1
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 – Application for unfair dismissal remedy
Wen-Kuan Wang
v
Springtime Poultry Pty Ltd
(U2024/12332)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT DOBSON BRISBANE, 24 MARCH 2025
Application for relief from unfair dismissal – whether dismissal harsh, unjust and unreasonable
[1] Mr Wen-Kuan Wang (Mr Wang) has made an application for an unfair dismissal remedy
under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act). Mr Wang was employed by Springtime
Poultry Pty Ltd (Springtime). Springtime provide labour hire services to a poultry processing
plant in Mareeba, North Queensland. Springtime deny that Mr Wang was unfairly dismissed and
instead say that they terminated Mr Wang’s employment on the 8th of October 2024 on the
grounds of serious misconduct for both creating disharmony in the team and for committing fraud
by claiming he had completed more work than he otherwise had and gaining financial advantage
for himself in doing so.
Permission to appear
[2] Springtime sought leave to be represented before the Commission by a lawyer. Mr Wang
was represented by his Union who did not require leave.
[3] The Act provides that a party may be represented in a matter before the Commission only
with the permission of the Commission.1 It also provides the reasons that permission may be
granted.2 Previous cases determined by the Commission or superior courts give guidance as to
how these reasons should be considered.3
[4] I provided the parties with an opportunity to make submissions about these issues. Mr
Wang made no objection to leave being granted and I was satisfied, having regard to all relevant
matters,4 that it would assist the Commission to deal with the matters more efficiently with the
granting of the leave sought and on that basis leave was given to Springtime to be legally
represented.
The hearing
[5] The matter proceeded to a hearing before me on 9 January 2025.
[2025] FWC 798
DECISION
AUSTRALIA FairWork Commission
[2025] FWC 798
2
[6] At the hearing Mr Wang was represented by Mr Craig Buckley of the Australasian Meat
Industry Employees’ Union (AMIEU) and Springtime was represented by Ms Evelyn Loan Cam
Ong of EDA Lawyers. The Applicant was also assisted by a Mandarin interpreter.
[7] Mr Wang gave evidence on his own behalf.
[8] The following witnesses gave evidence on behalf of Springtime:
• Mr Quoc Thai Tran (Mr Tran)
• Ms Chou Shu Ting (Ms Ting / Aidan)
[9] Both parties filed submissions and also made oral closing submissions following the
witness evidence and cross examination of all of the witnesses. Springtime failed to file any
witness statement from its Director Mr Tran. Instead, Mr Tran swore into evidence the
Respondent’s Form F3, submissions and the annexures to those submissions at the hearing.5
Has the Applicant been dismissed?
[10] A threshold issue to determine is whether the Applicant has been dismissed from their
employment. There was no dispute and I find that the Applicant’s employment with the
Respondent terminated at the initiative of the Respondent.
[11] I am therefore satisfied that the Applicant has been dismissed within the meaning of s.385
of the FW Act.
Initial matters
[12] There is no dispute and I am satisfied that the application was filed within the required
21 days.6
[13] There is no dispute and I am satisfied that Mr Wang is protected from unfair dismissal.7
[14] There is no dispute and I am satisfied that Springtime is not a small business8 and that the
dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy.9
[15] The Commission must now proceed to consider the merits of the application and decide
whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, taking account of the matters in s.387
of the Act.10
Findings
[16] I acknowledge the submissions and evidence made by both parties in writing, which are
set out in the Digital Court Book. This evidence and other relevant matters were further tested
and explored at hearing. I note that at hearing, Mr Wang’s evidence at Exhibit A1 was contested
but not its annexures (the termination letter and Springtime payslips), nor Exhibit A2 (Mr Wang’s
new employer payslips). Of Springtime’s evidence at hearing, Exhibits R1-5 were uncontested
and Exhibit R6, the witness statement of Ms Shu-Ting Chou, was partially contested by Mr
Wang. I do not intend to detail all of the submissions and evidence here however they have all
been considered and these are my findings.
