A well-paid cybersecurity professional has won more than $56,000 in compensation after the Fair Work Commission found his redundancy at fintech Prospa was not genuine.

The worker joined Prospa in late 2022 as a Senior Security Engineer of Operations and Response before being promoted to Security Operations and Response Lead on an annual salary of $200,000.

He was made redundant in September last year after Prospa decided to merge his role with that of another cybersecurity employee and create a new Security Engineer Manager position.

But Fair Work Commission Deputy President Tony Slevin found the redundancy was “not a genuine redundancy”, concluding that Prospa had failed to properly consult with the worker about the new role and redeployment.

Slevin also found that the conflict between the two employees had influenced Prospa’s decision to make both of them redundant.

A Github argument

The conflict dated back to late 2024 when the cybersecurity worker made an allegation of “inappropriate conduct in a meeting” about his colleague.

She later apologised.

A few months later, he made another complaint about the same colleague, alleging she had withheld information in an attempt to intimidate him.

The dispute escalated in August last year when the pair had an argument in Prospa’s office about security settings on software platform GitHub, with the cyber worker saying his colleague swore at him in front of other employees.

The following month, Prospa told him that his role was at risk of redundancy as part of a division-wide restructure.

The company proposed combining his role with his colleague’s into a new Security Engineer Manager position.

He had until 4pm the following day to apply for the new position and was subsequently interviewed.

However, he described the interview as “constrained”, saying he was repeatedly cut off while answering questions and that he was not asked any technical cybersecurity questions.

Prospa ultimately determined that neither employee was suitable for the new role and began looking for an external candidate.

Hours later, the worker was told he was redundant, effective immediately.

A ‘predetermined’ redundancy

Prospa argued the redundancy was genuine and that earlier complaints had no impact on the decision.
The worker disagreed, telling the commission that many of his core responsibilities continued to be required and that he had effectively been punished for making his complaints as part of a “predetermined” redundancy process.

Under the Fair Work Act, a redundancy is only genuine if an employer no longer requires the job to be performed by anyone because of changes in its operational requirements.

The employer must also properly consult with the employee and consider redeployment.

Slevin found that Prospa had effectively decided to terminate the worker before the consultation process took place.

He said the consultation was conducted to “simply give effect to that decision”.

“No opportunity was given in the process for [the worker] to influence the decision or require measures be put in place to mitigate its harsh effects,” Slevin said.

“No opportunity to seek a change, a delay or an improved termination package.

“This was not consultation; it was an ultimatum.”

The commission also found that the conflict between the two employees had influenced the decision to make both of them redundant.

“I find that the proximity in time of the decision to terminate both employees to the incidents of August 2025 suggest that the decision to make the positions redundant and retrench both employees was influenced by the conflict between them in the months prior to dismissal,” Slevin said.

“While the decision to combine two jobs into one did meet the operational objective of saving costs, I consider that Prospa took the opportunity to make the change when it did as a means of managing the conflict between the two employees.”

The new combined role was not filled for several months, which Slevin said pointed to Prospa “acting hastily to address the conflict”.

The Commission found that the worker’s relationship with Prospa had deteriorated to the point where reinstatement was unrealistic.

“I find that [he] held a senior position in the company which required a high level of trust and that trust was fading, making reinstatement inappropriate,” it said.

Instead, Slevin awarded him $56,306.28 in compensation.

Prospa declined to comment on the specific circumstances of the case.

“We take our responsibilities and obligations seriously and will continue to uphold our commitment to high standards in our workplace culture.

“This matter concerns the individual employment circumstances of a former team member, so we won't be discussing the specific details," Prospa said.