1
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy
Tao Yang
v
SAL HR Services Pty Ltd
(U2023/949)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMPTON ADELAIDE, 4 JULY 2023
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – jurisdictional objection – whether applicant
dismissed – found resignation foreshadowed but not expressly stated and should not have been
relied upon by the respondent as the cessation of employment – dismissal found – dismissal
harsh and unreasonable – compensation awarded.
1. What this decision is about
[1] Mr Tao Yang (Mr Yang or the Applicant) has applied to the Fair Work Commission
(the Commission) for an unfair dismissal remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the
FW Act) following his alleged unfair dismissal from SAL HR Services Pty Ltd (SAL or the
Respondent).
[2] Mr Yang commenced employment with SAL on 13 September 2021 as a casual
warehouse store person. On 14 February 2022, the Applicant was engaged as a fulltime
employee in the same role.1
[3] SAL is a lighting wholesale business which operates nationally. It has warehouses in
Sydney (along with its Head Office), Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane and Adelaide. The Adelaide
operation, where the Applicant worked, is the smallest warehouse where four employees were
engaged at the time of the events relevant to this application. Two of these employees, including
the Applicant, were engaged directly to undertake warehouse work.
[4] The Applicant last performed work for SAL on 6 February 2023. Following an exchange
with his immediate manager (Mr Wang) and some consequential discussions with that manager
and the Respondent’s General Manager, Mr Tang, he left the workplace and on the following
day filed this application. What happened on 6 February 2023, and who is responsible for the
conclusion of the employment, is very much in dispute.
[5] Mr Yang contends that he was (directly) dismissed by the Respondent’s General
Manager. He also contends that the dismissal was unfair on various grounds and during the
hearing indicated that he was seeking compensation of 6 weeks’ wages.2
[2023] FWC 1325
DECISION
AUSTRALIA FairWork Commission
[2023] FWC 1325
2
[6] SAL objects to the application on the basis of jurisdiction; that is, it asserts that Mr Yang
was not dismissed. It contends that Mr Yang advised that he was resigning, and this was
subsequently accepted by his manager. This it further asserts, was not a forced resignation and
it denies that any dismissal was contemplated or expressed by its General Manager. It also
contends, in the alternative, that any dismissal would have been justified based upon Mr Yang’s
work performance, his history of alleged late attendance at work, and his conduct on 6 February
2023. SAL also opposed any award of compensation.
[7] Mr Yang has a limited command of English and participated in all the proceedings of
the Commission with a Mandarin interpreter. SAL was represented by Mr Fei Rong, its
Administrator who also provides some internal human resources services as part of a much
broader administration role. In the absence of external representation, I assisted both parties to
present their cases and to deal with the various requirements and considerations established by
the FW Act relevant to this matter.
[8] I have now heard this matter. The hearing canvassed evidence and submissions
concerning the following:
• Jurisdiction – whether Mr Yang was dismissed within the meaning of s.386 of the
FW Act? – was there a dismissal?
• Merit – if there was a dismissal, was it unfair having regard to the considerations
established by s.387 of the FW Act? – merit
• Remedy – if any dismissal was unfair, should a remedy (compensation was sought
by Mr Yang) be granted and if so, how much? – remedy.
[9] It was established, and not in contention, that Mr Yang was protected from unfair
dismissal and eligible to make the application, that SAL was not a small business, and that the
cessation of the employment did not involve a redundancy.3
[10] For reasons that follow, I have determined on balance that:
• Mr Yang was dismissed – but not for the reasons he has contended;
• The dismissal was unfair; and
• Some compensation was appropriate.
[11] The basis of those findings and the Orders made by the Commission are set out in this
decision.
2. The cases presented by the parties
2.1 The Applicant
[2023] FWC 1325
3
[12] The Applicant’s fundamental position is that he was dismissed by SAL on 6 February
2023. Further, the failure of SAL to provide any warning or opportunity to improve his work
performance, was “unlawful” and unreasonable. This position is advanced based on the
following contentions:4
• He was “only late a handful of times and other people [were] late all the time.”
• He received no warning that his lateness “was a serious problem that [SAL] would fire
[him] for.”
• It was unfair that he was fired “for…attitude, but other people weren’t.”
• It was unfair because SAL did not give him a warning or a chance to improve.
[13] The Applicant provided a witness statement5 and relevant documentation,6 and gave
affirmed evidence.
[14] The Applicant stated that on 6 February 2023, the Respondent’s General Manager told
him to the effect that he was fired after “experiencing conflict in the early morning” and that
the Respondent “decided this as an oral resignation.”7 The Applicant further stated that after he
spoke with the General Manager (again) over the phone, he was told in effect that he was fired
because he could not cooperate with his Operations Manager, who was not satisfied with the
Applicant’s working attitude.8 In his submissions, the Applicant submitted that it was
“paradoxical” of the Respondent to argue that he orally resigned while also citing behaviour
issues such as his alleged frequent lateness and absence from work.9
[15] The Applicant provided written evidence which included:10
• Written Submissions11
• Personal and Annual Leave Documents12
• SMS Messages of Attempts to Find Work13
• Payslip from (new employer)14
2.2 The Respondent
[16] The Respondent contends that on 6 February 2023, the Applicant informed the
Operations Manager that he resigned;15 the Respondent accepted the voluntary resignation on
that day and express posted a notice that acknowledged and confirmed the Applicant’s
entitlements after his voluntary resignation.16 This meant that the Commission lacked
jurisdiction to deal with the matter because the Applicant voluntarily resigned and was not
dismissed.17 In the alternative, the Respondent contends that:
• The Applicant had on several occasions been late for work without explanation and was
repeatedly warned that he needed to arrive on time and notify the Operations Manager
in advance if he was going to be late.18
[2023] FWC 1325
4
• On several occasions, the Applicant had not followed instructions regarding tasks and
was repeatedly warned that he should follow correct process.19
• There were several performance management meetings where the Applicant’s problems
were discussed and he was given opportunities to improve but over time, the Applicant
had not improved his performance sufficiently.20
• On 6 February 2023, during another performance management meeting, the Applicant’s
lateness and mistakes at work were discussed again.21 The purpose of the conversation
on 6 February was to “address these issues, provide guidance, and find ways to improve
the applicant’s punctuality and adherence to procedures.”22
[17] The Respondent led written and affirmed evidence from the following:
• Fei Rong, Administrator;23
• Wei Yong Tang (also known as Tony Tang), General Manager;24
• Li Wang (also known as Max Wang), Operational Manager, SA Branch;25 and
• Scott Cullen, Sales Assistant.26
[18] The Respondent also submitted documents as evidence which included:
• Letter of offer to Applicant of casual employment dated 13 September 202127
• Document entitled “Grounds for Summary Dismissal” that was attached to the
Applicant’s employment contract28
• Document entitled “Minimum Period of Notice” that was attached to the Applicant’s
employment contract29
• Applicant’s acceptance of employment offer30
• Notice of full-time employment for the Applicant dated 7 February 202231
• Acknowledgement of “acceptance of resignation notice” dated 6 February 2023 that the
Respondent sent to the Applicant via express post32
• Express post material namely lodgement receipt from Australia Post and return to sender
details33
• Tracking material related to express post material namely information about attempted
delivery of item34
• Confirmation of payments made to the Applicant on dismissal35
• Information regarding the Applicant’s arrival times prepared based on screenshot
timestamps36
• CCTV recording of some of the warehouse exchange between the Applicant and
Mr Wang.37
[19] The Respondent also relied upon various screen shots of CCTV footage which it
contended demonstrated when Mr Yang first attended work on the days shown in the footage.
