us off guard in the sense of if this was in the works, why couldn't this be told 8 to 9 months ago if this was a possibility? And that's my issue. The whole process was done wrong. There was no consolidation about it. He says - the manager says "consolidations". We say "workshops" and that's what they were but it was never any indication of redundancies or anything like that. And that's my biggest issue because our livelihood got put in a very bad position and springing things like redundancies or, "You're going to lose your job," at the spur of the moment doesn't sit right with any of the council core values or any way that was perceived to myself or my other colleagues that this is the way the council operates. So, yeah, that's mainly my biggest issue, that there was no proper way to do what they did. Everything was just sped through, a lot of backtracking within that 2 month span, and there wasn't really a fair go given for us. Case for the respondent 1. The Employer's Reply to the applicant's unfair dismissal application contained the following: Background • Mr Williams was employed at the City on a full time basis from 5 April 2016 to 5 July 2019 in the position of Venue Officer Venue Management Unit, City Services Division. • The Venue Management Business Unit is responsible for business development for events held in Various City venues and the managing the operational needs of events. • The City has previously consulted with Venue Management employees over a number of years in relation to rosters. This includes agreeing to rosters suggested by the Facilities Coordinators and Venue Officers. • The Venue Officer roster is based on full time employees rotating through a fixed cycle roster, Monday to Sunday. Business Review Process • On 9 May 2018, a presentation was made to all employees in the business unit, informing them that all aspects of Venue Management were under review and consideration, including the structure of the relevant teams, roles and individual responsibilities. Mr Williams was in attendance at this meeting and 8 workshops and meetings that took place between 9 May 2018 and 7 May 2019. • The review incorporated feedback from staff, internal data analysis and an external review of the operations conducted by consultant with industry experience and information. • A thorough review of the tasks and roles performed by all team members was reviewed in detail, some of which remain and are required whilst others are being streamlined or where not part of the core business, eliminated. Business Review Findings • One of the key findings of the review was that there are operational staff (Venue Officers and Facilities Coordinators) working when venues were not in use which is not an effective use of the City's resources. Venue occupancy rates for the four main venues is between 25% and 52.6%. • There was a significant amount of downtime where there were no events but staff still rostered to work. The analysis identified the following productivity of the roles (when employees were rostered when venues were in use). • Many of the tasks performed by the impacted roles were not critical to the provision of events and belong to or were completed on the behalf of other departments. • Besides the set-up of furniture and equipment for events, there was no other core business work for the Venue Officer role. • There were frequent occasions that because of the fixed rosters; staff were called in on overtime rates to facilitate events. • There were key periods when staff were required such as during event set ups where there was an intensity of activity required and as such the staffing was required to be supplemented by contingent labour. Business Review Recommendations • The events industry requires flexible business models as events take place 24/7, therefore, fixed rosters are not fit for purpose. • As a result of this review, a revised business unit structure was developed, and several positions were identified as being surplus to capacity. • The longer term service delivery model will be established following further review which will aim to align staffing with the flexibility required in the delivery of events. Consultation Consultation with affected employees including Mr Williams and the United Services Union (USU) of which Mr Williams was a member, commenced on 7 May 2019. The City took the following actions during the formal consultation process to notify impacted employees of the proposed changes and provide an opportunity for employees and their representative to provide feedback prior to the City finalising the proposed changes: • Wrote to the United Services union (USU) on 7 May 2019 to provide notification of the proposed structure change within the Venue Management Unit. • Held one-on-one meetings with the affected employees on 7 May 2019 to provide them with information regarding the proposed changes and the likely impact on their current roles. Feedback was requested from each affected employee by 14 May 2019; • Provided an all staff update regarding the proposed restructure to the entire Venue Management Unit on 7 May 2019; • Provided an extension of time for affected employees to submit their feedback from to 20 May 2019 following the USU's request on 13 May 2019; • Provided a written update regarding the consultation process to the USU on 15 May 2019; • Mr Williams provided feedback as part of this process and the City responded to the points raised by Mr Williams; • Carefully considered all feedback received from affected employees; • Provided an additional written update regarding the consultation process to the USU on 29 May 2019; • Communicated the finalised revised structure to affected employees in person and in writing on 29 May 2019; • Notified impacted employees 1:1 and the USU of the identified surplus staff on 5 July 2019. Redeployment Opportunities • During meetings held on 7 May 2019 and 29 May 2019 Mr Williams was encouraged to apply for other available roles within the organisation that he was interested in and had the skills and experience required. • Mr Williams applied for two available roles during the consultation process; Business Support Officer and Outdoor Filming and Events Coordinator. Mr Williams was