| | | | | | | | | | The past few weeks have been unlike anything I've seen in a long time. | | | | The fuel crisis triggered by the conflict in the Middle East has moved faster than most businesses had time to prepare for. Costs are up. Margins are tighter. And the questions coming through to us have shifted — noticeably, and quickly.
Where leaders were asking about structure and growth a month ago, they're now asking something different. Can we stand people down? Do we need to make roles redundant? How quickly can we move?
I understand the pressure behind those questions. When costs rise sharply and the timeline for recovery is unclear, the instinct is to act. To reduce exposure, to protect the business, to make decisions now rather than later.
But this is precisely where I've watched businesses create a second problem while trying to solve the first.
Redundancy is a legitimate response to genuine operational change. It is not a short-term financial lever. And what has shifted — unknown to many, yet significantly — is the legal standard against which those decisions will be judged. The High Court's decision in Helensburgh Coal v Bartley last August has materially raised the bar on what constitutes a genuine redundancy. The redeployment obligations employers now face are broader than many realise, and the margin for getting the process wrong is considerably smaller than it was.
That doesn't mean redundancy is off the table. It means the process matters more than ever. Therefore, decisions made under pressure, without a structured and documented rationale, carry real consequences if they're later challenged.
This edition focuses on exactly that. Not to add to the anxiety, but to give you the clarity to act correctly if you need to act at all. | | | | | | | | | | | | Redundancy in a Crisis: What the Law Actually Requires Before You Act | | | | When financial pressure builds quickly, staffing decisions often follow. A recent CCIWA survey found one in four WA businesses are already reviewing their staffing in response to the fuel crisis — and that's exactly where legal exposure begins.
Redundancy is a legitimate response to genuine operational change. But the High Court's unanimous decision in Helensburgh Coal v Bartley last August raised the bar on what that process must now include — and many businesses are not aware of how significantly the standard has shifted.
Before you act, read this. | | | | | | | | | | | | Before You Make Anyone Redundant: Six Questions Leaders Should Ask First | | | | The legal requirements around redundancy are documented and knowable. What is harder to see — until it's too late — is whether your organisation is actually ready to follow them. Most redundancy processes don't fail because leaders acted in bad faith. They fail because decisions were made before the groundwork was in place. These five questions are designed to help you assess your readiness before the process begins.
1. Will this role genuinely be performed by no one — or is the work simply moving elsewhere? This is the threshold question, and it must be answered honestly before anything else proceeds. A redundancy is only genuine if the role is no longer required to be performed by anyone. If the work continues — redistributed among existing staff, absorbed by a manager, or picked up by a contractor — the role has not ceased to exist. It has simply been reassigned. That distinction is the difference between a genuine redundancy and an unfair dismissal. Before proceeding, be clear on whether the work itself is disappearing, or whether the business is reorganising who does it.
2. Is this genuinely a structural decision — or a financial one dressed up as one? This is the most important question, and the one leaders are least likely to ask themselves honestly under pressure. A genuine redundancy requires that the role is no longer needed — not that it has become unaffordable. Before proceeding, be clear on the operational reason the role ceases to exist. If the honest answer is "we need to cut costs," that is the starting point for a different conversation — not a redundancy process.
3. Have we mapped our contractor and labour hire arrangements against this role?
Following the High Court's ruling in Helensburgh Coal v Bartley last August, the redeployment assessment now extends beyond internal vacancies. Before concluding that redeployment is not possible, you need to know what work is currently being performed by contractors or labour hire within your business — and whether the affected employee could reasonably perform any of it. This step is frequently skipped. It is no longer optional.
4. Do we have a consultation process ready — not just a conversation planned?
There is a meaningful difference between telling an employee their role is at risk and genuinely consulting with them about it. Consultation under most Modern Awards requires that the employee receives information, has a real opportunity to respond, and that their response is genuinely considered before a final decision is made. If your plan is to inform and then confirm, that is notification — not consultation. The distinction matters significantly if the decision is later challenged.