[2023] FWC 1325
5
This was the foundation for exhibit R11. This material was all subject to evidence from
Mr Wang and put to the Applicant in cross-examination.
3. Observations on the evidence
[20] There are sharp and significant factual disputes between many of the witnesses. In
particular, the Applicant’s version of the events, and what was stated during the course of the
various exchanges that took place on 6 February 2023, differs from that provided by the General
Manager (Mr Tang) and Mr Wang.
[21] I have assessed each of the witnesses based upon the consistency and overall credibility
of their evidence, the degree to which their evidence related to events and conversations that
they directly observed or participated in, and their willingness to make obvious concessions
rather than to advocate a position.
[22] I found that in general terms the Applicant, Mr Yang, was a plausible witness who
attempted to assist the Commission with his evidence. He did however have a tendency to
generalise and exaggerate some of the key exchanges and his sense of injustice strongly
influenced some of his recollections. He also had a tendency to downplay the contribution that
he made to the events on the day in question.
[23] I found the evidence of Mr Rong to be reliable. He did not however generally observe
or particate in any of the key events.
[24] I found the evidence of Mr Tang to be consistent, measured and credible. I accept his
evidence where it conflicts with that provided by the Applicant. His recall of the detail of the
conversations with the Applicant was not always clear, however I accept the substance of his
evidence on those matters.
[25] I found that Mr Wang attempted to assist the Commission with his evidence. However,
as with the Applicant, the sense of unfairness associated with his actions and intentions being
questioned, strongly influenced his evidence. This led to a tendency to exaggerate certain
matters, although I do not completely discount his evidence about most of the verbal exchanges
with the Applicant on the day in question.
[26] I found the evidence of Mr Cullen (Sales Assistant) to be of little assistance. This is not
because he was attempting to be anything less than honest, rather, his evidence about what
happened was largely based upon what he had been told or what he had presumed based upon
the little that he heard and saw. His failure to recognise the limits of his actual knowledge means
that I treat his evidence with considerable caution.
[27] The CCTV footage of the day in question was of some assistance. However, it captured
only part of the exchange and did not contain any sound. Despite this, the vision of when the
Applicant allegedly threw (and damaged) some product on 6 February 2023 was helpful and
revealed that the evidence about this from Mr Wang and Mr Cullen was significantly
exaggerated.
[2023] FWC 1325
6
[28] The screen shots of the CCTV footage of the Applicant’s arrival at the workplace on
21 separate days between 23 December 2022 and 6 February 202338 provided by the
Respondent were problematic. They were selective and no proper explanation was provided
about some of those screen shots which showed the Applicant already in the warehouse dressed
in his work uniform (that he put on whilst at work) with his paperwork already in hand, when
according to the Respondent he must have already passed another camera upon entering the
building. This undermined the related evidence about the extent of the Applicant’s repeated
arrival at the workplace after the 8.00 am scheduled start. I do however accept that he was
sometimes at least a few minutes late, and at least on some occasions, by more than that. I will
return to the significance of this aspect later.
4. What happened on 6 February 2023?
[29] Having regard to the evidence that is before the Commission, I find on the balance of
probabilities that the events of 6 February 2023 were as set out below.
[30] The Applicant attended for work some minutes after the scheduled 8.00 am starting
time. The exact time is not presently critical, but it was late enough for Mr Wang to notice.
Mr Wang, with some justification, was annoyed about this given that he was the only other
warehouse employee at the Adelaide operations and expected either some advance notice that
the Applicant would be late, or at the very least, an explanation.
[31] Mr Wang raised his concerns about the time of attendance with the Applicant and
received what he considered to be an unsatisfactory response. This set the tone for the
subsequent exchange.
[32] At approximately 8.25 am, Mr Wang inspected the packages of goods that had been
assembled by the Applicant. Mr Wang understood that the packing task involved had been
completed. He could not find, or read, the information that the Applicant was required to put
on the outside of the boxes that was intended to confirm their contents and order numbers. It is
probable that the Applicant had made some notation on the boxes, but this was not large enough
or compliant with the procedures of the business. Mr Wang raised his concerns about this with
the Applicant.
[33] Mr Wang advised the Applicant to the effect that the warehouse procedures could not
be changed, and the Applicant responded that he had not yet completed the task. In the context
of the earlier exchange about lateness, the tension between the 2 men escalated. Both men,
speaking in Mandarin, spoke with raised voices and pointed to each other and the packages that
were stacked on a pallet. The Applicant expressed concerns that he was being treated more
strictly than others and Mr Wang was emphasising that compliance with the company
procedures was important. The Applicant became frustrated and his gestures increased. I
observe that the 2 men were many metres apart and no threats, verbal or otherwise, could be
implied from their exchange.
[34] Mr Wang said to the Applicant words to the effect that he had concerns about the
Applicant’s attitude, and what he saw as his uncooperative behaviour and regular lateness for
work. Mr Wang, in effect, sought an assurance that the Applicant would in the future comply
with warehouse procedures and cooperate. I am not persuaded that Mr Wang told him to “fuck
[2023] FWC 1325
7
off” or directly threatened the Applicant’s employment as claimed by the Applicant. The
Applicant would however have been reasonably concerned that this latter threat was possible
given the circumstances.
[35] At that point, Mr Yang, who remained at a packing station, picked up and dropped (from
a small height of approximately 50mm) a metal lighting track. This was done as a gesture of
frustration and was not necessary or appropriate, but it was not thrown in the manner that was
alleged by the Respondent.