[2025] FWC 798
3
[17] Mr Wang was employed as a poultry process worker, working in a poultry processing
area licenced by Springtime, located in an industrial building operated by Bartter Enterprises Pty
Ltd (part of the Baiada Group) (BMA). Mr Wang commenced employment with Springtime on
15 October 2021 and submits his English is limited and his first language is Mandarin.
[18] Employees at Springtime are paid bonuses for performing various poultry processing
tasks.11 The highest bonus is paid for deboning a chicken. Each time a chicken is deboned, the
tail of that chicken is placed in a crate under the worktable of that employee. When the employee
finishes their shift, they are required to count the number of tails in their crate and report the
number of tails by writing them on a tally sheet that they then place inside the crate. Bonus
payments are calculated on the number of tails counted. Random counts are carried out to check
the accuracy of the reported counts.12 Mr Wang claims that crates often overflow and tails fall
out. Springtime rejects this assertion and claims that employees can use a second crate if the first
one becomes full. Despite working there for almost 3 years, Mr Wang claims that he was
unaware he could grab a second crate. I am not persuaded that Mr Wang, knowing that he is paid
a bonus for every tail he places in a crate, would allow it to overflow and spill on the floor. At
hearing, I found Mr Wang answered questions clearly when the answers favoured him, however
when the answers did not favour him, his answers were vague and difficult to understand, even
with the assistance of the interpreter. An example of this is when he was asked what the difference
was between being a casual and being full time. Mr Wang claimed not to know. However, when
he was later asked why he had requested becoming full time, he explained that he would be paid
for public holidays, leave and would be paid for a guaranteed 38 hours every week. Further, in
Mr Wang’s own witness statement, he himself refers to using a second crate.13 I am persuaded
that a second crate was available for use should the first one overflow and that a crate will fit 700
(large) to 800 (Small) tails before it is full.
[19] At hearing, Springtime submitted the tally sheet from the day it is alleged Mr Wang
falsified his count, Monday 30 September 2024.14 There was some cross examination of Mr
Wang and Ms Ting however the Applicant’s representative declined to cross examine Mr Tran.
In considering their evidence, it is apparent that there is a count of tallies at certain times that day
as follows:15
Springtime Tail Tally 30 September 2024
Time Mr Wang Other Employees Average
7.30am 275 111-248 189
10am 245 71-239 165
12.30pm 230 78-210 147
[20] The tally sheet that day shows that Mr Wang deboned consistently more chickens than
any other staff member at each time slot and also significantly above the average.16 At hearing
Mr Wang confirmed that he had placed his signature on the tally sheet on 30 September 2024,
confirming that his count was accurate.17 Mr Wang identified his signature under the column
titled “Signed” on that tally sheet.18 A random audit was performed by Springtime’s client, BMA,
at the end of Mr Wang’s shift. The audit by the BMA Team Leader found that Mr Wang’s crate
contained 24 fewer tails than he had reported, entered “-24” and initialled their findings under
the column titled “TL Check”.19 A further two people, the BMA back up Team Leader and a
Springtime Supervisor, also checked the count (unaware that the crate belonged to Mr Wang, to
avoid bias)20 and they each signed the tally sheet confirming their findings to the right of the “TL
[2025] FWC 798
4
Check” column.21 A search was conducted for lost tails to no avail22 and the cleaner at the end
of Mr Wang’s shift did not find any lost tails during the clean.23
[21] I accept that there was a shortfall of 24 tails counted in Mr Wang’s crate compared to the
number he claims to have completed and counted.
The meeting on 8 October 2024
Disharmony in the Team
[22] It is uncontested that this was brought to the attention of Mr Wang on 8 October 2024.
Mr Wang was asked to report to Springtime’s Director, Mr Tran.
[23] In the meeting, in relation to the issue of creating disharmony in the team, Mr Tran:
• told Mr Wang that another employee reported that Mr Wang had told them “not
to listen to the boss”;24
• contended Mr Wang he had been “saying bad things about Thai (Mr Tran);25 and
• contended Mr Wang had said that “he is a bad boss and doesn’t look after his
staff.”26
[24] Mr Wang denied that he had said this to anyone.27 Mr Wang asserted that he had not
been provided with enough information about these allegations. I do not accept this proposition.
The employer is required to provide sufficient particulars to enable the employee to provide a
meaningful response to the allegations. The employer is not required to prepare written
particularised complaints nor to give detailed evidence to the employee. On these allegations,
Mr Wang was provided with a number of examples. In the meeting Mr Wang was provided the
examples at paragraph 23 of this decision and in response he blanketly denied them.28 Mr
Wang’s response weighs in favour of a finding that Mr Wang had the information he required
when he chose to deny them.
