The Ruling That Changes Redundancy – The High Court’s August 2025 decision in Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd v Bartley has reshaped how Australian employers must approach redundancies.
The key takeaway – when assessing “reasonable redeployment,” employers can no longer limit their search to existing vacancies. They must also consider whether redeployment could have been achieved by reorganising work, including tasks performed by contractors or labour-hire staff.
This significantly widens the test under section 389(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 and raises fresh risks for both permanent and contractor workforce planning.
What This Means for Employers
- Broader Redeployment Obligation:
You must now look beyond job ads and existing vacancies. Could a redundant employee have been retrained or shifted into work currently done by contractors or within an associated entity?
2. Contractor Usage Under the Microscope:
Continuing to use contractors while making staff redundant could see the redundancy ruled not genuine – opening the door to unfair dismissal claims.
3. More Documentation Needed:
Employers will need to record what redeployment options were considered (including contractor work) and why they weren’t feasible.
4. Associated Entities Count:
Redeployment searches may need to include associated businesses or divisions – not just the employee’s current location.
What This Means for Jobseekers and Employees
- Wider Redeployment Opportunities:
If your role is at risk of redundancy, your employer must now consider more than just open vacancies. You could have a case for redeployment if your skills could be retrained or redirected into work currently handled by contractors or in a related business division.
2. Redundancies Under Greater Scrutiny:
If contractors continue doing similar work after staff are let go, those redundancies may not be considered genuine. This strengthens employee protections and could form grounds for challenging unfair dismissal.
3. Right to Transparency:
You can reasonably ask what redeployment options were reviewed and why you weren’t offered one. Employers must now keep records of this process – which may help you seek clarification or legal advice if needed.
4. Opportunities Across Associated Entities:
If your organisation is part of a larger group, potential roles in other divisions or related companies may now need to be explored as part of redeployment. It’s worth asking whether these were considered.
The Takeaway:
This change encourages a stronger focus on retraining, redeployment, and transparency – giving employees more leverage to remain in work or challenge unfair redundancy decisions. Jobseekers can also benefit by highlighting adaptability and cross-functional skills that make redeployment or internal mobility more feasible.
The Bigger Picture
These updates reshape how employers and employees approach redundancy and redeployment.
For employers – it’s about stronger governance and fairer processes.
For employees – it’s about greater transparency and the potential for retraining or reassignment before redundancy takes effect.
Ultimately, this shift encourages more open conversations, and a stronger focus on retaining skills within organisations.
Key Sources & more information
Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd v Bartley [2025] HCA 29; - https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases-and-judgments/judgments/judgments-2000-current/helensburgh-coal-pty-ltd-v-bartley?
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – s 389(2) – https://www.fairwork.gov.au/ending-employment/redundancy
Disclaimer: This information is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or professional advice. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information contained herein, the author accepts no liability for any changes, loss, or damage arising from reliance on its content. Readers should seek independent legal advice and updates, before acting on any matter discussed in this document.