5. Can we document our reasoning clearly enough for an independent decision-maker to follow it?
If your redundancy process is challenged before the Fair Work Commission, it will be assessed on what is on the record — not on what was intended or discussed verbally. Before proceeding, ask whether your documentation tells a coherent, defensible story: why the role no longer exists, what alternatives were considered, what the redeployment assessment found, and why the outcome reached was reasonable. If the answer to any of those is unclear, the process is not ready.
6. Have we thought about the impact on the people who remain? Redundancy affects more than the person leaving. How a business handles the exit of a colleague shapes how remaining employees understand their own security, their trust in leadership, and their willingness to engage. A process that is legally compliant but visibly rushed or impersonal carries a cultural cost that does not appear in the Fair Work Commission's determination but is felt in the business long after. How you handle this moment is a leadership decision, not just a compliance one. | | 💡 Did You Know?
A snap survey of more than 430 WA businesses conducted by CCIWA in late March 2026 found that 31% described the impact of the Gulf conflict on their business as "significant" or "severe" — and one in four said they would review their staffing as a result. Decisions made under that level of pressure are precisely the ones most likely to be made without adequate process. The cost of getting it wrong can significantly exceed the cost savings the decision was designed to achieve.
| | |
What this Means in Practice
What we consistently see across businesses navigating financial pressure is a compression of the process, not a deliberate shortcut, but a natural consequence of urgency. A role is identified. A conversation happens. A letter is issued. The business moves on. What is missing is the documented rationale for why the role no longer exists, evidence that consultation was genuine, and any record of a redeployment assessment.
When a claim is lodged weeks later, there is nothing on file that can demonstrate the process was sound — because the process was never built. The decision may have been operationally correct. But correct decisions, poorly documented, do not hold up under scrutiny.
Key Takeaway A redundancy is only genuine if the role has ceased to exist for operational reasons — financial pressure alone does not satisfy that test.
The redeployment assessment must now include contractor and labour hire arrangements, not just internal vacancies. This is a direct consequence of Helensburgh Coal v Bartley [2025] HCA 29.
How you handle a redundancy process is visible to your entire team, not just the person affected. The culture cost of a poorly managed exit is real, even when the legal risk is managed.
| | | | | | | | Before You Pick Up the Phone: A Quick Readiness Check | | | |
Run through these before engaging legal or HR support. Knowing your answers will make the conversation significantly more productive.
- Can I clearly articulate the operational reason this role no longer exists?
- Have I identified the consultation obligations under the applicable Modern Award or agreement?
- Have I mapped contractor and labour hire arrangements as part of the redeployment assessment?
- Is there a documented record of each step taken so far?
- Have I considered what this process will look like to the rest of the team?
If you answered no to any of these, that is where to start. | | | | | | | | When Employees Leave, Risk Doesn't | When an employee exits — whether by choice or through a redundancy process — the compliance risk does not end on their last day. This article examines how departing employees represent a significant and often underestimated exposure point for intellectual property, confidential information, and data security. It covers the overlap between HR, IT, and legal obligations during offboarding, and why a loose or inconsistent exit process creates vulnerabilities that extend well beyond the employment relationship itself.
Why it matters: Businesses navigating redundancies right now are rightly focused on the process of letting people go. A structured, documented offboarding process is equally important — and gaps in this area carry their own compliance and legal consequences.
| | Know the Rules Before You Act | The Fair Work Ombudsman's official redundancy guidance sets out what employers must do for a redundancy to be genuine under the Fair Work Act 2009. It covers the three-part test, consultation obligations, redeployment requirements, and the consequences where the process falls short — including an employee's right to apply for unfair dismissal. The page was updated in February 2026 and reflects current obligations.
Why it matters: This is the authoritative government reference for any employer currently reviewing their position. It is the benchmark against which any Fair Work Commission proceedings will be assessed.
| | | | FWC Opens Fuel Cost Recovery Case For Road Transport | The Fair Work Commission has opened a dedicated fuel cost recovery case in direct response to the current crisis, focusing on road transport contractual chain arrangements. The FWC is accepting submissions and has flagged the ability to expedite emergency orders where warranted — reflecting the Commission's recognition that the crisis is creating acute pressure on transport-dependent industries and the workers within them.
