If Automation Makes a Role Redundant in Australia, What Do You Actually Have to Do?

Detailed Explanation

A common assumption when automation removes the need for a role is that the resulting dismissal is straightforwardly a "genuine redundancy" — the job no longer exists, so there's nothing more to it. That assumption got noticeably harder to rely on after the High Court's decision in Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd v Bartley [2025] HCA 29, handed down 6 August 2025.

The case didn't involve AI or software automation directly — it concerned a coal mine restructure where the employer dismissed a large group of permanent employees (reporting puts the figure at up to 90 dismissals, with 47 of those contested as forced redundancies) while continuing to use two contracting firms, Nexus Mining and Mentser, for work at the site. But the legal question the High Court settled applies directly to any situation where a business automates work previously done by an employee: what exactly does an employer have to consider about "redeploying" someone before a redundancy counts as genuine?

What the High Court Actually Decided

Under section 389 of the Fair Work Act 2009, a dismissal is not a "genuine redundancy" if it would have been reasonable, in all the circumstances, to redeploy the employee elsewhere in the employer's enterprise (or an associated entity's). Employers have long treated "redeploy" as meaning: check whether a suitable vacant position exists, and if not, the obligation is satisfied.

The High Court rejected that narrow reading. It held that the Fair Work Commission is entitled to inquire into whether the employer could have changed how it uses its workforce — including reorganising or insourcing work that had been outsourced to contractors — to create a role the dismissed employee could fill, rather than the question stopping at whether a vacancy already existed at the moment of dismissal. The Court described "redeploy" as contemplating "some reorganisation or rearrangement" of the workforce, not merely a search of the current org chart.

There is a limit built into the decision: the Commission cannot require an employer to reorganise something that would change an essential or important facet of the enterprise itself. The inquiry is into workforce arrangements, not into rewriting the business's core operating model.

Why This Matters When Automation Is the Reason

Translate this from a coal mine to a typical small or mid-sized Australian business that automates a role — say, a data-entry or reconciliation position replaced by a workflow tool, or a first-line support role largely absorbed by an AI assistant. If that business also uses contractors, an agency, or an outsourced provider for adjacent work, Helensburgh Coal means the Fair Work Commission can ask: could the business have reorganised that contracted-out work and had the displaced employee do it instead, rather than dismissing them and continuing to pay a third party for similar work?

This doesn't mean automation projects can't lead to genuine redundancies — they do, constantly, and lawfully. It means the bar for demonstrating that the redundancy was genuine now includes a real, documented assessment of restructuring options, not a quick scan of the current vacancy list. An employer who automates a role, dismisses the person doing it, and keeps paying a contractor to do comparable work elsewhere in the business is in materially weaker territory after this decision than before it.

Consultation Is a Separate, Earlier Obligation

Redeployment is not the only part of the genuine-redundancy test. Section 389(1)(b) also requires compliance with any consultation obligation in an applicable modern award or enterprise agreement. A major technology change likely to have significant effects can trigger such a term; not every automation project does. Failure to meet an applicable term can mean the dismissal is not a genuine redundancy, regardless of the redeployment assessment.

Under common award terms, consultation begins as soon as practicable after a definite decision to introduce the major change, and before implementation or dismissal. Check the wording that applies to the affected employees and genuinely consider their responses.

Notification, Consultation and Termination Entitlements

For 15 or more proposed dismissals for reasons including technological change, section 530 requires written notification to Services Australia as soon as practicable and before dismissals take effect. Section 531 adds union notification and consultation where the employer knew, or reasonably should have known, that at least one affected employee belonged to a relevant registered union. The union requirement is not unconditional for every group of 15.

Separately, check the employee's notice of termination and redundancy pay entitlements under the National Employment Standards, award, agreement and contract. A dismissal can satisfy the genuine-redundancy test and still leave unpaid notice or redundancy entitlements. The Fair Work Ombudsman's redundancy guidance and calculator are useful starting points for the applicable amount and any exemption.

Things to Consider

• Document the redeployment assessment, not just the outcome. If a dispute arises, what protects the business is evidence that it genuinely turned its mind to reorganisation options — including contractor and outsourcing arrangements — not just a statement that no vacancy existed.
• Check whether contracted-out or outsourced work exists anywhere near the automated role. This is precisely the fact pattern Helensburgh Coal turned on, and it's the first thing worth reviewing before finalising a redundancy connected to automation.
• Allow time for consultation before implementation. Under common award terms it starts after a definite decision to make a major change, not necessarily before that decision is made. Check the applicable wording.
• Check both notification routes at 15 proposed dismissals. Services Australia must be notified; union notification and consultation depend on the membership-knowledge condition. Assess staged changes on their facts.

Common Mistakes

• Assuming "the role no longer exists" ends the analysis. Helensburgh Coal confirms the Commission can look past that to ask whether the workforce could reasonably have been reorganised to avoid the dismissal.
• Continuing to pay a contractor for work similar to what the automated-out employee used to do. This is the exact scenario the High Court's decision targets, and it's a straightforward fact for a dismissed employee's representative to point to.
• Treating consultation as an announcement after implementation. An applicable award may require discussions as soon as practicable after a definite change decision, with a real opportunity to discuss effects before implementation.
• Forgetting Services Australia, notice or redundancy pay. Redeployment and consultation do not replace these separate obligations.
• Not checking the applicable award's specific "major change" clause before automating. Consultation triggers and requirements vary by award; assuming a generic approach covers every industry is a common and avoidable gap.