[36] Mr Yang then said something to the effect, that he had enough of this and wanted to
leave. This was stated in a highly emotional manner as he walked to leave the area. It is also
possible that Mr Yang said, or more probably implied as part of that exchange, that he wanted
to or would quit his job.
[37] The Applicant demanded to speak to the General Manager, Mr Tang. The Applicant and
Mr Wang went into the office and Mr Wang phoned Mr Tang and handed the phone to the
Applicant. During what was a brief discussion, the Applicant complained that he was being
treated unfairly and Mr Tang advised that he needed to find out what had happened, and as he
had a series of commitments that morning, the Applicant should speak to Mr Rong (the
Administrator). Mr Tang did not dismiss or threaten to dismiss the Applicant during that
conversation.
[38] The phone was then handed back to Mr Wang who was advised by Mr Tang that he
wanted to speak further with him after his meetings.
[39] The Applicant then approached Mr Wang and said words to the effect of “what’s next?”.
Sensing the intensity of the situation, Mr Wang invited the Applicant to calm down, take off
his work jacket and discuss the matters as soon as Mr Wang had completed a task that he was
undertaking. The Applicant then immediately left the workplace and went to his car. It is
probable that the applicant remained in his car in the car park and after some minutes directly
phoned Mr Tang.
[40] The evidence about this second telephone discussion between the Applicant and the
General Manager, Mr Tang, is somewhat unsatisfactory. The recall of the detail from both
involved was not clear and I suspect that each has tended to conflate (confuse and mix) the 2
telephone discussions. The Applicant continued to protest what he saw as his unfair treatment
and Mr Tang confirmed that there were performance concerns and that the Applicant needed to
work with and get along with Mr Wang. It is also probable that Mr Tang again indicated that
the Applicant should take the issues up with Mr Rong.
[41] I am not persuaded that either party to the second telephone discussion made any
reference to a resignation or that Mr Tang used any words that would have confirmed that the
Applicant was being dismissed.
[42] After having been outside of the workplace for about 20 minutes, the Applicant returned
to the office and requested that Mr Wang speak with him outside. Mr Wang agreed to do so and
considered that the carpark would be a “calmer” location to hold the discussion. The Applicant
sought to defend himself against the earlier suggestions that he was regularly late for work and
[2023] FWC 1325
8
had not followed correct procedure. Mr Wang considered that the Applicant continued to be
uncooperative and not taking responsibility for his actions. He then stated words to the effect,
that the Applicant had earlier expressed an intention to quit and given his ongoing behaviour,
Mr Wang would “respect your choice” and it “seems that parting ways is the most appropriate
course of action”. 39
[43] Mr Yang then immediately went to his vehicle and left the premises. He correctly in my
view understood that his employment had concluded at that point.
[44] Subsequently, Mr Rong sent by express post to the Applicant’s home address, an
“Acknowledgment and Acceptance of Resignation Notice” in the following terms:
“Dear Tao,
This is to confirm receipt and acceptance of your oral resignation notice, received at
9:22 am on Monday 06/02/2023…
Although I was reported repeatedly about your late to work and absence from work, our
SA operation manager Li Wang had discussed about your poor performance and
requested you to make an improvement in several instances. However, during another
meeting on Monday, while Li pointed out your issues again, you’ve thrown packed
products on the packaging machine and informed Li that you quit.
It came to our surprise that you had to decide to leave because of a performance
management meeting…”40
[45] It is likely that delivery of this postal item was later refused by Mr Yang.
[46] Mr Yang lodged this application with the Commission on 7 February 2023.
[47] The Respondent paid the Applicant for work performed up to and including 6 February
2023 and paid out his outstanding annual leave.
5. Was Mr Yang dismissed?
[48] Section 386 of the FW Act relevantly provides as follows:
“386 Meaning of dismissed
(1) A person has been dismissed if:
(a) the person’s employment with his or her employer has been terminated on
the employer’s initiative; or
(b) the person has resigned from his or her employment, but was forced to do
so because of conduct, or a course of conduct, engaged in by his or her
employer.
… ….” ”41
[2023] FWC 1325
9
[49] Mr Yang, in effect, relies upon s.386(1)(a) of the FW Act. Having put the parties on
notice during the hearing, I have also considered whether there was a resignation, whether any
purported resignation was effective, and whether any resignation was forced. Ultimately, I
would not consider that any valid resignation would have been forced, but this final aspect does
not arise for reasons that are set out below.
[50] Although applied under the predecessor to the FW Act,42 the following approach of the
Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in O’Meara v Stanley Works Pty
Ltd43 in my view remains generally apposite to the consideration of s.386(1) of the FW Act:
“[21] In this Commission the concepts have been addressed on numerous occasions
and by a number of Full Benches. In Pawel v Advanced Precast Pty Ltd (Pawel) a Full
Bench said:
“[13] It is plain that the Full Court in Mohazab considered that an important
feature in the question of whether termination is at the initiative of the employer
is whether the act of an employer results directly or consequentially in the
termination of the employment and that the employment relationship is not
voluntarily left by the employee. However, it is to be noted that the Full Court
described it as an important feature. It plainly cannot be the only feature. An
example will serve to illustrate this point. Suppose an employee wants a pay rise
and makes such a request of his or her employer. If the employer declines and
the employee, feeling dissatisfied resigns, can the resignation be said to be a
termination at the initiative of the employer? We do not think it can and yet it
can be said that the act of the employer i.e. refusing the pay rise, has at least
consequentially resulted in the termination of the employment. This situation
may be contrasted with the position where an employee is told to resign or he or
she will be terminated. We think that all of the circumstances and not only the
act of the employer must be examined. These in our view, will include the
circumstances giving rise to the termination, the seriousness of the issues
involved and the respective conduct of the employer and the employee. In the
instant case the uncontested factual findings are that the applicant had for almost
the whole of his employment performed welding duties; that there was no
objective threat to his health and safety involved in the requirement that he
undertake welding duties so long as it was not on a continuous basis and that the
welding he was required to do was not continuous.”
