Redeployment under s.389(2) may be possible where the training requirement is reasonable. The employee should have the skills and competence required either immediately or with a reasonable period of retraining.

It is implicit in s.389(2)(b) that it might be reasonable for an employee dismissed by one employer to be redeployed within the establishment of another employer which is an entity associated with the first employer. An employer cannot succeed in a submission that redeployment would not have been reasonable merely because it would have involved redeployment to an associated entity; whether such redeployment would be reasonable depends on the circumstances, with the degree of managerial integration between different entities being likely relevant.

The question of whether redeployment would have been reasonable is to be applied at the time of dismissal. If an employee obtains employment within an associated entity some time after termination, that fact may be relevant in deciding whether redeployment would have been reasonable, but it is not determinative.

Matters capable of being relevant in determining whether redeployment would have been reasonable include: the nature of any available position, the qualifications required, the employee's skills and experience, the location of the job in relation to the employee's residence, and the remuneration offered.

Redeployment under s.389(2) requires an actual transfer of the employee to another job, not merely advertising vacancies and requiring the employee to compete with external applicants. Subsequent employment obtained by competing in an open selection process is employment, not redeployment.

Where an employer decides to advertise a vacancy and require the employee to compete with other applicants rather than redeploying into a suitable job in its own enterprise, it might subsequently be found that the resulting dismissal is not a case of genuine redundancy because it would have been reasonable to redeploy the employee.

Where an employer is part of a group of associated entities all subject to overall managerial control by one member of the group, subjecting a redundant employee to a competitive process for an advertised vacancy in an associated entity may lead to the conclusion that the employee was not genuinely redundant.

What is reasonable redeployment for the purposes of s.389(2) depends on the circumstances at the time of the termination.

Matters relevant to determining redeployment reasonableness include the nature of any available position, the qualifications required, the employee's skills and experience, the location of the job in relation to the employee's residence, and the remuneration offered.

The question of whether redeployment would have been reasonable is applied at time of dismissal; relevant considerations include nature of available position, qualifications required, employee's skills and experience, location in relation to residence, and remuneration offered.

Whether redeployment is reasonable depends on all the circumstances at the time of dismissal, including the location of the job and the remuneration offered. The Commission does not bear an onus to prove absence of reasonable redeployment options; this is established on the evidence before the Commission.

Matters that may be relevant in determining whether redeployment would have been reasonable include the nature of any available position, the qualifications required, the employee's skills and experience, the location of the job in relation to the employee's residence, and the remuneration offered.