A Western Australian engineer who demanded an extra $50,000 to accept a redeployment has had his redundancy pay slashed to zero by the Fair Work Commission. The engineer was offered a role 12 kilometres away, which would have added only 4 minutes to his commute. It also came with an additional 10% bonus. However, the engineer maintained that he was “comfortable where he was.” The Commission ruled that the redeployment offer was acceptable as the pay, hours and duties were identical to the redundant role.
In this article, we look at the events of this redundancy pay Fair Work case Civmec Construction And Engineering Pty Ltd [2026]. Later, we explore the case of a Melbourne worker whose redundancy pay was cut in half because he refused redeployment to a new job site that he claimed was a “sh*t hole.”
These two Fair Work cases serve as a critical reminder that employees must remain flexible when presented with a suitable transfer. If a redeployment offer is found to be objectively acceptable, a refusal can lead to the Fair Work Commission reducing or entirely scrapping a worker’s redundancy entitlement.
Fair Work axes redundancy pay over rejected transfer
Mr. Syed Muhamad Hasan Raza Rizvi started working for Civmec Construction And Engineering in July 2023. At the time of his termination of employment, he was an electrical projects engineer based at the company’s Henderson heavy engineering and fabrication site in Western Australia. He was working on two manufacturing-based projects, but in early November 2025, Mr. Rizvi was told those projects were ending. This meant his specific role at the site was no longer required.
However, Civmec Construction told Mr. Rizvi that an electrical projects engineer role was available at its operations at CSBP in Kwinana, which was a sodium cyanide plant. On 19 November 2025, Civmec Construction’s HR and industrial relations advisor emailed Mr. Rizvi to discuss the transfer. The Kwinana role involved the same responsibilities, salary and hours as his current role, but included an additional 10% project completion bonus. The new site was located approximately 12km away from the Henderson site, which added roughly four minutes to Mr. Rizvi’s commute.
Knocked back redundancy redeployment after demands weren’t met
Mr. Rizvi told a Civmec Construction project manager that he was “comfortable where he was” at the Henderson site. He said that he would only accept the move if he were paid an additional $50,000. In subsequent emails, he expressed concern that if he did not accept the role, he would be forced to resign. On 21 November 2025, Mr. Rizvi emailed Civmec Construction stating that he was rejecting the redeployment “or any FIFO role,” as these positions are “unsuitable.”
He told the company that “I am not resigning” and that he would be available to work until the close of the day. Mr. Rizvi also requested for the company to confirm in writing the redundancy process. However, the HR advisor replied saying that redundancy was now not applicable as Mr. Rizvi had rejected the redeployment option. It said that if he did not turn up to work on Monday Civmec Construction would conclude that he had resigned.
Mr. Rizvi did not turn up to work the following Monday. While Civmec Construction initially suggested his absence might be treated as a resignation, the company eventually confirmed his role was made redundant effective 27 November 2025.
Engineer sought redeployment info despite termination of employment
On 1 December 2025, after his termination of employment, Mr. Rizvi sent an email requesting clarification on his redeployment offer. He argued to the Fair Work Commission that this request was made in “good faith” so he could assess the redeployment option. Mr. Rizvi requested to know the exact address of the workshop, and whether the position was construction or manufacturing-based. He also sought details about “chemical exposure” at the site, including exposure to sodium cyanide.
Mr. Rizvi argued that he needed this “mandatory” information to work out if the redeployment option was suitable. Civmec Construction’s HR advisor provided the information, however, they told Mr. Rizvi that the employment relationship had already ceased by way of redundancy. Mr. Rizvi argued to the Commission that because his engineering duties in his previous role weren’t needed anymore, he should receive a genuine redundancy payment.
Employer said worker rejected perfectly suitable role
In its redundancy pay variation request to the Fair Work Commission, Civmec Construction argued that it had obtained “other acceptable employment” for Mr. Rizvi as per the requirements of the Fair Work Act 2009. It therefore argued that it should be allowed to reduce Mr. Rizvi’s redundancy pay from six weeks of pay down to zero. The employer maintained that the duties of an electrical projects engineer were essentially identical across different types of projects.
Regarding the chemical risks, Civmec Construction provided evidence that the role was office-based and located outside the designated exposure zone. This meant that there was no cyanide risk to staff. The company argued that Mr. Rizvi’s rejection of the redeployment was due to his personal preference rather than any objective flaw in the role.
Fair Work sided with employer on redeployment
Civmec Construction’s application to vary Mr. Rizvi’s redundancy pay was heard by the Fair Work Commission in February 2026. It noted that the test for “acceptable employment” is objective. Namely, it is not determined by reference to whether the redeployment option is subjectively acceptable to the worker.
The Commission found that the Kwinana role was objectively acceptable as the pay, hours, and duties were the same as Mr. Rizvi’s previous role. It also noted that the location change for the role was not substantial. Regarding the safety concerns, the Commission accepted that the office environment at the Kwinana site did not represent a change in risk profile for Mr. Rizvi.
Redundancy pay reduced to zero for rejecting suitable alternative role
The Fair Work Commission rejected the argument that Mr. Rizvi lacked information to make a choice. It noted that he was provided the core details on 19 November 2025, and that Mr. Rizvi decided to “explicitly reject” the role. It was also accepted that he did not seek any further information at this time.