[22] In the Full Bench decision of ABB Engineering Construction Pty Ltd v Doumit
(ABB Engineering) it was said:
“Often it will only be a narrow line that distinguishes conduct that leaves an
employee no real choice but to resign employment, from conduct that cannot be
held to cause a resultant resignation to be a termination at the initiative of the
employer. But narrow though it be, it is important that that line be closely drawn
and rigorously observed. Otherwise, the remedy against unfair termination of
employment at the initiative of the employer may be too readily invoked in
circumstances where it is the discretion of a resigning employee, rather than that
[2023] FWC 1325
10
of the employer, that gives rise to the termination. The remedies provided in the
Act are directed to the provision of remedies against unlawful termination of
employment. Where it is the immediate action of the employee that causes the
employment relationship to cease, it is necessary to ensure that the employer’s
conduct, said to have been the principal contributing factor in the resultant
termination of employment, is weighed objectively. The employer’s conduct
may be shown to be a sufficiently operative factor in the resignation for it to be
tantamount to a reason for dismissal. In such circumstances, a resignation may
fairly readily be conceived to be a termination at the initiative of the employer.
The validity of any associated reason for the termination by resignation is tested.
Where the conduct of the employer is ambiguous, and the bearing it has on the
decision to resign is based largely on the perceptions and subjective response of
the employee made unilaterally, considerable caution should be exercised in
treating the resignation as other than voluntary.”
[23] In our view the full statement of reasons in Mohazab which we have set out
together with the further explanation by Moore J in Rheinberger and the decisions of
Full Benches of this Commission in Pawel and ABB Engineering require that there to
be some action on the part of the employer which is either intended to bring the
employment to an end or has the probable result of bringing the employment
relationship to an end. It is not simply a question of whether “the act of the employer
[resulted] directly or consequentially in the termination of the employment.” Decisions
which adopt the shorter formulation of the reasons for decision should be treated with
some caution as they may not give full weight to the decision in Mohazab. In
determining whether a termination was at the initiative of the employer an objective
analysis of the employer’s conduct is required to determine whether it was of such a
nature that resignation was the probable result or that the appellant had no effective or
real choice but to resign.” (footnotes omitted)
[51] A more recent Full Bench reinforced the relevance of the above approach in Bupa Aged
Care Australia Pty Ltd t/a Bupa Aged Care Mosman v Tavassoli44 in the following terms:
“[33] Notwithstanding that it was clearly established, prior to the enactment of the FW
Act, that a “forced” resignation could constitute a termination of employment at the
initiative of the employer, the legislature in s.386(1) chose to define dismissal in a way
that retained the “termination at the initiative of the employer” formulation but
separately provided for forced resignation. This was discussed in the Explanatory
Memorandum for the Fair Work Bill as follows:
“1528. This clause sets out the circumstances in which a person is taken to be
dismissed. A person is dismissed if the person's employment with his or her
employer was terminated on the employer's initiative. This is intended to capture
case law relating to the meaning of 'termination at the initiative of the employer'
(see, e.g., Mohazab v Dick Smith Electronics Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 200).
1529. Paragraph 386(1)(b) provides that a person has been dismissed if they
resigned from their employment but were forced to do so because of conduct, or
[2023] FWC 1325
11
a course of conduct, engaged in by their employer. Conduct includes both an act
and a failure to act (see the definition in clause 12).
1530. Paragraph 386(1)(b) is intended to reflect the common law concept of
constructive dismissal, and allow for a finding that an employee was dismissed
in the following situations:
• where the employee is effectively instructed to resign by the
employer in the face of a threatened or impending dismissal; or
• where the employee quits their job in response to conduct by the
employer which gives them no reasonable choice but to resign.”
[34] It is apparent, as was observed in the decision of the Federal Circuit Court
(Whelan J) in Wilkie v National Storage Operations Pty Ltd, that “The wording of
s.386(1)(b) of the Act appears to reflect in statutory form the test developed by the Full
Court of the then Industrial Relations Court of Australia in Mohazab v Dick Smith
Electronics Pty Ltd (No. 1) and summarised by the Full Bench of the Australian
Industrial Relations Commission in O’Meara v Stanley Works Pty Ltd” (footnotes
omitted). The body of pre-FW Act decisions concerning “forced” resignations,
including the decisions to which we have earlier referred, has been applied to
s.386(1)(b): Bruce v Fingal Glen Pty Ltd (in liq); Ryan v ISS Integrated Facility Services
Pty Ltd; Parsons v Pope Nitschke Pty Ltd ATF Pope Nitschke Unit Trust.” (footnotes
omitted)
[52] An employer is generally able to treat a clear and unambiguous resignation as a
resignation. However, where a resignation is given in the heat of the moment or under extreme
pressure, special circumstances may arise. That is, in some circumstances it may be
unreasonable to assume a resignation and accept it immediately. Further, the employer may
have a duty to confirm the intention to resign if, during that time, they are put on notice that the
resignation was not intended.45
[53] Accordingly, the general principles to be applied in this case are well settled. Stated
succinctly, they include:
• The question as to whether there was a dismissal within the meaning of the FW Act
is a jurisdictional fact that must be established by the Applicant;
• A termination at the initiative of the employer involves the conduct (or course of
conduct) engaged in by the employer as the principal constituting factor leading to
the termination. There must be a sufficient causal connection between the conduct
and the resignation such that it “forced” the resignation;
• The employer must have engaged in some conduct that intended to bring the
employment relationship to an end or had that probable result;
• Conduct includes an omission;
[2023] FWC 1325
12
• Resignations that are clear and unambiguous may be treated on face value unless
special circumstances are present which warrant the employer confirming the
intention of the employee;
• Considerable caution should be exercised in treating a resignation as other than
voluntary (forced) where the conduct of the employer is ambiguous and it is
necessary to determine whether the employer’s conduct was of such a nature that
resignation was the probable result such that the employee had no effective or real
choice but to resign; and
• In determining the question of whether the termination was at the initiative of the
employer, an objective analysis of the parties’ conduct is required.
[54] I have found that during one of the discussions between the Applicant and Mr Wang,
the Applicant did advise to the effect that he intended to quit his job. This was stated during a
highly emotional discussion, and it could not be said that an actual resignation was provided.
In any event, given the context, I do not consider that it was reasonable for the Respondent to
treat this as a resignation and seek later in the day to rely upon it. The actions of the Applicant
in seeking to resolve his sense of unfairness with the General Manager and later again with
Mr Wang, and his return to the workplace to do so, should have created uncertainty about
whether any resignation was intended. These are the kind of exceptional circumstances46
referred to earlier. In that context, the Respondent made no further inquiries to determine
whether the Applicant's purported resignation was really intended. Further, given the conduct
of both parties on the day in question, at the time when it was purportedly accepted by SAL, I
do not consider a reasonable period of time had lapsed, after the Applicant advised or implied
to the Respondent that he intended to quit his job, for an objective understanding about that
intention to be reached.