Incorrect Tail Count
[25] In the meeting, in relation to the counts:
• Mr Tran provided Mr Wang with a copy of his employment contract to confirm
that Mr Wang had signed it;29
• Mr Tran then showed Mr Wang the tally sheet showing the over reported count
incorrect by 24 and the checks. He provided Mr Wang an opportunity to check
that his debone numbers were correct;30
• Mr Wang denied his count was inaccurate;31
• Mr Wang claimed that he asked Ben Dickson to check his count with the inference
that he had double checked that his count was indeed correct,32 however Mr Tran
concluded that Mr Wang was being untruthful as Mr Tran had confirmed that the
error was discovered as a result of a random audit33 and that 3 people had checked
and verified that the count was incorrect by a margin of 24 in Mr Wang’s favour,34
that 2 of the 3 checks had been performed by Springtime’s client35 and 2 of the 3
checks had been performed by people who were unaware whose crate they were
counting to avoid any bias;36
[2025] FWC 798
5
• Mr Tran advised Mr Wang that a count variance in excess of 5 would result in the
termination of his employment;37
• Mr Tran explained to Mr Wang that 3 people had checked his count;38
• Mr Wang asked for the cameras to be checked;39
• Mr Tran explained to Mr Wang that the company policy needed to be followed in
respect of counts and where gross misconduct has been proven, it would result in
the termination of employment;40
• Mr Wang requested a copy of the relevant documents. Mr Tran provided them to
him and Mr Wang checked those documents;41 and
• Mr Tran told Mr Wang his $200 bond would be returned and asked him to return
his ID card which Mr Wang did.42
[26] I accept Mr Tran’s comments about the employment contract reference to the policy and
procedure and consequences of incorrect counts are correct because Mr Tran’s contemporaneous
record of the meeting43 was not contested. Further, the record correlates with the evidence of the
Applicant and what44 the uncontested termination letter45 states. That is, the termination letter
points to section 6.6 in Mr Wang’s employment contract that spells out:46
• Counts will be audited on a random basis to check for accuracy;47
• If the audit number doesn’t match the number reported by the employee, an
investigation will occur;48
• A miscount of up to 5 will be considered reasonable due to human error;49
• Miscounts greater than this number may be found to be fraudulent;50 and
• If this occurs the consequence will be immediate dismissal.51
[27] Mr Wang was provided a written termination letter at the end of the meeting on 8 October
2024 by hand.52 The letter said that Mr Wang was terminated for serious misconduct for both
creating disharmony in the team and for the incorrect over-reporting of tails by 24.
[28] Mr Tran’s contemporaneous record is signed by Mr Wang on the day of the meeting, 8
October 2024. 53
Mr Wang
[29] I have dealt with Mr Wang’s evidence where it directly related to the timeline of events
leading to his dismissal however there are some additional parts of his evidence that do not neatly
fit into that sequence that I will address.
[30] In his statement, Mr Wang gave evidence that he had never been told that his count was
incorrect54 and he initially confirmed this at hearing under cross examination. He also said in his
statement that Ms Ting/Aidan did not like him and that she used to check his count ‘all of the
time’55 but that his count was ‘always ok.’56 However, under cross examination at hearing, Mr
Wang, reluctantly and with some perseverance, admitted that supervisor Ms Chou Shu Ting had
raised with him that his count was wrong on a number of occasions.
[31] Mr Wang contends that Springtime failed to consider that his tails could have spilled from
his crate.57 At hearing under cross examination Mr Wang was asked why he wouldn’t have
started on a second crate if his crate was full and he responded by saying that no one had let him
know that he was able to use a second crate and further that he had never used a second crate. I
[2025] FWC 798
6
note that this is contradicted in Mr Wang’s own statement that he had indeed previously used a
second crate.58 Further, Springtime gave evidence that a second crate was available to Mr Wang
if required, which in all of the circumstances I accept.