Why it matters: For businesses in construction, logistics, agriculture, and any sector relying on transport supply chains, this signals that the FWC is actively engaged with the crisis. Decisions arising from it may affect cost structures, contractual obligations, and workforce arrangements in the months ahead.
| | Redundancy Entitlements Under Review | A parliamentary inquiry into the National Employment Standards is currently underway, with recommendations expected on redundancy entitlements, annual leave, and maximum weekly hours. Any recommendations arising from the inquiry are likely to form the basis of future legislative change. The FWC's unfair dismissals benchbook — updated to reflect recent legislative developments — remains the authoritative reference point for how redundancy decisions are assessed when challenged.
Why it matters: With redundancy obligations already tightened by the High Court's ruling in Helensburgh Coal v Bartley, further changes to statutory entitlements may follow. Now is the right time for businesses to ensure their current frameworks are sound — before the baseline shifts again. | | | | | | | | | | When the Pressure Builds, What's Already in Place is What Protects You | | The businesses that navigate workforce decisions well in difficult conditions are rarely the ones that react fastest. They are the ones that had the right foundations in place before the pressure arrived — clear contracts, documented processes, and governance that holds up when it is tested.
The fuel crisis has compressed the timeline for many businesses. Staffing decisions that might have taken months to consider are now being made in weeks. And as the High Court's ruling in Helensburgh Coal v Bartley has made clear, the standard against which those decisions will be judged has not compressed at all.
This is where HR compliance and risk management becomes something more than a governance exercise. It becomes the evidence base that determines whether a decision is defensible — or isn't.
HR Compliance & Risk Management Strategic HR Australia works with businesses to review and strengthen their compliance position across the areas that matter most when decisions are scrutinised: contracts, award obligations, policies, record keeping, and documentation standards.
There are two ways to engage, depending on where your business is right now.
The HR Compliance Audit is a structured online self-assessment that takes approximately ten minutes. It covers five core compliance areas and delivers a personalised report with practical next steps. It is designed to move businesses from assumption to visibility — quickly and without disruption. | | | | For businesses facing restructure, growth pressure, or heightened regulatory exposure, the Comprehensive HR Audit provides a deeper assessment. It includes an on-site consultation, a detailed review of contracts, awards, policies, and documentation, and a formal written report with prioritised recommendations. It is not a checklist exercise. It is a leadership clarity process.
If your business is making workforce decisions right now — or anticipates doing so in the months ahead — understanding your current compliance position is the most practical step you can take. | | | | | | | | Fractional HR Support
For businesses that want to stay ahead of complexity rather than respond to it, Fractional HR Support provides ongoing senior HR partnership without the overhead of a full-time hire.
In the current environment — where workforce decisions carry greater legal weight, economic conditions are shifting quickly, and compliance obligations are tightening — having structured HR guidance embedded in the business is no longer a luxury reserved for larger organisations. It is the kind of infrastructure that prevents the situations this edition has been addressing from arising in the first place. | | | | | | | | | | | | | | We're Growing, and We're Hiring
Strategic HR Australia is looking for an HR Adviser to join the team in Maylands, Perth. This is a full-time consulting role working directly with business owners across a wide range of industries, advising on employment matters, compliance, documentation, and workplace issues across the full employee lifecycle.
It is not a tick-and-flick environment. We are looking for someone with the right foundations, mindset, and drive to grow into an outstanding HR Adviser — someone who is precise, curious, and genuinely invested in giving high-quality advice. In return, the role offers real variety, direct mentorship, and the kind of professional development that is hard to find in a larger organisation.
If that sounds like you, or like someone you know, the full position description is on SEEK. | | | | | | | | | | | | In June, we’ll be hosting a roundtable session in collaboration with Business Women Australia (BWA), bringing together business owners and leaders for a practical discussion on Building Great Teams.
The session will focus on practical, peer-led insight to help leaders strengthen culture, improve performance and retention, and put the right foundations in place before people issues become risk.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | Connect With Our HR Experts
Call us today at 08 6117 9270
| | | | | | | | Reach out to us at: support@strategichr.com.au
| | | | | | | |