[55] Mr Wang, on behalf of the Respondent and later confirmed by Mr Rong, in accepting
the purported resignation, actually brought the employment to an end at the employer’s
initiative.
[56] This was a dismissal within the meaning of the FW Act. There is jurisdiction to deal
with the merit of this application.
6. Was the dismissal of Mr Yang unfair
Section 385 of the FW Act provides as follows:
“385 What is an unfair dismissal
(1) A person has been unfairly dismissed if the FWC is satisfied that:
(a) the person has been dismissed; and
(b) the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable; and
[2023] FWC 1325
13
(c) the dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal
Code; and
(d) the dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy.”
[57] There is no dispute that the application was made within the time required by s.394(2)
of the FW Act, or that Mr Yang was a person protected from unfair dismissal. Further, it is
common ground that the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code and the genuine redundancy
provisions of the FW Act (as a jurisdictional objection and more generally) are not relevant.
[58] Accordingly, the Commission must determine whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust,
or unreasonable within the meaning of the FW Act. If so, the dismissal of Mr Yang will be
unfair and the relevant remedy provisions must be applied to consider whether a remedy is to
be awarded.
[59] Section 387 of the FW Act provides that, in considering whether it is satisfied that a
dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the Commission must take into account:
(a) whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person’s capacity
or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees);
and
(b) whether the person was notified of that reason; and
(c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to
the capacity or conduct of the person; and
(d) any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support
person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal; and
(e) if the dismissal is related to unsatisfactory performance by the person—whether
the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the
dismissal; and
(f) the degree to which the size of the employer’s enterprise would be likely to
impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and
(g) the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management
specialists or expertise in the enterprise would be likely to impact on the
procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and
(h) any other matters that the FWC considers relevant.”
[60] I am required to consider each of these criteria, to the extent they are relevant to the
factual circumstances before me.47
[61] I set out my consideration of each below.
Section 387(a) – whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to Mr Yang’s
capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees)
[62] Valid in this context is generally considered to be whether there was a sound, defensible
or well-founded reason for the dismissal, and the reason should not be “capricious, fanciful,
[2023] FWC 1325
14
spiteful or prejudiced”.48 Further, in considering whether a reason is valid, the requirement
should be applied in the practical sphere of the relationship between an employer and an
employee where each has rights, privileges, duties and obligations conferred and imposed on
them. That is, the provisions must be applied in a practical, common-sense way to ensure that
the employer and employee are each treated fairly.49
[63] The Commission will not stand in the shoes of the employer and determine what the
Commission would do if it was in the position of the employer. The question the Commission
must address is whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the employee’s
capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees).50
[64] It is also clear from the authorities that the reason for termination must be defensible or
justifiable on an objective analysis of the relevant facts before the Commission. That is, it is not
enough for an employer to rely upon its reasonable belief that the termination was for a valid
reason.51 The employer bears the evidentiary onus of proving the conduct or incapacity on
which it relies.52 For there to be a valid reason related to the Applicant’s conduct, I must find
that the conduct occurred and justified termination.53 “The question of whether the alleged
conduct took place and what it involved is to be determined by the Commission on the basis of
the evidence in the proceedings before it. The test is not whether the employer believed, on
reasonable grounds after sufficient enquiry, that the employee was guilty of the conduct which
resulted in termination.”54
[65] I have earlier made findings about the Applicant’s conduct on 6 February 2023. I do
consider that some of his conduct was misconduct, albeit not particularly serious. That is, he
was not respectful of Mr Wang, and he did unnecessarily pick up and drop the metal lighting
track onto the work bench. It was not, however, thrown or dropped in a violent manner. The
Applicant’s action would have been deserving of some more minor sanction, such as a warning.
[66] There is also some room for criticisms about the timing of the Applicant attendance at
work. Although exaggerated by the Respondent, he often attended some minutes after the
8.00am scheduled start. I observe that other employees may have attended at different times,
the Applicant and his Manger (Mr Wang) were the only ones working in the warehouse and
late attendance had consequences for the work to be performed. However, as was made clear
by Mr Wang himself, there was some latitude in the time of attendance, and this was agreed at
the time of interview leading to the employment. The frequency of such lateness, and more
importantly, the absence of prior notice and/or an explanation freely provided were reasonable
concerns held by management.
[67] However, the concerns about the Applicant being late for work were never considered
serious enough by the Respondent to lead to any formal disciplinary action or a warning.
[68] I observe that despite the events of 6 February 2023 and the other matters now relied
upon by the Respondent being known, SAL still did not consider these to be serious enough to
commence formal processes to support a dismissal. In fact, during the proceedings, SAL
expressly denied that it had any intention to do so.
[2023] FWC 1325
15
[69] In any event, I do not consider that these grounds provide a sound, defensible or well-
founded reason for dismissal. This includes that I am not satisfied that the alleged misconduct
took place in the manner and to the extent contended by SAL
[70] I will deal with the alleged performance matters below.
[71] Having regard to the matters I have referred to above, I am not satisfied that there was
a valid reason for the dismissal related to Mr Yang’s conduct or capacity.
Section 387(b) – Was Mr Yang notified of the reasons for dismissal?
[72] Notification of a valid reason for termination must be given to an Applicant before the
decision is made to terminate their employment,55 and in explicit56 and plain and clear terms.57
[73] Although the Respondent described the initial discussions with Mr Yang on 6 February
2023 as a “performance discussion”, this is not a proper description. It may have been intended
to be a general and informal discussion reminding the Applicant of the work requirements and
seeking his cooperation, but was in reality, an unsatisfactory exchange of views conducted in a
cursory and excited manner. It was not notification of reasons as part of a disciplinary process.
This meant that Mr Yang was not notified of the reasons for dismissal, at least in the sense
referred to in the relevant consideration. I have also not found the existence of a valid reason
for dismissal.
[74] Having regard to the matters referred to above, I find that the Applicant was not notified
of the (valid) reason for his dismissal prior to the decision to dismiss being made as
contemplated by s.387(b) of the FW Act.
Section 387(c) – whether Mr Yang was given an opportunity to respond to any reason
related to his capacity or conduct.
