Resources: Blogs

Preferential treatment


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

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 went “above and beyond” to accommodate employee’s flexible work arrangement

You just got slapped

One of the effects of the amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) which came into effect on 6 June 2023 is that employers now have greater obligations when responding to requests for flexible working arrangements made under s 65 of the FW Act.


Protecting Worker Entitlements - Further changes introduced to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

On 22 June 2023, the Federal Government passed the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Act 2023 (Cth). The Amendment Act introduces a number of changes to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) aimed at protecting worker entitlements, promoting gender equality and delivering reforms to improve fairness in the workplace relations system.


Employee dismissed for theft of tools unfairly dismissed

Toolbox essentials

The Fair Work Commission has reminded employers about the duty to afford procedural fairness to employees prior to dismissal.


Commission confirms inappropriate touching constituted sexual harassment warranting summary dismissal

‘Scuse you

Sexual harassment in the workplace has been the subject of significant reform over the past few years, with an even greater onus on employers now to take proactive measures to minimise or eliminate the risk of sexual harassment in connection with work.


Employers delay sinks bid for injunctive relief

Speak now

When seeking to enforce a restraint, it is important that employers seek to enforce the restraint in a timely manner to prevent future or an ongoing breach. Any delay will be considered by the courts when assessing whether it is reasonable to enforce the restraint.


Two-year post-employment restraint on hairdresser found to be unreasonable

Splitting hairs

When it comes to drafting post-employment restraints in employment contracts, it is important for employers to consider the purpose of the restraint and whether or not the restraint reasonably serves that purpose.


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.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.