Resources: Blog

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

Blog
|

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

Offers of alternative employment in redundancy cases

An offer you can refuse

In most cases of redundancy, employers have an obligation to consult with affected employees about the proposed redundancy and consider whether or not anything can be done to mitigate or minimise the impact on the employee, such as redeployment or obtaining other acceptable employment for the employee.

Read more...

FWC finds that employee’s employment ended at end of fixed term and was not dismissed

Time goes by so slowly

Access to the unfair dismissal jurisdiction under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) is on the basis that the employee is “dismissed” from the employment. A jurisdictional objectional can be raised if the employee has not been actually dismissed by the employer.

Read more...

Commission finds employer’s suspicion of an employee’s misconduct was not a valid reason for dismissal

Under suspicion

If considering taking disciplinary action due to an employee’s misconduct, it is critical that an employer makes a decision based on wrongdoing as opposed to a mere suspicion of wrongdoing.

Read more...

Commission finds mask mandate to be a lawful and reasonable direction

Mask up

Employees have a duty to comply with lawful and reasonable directions from their employer. In the current COVID-19 context, a key concern for employers is whether it is lawful and reasonable to issue directions related to safety matters arising from the pandemic.

Read more...

Lack of consultation rendered mandatory vaccination requirement unreasonable

Talk before you walk

Consultation with employees always plays an important part when introducing changes in the workplace. Under work health and safety legislation, employers have a duty to consult with their workers as far as reasonably practicable in relation to health and safety matters.

Read more...

Offers of alternative employment in redundancy cases

An offer you can refuse

In most cases of redundancy, employers have an obligation to consult with affected employees about the proposed redundancy and consider whether or not anything can be done to mitigate or minimise the impact on the employee, such as redeployment or obtaining other acceptable employment for the employee.

Read more...

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.