[32] Further, in his statement, Mr Wang claimed that he remembered occasions (more than
one) when his Team Leader had discovered other workers with incorrect counts. He stated that
someone would be dismissed and others would be given another chance.59 He claims that there
was a worker who reported a count of 30 more than they had and that they were not dismissed.60
At hearing Mr Wang was unable to give specific information and it became apparent this
evidence amounted to hearsay and could be given no weight. It was also at odds with the
evidence of Springtime.
[33] Mr Wang also stated that he remembered occasions when the team leader had discovered
mistakes in the counts and that those employees were permitted to check their own counts.61
Again under cross examination Mr Wang’s statement was evidently hearsay and contrary to the
evidence of Springtime.
[34] More specifically Springtime’s evidence at odds with Mr Wang’s statements was that:
• There had only ever been one other infringement of the count policy;62
• The inaccurate count by Mr Wang was by far the greatest number of inaccuracies
ever found by them;63 and
• Employees were not permitted under the count procedure to have access to their
crates when an error was found to avoid the potential for tampering. Instead the
crate would be checked by at least one independent person;64
• Mr Wang had “on other occasions miscounted tails, always to his advantage”
however it had not exceeded the allowance for human error and thus Springtime
had not given Mr Wang formal notice.65
[35] I found Mr Wang’s evidence to be unreliable and self-serving. These multiple examples
demonstrated an unfortunate pattern lacking in honesty.
Ms Ting
[36] In her evidence, Ms Ting explained that Mr Wang had been involved in an incident with
her on 2 September 2022 in which she said she threw a chicken cutlet at the table but it had
slipped to the ground and touched Mr Wang’s belly.66 She claims that Mr Wang instead reported
that she had thrown a whole chicken at him and that he took sick leave supported by a medical
certificate that also said a whole chicken had been thrown at him. Ms Ting said that Mr Wang
had claimed that the incident had caused him to have chest pain. Mr Wang contested this
evidence at hearing on the basis it had happened a long time before and that it was not relevant
to the issues in question. It appears to me that the point of this evidence is to demonstrate that
Mr Wang is not honest or truthful.
[37] Ms Ting’s evidence also went on to explain that Mr Wang had directly made a number
of disparaging assertions to her about Mr Tran.67 They were statements that “you have to be
careful about boss”,68 and that a lot of people told him about problems with the boss (Mr Tran).69
Ms Ting was sincere and open in her cross examination. Under cross examination she did not
resile from the fact she wanted to demonstrate her boss was not a bad person. I find Ms Ting’s
evidence regarding Mr Wang's remarks about Mr Tran to be more credible. On the other hand, I
[2025] FWC 798
7
am unable to accept Mr Wang's denial. Throughout this matter, Mr Wang consistently denied all
allegations and provided evidence that was often misleading and contradictory. This decision
outlines several instances of such conduct.
Consideration
Was there a valid reason for the dismissal related to the Applicant’s capacity or conduct?
[38] The reason must be one that is ‘sound, defensible or well founded.’70 A reason which is
‘capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced’ cannot be a valid reason.71 ‘[T]he reason for
termination must be defensible or justifiable on an objective analysis of the relevant facts.’72 It
will not be enough for an employer to say that they acted in the belief that the termination was
for a valid reason.73 The valid reason for termination is not to be judged by a legal entitlement to
terminate an employee, ‘but [by] the existence of a reason for the exercise of that right’ related
to the facts of the matter.74 The Commission does not ‘stand in the shoes’ of the employer but
will need to be satisfied that the termination of the employee was for a valid reason.75
[39] Springtime submits there was a valid reason for dismissal relating to Mr Wang’s conduct,
in creating disharmony amongst their workers, and his allegedly fraudulent discrepancy in the
number of tails reported on 30 September 2024.76 The number of tails being 24 short is a
significant difference to the 5 permitted by company policy as being potentially a result of human
error77 and the largest error ever found.78 Critically, Mr Wang did not suggest that he had made
any error when provided with an opportunity to do so. Instead, he just denied his count was
wrong.79
[40] Further, Mr Wang in his own witness statement also acknowledges being informed about
having a count of 5 less than he had otherwise reported on 1 October 2024 and of four less than
he had otherwise reported on 3 October 2024.80 It does not escape me that all the counts in error
were all in Mr Wang’s favour.81 I note that the termination letter, consistent with the evidence
given at hearing, was consistent with the company policy that any counts under 5 were considered
possible human error.