unsuccessful in his applications for these roles which were recruited for in accordance with the City's Recruitment Policy… and Position Management Principles outlined for the Venue Management business unit team realignment… • Mr Williams was advised that he was unsuccessful and was offered the opportunity to meet with the hiring managers for both roles to receive feedback on his applications. Mr Williams did not take up this offer. The use of contractors • The City entered into a contract with Compass Group B&I Hospitality Service Pty Ltd (Compass Group) on 19 June 2017 for the provision of 'Catering Services', including 'ancillary services and such other goods and services as may be mutually agreed from time to time by the parties.' This contract was the result of a competitive tendering process in compliance with the Local Government Act 1993 and City of Sydney Wages/Salaries Award 2017. • These tasks include supervising room set up for events, liaising with customers and coordinating any changes, briefing ushers and relevant crew members and arranging the event timeline. These tasks were already part of the services provided under the contract dated 19 June 2017. We note that the Compass Group are only performing these tasks on those days when events are occurring and during the events themselves. We also note that these tasks are being undertaken on temporary basis, as has already been communicated to the affected employees. Redundancy Entitlements • Mr Rosbyn Williams was paid a total of $27,483.17 on separation of employment in accordance with the redundancy provisions in the City of Sydney Wages/Salary Award 2017 (clause 12.6), it was made up of the following payments. Severance Payment (65 days) $14,418.50 Payment in lieu of notice (25 days) $6,509.92 Annual Leave (23 days) $6,111.63 2 x accrued rostered days off $443.65 • Furthermore, Mr Williams was paid $1934.10 reimbursement for the purchase of a computer in line with the City of Sydney Wages/Salary Award 2017 Clause 12.9 which entitles employees payment up to $2558 to meet expenses associated with seeking other employment. Peter Rugg 1. Mr Rugg gave evidence in which he confirmed the matters set out immediately above. Mr Rugg also responded to many of the matters raised in the applicant's witness statement (at [11]). 2. In response to the claim that the question was asked about employees losing their jobs and the answer from him was '"No' that won't be happening", Mr Rugg stated: … at no time, in any way, shape or form did I ever state, guarantee or infer that no jobs would be lost. When asked if there would be job losses (which from memory I can recall being asked once at a single meeting by Joe Perros during the Focus Group sessions in December 2018) my response was that we were reviewing the entire structure, including reporting lines, tasks and workload distribution, how we do things effectively and efficiently or words to that effect. … it was not known that there would be the likelihood of redundancies until the review had been completed. Once the recommendations were made, reviewed and analysed by the organisation including Finance and HR to determine their credibility, staff were then consulted the first available opportunity which was 7 May 2019. Consultation was then offered for a week and extended to 2 weeks in total. Zoe Stanton 1. Ms Stanton gave the following evidence: Response to witness statement of Rosbyn Williams 7. I have read the witness statement of Rosbyn Williams filed on 6 September 2019. Responses 8. In response to Mr William's reference to not being aware of impact to position during the business review process, I was not the Senior HR Business Partner for Venue Management at the commencement of the business review, however I have seen presentations shared with the team that indicate that all structure and roles were being reviewed. I have been aware of issues relating to rostering, staff utilisation and task assignment within the Venue Management Unit since I commenced employment at the City. 9. In response to Mr William's suggestion that the process was rushed, the review process which involved consultation with employees was over twelve months. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 10. In response to Mr Williams' reference to being told he was not successful for roles by myself, this is not accurate. I was not on the recruitment panel or involved in recruitment for any of the roles Mr Williams applied for, therefore did not advise him of the outcome for any roles he applied for. 11. AII impacted employees were offered and encouraged to take up Career Assist which is offered thought the City's Employee Assistance Program. Career Assist provides vocational counselling and career planning designed to help individuals identify and achieve their career aspirations. I also offered Mr Williams and all other impacted employees time with myself if they wanted information on other roles across the organisation and support in relation to job seeking. Determination 1. The obligations of the respondent in relation to redundancy are set out at clause 12 of the City Award. The requirements for the City to notify, and discuss with the union and affected employees, any proposed redundancies are set out in the following parts of clause 12. 12. Workplace Change and Redundancy - Employees Commencing on or after 5 November 2009 This clause applies to all employees who commence employment on or after 5 November 2009. 12.1 Council's Duty to Notify 12.1.1 Where Council has made a definite decision to introduce major changes in production, program, organisation structure or technology that are likely to have significant effects on employees, the council shall notify the employees who may be affected by the proposed changes and the unions to which they belong. 12.1.2 "Significant effects" include termination of employment, major changes in the composition, operation or size of the council's workforce or in the skills required, the elimination or diminution of job opportunities, promotion opportunities or job tenure, the alteration of hours of work, the need for retraining or transfer of employees to other work or locations and the restructuring of jobs. Provided that where the award makes provision for the alteration of any of the matters referred to herein an alteration shall be deemed not to have significant effect. 