Redundancy: pregnancy a special case?

Q&A

Redundancy: pregnancy a special case?

Pregnant workers are entitled to special treatment in the workplace; so, does this extend to special consideration when redundancies take place?

WantToReadMore

Get unlimited access to all of our content.

Pregnant workers are entitled to special treatment in the workplace; so, does this extend to special consideration when redundancies take place?

This question was recently sent to our Ask an Expert service.

Q  Due to a company reorganisation, we have determined that 10 positions will become redundant at the end of next month.
 
The company has decided to adopt a selection criteria based on the ‘last on–first off’ principle.
 
It has been brought to management’s attention that one of the employee’s whose position will become redundant is pregnant.
 
The employee who is pregnant is the most recent recruit in that area and, unfortunately, will be the first selected for redundancy under the criteria.
 
The company is concerned that terminating an employee who is pregnant may be unlawful.
 
The other issue is that her duties will be shared among the remaining employees.
 
Does the employee’s pregnancy mean she cannot be selected for redundancy?
 
A  The important issue in this circumstance is the objective nature of the selection criteria applied by the company when determining which positions becomes redundant.
 
It is unlawful to terminate an employee where the grounds for the dismissal are discriminatory (eg because the employee is pregnant).
 
The use of the ‘last on–first off’ principle as the basis for the selection criteria would appear to be objective. Provided the employer fairly applies the ‘last on–first of’ principle (ie the positions of other employees (including this employee) who fall within this category are also made redundant), the grounds for dismissal would appear to be a ‘genuine redundancy’ and not based on the employee’s pregnancy.
 
It is presumed redeployment of the affected employees is not an option available to management.
 
The fact that her duties will be performed by others does not, of itself, mean her position is not redundant. It is the position or job that is no longer required, not necessarily the duties within that position or job.
 
This means that a volume of work may be redistributed across a workforce that allows for a number of other positions to be made redundant. See: Anderson v XL Express Pty Ltd [2012] FWA 9011.
 
Onus of proof
 
It should be noted that the onus of proof in an adverse action application lies with the employer.
 
This means the company would need to satisfy the court that the selection criteria was based on objective factors and not discriminatory.
 

 
Need more help with people management?

Australian Business Consulting and Solutions has a dedicated team of HR experts who can assist you with your specific people management issues and problems. If you would like a free and obligation-free initial assessment of what you require in terms of professional assistance, you can obtain more information from from our website.
 
Post details