💬 One for you, my HR peeps…

I’m sure most of you have been part of redundancy processes — the tough conversations, the leader coaching, the late-night “how do we do this right?” chats.

So here’s one that really got me thinking 👇

I recently caught up with an ex-colleague who’s been on maternity leave for the past year.

A few months before her return-to-work date, she was told she was being made redundant.

Now, knowing the company and how “tactical” corporate timing can be, I asked her the usual HR questions we’d all want to know:

Has the meeting already happened?
Have you signed anything yet?
Is it only your role being made redundant?
Was there any consultation process?
And the big one — who’s doing your role now?

Because if someone else is still doing the work…we all know it’s not a genuine redundancy right!

Here’s where it gets interesting — she couldn’t actually file for unfair dismissal because her salary was above the high-income threshold, which sits at $183,100 per year (as of 1 July 2025).

But — and this is where a lot of companies forget the nuance — she can still lodge a General Protections claim.

And given she was the only one made redundant, with someone else performing her duties AND she was on maternity leave, there’s a pretty strong argument for discrimination.

Which brings me to my question for you all 👇

Do you think the high-income threshold should apply in cases involving parental leave-related dismissals?

Or should there be leniency — broader protection for parents returning from leave, regardless of what they earn?

Keen to hear your take on this one.

2 comments

💬 One for you, my HR peeps…