[41] The case of Sydney Trains v Gary Hilder82 is a useful reminder that the question of
whether there was a valid reason for dismissal cannot be resolved by considering only whether
certain conduct was in breach of company policy. The relative importance of any policy breached
must also be considered, as well as whether the conduct, considered in totality, was of
sufficient gravity to constitute a sound, defensible, well-founded and so valid reason for
dismissal.
[42] Under cross examination Mr Wang acknowledged that he had refused to cut nibbles.
Nibbles are smaller parts of the chicken and it was uncontested that nibbles pay less per hour
than deboning whole chickens.83 Mr Wang gave evidence that he refused to cut nibbles because
it paid less per hour and deboning whole chickens paid the most. Mr Wang acknowledged the
company’s position when he accepted his employment contract and he was reminded of it on 30
August 2024 by text message, 1 month before the incorrect count, in a text message that said:
“Team make sure your counts are 100% correct everyday. If you are unsure ask a supervisor to
double check or another team member to check for you.”84 Mr Wang acknowledged the reminder
by return text “Yes” a couple of hours later.85 In all the circumstances set out in my decision, this
weighs in favour of a finding that Mr Wang acted contrary to company policy to maximise his
income.
[2025] FWC 798
8
[43] The tally sheets show that he was a diligent worker, consistently performing at the top of
his team. On its own, there is nothing wrong with an employee taking advantage of a bonus
scheme to maximise their income. Whilst Mr Tran’s concerns about Mr Wang’s conduct in
respect to creating disharmony in the workplace in isolation might not be enough to constitute a
valid reason, when considered in conjunction with the breach and its magnitude, destroyed the
trust and confidence Mr Tran had in Mr Wang. This supports a finding that there was a valid
reason for his dismissal.
Was the Applicant notified of the valid reason?
[44] Proper consideration of s.387(b) requires a finding to be made as to whether the applicant
“was notified of that reason”. Contextually, the reference to “that reason” is the valid reason
found to exist under s.387(a).86
[45] Notification of a valid reason for termination must be given to an employee protected
from unfair dismissal before the decision is made to terminate their employment,87 and in
explicit88 and plain and clear terms.89
[46] It is uncontested that Mr Wang met with Mr Tran on 8 October 2024 and during the
meeting Mr Wang had the two allegations put to him for response.90 Mr Tran advised Mr Wang
that his employment was terminated91 and also provided a termination letter by hand92 that
explained the reasons for termination.93
[47] In all the circumstances, I find that Mr Wang was notified of the reason for his dismissal.94
Was the Applicant given an opportunity to respond to any valid reason related to their capacity
or conduct?
[48] Mr Wang submits that he was not afforded any effective opportunity to respond to the
matters relied upon by Springtime for the dismissal on 8 October 2024, and that he was not
afforded any possibility of verifying whether or not his count was inaccurate. Mr Wang’s
assertions were unsupported by evidence as set out in the preceding paragraphs. I find that at the
meeting on 8 October 2024 Mr Wang had an opportunity to respond to the allegations against
him. He was provided the tally sheet to check and respond to. He requested documentation that
he was consequently provided to examine.
[49] In all of the circumstances, I find that Mr Wang was given an opportunity to respond to
the reasons for his dismissal prior to the decision to dismiss being made.95
Did the Respondent unreasonably refuse to allow the Applicant to have a support person
present to assist at discussions relating to the dismissal?
[50] This consideration is irrelevant on the facts of this case. In any event, there was no
unreasonable refusal by Springtime to allow Mr Wang a support person for the discussion
relating to the dismissal and nor has any such refusal been alleged.96
Was the Applicant warned about unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal?
[2025] FWC 798
9
[51] Mr Wang submitted that the miscount should be considered an unsatisfactory
performance issue rather than misconduct. I reject this contention. Uncaught by an audit, it would
have resulted in a financial benefit to Mr Wang to which he was not properly entitled. He would
have been paid for performing work he did not perform. Springtime submits that its business
operates on the basis that a high degree of trust is placed in its employees to accurately record
the number of tails.97
[52] In all of the circumstances, an over-report of 24 is significant. Where there is a clear
financial benefit to Mr Wang and a financial detriment to Springtime and it occurs in
circumstances where an employee has been made aware that incorrect reporting of this nature is
considered gross misconduct that would result in instant dismissal,98 the issue cannot be properly
said to be only a performance issue. The Fair Work Regulations define that serious misconduct
includes fraud.99 Fraud arises for many reasons including when a person falsifies or creates
misleading information in order to receive a benefit.