12.2 Council's Duty to Discuss Change 12.2.1 Council shall discuss with the employee(s) affected and the union to which they belong, inter alia, the introduction of the changes referred to in clauses 12.1.1 and 12.1.2 of this clause, what affects the changes are likely to have on the employee(s) and measures to avert or mitigate the adverse changes on the employee(s) and shall give prompt consideration to matters raised by the employee(s) and/or their union in relation to the changes and may reconsider its original decision. 12.2.2 The discussion shall commence as early as practicable after a definite decision has been made by the council to make the changes referred to in clause 12.1.1 and 12.1.2 of this clause. 12.2.3 For the purposes of the discussion, the council shall provide to the employee(s) concerned and the union to which they belong, all relevant information about the changes including the nature of the changes proposed, the expected effects of the changes on the employee(s) and any other matters likely to affect the employee(s). 12.3 Discussion before Termination 12.3.1 Where a council has made a definite decision that it no longer wishes the job the employee has been doing done by anyone pursuant to clause 12.1.1 and 12.1.2 of this clause and that decision may lead to the termination of employment, the council shall hold discussions with the employee directly affected and with the union to which they belong. 12.3.2 The discussion shall take place as soon as it is practicable after the council has made a definite decision which shall invoke the provision of clause 12.3.1 of this clause and shall cover, inter alia, any reasons for the proposed terminations, measures to avoid or minimise the terminations and measures to mitigate any adverse effects of the terminations of the employee(s) concerned. 12.3.3 For the purposes of the discussion, the council shall, as soon as practicable, provide to the employee(s) concerned and the union to which they belong, all relevant information about the proposed terminations including the reasons for the proposed terminations, the number and category of employee(s) likely to be affected and the number of employee(s) normally employed and the period over which the terminations are likely to be carried out. Provided that the council shall not be required to disclose confidential information the disclosure of which would adversely affect the council. 1. I note that the obligation to notify affected employees arises only after the City has made a definite decision to introduce major changes (subclause 12.1.1) and there is no prescribed period of time for discussions with the union and employees to take place before redundancies may occur. The applicant in this case, along with other potentially affected employees, was notified of the review of the Venue Management Unit on 9 May 2018, more than a year before any major change was put into effect. 2. I accept the evidence of Mr Rugg and Ms Stanton to the effect that, as soon practicable after the review recommendations were made, the affected employees were, on 7 May 2019, notified of the proposed changes and the likely impact on their current roles. The USU was notified on the same day. Discussions then took place over the next eight weeks before any redundancies were put into effect. I also accept that those discussions constituted genuine consultation within which the representations made by, and on behalf of, affected employees, such as the applicant, were considered and responded to by the respondent. 3. The respondent has complied fully with its obligations under the award. 4. The obligations of employers generally in redundancy situations were considered by Sams DP in Huseyin Arslan and others and Berkely Challenge (Commercial) Pty Limited and Others ([2001] NSWIRComm 45). His Honour stated: 20 It is well settled law that an employee's dismissal due to redundancy can attract considerations of unfairness such as to warrant a finding of the dismissal being "harsh unreasonable or unjust" according to Pt 6 ch 2 of the Act. 21 In this jurisdiction, the lead authority for this proposition is often referred to in Outboard World v Muir (1993) 51 IR 167, which described unfairness in the context of redundancy: While in the ordinary case it may be that a redundancy genuinely occurring would not come within the parameters of Part 8, Unfair Dismissals, it takes little imagination to apprehend a situation which is both a redundancy and a harsh, unreasonable or unjust dismissal. For example, it may be that in selecting employees for redundancy an employer unilaterally decides to terminate an employee of long and exemplary service over another employee. The facts of the case may demonstrate both redundancy of one position but unfairness as against the employee selected. Once that position is accepted then it follows that an employee is not necessarily incapable of suffering an "unfair" dismissal in the context of a position becoming redundant. Other examples come readily to mind. 22 The Commission also finds the question posed by Lee J of the Industrial Relations Court of Australia in Aitken v Construction, Mining, Energy, Timberyards, Sawmills and Woodworkers Union of Australia - Western Australia Branch, 63 IR 1 at p7, particularly apposite to the considerations I am faced with in this case: The question in this case is whether the employer gave due regard to all reasonable and fair considerations the employee was entitled to expect as part of the employer/employee relationship that existed between them prior to termination of the employee's services. That is to say, acting fairly and having due regard to the interests of the employee did the employer do that which could be reasonably expected of it in the circumstances to avoid the termination operating harshly, unjustly or unreasonably? Also of relevant interest is a passage from Budget Couriers Equity Management v Beshara (1993) 5 VIR 173, in which a Full Bench of the Employee Relations Commission of Victoria said in 1993: In approaching matters alleging that a dismissal is harsh