“Reasonable Offers” in the Fair Work Jurisdictio
In the Fair Work system, employers are often required to make “reasonable offers” before finalising decisions such as redundancy or dismissal-related changes. A key area where this arises is in assessing whether acceptable alternative employment is available, particularly during restructures or operational changes.
While the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) does not provide a strict checklist, case law and Commission decisions consistently point to three core criteria used to determine whether an offer is “reasonable”.
1. Suitability of the Role (Skills, Duties and Status)
The first and most important consideration is whether the alternative role is genuinely suitable for the employee.
Key factors include:
- Whether the employee has the skills and experience required
- Whether the duties are comparable in complexity and responsibility
- Whether the role represents a demotion in status or seniority
- Whether retraining is minimal or extensive
A role may still be “reasonable” even if it is not identical, but it must not be so different that it effectively represents a completely new career path or a significant downgrade without justification.
2. Terms and Conditions (Pay, Hours and Benefits)
The second criterion focuses on whether the financial and contractual conditions are broadly comparable to the original role.
Considerations include:
- Base salary or hourly rate
- Reduction in hours or earnings
- Changes to overtime, allowances, or bonuses
- Shift patterns or roster stability
- Job security (ongoing vs casual or fixed-term)
An offer is less likely to be considered reasonable if it results in a substantial reduction in income or significantly less favourable employment conditions without compensating factors.
3. Practical Acceptability (Location, Travel and Workability)
The third criterion is whether the role is practically reasonable for the employee to accept.
This includes:
- Workplace location and commute distance
- Required relocation or increased travel time
- Work-life balance impacts (e.g. night shifts, split shifts)
- Family or caring responsibilities
- Availability of transport or accessibility constraints
Even if a role is suitable on paper, it may still be unreasonable if it imposes excessive personal or logistical burdens.
Putting the Three Criteria Together
A “reasonable offer” is not assessed on a single factor alone. Instead, decision-makers look at the overall balance between:
- Role suitability
- Employment conditions
- Practical impact on the employee
An offer is more likely to be accepted as reasonable where all three elements are broadly aligned with the original position, even if some changes exist.
Why This Matters for Employers and Employees
For employers, making a reasonable offer can:
- Reduce redundancy liability
- Demonstrate compliance with consultation obligations
- Strengthen defence against unfair dismissal claims
For employees, understanding these criteria helps in assessing whether:
- A redeployment offer should be accepted
- A redundancy payment may still apply
- The offer is genuinely equivalent or materially worse
Final Thoughts
The concept of “reasonable offers” under Fair Work is ultimately about fairness in substance, not form. A role that looks similar on paper may still be unreasonable in practice—and vice versa.
Applying a structured assessment using these three criteria helps ensure decisions are consistent, defensible, and compliant with Fair Work expectations.