The Commission observed that Mr. Rizvi’s detailed questions only arrived “well after he had rejected” the position. The Commission did however criticise Civmec Construction’s handling of the resignation issue, calling it “clumsy and at times misguided.” However, given the company had offered an acceptable redeployment option to Mr. Rizvi, the Commission exercised its discretion to reduce his redundancy pay from six weeks to nil.
Redundancy pay cut after worker refuses redeployment to ‘sh*t hole’
Another recent Fair Work case where a worker refused a redeployment to their own detriment is Mcnaughtans Pty. Ltd. Trading AS Mcnaughtans v Terrance Pavitt [2025]. Terrance Pavitt started working for industrial wholesale and distribution company McNaughtans in January 2007. For 18 years, he worked at the company’s facility in the Melbourne suburb of Brunswick. Following a business acquisition, in early 2025 McNaughtans decided to close its Brunswick operations and relocate to a larger site in Laverton. The site was around 30km away from Brunswick in Melbourne’s western suburbs.
The move to Laverton made Mr. Pavitt’s role at the Brunswick site redundant. But on 21 January 2025, McNaughtans offered Mr. Pavitt a redeployment to the Laverton site. To compensate for the relocation, the employer offered a 10% salary increase. It also offered a $1,000 monthly car allowance and a $400 monthly petrol allowance. Mr. Pavitt, who was 56 at the time, rejected the offer immediately.
Claimed he would have to endure ‘highly dangerous’ commute to ‘toxic’ work site
In his response to the company, Mr. Pavitt stated that he was not interested in moving and that “Laverton is not suitable or reasonable to my future.” He also slammed the proposed location, claiming “the area is virtually a sh*t hole” and that the “smell & fumes around the Laverton worksite & clearly a health concern.”
He described the industrial area as “toxic” and argued that getting there would mean traveling on a road that he claimed had “highly dangerous accidents and death rates.” Following this rejection, McNaughtans eventually shifted its relocation plans from Laverton to Keysborough but did not offer Mr. Pavitt a role at the second location.
Worker argued ‘fake’ redeployment was designed to deny redundancy pay
Because Mr. Pavitt’s role in Brunswick had ceased, he was entitled to 12 weeks of redundancy pay under the National Employment Standards. This amounted to around $20,064. McNaughtans lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission seeking to reduce this amount to nil. The employer argued that it had obtained “other acceptable employment” for Mr. Pavitt which he had unreasonably refused.
Mr. Pavitt contested the application, arguing that the Laverton offer was “fake” and designed to deny him his redundancy payout. He told the Commission that due to his “age, high blood pressure and poor health,” the extra 250km of driving per week or a four-hour daily commute via public transport was not acceptable. He also claimed he was never advised that rejecting the move would put his redundancy pay at risk. Mr. Pavitt said that he had relied on McNaughtans’ managing director’s verbal assurance that he would be “looked after.”
McNaughtans, meanwhile, maintained that its redeployment offer was genuine and aimed at retaining Mr. Pavitt’s 18 years of experience. It argued that the significant pay rise and car allowances more than covered the inconvenience of the relocation.
Fair Work Commission: Payout halved for ‘unreasonable’ rejection
McNaughtans’ redundancy variation claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in May 2025. It rejected Mr. Pavitt’s disparaging remarks about Laverton. The Commission said that there was no basis for his objection to the new role based on the suburb’s location, industrial nature or because it was in Melbourne’s western suburbs. The Commission found that an additional 30km of travel per day was not “onerous or unreasonable.” This was particularly the case given the $1,400 in monthly allowances and the 10% pay rise. The Commission ruled that the Laverton role was “objectively acceptable.”
However, the Commission declined to reduce the payout to nil. The decision noted that Mr. Pavitt had lost a job he held for 18 years and was given an impression by management that a solution would be found. Crucially, the Commission found that when the company decided to move to Keysborough instead of Laverton, it failed to offer Mr. Pavitt that option. It said that Mr. Pavitt “deserved” to be offered the chance to consider alternative options, including a new role at Keysborough. Given this, the Commission decided to reduce Mr. Pavitt’s redundancy pay by 50%. It ordered McNaughtansto pay Mr. Pavitt six weeks’ salary ($10,032) instead of the full 12 weeks.
Read more: High Court Sets New Standard For Genuine Redundancy
Stand up for your workplace rights
As these cases demonstrate, it’s important to be flexible when you are offered a reasonable redeployment option. Otherwise, you may be at risk of losing your redundancy pay. At the same time, however, some employers may use redeployment offers to avoid paying out long-term entitlements. It’s important to keep in mind that a redeployment offer must meet an objective standard of “acceptability.”
Whether you are facing a redundancy or believe you have a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, it is essential to understand your obligations and your rights. We at A Whole New Approach (AWNA) assist employees across Australia with unfair dismissal, general protections disputes, redundancy, forced resignation matters and sexual harassment complaints.
We can help you assess whether a redeployment offer is truly “acceptable” and help you hold your employer to account. Reach out to us now on 1300 766 700 for a free and confidential initial consultation about your workplace rights