unjust or unreasonable, it is not enough for an employer to establish that the circumstances are one of a genuine redundancy. The dismissal must be tested against substantive and procedural fairness. It is insufficient for an employer to raise the aegis of a genuine redundancy as a wand against this commission intervening where the circumstances in which the redundancy was imposed are otherwise harsh unjust or unreasonable. The obligations to consult to provide adequate notice and to apply objective selection criteria in determining which employee is to be made redundant are factors in determining whether a dismissal was harsh unjust or unreasonable. The concept of "industrial fair play" is to be observed by both parties to a contract of employment and the need to make employees redundant does not absolve employers from this general principle. A failure by an employer to ensure that these principles are followed may lead to a finding characterising a dismissal as harsh unjust or unreasonable and to consequential orders. The fact that an employer has complied with the strict notice and severance payment provisions of the standards established in the Termination Change and Redundancy Cases ((1984) 8 IR 34; (1984) 9 IR 115; 2 VIR 36) will not necessarily dissuade the commission from intervening to provide a remedy where a dismissal on the grounds of redundancy comes within the statutory criteria of s42(1) of the Employee Relations Act 1992. A useful summary of other relevant authorities is to be found in Quality Bakers of Australia v Goulding (1995) 60 IR 327 at 334-336. 23 My own summation of the matters to be considered in cases such as this is to be found in Shop Distributive and Allied Employees Association, New South Wales and W D & H O Wills, IRC3363 of 1999, 9 June 2000. Here the Commission summarised the obligations on employers in redundancy situations. At para 66 I said: ... In redundancy situations, an employer is obliged to: 1. give reasonable notice to employees and/or their Unions; 2. adequately consult with employees and/or their Unions on the impact of the proposed changes; 3. explore genuine alternative options for redundancy, such as redeployment or relocation; 4. ensure such options are fairly offered to the affected employees; 5. provide reasonable standards of redundancy benefits; 6. provide appropriate ancillary services, such as time off to seek alternative work, retraining opportunities, outplacement services or financial planning; 7. ensure employees nominated for redundancy are fairly selected on an objective and unbiased basis. 24 Of course, a failure to properly, or exhaustively comply with each, and every one, of these obligations might not necessarily warrant an adverse finding against an employer. Each case will be determined on its own particular set of facts and circumstances. 25 However, I am well satisfied in this case, that the respondent failed to meet at least four of these obligations. Thus the Commission is able to safely ground a finding of unfairness visited upon all the applicants. I shall deal with each failure in turn. 1. I note that in Arslan, Sams DP had before him ten unfair dismissal applications from employees who were dismissed when their employer lost the contract to provide cleaning and other services at Penrith Plaza. None of the employees was paid severance payments. Having found that the dismissals of the applicants were unfair, his Honour proceeded to make orders for the payment of varying amounts of compensation based the following matters: i) an effective notice period of three months; ii) the employees' length of service; iii) the age of the employees; iv) whether alternative employment was sought and/or obtained; v) remuneration earned by the employees since dismissal. 1. The situation which confronted Sam DP in Arslan was very different from that presently before the Commission. 2. I accept that the respondent in this case has satisfied all of the obligations on an employer in a redundancy situation which were identified by Sams DP at paragraph 23 of the decision in Arslan (at [21]). 3. One of the complaints made by the applicant in the present matter was that he and other employees of the City, whose positions had been identified as redundant, were required to show employees of an existing contractor to the City how to do the jobs of the redundant employees. I can understand how the applicant might have found this to be objectionable, but it does not convert the termination of his employment due to redundancy into an unfair dismissal. 4. There was correspondence between the USU and the respondent tendered into evidence in which there was some debate as to whether the respondent had complied with the requirements of subclause 15.1 of the City Award, which deals with competitive tendering in cases where an in-house service unit submits a bid as well as external contractors, and section 55 – Requirements for tendering, of the Local Government Act 1993. Those issues are not before the Commission for determination. The issue which is before me to be determined is whether the termination of the applicant's employment on the grounds of redundancy constituted a dismissal that was harsh, unreasonable or unjust. 5. As was indicated in Outboard World v Muir ([1993] 51 IR 167) by a Full Bench of the Commission (Cahill VP, Peterson J and Tabbaa CC at 182) "… in the ordinary case it may be that a redundancy genuinely occurring would not come within the parameters of" the unfair dismissal provisions of the Industrial Relations Act 1996. This is an ordinary case of genuine redundancy. Unlike the situation in Arslan, here the applicant was paid redundancy entitlements in accordance with the provisions of the City Award, which must be taken to constitute fair and reasonable conditions of employment. 6. There is nothing in the facts of this case which would support a finding that the termination of the applicant's employment due to redundancy constituted a dismissal that was harsh, unreasonable or unjust. The application must be dismissed. Order 1. I order that the unfair dismissal application of Rosbyn Williams be dismissed. John Murphy Commissioner ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 12 December 2019