The increasing normalisation of flexible work is reshaping the employment landscape and employee expectations. Remote working arrangements are a particularly relevant consideration in cases where an offer of redeployment alters or removes an employee’s existing remote working arrangement, raising questions about whether changes to location and flexibility can affect the suitability of the alternate role. 

Against this backdrop, two recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) decisions have found that an employer must take an employee’s personal circumstances into account, as well as the inherent requirements of the role, when considering if remote working arrangements (or the absence of) means an alternative role is acceptable. In this article, we set out the basics around ‘other acceptable employment’ in redundancy scenarios, explore the two recent FWC cases and then outline key takeaways on when remote work might be a relevant consideration.  

Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act), employers can apply to the FWC to reduce redundancy pay where the employer has obtained other acceptable employment for the employee. 

The FWC has discretion to reduce the amount of redundancy pay to an amount it considers appropriate, which may be nil. In deciding whether to exercise such discretion, the FWC is required to make an objective assessment as to whether the alternative employment is acceptable, regardless of the subjective views of the employer or the employee. 

In making its assessment, the FWC will consider a range of factors, which generally includes: 

• rate of pay; 

• hours of work; 

• work location; 

• seniority; 

• benefits; 

• job security; 

• continuity of service; 

• accrual of benefits; and 

• the employee’s personal or family circumstances, including carer responsibilities. 

In TAE Aerospace Pty Ltd v David Vanner [2025] FWC 953, the employee’s substantive role was made redundant while he was on secondment in another role. The employee was offered redeployment with a related entity to a position based in Melbourne, which would require the employee to work remotely on a full-time basis, as he lived in Brisbane. 

While the employer argued the location had not changed because the employee had been working remotely full-time during his secondment, the employee had clearly told the employer that he could not continue with the full-time remote work on a permanent  basis, as he had struggled with the remote work due to his family responsibilities and had intended to return to his substantive role. 

The FWC found that the proposed redeployment requiring permanent full-time remote work involved a change in location, as it was the employee’s substantive role that was made redundant, not the seconded role, and the substantive role included access to a physical workplace, as stated in the employee’s position description. 

The FWC found that while the role was within the employee’s skill set, the change in location, reduction in remuneration by way of ceased eligibility for a bonus and incentive scheme, and reduction in seniority, meant the offer of redeployment was reasonably unacceptable to the employee and dismissed the employer’s application to reduce redundancy pay. 

In Mater Misericordiae Ltd t/a Mater v Robyn Tyler [2025] FWC 1396, an employee was offered a new role at the same workplace following redundancy, with the new position retaining the same pay rate, level of seniority and hours of work. The employee rejected the offer of alternative employment on the basis she would be required to perform all hours of work from the employer’s workplace and it was her preference to work remotely at least one day per week to manage study commitments. 

The employee had an informal arrangement to work from home two days per week in her existing role. The FWC agreed with the employer’s argument that as the employee did not have a contractual entitlement to work remotely or an approved flexible working arrangement under the FW Act, there was no entitlement to continue working remotely in absence of the employer’s approval. 

The FWC found the absence of a formal entitlement to remote work meant it was at the employer’s discretion whether to allow remote working arrangements and concluded the role was acceptable alternative employment, reducing the redundancy pay entitlement to zero. 

Flexible and remote working arrangements as part of an offer of redeployment must be assessed having regard to all the relevant circumstances, including the nature of the role, any legal entitlement an employee has (or does not have) to work remotely and the employee’s personal circumstances. 

Key takeaways for employers from these cases include: 

• Flexibility is not a substitute for acceptable employment – A remote working arrangement does not automatically make a role acceptable and will not avoid redundancy pay obligations if the role is otherwise unsuitable. The FWC will consider all relevant circumstances, including the role’s location, the employee’s circumstances and the nature of the original position. 

• Legal entitlement – Remote working arrangements that are contractually agreed or granted under the FW Act carry greater weight and may make a redeployment offer that removes this entitlement unacceptable. 

• Lifestyle preferences are not enough – While the FWC will consider an employee’s personal circumstances and give weight to factors such as family responsibilities, a mere preference to work remotely to support personal convenience, such as scheduling and study commitments, may not be enough to make an alternative role that does not include remote work unacceptable. 

• Effective consultation – Where an employee raises concerns about the prevalence of remote work in an alternative role, the employer should consider and seek to address those concerns.