[75] An employee protected from unfair dismissal should be provided with an opportunity
to respond to any reason for their dismissal relating to their conduct or capacity. An opportunity
to respond is to be provided before a decision is taken to terminate the employee’s
employment.58
[76] The opportunity to respond does not require formality and this factor is to be applied in
a common-sense way to ensure the employee is treated fairly.59 Where the employee is aware
of the precise nature of the employer’s concern about his or her conduct or performance and
has a full opportunity to respond to this concern, this will generally satisfy the requirements.60
[77] Further, in order to be given an opportunity to respond, the employee must be made
aware of allegations concerning their conduct so as to be able to respond and defend themselves
before the point is reached where a firm decision has been made irrespective of anything the
employee might say in his or her defence.61
[78] The sequence of events leading to the dismissal have been set out earlier. I am not
satisfied that the Respondent provided Mr Yang with an opportunity to respond to any reason
related to his capacity or conduct as contemplated by s.387(c) of the FW Act.
[2023] FWC 1325
16
Section 387(d) – any unreasonable refusal by the Respondent to allow Mr Yang a support
person.
[79] Where an employee protected from unfair dismissal has requested a support person be
present to assist in discussions relating to the dismissal, an employer should not unreasonably
refuse that person being present.
[80] As noted by a Full Bench of this Commission, “[t]he subsection is not concerned with
whether or not the employee was informed that he or she could have a support person present”.62
[81] No such request was made in this matter.
Section 387(e) – if the dismissal is related to unsatisfactory performance by Mr Yang –
whether he had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal.
[82] The dismissal indirectly related to unsatisfactory performance. There are aspects of the
allegations that do touch upon how Mr Yang carried out his duties.
[83] There is no reliable evidence that Mr Yang was ever warned that his employment was
in jeopardy.
Section 387(f) – the degree to which the size of the Respondent’s enterprise would be likely
to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal.
Section 387(g) – the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource
management specialists or expertise in the enterprise would be likely to impact on the
procedures followed in effecting the dismissal.
[84] I will deal with these matters together.
[85] The Respondent is not a small organisation. I also find that it did not have a dedicated
human resource management specialist or expertise in the enterprise. I accept that this would
have been likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal and have made
allowance for this in assessing the fairness of the decision.
Section 387(h) – Other relevant matters
[86] Section 387(h) requires the Commission to take into account any other matters that the
Commission considers relevant.
[87] Mr Yang was not given notice of termination or any pay in lieu of notice.
[88] Although Mr Yang’s conduct, performance and attitude on the day in question was not
appropriate, his dismissal was disproportionate and harsh.
[89] I have taken all these matters into account in assessing the dismissal.
[2023] FWC 1325
17
Was the dismissal of Mr Yang harsh, unjust or unreasonable?
[90] I have made findings in relation to each matter specified in s.387 as relevant.
[91] I must consider and give due weight to each as a fundamental element in determining
whether the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.63Although I have taken the
(contrary) considerations in s.387(f) and (g) into account, the other considerations strongly
indicate that the dismissal was unfair.
[92] Having considered each of the matters specified in s.387 of the FW Act, I am satisfied
that the dismissal of Mr Yang was harsh and unreasonable. It was therefore unfair within the
meaning of the FW Act.
7. Remedy
[93] Mr Yang does not seek reinstatement to his former position, but rather, compensation
of 6 weeks’ wages. This is opposed by the Respondent.
[94] Division 4 of Part 3-2 of the FW Act relevantly provides as follows:
“Division 4—Remedies for unfair dismissal
390 When the FWC may order remedy for unfair dismissal
(1) Subject to subsection (3), the FWC may order a person’s reinstatement, or
the payment of compensation to a person, if:
(a) the FWC is satisfied that the person was protected from unfair
dismissal (see Division 2) at the time of being dismissed; and
(b) the person has been unfairly dismissed (see Division 3).
(2) the FWC may make the order only if the person has made an application
under section 394.
(3) the FWC must not order the payment of compensation to the person unless:
(a) the FWC is satisfied that reinstatement of the person is inappropriate;
and
(b) the FWC considers an order for payment of compensation is
appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.
Note: Division 5 deals with procedural matters such as applications for remedies.
… …
392 Remedy—compensation
Compensation
[2023] FWC 1325
18
(1) An order for the payment of compensation to a person must be an order
that the person’s employer at the time of the dismissal pay compensation
to the person in lieu of reinstatement.
Criteria for deciding amounts
(2) In determining an amount for the purposes of an order under subsection
(1), the FWC must take into account all the circumstances of the case
including:
(a) the effect of the order on the viability of the employer’s enterprise;
and
(b) the length of the person’s service with the employer; and
(c) the remuneration that the person would have received, or would have
been likely to receive, if the person had not been dismissed; and
(d) the efforts of the person (if any) to mitigate the loss suffered by the
person because of the dismissal; and
(e) the amount of any remuneration earned by the person from
employment or other work during the period between the dismissal
and the making of the order for compensation; and
(f) the amount of any income reasonably likely to be so earned by the
person during the period between the making of the order for
compensation and the actual compensation; and
(g) any other matter that the FWC considers relevant.
Misconduct reduces amount
(3) If the FWC is satisfied that misconduct of a person contributed to the
employer’s decision to dismiss the person, the FWC must reduce the
amount it would otherwise order under subsection (1) by an appropriate
amount on account of the misconduct.
Shock, distress etc. Disregarded
(4) The amount ordered by the FWC to be paid to a person under subsection
(1) must not include a component by way of compensation for shock,
distress or humiliation, or other analogous hurt, caused to the person by
the manner of the person’s dismissal.
Compensation cap
(5) The amount ordered by the FWC to be paid to a person under subsection
(1) must not exceed the lesser of:
(a) the amount worked out under subsection (6); and
(b) half the amount of the high income threshold immediately before the
dismissal.
(6) The amount is the total of the following amounts:
[2023] FWC 1325
19
(a) the total amount of remuneration:
(i) received by the person; or
(ii) to which the person was entitled;
(whichever is higher) for any period of employment with the
employer during the 26 weeks immediately before the dismissal;
and
(b) if the employee was on leave without pay or without full pay while
so employed during any part of that period—the amount of
remuneration taken to have been received by the employee for the
period of leave in accordance with the regulations.
393 Monetary orders may be in instalments
To avoid doubt, an order by the FWC under subsection 391(3) or 392(1) may
permit the employer concerned to pay the amount required in instalments
specified in the order.”
[95] The prerequisites of ss.390(1) and (2) have been met in this case.
[96] Section 390 of the FW Act makes it clear that compensation is only to be awarded as a
remedy where the Commission is satisfied that reinstatement is inappropriate and that
compensation is appropriate in all the circumstances. As Mr Yang does not seek reinstatement
and the Respondent strongly opposes that form of remedy, I find that such would be
inappropriate in all of the circumstances of this matter.
[97] As set out above, under the FW Act, it is then necessary to consider whether
compensation in lieu of reinstatement is appropriate.