[53] As the dismissal did not relate to unsatisfactory performance, this factor is not relevant to
the present circumstances.
To what degree would the size or the absence of dedicated human resource management
specialists or expertise of/in the Respondent’s enterprise be likely to impact on the procedures
followed in effecting the dismissal?
[54] Mr Wang submits that the size of Springtime should not have impacted the procedures
that it ought to have followed in the circumstances of Mr Wang’s termination. Springtime denies
that it should not have had an impact but did not provide submissions on why.
[55] Springtime was a relatively small business100 and the disciplinary action was undertaken
by its Director himself, Mr Tran. It is my finding that Mr Tran lacked the sophistication and
specialist expertise of a larger organisation and that this impacted on the imperfect termination
process.
[56] For example, neither a copy of Mr Wang’s employment contract nor the relevant policy
were put before the Commission. References to the relevant aspects of the employment contract
that warned Mr Wang of the potential for instant dismissal in the circumstances that the employer
found a fraudulent count had occurred were found in the contemporaneous meeting record101 and
the termination letter102. I do not draw a negative inference from this because I am of the view
that this is a consequence of Springtime being a small business that lacks specialist expertise.
[57] In considering the circumstances, I find that Springtime’s size had a negative impact
resulting in poor procedures being followed in effecting the dismissal including in how it had
dealt with previous issues that might have warranted more formal warnings.103
[58] Further, I find that Springtime does not employ any dedicated human resources staff and
therefore its poor procedures, particularly in relation to previous warnings, the investigation of
the circumstances of 30 September 2024, including its timing, need to be considered.104
What other matters are relevant?
[59] Mr Wang submitted that Springtime failed to consider that an incorrect count could have
occurred as a result of human error, tails being dislodged from the crate, other employees
[2025] FWC 798
10
bumping the crate, tails overflowing from an overfull crate or fallen tails being washed from the
area by cleaners.105 Mr Wang did not provide any of these responses on the 8th of October when
he was asked about the count.106 I have previously noted some of the contradictions in Mr
Wang’s evidence and I have also had regard to Springtime’s evidence that a second crate was
available to Mr Wang if required, that a search was conducted for lost tails to no avail107 and that
the cleaner at the end of Mr Wang’s shift did not find any lost tails during the clean.108
[60] Mr Wang submits that in circumstances where a valid reason for the termination is found
to exist, that the termination is still unfair as the decision was harsh, unjust and unreasonable.109
[61] Mr Wang submits that there was a lack of procedural fairness and contended that some 9
days elapsed before the incorrect count of 30 September 2024 was brought to his attention.110
This is applicable to the concept of condonation which embraces the notion that an employer
might waiver their right to claim that conduct amounts to serious misconduct by electing not to
act immediately when they become aware that such conduct may have occurred. The principles
applicable to this issue are set out in Cannan & Fuller v Nyrstar Hobart Pty Ltd.111 Springtime
submit that they took 9 days because they were thoroughly investigating the concerns before
raising them with Mr Wang. It is well established that in circumstances where it believes an
employee has engaged in conduct so serious it would warrant termination if proven, they should
have stood the employee down (ordinarily on full pay), while that investigation is underway.
This is a flaw in the termination process.
[62] Whilst I accept the termination process was imperfect, I am persuaded that the essential
core elements were adequately addressed when weighed in all the circumstances.
Conclusion
[63] I have made findings in relation to each matter specified in section 387 as relevant.
Having considered and weighed those matters arising I am not satisfied that Mr Wang has
discharged his onus of demonstrating that his dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
[64] Accordingly, I am not satisfied that Mr Wang was unfairly dismissed within the meaning
of s. 385 of the FW Act. Mr Wang’s application is therefore dismissed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Appearances:
Mr Craig Buckley, AMIEU for the Applicant
Ms Evelyn Ong, EDA Lawyers, for the Respondent.
