< Back

Restructure: the decision flow

Before announcing a restructure, run through these five questions. Each one is a place where a sound business decision can be derailed by a procedural miss.

A restructure is structurally different from a redundancy. The decision is operational; the execution is industrial. This framework covers the five questions every leadership team should answer before the announcement goes out.

Is the business case documented and durable?

What a defensible business case for restructure looks like depends on the change being proposed, the alternatives considered, and the audience the case will be put to. Boards, employees, and a regulator may need slightly different versions.

Where it goes wrong: the business case is built as a justification for a decision that has already been made, rather than as the foundation that decision was made on. The chronology matters.

▼

Has the consultation process been mapped against the Award/EA?

Consultation requirements vary with the Award or EA, the size of the change, and how many employees are affected. Specific notification, timing, and documentation obligations may apply.

Where it goes wrong: consultation begins after the new structure is locked in. Where the conversation cannot actually influence the outcome, the FWC tends not to treat it as consultation.

▼

Are the affected roles correctly identified?

Which roles are 'affected' depends on whether the duties are changing, the reporting line is changing, or the role itself is being removed. A restructure on paper that does not affect a role in practice can still be procedurally significant.

Where it goes wrong: under- or over-scoping who is affected. Either creates risk: missing people exposes the process to challenge; over-including people erodes trust unnecessarily.

▼

Have redeployment opportunities been mapped across the group?

What 'reasonable redeployment' requires depends on the group structure, the timing of the restructure, and the skills involved. The reasonableness test is broader than many employers initially assume.

Where it goes wrong: looking only within the affected function and not across associated entities. The redeployment obligation does not stop at the team boundary.

▼

Is the communications plan stress-tested?

What a good communications plan looks like depends on the change, the workforce, and the cadence of the rollout. Affected employees, broader teams, customers, and regulators may all need different messages at different times.

Where it goes wrong: telling everyone at once via a mass email. Affected employees lose the dignity of an individual conversation, and the broader narrative becomes harder to manage.

Three things to watch for

1. Restructure as cover for performance

If a restructure is really targeting an individual whose role wasn't going to change, Fair Work will see through it. The decision needs to be structural, not personal.

2. Speed vs procedural fairness

Boards often want restructures done fast. The faster the timeline, the more compressed consultation becomes, and the more vulnerable the process becomes to challenge.

3. The "new role" trap

A new role that is suspiciously similar to an old role with a different title and lower pay isn't redundancy. It's role replacement, and it's not protected by the Fair Work Act carve-out.

Before announcing a restructure, run through these five questions. Each one is a place where a sound business decision can be derailed by a procedural miss.

FREE RESOURCE | HR & IR FRAMEWORKS