[98] A Full Bench in McCulloch v Calvary Health Care Adelaide64 (McCulloch) confirmed,
in general terms, that the approach to the assessment of compensation as undertaken in cases
such as Sprigg65 remains appropriate in that regard.
[99] Section 392(2) of the FW Act requires me to take into account all of the circumstances
of the case including the factors that are listed in paragraphs (a) to (g). Without detracting from
the overall assessment required by the FW Act,66 it is convenient to discuss the identified
considerations under the various matters raised by each of the provisions.
The effect of the order on the viability of SAL
[100] Nothing was put on this aspect, but SAL is a relatively large business and there is no
indication that an order of the kind being considered here would impact upon the viability of
that business.
The length of Mr Yang’s service with SAL
[2023] FWC 1325
20
[101] Mr Yang worked for the Respondent for over 16 months, which is not a significant
duration.
The remuneration Mr Yang would have received, or would have been likely to receive, if
he had not been dismissed
[102] This involves, in part, consideration of the likely duration of Mr Yang’s employment in
the absence of what I have found to be an unfair dismissal. That is, the establishment of the
anticipated period of employment.67
[103] The anticipated period of employment requires consideration as to how long the
employment would have continued before it otherwise came to an end fairly, or on some
justified or mutual basis. An applicant employee might also leave of their own volition and
this is a prospect in this case given the events relevant to this matter.
[104] This is not an easy assessment in the context of this case. There were indications of
tension in the relationship and there were matters that would properly have been raised as
performance and conduct concerns. In the absence of warning prior to that point or a valid
reason for dismissal at the point of termination, this would suggest that a reasonable forward
projection of employment should be made. However, the Applicant’s response to the discussion
with Mr Wang on 6 February 2023 would also indicate that some caution should be exercised
in presuming ongoing employment. This is reinforced by the absence of any real effort by the
Applicant to contact Mr Rong on the day in question to have the issues addressed, despite this
being twice suggested by Mr Tang, the General Manager, at the time.
[105] I consider that the anticipated period of employment for present purposes should be
some 5 weeks, including a period of notice. This reflects the balancing of all of the
circumstances and inferences arising from the facts of this particular matter.
[106] Mr Yang was generally paid an ordinary weekly wage of $1,06268 (rounded) per week,
plus superannuation contributions.
[107] The projected remuneration that Mr Yang would have received based upon the
anticipated period of employment with SAL and the rate of remuneration paid would therefore
have been $5,310 plus superannuation contributions.
The efforts of Mr Yang to mitigate the loss suffered by him because of the dismissal
[108] I am satisfied that Mr Yang made reasonable efforts to obtain employment after the
dismissal. He did provide evidence of the job applications and other endeavours he made to
secure other work.
[109] I do not consider that any discount to the compensation based on this consideration
should be made.
The amount of any remuneration earned by Mr Yang from employment or other work
during the period between the dismissal and the making of the order for compensation
[2023] FWC 1325
21
The amount of any income reasonably likely to be so earned by Mr Yang during the period
between the making of the order for compensation and the actual compensation
[110] The evidence about this aspect is very limited. Mr Yang gave evidence that he undertook
some limited casual work (a few hours as a casual cleaner) in the Chinatown restaurant district
in Adelaide about a week after he was dismissed. He indicated that he received no pay slips or
other employment documentation. Mr Yang also stated that he undertook some work “tomato
picking” for about 2 weeks – also without any details being provided to the Commission.
Further, he obtained ongoing employment about six weeks prior to the hearing, which would
have been a commencement in or around 24 April 2023, some 11 weeks after his dismissal.
[111] In the absence of actual information and convincing evidence from the Applicant about
the detail, I will determine this matter on the basis that he was paid at least the national minimum
wage for a casual ($26.73 per hour) for 6 hours a week commencing one week after the
dismissal. This amounts to $160.40 (rounded) per week. I have adopted this approach to be fair
to both parties whilst taking into account that it was the Applicant’s responsibility to provide
whatever information he had.69
[112] Given that I have projected the remuneration loss over 5 weeks, I consider that an
amount of $641.60 (4 weeks at $160.40 per week – the first week after the dismissal was without
any remuneration) should be taken into account under s.392(2)(e) of the FW Act.
Any other matter that the FWC considers relevant and the remaining statutory
parameters
[113] I have taken into account the projected nature of the anticipated loss of remuneration
over a known period and given the circumstances of this case, it is not appropriate to make a
further allowance for contingencies.70
[114] There was some misconduct on 6 February 2023 and I consider that this should be taken
into account as provided by s.392(3) of the FW Act. A deduction from the projected loss figure
of 5 per cent is relevant and appropriate in this case.
[115] In accordance with s.392(4) of the FW Act, I make no allowance for any shock, distress
or humiliation that may have been caused by the dismissal. I also observe that compensation
pursuant to s.392 is not in the nature of damages or a penalty for the actions of the employer.
[116] The maximum compensation limit in this case is the lesser of 26 weeks remuneration71
before the dismissal occurred ($27,612) or the stated statutory compensation cap of $81,000.72
The amount of compensation otherwise arising from the statutory considerations is less than
the lower figure.
[117] Taxation as required would be payable on any amount determined. I consider that
superannuation of 10.5 per cent73 should be taken into account in relation to the compensation
to be paid in this matter.
Conclusions on remedy
[2023] FWC 1325
22
[118] Having regard to the circumstances of this matter applied to the considerations
established by s.392 of the FW Act, I consider that it is appropriate to make an award of
compensation to Mr Yang in lieu of reinstatement. Further, I consider that the compensation
should amount to $4,402.90 plus superannuation contributions, given the circumstances of this
case and the terms of the FW Act.
[119] The above compensation figure has been derived by taking the projected remuneration
loss, discounting this figure by 5 per cent on the basis of the misconduct consideration, and
deducting the deemed payments that were received from the new employment during the period
of anticipated employment with SAL in the absence of the dismissal.
8. Conclusions
[120] I find that Mr Yang’s dismissal was unfair within the meaning of the FW Act.
[121] I have found that compensation is appropriate in lieu of reinstatement and the amount
determined above is also appropriate in all of the circumstances.
[122] The compensation payment is to be made within 14 days of this decision.
[123] An Order74 consistent with the above is being issued in conjunction with this Decision.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
T Yang, the Applicant on his own behalf.
F Rong, on behalf of SAL HR Services Pty Ltd, the Respondent.
Hearing details:
2023
Adelaide
June 7.
