One armoured-van guard picked from 70, and no one could say why

Sergey Kukalev was an armoured vehicle officer at Prosegur's Clayton depot in Victoria, in the cash-in-transit business. He had worked there since 2013, after an earlier eight-year stint with the company that ended when he resigned in 2011.

In 2017 Prosegur lost a major contract with ANZ. Even after new Westpac work, its work volume was down about 15%. On 19 January 2018 Mr Kukalev finished his run, unloaded his truck and signed out. Two managers met him in the depot kitchen, told him he was redundant with immediate effect, gave him a letter and escorted him from the premises. He said no reason was given, and no one had consulted him.

Prosegur said this was a genuine redundancy. But the manager who made the decision had left the business, and its witness could find no records of any consultation or of why Mr Kukalev was chosen. Victoria had 70 to 80 armoured vehicle officers, and his was the only officer position cut. The witness could not explain why.

The Commission accepted the business had shrunk and that his permanent role was no longer needed. But the enterprise agreement required consultation about redundancies, and none had happened, so it was not a genuine redundancy. Mr Kukalev was not even the most junior full-time officer at Clayton. The Deputy President said it was "hard to envisage a redundancy program more poorly executed", and found the dismissal unjust and unreasonable.

Mr Kukalev wanted his job back, and he got it. The Commission ordered him reinstated with his continuity of employment kept. It made no order for lost pay, because his redundancy payout and his new casual earnings covered what he had lost. He had also suggested his earlier workers compensation claim was the real reason he was picked; the Commission found no evidence of that.