Redundancy feud: did NAB offer 'comparable' role?

Cases

Redundancy feud: did NAB offer 'comparable' role?

An NAB team leader has failed to convince a tribunal that a redeployment offer represented an erosion of his current responsibilities and duties.

WantToReadMore

Get unlimited access to all of our content.

An NAB team leader has failed to convince a tribunal that a redeployment offer represented an erosion of his current responsibilities and duties.

The Fair Work Commission found he had been offered a 'comparable position'.

Restructure


In May 2018 NAB notified Michael Papathanasiou that his role as Team Leader Billing and Packages would be impacted by a large scale restructure. It was proposed that his team merge with two other teams within the business, resulting in three team leader roles becoming one.

Mr Papathanasiou claimed the new role of 'Team Leader NAB Connect Servicing Team A' didn't satisfy the 'comparable position' definition outlined in the NAB Enterprise Agreement 2016.

He said 25% of his previous role had involved undertaking tasks using an Active Operations Management (AOM) tool. The new team didn't utilise AOM and he would instead be required to complete call monitoring on staff members. 

He argued the role represented a reduction in duties and would lead to de-skilling.

Differences are 'negligible'


The NAB argued that the differences between the old role and the new role were 'negligible'. 

The bank said both roles were team leader positions that required coaching and mentoring a team, and liaising with key stakeholders. The previous team headed an email-based team whereas the new position headed a telephone-based servicing team.

The new role had the same classification grade, the same number of hours and was at the same location as the old role.

Decision


Deputy president Bull found that: "while Mr Papathanasiou can point to differences between the two roles, and accepting that a new role arising from a restructure is unlikely to be identical to a redundant role, the identified changes fail to satisfy me that they are significant enough to be unreasonable having regard to Mr Papathanasiou's skills, ability, previous work experience and training."

Deputy president Bull said the move from an email-based contact team to telephone based servicing had less impact on the team leader role than that of frontline advisers. 

"In any event, the nature of the service being provided is essentially the same as the role of the team leader..." he said.

The deputy president found the new role was a 'comparable position' to that of his previous role.

Michael Papathanasiou v National Australia Bank Limited T/A NAB (C2018/4256) [2019] FWC1239




  














 
Post details