What the Commission decided
Deputy President Wright found the dismissal was not a genuine redundancy. The Commission accepted that no one had been hired into Hooper's old role, so it agreed the job itself was no longer being done by anyone. But it was not satisfied the decision came from any real change in how the business operated.
What weighed against the company was the timing. When Hooper emailed to say the process looked wrong, the director replied within hours by raising issues about her attendance and conduct. The Commission called that "somewhat suspicious" and said there was no evidence of the decision-making that supposedly led to the redundancy, just "vague references" to the business's best interests. The finding: the company had "simply relied on these matters to retrospectively justify" the decision.
The Commission also found the company failed to consult Hooper as the award required, and that it would have been reasonable to move her into casual work she was already doing as a permanent employee.
On top of that, the Commission found she was summarily dismissed after raising concerns, and left without her notice entitlement. It described the company's conduct as "extremely serious" and said it "potentially exposes it to penalty orders".
The Commission ruled the dismissal unfair and ordered compensation. Reinstatement was not sought and was found inappropriate.
What was actually in dispute
The company argued the job had genuinely gone. Its director pointed to a move to a larger warehouse, a fall in revenue, and duties being absorbed by full-time staff. The Commission accepted the role was not filled again, but not that operational change was the true reason.
Hooper argued casual workers were still doing warehouse and forklift tasks after she left, and that as a permanent employee she should have been given that work. The company said its casuals already wanted more hours than it could offer. The Commission found the company produced no evidence of any steps taken to find her other work, and that its account seemed to describe its current position rather than the situation when she was dismissed.
The other flashpoint was the final meeting on 29 July 2025. The company said Hooper was loud and critical of staff and management, which it said justified ending things immediately. The director gave no evidence of what she actually said, so the Commission found no basis to conclude she behaved inappropriately. At the hearing, the director confirmed she was let go for redundancy, not misconduct.
Because the misconduct claim went nowhere, the Commission did not reduce the payout for anything Hooper did.
On the money, the Commission worked out what she would likely have earned had she stayed on as a casual for a further six months, then took off what she earned elsewhere and made a further deduction for the uncertainty of casual work. It settled on an amount of "$8,664.24 gross plus superannuation less taxation". Payment was ordered by 1 May 2026.
What this means
The decision turns on when an employer can rely on redundancy to end someone's job. For the general position on this, see our guide to genuine redundancy. The Commission's discussion of moving a worker into other available work is covered at our redundancy hub, and its findings on the final meeting and immediate sacking touch on summary dismissal. For how compensation is assessed generally, see unfair dismissal compensation.