Procedural equity, unfair dismissal and employment legislation
To print this text, all you want is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
As a part of the follow of employment legislation, it’s typically the case
that an worker who has been dismissed complains that they have been
not afforded ‘procedural equity’.
Typically the argument can be that their employer, within the course of
of formulating its resolution to dismiss the worker, failed to provide
the worker a real and correct alternative to answer the
allegations and / or discover of the explanation for the dismissal.
A current resolution of the Full Bench of the Honest Work Fee
offered some steering on issues to think about when making certain that
any disciplinary course of is procedurally truthful.
In his preliminary resolution in Bartlett v Ingleburn Bus Companies
Pty Ltd t/as Interline Bus Companies  FWCFB 6429, Deputy
President Boyce concluded that the dismissal of Mr Bartlett was
truthful in all the circumstances.
Mr Bartlett appealed this resolution on the premise inter
alia that the Deputy President erred in his method to
consideration of the factors in ss 387 (b) and (c) of the Honest
Sections 387 (b) and (c) of the Act requires a discovering as to
whether or not the worker was notified of the explanation for the dismissal
and whether or not the worker was given an actual alternative to answer
the explanation for the dismissal, respectively.
Deputy President Boyce, in his authentic resolution, made the very
useful observations in relation to procedural equity:
Procedural equity is neither a science, nor time period of artwork.
It requires an worker shielded from unfair dismissal to be
supplied with a possibility to answer any cause for his or her
dismissal regarding their conduct or capability. There isn’t any
explicit kind required for this ‘alternative to reply’,
and an worker could also be given such a possibility in individual, in
dialogue, or in writing. A possibility to reply is to be
offered earlier than a choice is taken to terminate an worker’s
employment. The chance to reply doesn’t require formality
or technicality, and is to be thought-about in a standard sense method.
The place the worker is conscious of the actual nature of an
employer’s concern about his or her conduct or efficiency, and
has a possibility to answer that concern, this may ordinarily
be sufficient to fulfill legislative necessities.
In his resolution, Deputy President Boyce concluded that the
cause for Mr Bartlett’s dismissal included the conduct put to
Mr Bartlett as a part of the disciplinary course of, along with
prior warnings he had been issued by his employer all through his
The Full Bench concluded that the Deputy President
misapprehended the statutory job because it pertains to sections 387(b)
and (c). It acknowledged that:
A consequence of the denial of procedural equity on this
case was that Mr Bartlett’s alternative to reply earlier than he
was dismissed was unfairly slim in scope, as a result of he didn’t know
that his prior warnings for misconduct have been being relied upon in
reference to the choice to dismiss. It might be that an
alternative to deal with these issues wouldn’t have made any
distinction to the last word consequence, however it’s no less than an actual
risk that Mr Bartlett would have addressed the cumulative
impact of his conduct when requested why his employment shouldn’t be
terminated. As a substitute, the chance to be heard on that concern, and
for any response to be thought-about previous to his dismissal, was
denied. Accordingly, the s 387(b) and (c) concerns ought to
have been handled as weighing in favour of a discovering of unfair
The teachings from this case are as follows:
- procedural equity is just not science nor artwork, and there’s no
prescribed kind or course of to comply with, apart from for an employer to
be sure that any cause which can be thought-about as a foundation for
dismissing an worker have to be put to the worker prior to creating
- if prior warnings are to be thought-about as a part of the explanation
for dismissing an worker, then the worker must the notified
that the latest conduct being thought-about by the employer, is
finished so within the context of the worker’s employment historical past
with the employer and that features the prior warnings issued to
- the termination letter is just too late to lift the worker’s
prior disciplinary historical past, when informing the worker of the
cause for his or her dismissal.
The content material of this text is meant to supply a normal
information to the subject material. Specialist recommendation ought to be sought
about your particular circumstances.
POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Employment and HR from Australia