THE FAIR WORK COMMISSION AUSTRALLA THE SEAL
[2023] FWC 1325
23
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
PR762807
1 Notice of Full Time Employment – exhibit R6, paragraph 1.
2 Transcript PN328 to PN331.
3 Sections 382, and 385(c) and (d) of the FW Act have been met.
4 Drawn from Form F2 Unfair dismissal application, page 5.
5 Exhibit A1.
6 Exhibits A2, A3 and A4.
7 Exhibit A1.
8 Ibid.
9 Submissions, paragraph 3.
10 There were also some documents provided that were part of the Respondent’s materials.
11 Exhibit A1.
12 Exhibit A2.
13 Exhibit A3.
14 Exhibit A4.
15 Form F3 Employer response to unfair dismissal application, page 6; Respondent’s Outline of Submission, paragraphs 6,
26, 27, 31.
16 Form F3 Employer response to unfair dismissal application, page 6.
17 Form F3 Employer response to unfair dismissal application, page 5; Respondent’s Outline of Submission, paragraph 25.
18 Form F3 Employer response to unfair dismissal application, page 6; Respondent’s Outline of Submission, paragraphs 2, 3,
26.
19 Ibid.
20 Form F3 Employer response to unfair dismissal application, page 6; Respondent’s Outline of Submission, paragraph 4.
21 Form F3 Employer response to unfair dismissal application, page 6; Respondent’s Outline of Submission, paragraph 5.
22 Respondent’s Outline of Submission, paragraph 5.
23 Exhibit R1.
24 Exhibit R13.
25 Exhibit R14.
26 Exhibit R15.
27 Exhibit R2.
28 Exhibit R3.
29 Exhibit R4.
30 Exhibit R5.
31 Exhibit R6.
32 Exhibit R7.
33 Exhibit R8.
34 Exhibit R9.
35 Exhibit R10.
36 Exhibit R11.
37 Exhibit R12.
[2023] FWC 1325
24
38 Exhibit R11.
39 Exhibit R14.
40 Exhibit R7.
41 Subsections (2) and (3) are not relevant to this matter.
42 Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).
43 [2006] AIRC 496 (PR973462).
44 (2017) 271 IR 245; [2017] FWCFB 3941.
45 Ngo v Link Printing Pty Ltd (1999) 94 IR 375 at [12].
46 Ibid.
47 Sayer v Melsteel Pty Ltd [2011] FWAFB 7498 at [14]; Smith v Moore Paragon Australia Ltd PR915674 (AIRCFB, Ross
VP, Lacy SDP, Simmonds C, 21 March 2002) at [69].
48 Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 371, 373.
49 Ibid as cited in Potter v WorkCover Corporation, (2004) 133 IR 458 per Ross VP, Williams SDP, Foggo C and endorsed
by the Full Bench in Industrial Automation Group Pty Ltd T/A Industrial Automation [2010] FWAFB 8868, 2 December
2010 per Kaufman SDP, Richards SDP and Hampton C at [36].
50 Walton v Mermaid Dry Cleaners Pty Ltd (1996) IRCA 267 per Moore J at [685].
51 See Australia Meat Holdings Pty Ltd v McLauchlan (1998) 84 IR 1; King v Freshmore (Vic) Pty Ltd AIRCFB Print S4213
per Ross VP, Williams SDP, Hingley C, 17 March 2000 (King); Edwards v Giudice (1999) 94 FCR 561 (Edwards); Crozier
v Palazzo Corporation Pty Limited t/as Noble Park Storage and Transport AIRCFB Print S5897 per Ross VP, Acton SDP
and Cribb C, 11 May 2000 (Crozier) and Rode v Burwood Mitsubishi AIRCFB Print R4471 per Ross VP, Polites SDP,
Foggo C, 11 May 1999
52 King at [24].
53 Edwardsat [7].
54 King at [23]-[24].
55 Crozier at 151.
56 Previsic v Australian Quarantine Inspection Services Print Q3730 (AIRC, Holmes C, 6 October 1998).
57 Ibid.
58 Crozier at [75].
59 RMIT v Asher (2010) 194 IR 1, 14-15.
60 Gibson v Bosmac Pty Ltd (1995) 60 IR 1, 7.
61 Wadey v YMCA Canberra [1996] IRCA 568.
62 Jurisic v ABB Australia Pty Ltd [2014] FWCFB 5835 at [84].
63 ALH Group Pty Ltd t/a The Royal Exchange Hotel v Mulhall (2002) 117 IR 357 at [51]. See also Smith v Moore Paragon
Australia Ltd PR915674 (AIRCFB, Ross VP, Lacy SDP, Simmonds C, 21 March 2002) at [92]; Edwards at [6]–[7].
64 [2015] FWCFB 873.
65 Sprigg v Paul’s Licensed Festival Supermarket (1998) 88 IR 21. See also Bowden v Ottrey Homes Cobram and District
Retirement Villages Inc T/A Ottrey Lodge [2013] FWCFB 431.
66 Smith and Others v Moore Paragon Australia Ltd (2004) 130 IR 446.
67 McCulloch.
68 Based upon the evidence of Mr Rong that the Applicant worked 40 hours per week and was paid $26.56 per hour – transcript
PN368 to PN371. This is also consistent with the payments made upon termination.
69 The Applicant was expressly put on notice prior to the hearing that he should attend prepared to provide the relevant
information as part of his case.
70 See the discussion of contingencies in McCulloch at [20] – [23]; Bowden v Ottrey Homes Cobram and District Retirement
Villages Inc T/A Ottrey Lodge [2013] FWCFB 431, at [52]; Ellawala v Australian Postal Corporation AIRC Print S5109, per
Ross VP, Williams SDP and Gay C, 17 April 2000 and in Enhance Systems Pty Ltd v James Cox AIRC Print PR910779, per
Williams SDP, Acton SDP and Gay C, 31 October 2001.
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/pr973462.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2017fwcfb3941.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2011fwafb7498.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/alldocuments/pr915674.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/pr915674.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2010fwafb8868.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2014fwcfb5835.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/pr915674.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2015fwcfb873.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2013fwcfb431.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2013fwcfb431.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/pr910779.htm
[2023] FWC 1325
25
71 It is the higher of the amount of remuneration received or entitled to be received for the previous 26 weeks period that is to
be used under s.392(6)(a) of the FW Act.
72 Section 392(5) of the FW Act.
73 Based upon the Superannuation Guarantee Charge Act 1992 (Cth) and related scheme.
74 PR763637.
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awardsandorders/pdf/pr763637.pdf
