Fair Work Commission Case Review: Mansoor v SAP Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2630

Decision Date: 8 December 2025

Member: Deputy President Cross

Jurisdiction: Fair Work Commission – Unfair Dismissal (s 394)

Overview

This case examines the dismissal of Mr Eamon Mansoor, a Senior Solution Sales Executive with SAP Australia Pty Ltd, and whether that dismissal was a genuine redundancy within the meaning of s 389 of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The Commission ultimately dismissed the application after finding the redundancy to be genuine.

Case review: Mansoor v SAP Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 2630

Background

Mr Mansoor commenced with SAP on 6 May 2024, earning $176,954 per annum. He passed probation in November 2024 and was a high performer, achieving more than 300% of his sales targets and receiving approximately $320,000 in commissions for Q3 and Q4 of 2024.

He had been selected for SAP’s Winners Circle—an honour reserved for the top one per cent of global performers.

At the end of 2024, SAP merged its LeanIX and Signavio sales teams, creating a combined structure of nine Solution Sales Executives but requiring a reduction of one position. Shortly after returning from annual leave in January 2025, Mr Mansoor experienced delays in receiving his 2025 territory and quota plan, which he argued contributed to his confusion and dissatisfaction.

On 11 March 2025, during a scheduled meeting attended by HR, he was informed that his position had been made redundant, with employment ending on 29 April 2025. He lodged his unfair dismissal claim on 20 May 2025.

The Applicant’s Position

Mr Mansoor argued that SAP had recently hired a new employee, Mr Curr, shortly before declaring the redundancy, leading him to believe that SAP had miscalculated headcount needs. He submitted that, since he had performed strongly and passed probation, the decision to select him for redundancy was unreasonable.

He also raised concerns about delays in receiving his new territory and an alleged lack of engagement from his manager .

The Respondent’s Position

SAP submitted that the dismissal was a genuine redundancy because:

• the merger of the two teams resulted in one surplus role

• no award or enterprise agreement applied• no suitable redeployment options existed

• a competency-based assessment process identified Mr Mansoor as the lowest-scoring employee in the merged team, based on required skills and alignment .

SAP relied on an internal Position Elimination Justification Questionnaire and a nine-person Job Skills Assessment completed by management as part of its redundancy process.

Key Findings

Deputy President Cross made several preliminary findings:

• Mr Mansoor was dismissed at the employer’s initiative.

• His claim was lodged within statutory time limits.

• He had completed the minimum employment period.

• No award or enterprise agreement applied.

• The Small Business Fair Dismissal Code was irrelevant.

The only question was whether the redundancy met the definition in s 389.

Genuine Redundancy – s 389 Analysis

1. Job No Longer Required (s 389(1)(a)) The evidence confirmed that the merger of LeanIX and Signavio created the need to eliminate one of nine roles. The Commission accepted that SAP no longer required all nine positions due to structural changes. Competency assessments were used to determine which role would be made redundant, and the Applicant was ranked lowest.

2. Consultation Obligations (s 389(1)(b)) No award or enterprise agreement applied to Mr Mansoor, so there were no consultation obligations to satisfy.

3. Redeployment (s 389(2)) Given the small size of the relevant business unit and the absence of suitable vacancies across SAP’s enterprise or associated entities, redeployment was not considered reasonable.

Outcome

The Commission dismissed the unfair dismissal application, concluding that Mr Mansoor’s dismissal was a genuine redundancy under s 389 of the Fair Work Act.

Why This Case Matters

This decision highlights several important themes in contemporary workforce management:

• even high-performing employees can be lawfully selected for redundancy

• competency-based assessments remain central to redundancy selection criteria

• recent hires do not automatically protect long-serving employees from being selected

• redeployment obligations are heavily influenced by the size and structure of the employer

• delay in providing new KPIs or territory plans alone does not invalidate a redundancy process.

For workers, the case serves as a reminder of how critical transparency, documentation, and clarity around organisational change are. For organisations, it reinforces the need for structured, evidence-based selection processes when workforce reductions occur.

MYUNION will continue to monitor cases like this to keep members informed about how employment law is applied in real workplaces.

Read the Full Decision on the Fair Work Commission website HERE