Resources: Blogs

I’ll be there for you

Blogs
|

The support person in the disciplinary process

Employees often argue that they have a “right” to a support person when they are invited to attend a “show cause” or termination meeting.  Do employees have this “right”? Should a disciplinary meeting go ahead if the employee does not bring a support person?

Employees often argue that they have a “right” to a support person when they are invited to attend a “show cause” or termination meeting. Do employees have this “right”? Should a disciplinary meeting go ahead if the employee does not bring a support person?

One of the key criteria that the Fair Work Commission (FWC) will consider when deciding whether the termination of an employee’s employment was “harsh, unjust or unreasonable” is if there was “any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present” (as per section 387 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act)).

Under these provisions, there is no obligation on employers to provide a support person or for there to be a support person present at disciplinary meetings, only that employers must not unreasonably refuse an employee wishing to have a support person present. However, as a matter of best practice, employers should advise prior to the meeting that the employee has the option to bring a support person and if they elect to do so, ask them to identify who it is prior to the meeting and whether or not they are a lawyer or union representative.

 

What is the role of a support person?

A support person can only do as the name indicates – “support” the employee. They can take notes at the meeting and generally assist in discussions (this would be particularly applicable for employees who are from non English speaking backgrounds). However, the support person cannot advocate on behalf the employee, that is, they should not answer questions on behalf of the employee, provide explanations or make submissions for the employee.

In the recent decision of David Waters v Goodyear Australia Pty Ltd [2016] FWC 1991, Commissioner Cambridge remarked that the Applicant’s support person (who was a Senator for NSW) was “overtly interventionist”.

 

Who can be a support person?

There are no strict rules as to who an employee can choose to be their support person. A support person can be (and usually is) a union representative / delegate, family member or friend, or another employee. It is also not uncommon for employees to insist that they have a lawyer as their support person. A Full Bench of the FWC held in Victorian Association for the Teaching of English Inc v Debra de Laps [2014] FWCFB 613 there was no obligation to allow the support person to be an advocate and that refusal was not procedurally unfair. While a lawyer can be a support person, they are limited to the role they can perform and cannot advocate on behalf of the employee.

 

Tips for Employers

Where an employee’s employment is at risk of termination, best practice is to encourage the employee to bring a support person to the disciplinary meeting. Where possible, accommodate an employee’s request to reschedule the meeting to allow their support person to be present.

At commencement of the meeting, employers may wish to clarify to all in attendance of what the support person can and cannot do. Where a support person is “overtly interventionist”, employers should consider suspending the meeting.

Ensuring that an employee is afforded procedural fairness, including not refusing a support person in the disciplinary process will assist employers to mitigate claims that any termination of employment was “harsh, unjust or unreasonable”.

 

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

Employee’s exaggerated complaints created psychosocial risk

False alarm

Employers have work health and safety obligations to eliminate or minimise psychosocial risks in the workplace so far as is reasonably practicable. These risks arise from psychosocial hazards including conflict or poor workplace relationships.

Read more...

Commission finds swearing in workplace constituted sexual harassment and warranted summary dismissal

R-E-S-P-E-C-T

With the new Respect@Work amendments now in place, employers should be mindful of a recent decision handed down by the Fair Work Commission where it upheld the dismissal of an employee on the basis that swearing at a colleague constituted sexual harassment.

Read more...

Northern Territory Station Farm Manager validly dismissed for fighting with employee and using lewd language

Country and Western

In the first of a two-part blog series, we look at inappropriate conduct and behaviour in the workplace and the importance of dealing with problematic workplace behaviour.

Read more...

First Intractable bargaining order made by the Full Bench

How did it end?

Enterprise agreement making under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requires bargaining representatives to bargain in good faith. Under the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 (Cth), the Fair Work Commission was provided with new powers to arbitrate and issue a workplace determination to resolve intractable disputes about terms and conditions of proposed enterprise agreement in circumstances where there are no reasonable prospects of the parties reaching an agreement.

Read more...

Federal Court finds employee was not demoted due to his exercise of workplace rights

The final decision

Employees are protected from adverse action because they have exercised, or propose to exercise, the workplace right to make a “complaint” or “inquiry” in relation to their employment within the meaning of section 341(1)(c)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Read more...

Employer successfully rebuts presumption in adverse action claim

Return to sender

An employer has successfully defended an adverse action claim brought by a former employee as the court was satisfied that the employee was not dismissed for a prohibited reason.

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 law and sports law.

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