LEAVE ARRANGEMENTS

John Ellery will be acting as our Branch Secretary for the next five plus weeks until 9 October. Please do not use my personal number if you have it (0488xxx) , as I will be overseas. My Union number 0428 942 878 will be diverted to John's number. John's email is jellery@cwu.asn.au

PAUSE IN REGULAR BULLETINS

There will be no regular Bulletin in the next 5 weeks unless an urgent matter arises. We will issue a special bulletin if needed. (We are working on a new distribution system).

DOES TELSTRA BACK FILL RESIGNATIONS?

There appears to be a growing number of resignations in Telstra. While this is interesting, we hear complaints that the higher level work is simply devolved to a lower paid worker. Let us know of your experiences.

BULLETIN 13 FAILURES

We received returns that indicate that Bulletin 13 was not delivered to members with email addresses: Hotmail.com , Live.com, outlook.com. The Bulletins can be accessed on our web page.

TELSTRA TRIPLE ZERO SYDNEY

We wrote to Telstra as follows. We will advise of replies.

Notice Boards - Now that the work area has moved, we seek that a notice board be made available for union notices in the locker hallway asap.
Work Instructions - Can I please have a copy of instructions and/or policy relating to the "Misuse of the Release Ion"?

TZV NON GENUINE REDUNDANCY NOT UNFAIR

We have not been successful in our claim that a redundancy amounted to an unfair dismissal. There were two hearings. The first was an attempt by TZV to block the unfair dismissal by claiming that it was a "genuine redundancy" and therefore the FWC lacked the power to consider the unfair dismissal. TZV failed. See our report in Bulletin 7.
Therefore the matter moved to an Unfair Dismissal hearing. While the redundancy had been found to be non genuine, the dismissal on balance was not unfair. Several reasons were given by the FWC Deputy President. One significant reason was the amount of the redundancy payment. More below.

EXTRACTS FROM THE REDUNDANCY DECISION

The full Decision is at the FWC Web Site

[2] The above referred jurisdictional objection along with other preliminary matters were dealt with in a hearing on 2 March 2026 following which a decision1 was issued on 10 March 2025 (the First Decision). In the First Decision I relevantly found that the Applicant's dismissal was not a genuine redundancy because;
(i) while the Respondent no longer required the Applicant's job to be performed by anyone because of changes in the operational requirements of its enterprise;
(ii) the Applicant was covered in his employment by an enterprise agreement and the consultation obligations under the Agreement were not complied with; and
(iii) it would not have been reasonable in all the circumstances for the Applicant to have been redeployed within the Respondent's enterprise.
[21] It was not contested that the removal of the Applicant's position arose from an operational decision of the Respondent. As I have earlier found however, the Respondent failed to consult the Applicant regarding his redundancy as it was required to under clause 46 of the Agreement. The shortcomings in the Respondent's consultation process were summarised as follows in my findings;
belatedly advising the Applicant in writing of the commencement of his 3-month redeployment period but failed to provide the Applicant with details of the redeployment process, his rights and obligations;
failing to assign a case manager;
failing to undertake an assessment of the Applicant's skills, conduct a review of his CV, agree on job search criteria, determine locations and at what job level or banding the Applicant was willing to work at;
failing to provide the Applicant with an update on vacancies; and
failing to provide feedback to the Applicant on why he was unsuccessful in the roles he applied for.
[28] Neither party has identified any role/s that the Applicant could have been reasonably considered for in the three-month period preceding his dismissal and it is not to the point that there may now be a role or roles the Applicant believes he is suited to. The enquiry as to the fairness or otherwise of the dismissal is directed to the time of the dismissal, not 3-6 months
later. It follows from the foregoing that despite my finding that the dismissal was not a genuine redundancy, I am satisfied that the reason for the dismissal of the Applicant, that of the redundancy of his position, was 'sound, defensible and well founded' and that he would have still been dismissed had the Respondent fully complied with its consultation obligations. This weighs strongly in favour of a finding that the dismissal was not unfair.