11 Nov Case Brief – Hayley Lord v Millet Hospitality Geelong Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2740  

In the recent decision of Hayley Lord v Millet Hospitality Geelong Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2740, the Fair Work Commission found that a small business owner’s (“the Respondent”) use of ChatGPT to write a redundancy email failed “to adhere to basic standards of decency” and did not constitute a genuine redundancy.   

Genuine redundancy as per s389 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is satisfied if:   

1. The employee’s role is no longer needed due to changes in operational requirements of the employer’s enterprise;  

2. The consultation processes for redundancy as per applicable Modern Awards or Enterprise Agreements has been followed; and  

3. There are no reasonable redeployment opportunities in another role at the employer’s enterprise.  

Commissioner Redford agreed with the Respondent that the Applicant’s role was no longer needed due to the business’ financial difficulties, however, noted that the applicable consultation process as per clause 38 of the Hospitality Industry (General) Award 2020 was not adhered to.   

The Respondent sent an email generated by ChatGPT to the Applicant advising the Applicant that their Housekeeping Supervisor role would be made redundant.  The Respondent argued that the email was not definite and instead “as a non-English speaker, he sought to express himself with the aid of ‘ChatGPT’, which may not have captured his true meaning”. Commissioner Redford did not accept this and instead remained firm that the Respondent’s language “indicated finality to the decision” communicated via email.  Instead, the Respondent should have communicated that he was considering making the Applicant’s role redundant and listened to her feedback on the potential decision.   

Due to the absence of consultation between the Applicant and Respondent, the redundancy was not considered a “genuine redundancy” by Commissioner Redford.  Consequentially, Commissioner Redford did not determine whether redeployment was reasonable.  However, he did comment on the lack of detail for the redeployment roles listed by the Respondent and the breakdown of communication initiated by the Applicant with regard to this.  If the consultation between the Applicant and Respondent about the redundancy had occurred, this may have affected if reasonable redeployment was possible.   

Commissioner Redford also highlighted that the Respondent’s use of ChatGPT to send an email one evening after work to the Applicant lacked common decency.  Due to the seriousness of the matter, the Respondent should have told the Applicant face-to-face.  Furthermore, Commissioner Redford noted that the Applicant had worked for the Respondent for five (5) years, adding to the emphasis on the lack of common decency exhibited by the Respondent.  The lack of common decency was a key determining factor in the Applicant’s unfair dismissal as it was “harsh, unjust or unreasonable”.  Other factors such as the failure to consult and lack of notification before the decision was made were also determinative of the unfair dismissal ruling.   

This case serves as a critical reminder for businesses and companies, of all sizes, that:   

• Employers must understand and properly discharge their legal obligations with regard to an employee’s potential redundancy;   

• Surrounding circumstances such as how long an employee has worked for the employer’s enterprise and how employers inform an employee about their potential redundancy are considered; and   

• The use of ChatGPT as a tool, however, is not an alternative to seeking professional legal advice.   
   

To access the full case, click here.    

HR Law has extensive experience in partnering with clients during the redundancy process.  If you have any questions or need advice on redundancy from one of our experienced lawyers, please contact our office at info@hrlaw.com.au.