Resources: Blog

The support person in the disciplinary process

Blog
|

I’ll be there for you

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

Commission finds termination letter sent to inactive email address was not notification of dismissal

You've got mail!

Given the serious nature of matters such as dismissals, employers should, as far as reasonably practicable, communicate such matters in person to ensure that there is no confusion about when the employee was made aware of any issues with their employment.

Read more...

Fair Work Commission finds dismissal was disproportionate to the gravity of an employee’s heat of the moment remark

You’re bacon me crazy

In the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, the primary remedy is reinstatement. This means the employer is ordered to return the employee to their employment in the position they held immediately prior to their dismissal or another position on no less favourable terms.

Read more...

Fair Work Commission finds employer’s failure to comply with its consultation obligations rendered an employee’s dismissal to be unfair

Pick up the phone

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented effect on Australian businesses. Employers have had to, with little notice, adapt to these changing circumstances to try and minimise the adverse impact of lockdowns on the business and its employees.

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.