Resources: Blog

FWC finds employee was dismissed due to employer’s racial preference


Preferential treatment

An employer’s past job advertisements, which stated a preference for “Asian staff”, have been used by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) to support its finding that an employee was dismissed because she was not of Chinese descent.

An employer’s past job advertisements, which stated a preference for “Asian staff”, have been used by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) to support its finding that an employee was dismissed because she was not of Chinese descent.

In Ayton v You Come Pty Ltd t/a Foodworks Ashmont [2019] FWC 6585, a long term casual employee at a supermarket claimed that she was unfairly dismissed after she received a text message from her employer which stated “I decide (sic) to give job (sic) to someone else but I will let u (sic) know if I need to to (sic) work, sorry for that”.

The employer did not participate in a conference held by the FWC or file any submissions. However, in its response to the unfair dismissal application, the employer claimed that it was a small business and the dismissal was consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code (Code).

The employer also claimed that the dismissal was justified, as the employee had engaged in misconduct involving cash register shortages, which the employee had been warned about, and because she was absent from work without explanation or notice. The employer claimed that as a result of the employee’s unexplained absence prior to her dismissal, it decided to give her position to another person to ensure that the supermarket could continue to run.

The employee denied that she had been previously advised of any shortage of money from the cash register. She submitted that she had not been subject to prior disciplinary action, given any warnings about misconduct or actually given a reason for the termination of her employment. The employee also claimed that the employer had tried to dismiss her because she was not Chinese.

Deputy President Sams, who heard the matter, held that there was “not a skerrick of doubt” that the employee had been dismissed by the text message. DP Sams also found that the employer had not complied with the Code as the employee had not engaged in the alleged misconduct.

In response to the employee’s claim that she was dismissed because she was not of a Chinese-speaking background, DP Sams exercised the power under section 590 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) to conduct inquiries into the allegation. Section 590 of the FW Act allows the FWC to inform itself in relation to any matter in any manner that it considers appropriate. DP Sams’ inquiries uncovered that the employer had previously posted job advertisements on Chinese Australian job forums which stated that Asian employees were preferred.

Based on this evidence, DP Sams formed the view that the employee had been dismissed because of the employer’s preference to hire staff from Asian-speaking backgrounds. DP Sams noted that this conduct likely constituted a breach of the anti-discrimination laws and that the employee was dismissed for an unlawful reason.

DP Sams was satisfied that the employee’s dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable as there was no valid reason for the employee’s dismissal and no procedural fairness was afforded to the employee.

DP Sams also indicated that he would refer his decision and the file to the General Manager of the FWC to consider whether it should be referred for investigation of potential breaches of State and Commonwealth laws.

In a separate decision, DP Sams dismissed the employer’s further submissions about the reason for dismissal, stating that he would not “accept further recreation of history based purely on submissions, without cogent evidence”. The employer was ordered to pay the employee $11,803.01 in compensation (Ayton v You Come Pty Ltd t/a Foodworks [2019] FWC 7029).

Lessons for employers

Employers are reminded that a dismissal will be found to be harsh, unjust or unreasonable where there is no valid reason for dismissal and where there has been a denial of procedural fairness.

In addition, it is unlawful for employers to choose to hire (or not hire) or terminate an employee’s employment on the basis of their race.

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Similar articles

Employer ordered to pay maximum compensation following “entirely unjust” disciplinary process

Knives Out

The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) requires that employers comply with a number of procedural elements in a disciplinary process prior to making a decision about whether an employee’s conduct or behaviour warrants disciplinary action.


FWC upholds dismissal of an employee who repeatedly and deliberately accessed customer’s confidential information without authorisation

Celebrity search

During the course of their employment, employees may have access to confidential information which belongs to their employer. This information may be in the form of personal information provided by customers and is therefore sensitive in nature.


Fair Work Commission critical of investigation process despite the employer’s valid reason for dismissal

Less is more

Employers often see the disciplinary process as an opportunity to raise every single indiscretion by an employee – even though the issues occurred in the past or are minor in nature when compared to other misconduct. However, this approach can weaken the employer’s position, rather than strengthen the decision to dismiss.


FWC finds sexually explicit Facebook post warranted dismissal, despite the employer’s ‘rather unusual’ workplace culture

Not so ‘funny’ meme

The workplace culture of an organisation should reflect the values that the business upholds and expects of its employees. It is becoming increasingly challenging for employers and employees to understand where a line is drawn between a relaxed and open workplace culture and a workplace culture that tolerates inappropriate behaviour.


Casual employee unfairly dismissed for Facebook recommendation

Halt before you post

Social media and employee’s conduct online has without doubt added a layer to the employer and employee relationship. While employees may think that their online activities done outside of work hours may be private, their conduct online may become relevant to their employment, for example, where it may disparage their employer, other employees or clients.


Vaccinations and the workplace

Shots fired

One of the most topical questions for employers during the COVID-19 pandemic has been whether they need to introduce policies that mandate vaccinations and, if so, what can be done to enforce them in the workplace.


Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in Workplace Relations.

Signup to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to you inbox.