Turning Down a New Role After Redundancy? Here's What It Could Cost You.

In the matter of Mater Misericordiae Ltd v Robyn Tyler [2025] FWC 1396, involved Robyn Tyler, a part-time educator with about six years of service. Her position became redundant due to internal structural changes within Mater Misericordiae Ltd's Education and Training division. Under Australian law (specifically Section 119 of the Fair Work Act 2009), she was due 11 weeks of redundancy pay.

Mater Misericordiae offered Ms. Tyler a different educator role. This new position had the

• same pay rate,

• same number of hours (38 hours per week),

• similar work times, and

• the same level of seniority

as her previous role. It also provided job security and ongoing continuity of employment with no probationary period.

However, Ms. Tyler declined the offer. Her stated reasons included:

• the role would negatively impact her work-life balance.

• the new role would not accommodate her extracurricular sporting activities and associated post-graduate study.

• the new role required onsite attendance during standard working hours.

She had informally been working from home for two days a week in her old role and anticipated working from home one day a week in the new role if possible.

The Employer's Stance and the FWC's Decision

The employer warned Ms. Tyler that if she refused the alternative role, they would apply to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) to reduce her redundancy entitlement. When she stuck to her decision, they followed through, seeking to reduce her redundancy pay to zero.

Mater Misericordiae argued that the new role was objectively suitable, with no reduction in pay, entitlements, or job security. They contended that Ms. Tyler's personal scheduling preferences, such as the desire for flexible work arrangements to support her postgraduate studies, do not constitute a valid reason to refuse reasonable alternative employment, especially since she did not have an approved Flexible Working Arrangement under the Fair Work Act or a contractual right to remote or flexible working conditions. They noted that working onsite during regular hours is a reasonable and common expectation and does not make an alternative role unsuitable.

The FWC found that Mater Misericordiae had engaged in a consultation process before making the changes and offered Ms. Tyler a role she was capable of performing.

Objectively, the FWC determined the new position was "acceptable employment" within the meaning of the Fair Work Act. They considered factors such as the same rate of pay, hours of work, seniority, job security, and continuity of service. Crucially, they noted that there was no formal entitlement to the existing work-from-home arrangement in her old role, and it was at the discretion of Mater Misericordiae.

The FWC concluded that Ms. Tyler's concerns about potentially having to travel to other education hubs, revisiting her qualifications (given future teaching requirements), or a reduction in time working from home were not significant enough to detract from the fact that the new role was objectively acceptable employment. Ultimately, the FWC ruled it was appropriate to reduce Ms. Tyler's redundancy entitlement to zero.

Key Takeaway for Employees and Employers:

This decision is a reminder:

For Employees: 

If your job is made redundant and your employer offers you a new role that is largely similar in terms of pay, hours, seniority, and location , simply wanting more flexibility or a better work-life balance might not be enough to justify rejecting it and still expect redundancy pay. Unless you have a formal agreement or contractual right to flexible work, an informal arrangement ending might not be considered a valid reason for refusal.

For Employers: 

This case reinforces the importance of offering genuinely comparable alternative roles during redundancy processes and following all consultation requirements. It also highlights that personal preferences of an employee, without a contractual basis, are unlikely to be considered a valid reason to refuse an otherwise objectively acceptable redeployment offer.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Michael Yeates is a Special Counsel bringing over 18 years of experience as an Employment and WHS Law practice solicitor. He specialises in advising and counselling a diverse range of clients, from SME to national and international employers as well as individual employees on employment law, industrial relations, discrimination, WHS, and privacy matters. Michael has a proven record in managing workplace disputes, delivering high-quality advisory, litigation, and training services.