1
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Jo-Anna Mealamu
v
Connectability Care Services Pty Ltd
(U2024/1986)
COMMISSIONER CRAWFORD SYDNEY, 3 DECEMBER 2024
Application for relief from unfair dismissal – genuine redundancy – application dismissed.
BACKGROUND
[1] Connectability Care Services Pty Ltd (Connectability Care) provides care and support
services to people with special needs. Jo-Anna Mealamu commenced employment with
Connectability Care on 18 July 2022. Ms Mealamu performed several roles during her
employment with Connectability Care, with the latest one being Support Coordinator. Ms
Mealamu was dismissed by Connectability Care on 1 February 2024 on the ground of
redundancy. Ms Mealamu filed an unfair dismissal application on 22 February 2024, which was
within 21 days of her dismissal taking effect.1 Ms Mealamu was represented by Employee
Dismissals when she made the application. This delayed the determination of Ms Mealamu’s
application because a Full Bench was constituted to determine whether various applicants,
including Ms Mealamu, should be granted permission to be represented by Employee
Dismissals.2 Connectability Care filed a Form F3 employer response on 5 September 2024. The
response identified that Ms Mealamu could not have been “unfairly dismissed” within the
meaning of s.385 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) because the dismissal was a case of
“genuine redundancy.” This decision concerns whether Ms Mealamu’s dismissal was a case of
“genuine redundancy” and, if necessary, the merits of Ms Mealamu’s application and what
remedy should be ordered.
[2] I issued directions for the filing of material and listed a determinative
conference/hearing for 27 November 2024 via video. Ms Mealamu represented herself at the
determinative conference/hearing on 27 November 2024. Connectability Care was represented
by Bianca Watson (HR Coordinator) and Amelia Hansen (HR General Manager). The parties
did not oppose my provisional view to conduct the proceeding as a determinative conference
rather than a hearing.
EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS
Ms Mealamu
[2024] FWC 3356
DECISION
AUSTRALIA FairWork Commission
[2024] FWC 3356
2
[3] Ms Mealamu relied on a witness statement from her sister, Nicola Mohelika, declared
on 5 April 2024. Ms Mohelika gave evidence that she was the Operations Manager for
Connectability Care prior to being made redundant around the same time as Ms Mealamu. Ms
Mohelika stated she did not hear any discussions about Ms Mealamu’s position being made
redundant. Ms Mohelika provided evidence about Ms Mealamu’s skills and experience and
indicated Connectability Care should have offered to redeploy Ms Mealamu. I marked Ms
Mohelika’s statement Exhibit A1. Ms Mohelika was not required for cross-examination.
[4] Ms Mealamu also relied upon emails exchanged between herself and Catherine Daoud
(Senior HR Officer) from 29 January 2024 to 1 February 2024. Ms Daoud sent Ms Mealamu
an email on 29 January 2024 which had a letter attached notifying Ms Mealamu that her position
may be redundant. The letter invited Ms Mealamu to a meeting on 30 January 2024 to discuss
the potential redundancy. Further emails reveal the meeting was rescheduled to 3:30pm on 31
January 2024 and that Ms Mealamu indicated she would be bringing a support person. After
the meeting on 31 January 2024, Ms Daoud sent an email to Ms Mealamu which indicated
Connectability Care did not consider any redeployment options were available. Ms Mealamu
was provided with an opportunity to identify redeployment options by midday on 1 February
2024 and advised that a further meeting would be held at 4:00pm on 1 February 2024. Ms
Daoud emailed Ms Mealamu at 4:27pm and attached a termination letter. I marked the various
emails Exhibit A2. Ms Mealamu was not required for cross-examination.
[5] Ms Mealamu made oral submissions at the end of the determinative conference.
Connectability Care
[6] Connectability Care relied on a statement from Irshad Mulla (CEO) dated 30 October
2024. Mr Mulla provided evidence that Maple Community Services acquired Connectability
Care in September 2023. Mr Mulla indicated substantial operational and structural changes
were implemented after the acquisition. Mr Mulla stated an in-depth review of the staffing
structure and needs was undertaken. This led to Ms Mealamu’s role being made redundant
along with several other roles. Mr Mulla stated Connectability Care and Ms Mealamu were
both unable to identify any redeployment options. Mr Mulla summarised the consultation
process implemented prior to Ms Mealamu’s dismissal. I marked Mr Mulla’s statement Exhibit
R1. Mr Mulla was not required for cross-examination.
[7] Connectability Care also relied on the following documents:
• A letter to Ms Mealamu from Ms Daoud sent on 29 January 2024. The letter explained
that Ms Mealamu’s position may be redundant and invited her to a meeting on 30
January 2024. I marked the letter Exhibit R2.
• Ms Mealamu’s termination letter dated 1 February 2024. I marked the letter Exhibit
R3.
• Minutes of meetings held with Ms Mealamu on 31 January 2024 and 1 February 2024
regarding the redundancy process. I marked the minutes Exhibit R4.
[2024] FWC 3356
3
• Emails exchanged between Ms Mealamu and Connectability Care representatives
from 6 February 2024 to 9 February 2024 about her redundancy payments and other
entitlements. I marked the emails Exhibit R5.
