A role can be made redundant on paper and still fail the legal test that defines a genuine redundancy – because the work itself never actually stopped.

Under section 389 of the Fair Work Act, the first test of a genuine redundancy asks whether the employer no longer requires the employee’s job to be performed by anyone, because of changes in operational requirements.

That’s a question about the job, not the job title. If the same duties continue and are simply reassigned under a different name, the redundancy may not be genuine at all – regardless of the reason given at the time.

Where a redundancy challenge begins

Consider a retail business that closes its stockroom and moves to direct supplier deliveries. At first glance, the stockroom assistant role looks genuinely redundant.

But if the employee’s day-to-day duties are redistributed among two sales assistants, and the business later recruits a “stock flow coordinator” performing substantially the same work, the question shifts. Did the role genuinely cease to exist, or was it simply renamed and reallocated?

This is precisely where the Fair Work Commission focuses its attention when a redundancy is challenged. A title change means nothing if the substance of the work hasn’t changed with it.

When a restructure quietly becomes a risk

Few employers set out to disguise a decision this way. More often, a genuine restructure drifts. Duties get redistributed for real operational reasons, workloads shift as the business adjusts, and months later a new role is created to formalise what’s already happening. No one goes back to test whether the original position has actually disappeared, or simply moved.

The self-check worth applying

Any time reporting lines change, duties are redistributed, or hours are reduced, it’s worth asking a simple question: did a position genuinely disappear, or did the work just move to someone else? That distinction is often where legal risk begins – long before any dispute is raised.

What protects the business?

Documentation is the safeguard. A clear organisational chart before and after the change, a documented rationale for why the role ceased to be required, and – if a new role is created within a reasonable timeframe – a clear explanation of how its duties genuinely differ from the one it replaced. Without this evidence, a business is left relying on a label to defend a decision the Fair Work Commission will assess on substance.

Here’s what to do next

A defensible redundancy isn’t just about removing a position from an org chart. It’s about being able to demonstrate, with evidence, that the work behind that position is genuinely gone. Where it isn’t, no amount of renaming will hold up to scrutiny.

Want the full legal and practical picture on redundancy, including the common traps that turn a genuine restructure into an unfair dismissal claim? Watch the on-demand webinar, We need to talk about redundancy, featuring Citation HR’s workplace relations team. Watch it here.