• A letter confirming Ms Mealamu’s redundancy payments. I marked the letter Exhibit
R6.
Ms Mealamu did not require Ms Watson or Ms Hansen for cross-examination in relation to
these documents.
[8] Ms Watson provided oral submissions at the end of the determinative conference.
CONSIDERATION – INITIAL MATTERS
Dismissal and eligibility to make the application
[9] I am satisfied that Ms Mealamu was dismissed at the initiative of Connectability Care
on 1 February 2024.
[10] I am satisfied Ms Mealamu was a person protected from unfair dismissal because:
• Ms Mealamu had completed more than 18 months of service at the time of her
dismissal; and
• Ms Mealamu’s employment with Connectability Care was covered by the Social,
Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010 (SCHADS
Award).
[11] I am required to consider Connectability Care’s argument that Ms Mealamu’s dismissal
was a case of genuine redundancy before I assess the merits of Ms Mealamu’s application.3
Genuine redundancy
[12] There are three matters that need to be considered to determine whether the definition
of a “genuine redundancy” is satisfied in relation to a dismissal.4
[13] Firstly, it must be established that Connectability Care no longer required Ms
Mealamu’s job to be performed by anyone because of changes to its operational requirements.
[14] There is no evidence Connectability Care still required Ms Mealamu’s job to be
performed when she was dismissed on 1 February 2024. Mr Mulla provided uncontested
evidence that a review of staffing following the acquisition by Maple Community Services had
identified that Ms Mealamu’s role was surplus. I accept that evidence.
[15] I find that Connectability Care no longer required Ms Mealamu’s Support Coordinator
job to be performed by anyone due to changes to its operational requirements.
[2024] FWC 3356
4
[16] Secondly, it must be established that Connectability Care complied with the
consultation obligations in clause 8 of the SCHADS Award. Clause 8 of the SCHADS Award
required Connectability Care to:
• Provide Ms Mealamu and any representative with notice of the changes.
• Provide Ms Mealamu and any representative with relevant information about the
changes in writing.
• Discuss the changes and their impacts with Ms Mealamu and any representative. The
discussions must commence promptly.
• Give prompt consideration to any matters raised by Ms Mealamu during the
discussion.
[17] I accept Ms Mealamu’s argument that the timeframe implemented by Connectability
Care was quite short and agree that ideally Ms Mealamu would have had more time to consider
the proposed restructure.
[18] However, I consider the approach followed by Connectability Care was consistent with
the requirements of the SCHADS Award. I consider Connectability Care provided Ms Mealamu
with detailed written notice of the changes via Ms Daoud’s letter to Ms Mealamu on 29 January
2024. Connectability Care discussed the changes with Ms Mealamu during the meeting held on
31 January 2024. There is no evidence that any issues raised by Ms Mealamu were not
considered by Connectability Care. Ms Mealamu did not argue Connectability Care failed to
involve a representative of Ms Mealamu in the consultation process.
[19] I find that Connectability Care complied with the consultation obligations in the
SCHADS Award.
[20] Thirdly, it must be established that it would not have been reasonable for Ms Mealamu
to be redeployed within Connectability Care’s enterprise or the enterprise of an associated
entity.
[21] It is clear Connectability Care put Ms Mealamu on notice via Ms Daoud’s email on 31
January 2024 that it had not identified any reasonable redeployment options for Ms Mealamu.
Ms Mealamu accepted that she did not identify any redeployment options in response to Ms
Daoud’s invitation to provide suggestions by midday on 1 February 2024. Mr Mulla gave
uncontested evidence that:
“We thoroughly assessed potential options for redeployment during this process.
However, no suitable alternative roles were available within the organisation. Additional
to this, Ms Mealamu was similarly unable to identify any suitable redeployment
opportunities herself within the organisation – as indicated in the meeting notes.”
[22] Ms Mealamu referred during the determinative conference to potentially being
redeployed into a Support Worker or Support Coordinator role. Ms Mohelika also gave
evidence that Connectability Care is always looking for Support Workers. I do not consider this
[2024] FWC 3356
5
general and high-level evidence sufficient to conclude it would have been reasonable for Ms
Mealamu to be redeployed, given it is contradicted by the uncontested evidence from Mr Mulla.
[23] I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that it would have been reasonable for Ms
Mealamu to be redeployed within Connectability Care or an associated entity.
Conclusion
[24] I find that Ms Mealamu’s dismissal falls within the meaning of a “genuine redundancy”.
That finding means Ms Mealamu was not “unfairly dismissed” within the meaning of s.385 of
the FW Act.
[25] Ms Mealamu’s unfair dismissal application is dismissed.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
Ms Mealamu representing herself.
Ms Watson and Ms Hansen on behalf of Connectability Care.
Determinative conference details:
2024.
Sydney (by video via Microsoft Teams).
27 November.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
PR781960
1 Which means the application was filed within the time limit for applications prescribed in s.394(2) of the Fair Work Act
2009 (FW Act).
2 Jane Massey & Ors v Brighter Access & Ors [2024] FWCFB 353.
3 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 396.
4 Ibid s 389.
MISSION COM THE SEAL WORK
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2024fwcfb353.pdf