Hearing details:
9 January 2024
PAIR WORK NO THE
[2025] FWC 798
11
In person
Mareeba Court House
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
PR785386
1 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.596(1) (the FW Act).
2 Section 596(2) of the FW Act provides that the Commission may grant permission for a person to be represented by a lawyer
or paid agent in a matter before the Commission only if:
(a) it would enable the matter to be deal with more efficiently, taking into account the complexity of the matter; or
(b) it would be unfair not to allow the person to be represented because the person is unable to represent himself,
herself or itself effectively; or
(c) it would be unfair not to allow the person to be represented taking into account fairness between the person and
other persons in the same matter.
3 The decision to grant permission is not merely a procedural step but one which requires consideration in accordance with s.596
of the FW Act (see the decision in Warrell v Fair Work Australia [2013] FCA 291). The decision to grant permission is a two-
step process. First it must be determined if one of the requirements in s.596(2) have been met. Secondly, if the requirement has
been met, it is a discretionary decision as to whether permission is granted (see the decision in Warrell v Fair Work Australia
[2013] FCA 291).
4 Including s.596(2) (a)-(c) and both Note (a) and (b) of the FW Act.
5 Digital Court Book (DCB) pp.41-56; Noting the Applicant declined to cross examine Mr Tran and s.590 of the FW Act.
6 FW Act s.394(2).
7 Ibid s.382.
8 Ibid s.396(c).
9 Ibid s.396(d).
10 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 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.
11 Exhibit R5.
12 DCB p.7.
13 DCB p.26 at [25].
14 Exhibit R4.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid. Mr Wang also confirmed that this was his signature at hearing.
19 Ibid.
20 DCB p.46 Exhibit R1.
21 Exhibit R4.
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/awardsandorders/pdf/pr785386.pdf
[2025] FWC 798
12
22 DCB p.50 at [10] Exhibit R1; see also DCB p.53 (last paragraph) Exhibit R1.
23 DCB p.50 at [10] Exhibit R1.
24 DCB p.55 Exhibit R2.
25 Ibid.
26 Ibid.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid Exhibit R2.
29 Ibid.
30 Ibid.
31 Ibid.
32 Ibid.
33 DCB p.53 at [35] Exhibit R1.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid
36 Ibid.
37 DCB p.55 Exhibit R2.
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid.
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid.
42 Ibid.
43 Ibid.
44 DCB p.31 Exhibit A1, at hearing the parties agreed that the termination letter incorrectly referred to Mr Wang being
terminated on 8 August 2024 and instead was a typographical error that should have said 8 October 2024.
45 Ibid.
46 Ibid.
47 Ibid.
48 Ibid.
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid.
51 Ibid.
52 DCB pp.30-32 Exhibit A1.
53 DCB p.55 Exhibit R2.
54 DCB p.26 at [25] Exhibit A1.
55 Ibid at [26] Exhibit A1.
56 Ibid.
57 DCB pp.14-15 at [11].
58 DCB p.26 at [25].
59 Ibid at [27] Exhibit A1.
60 Ibid.
61 DCB p.26 at [27] Exhibit A1.
62 DCB p.53 at [35] Exhibit R1.
63 Ibid.
64 DCB p.50 at [12] Exhibit R1.
65 DCB p.51 at [19] Exhibit R1.
66 DCB p.58 Exhibit R6.
[2025] FWC 798
13
67 DCB pp.58-59 Exhibit R3.
68 DCB p.59 Exhibit R3.
69 Ibid.
70 Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 333 (7 July 1995), [(1995) 62 IR 371 at p. 373].
71 Ibid.
72 Rode v Burwood Mitsubishi Print R4471 (AIRCFB, Ross VP, Polites SDP, Foggo C, 11 May 1999) at para. 19.
73 Ibid.
74 Miller v University of New South Wales [2003] FCAFC 180 (14 August 2003) at para.13, [(2003) 132 FCR 147].
75 Ibid at para. 64. See also Walton v Mermaid Dry Cleaners Pty Limited [1996] IRCA 267 (12 June 1996), [(1996) 142 ALR
681 at p. 685].
76 Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) regs 1.07(2)(a), (b) and (e).
77 DCB p.31 at last paragraph.
78 DCB p.53 Exhibit R1.
79 Ibid.
80 DCB p.26 at [24].
81 DCB p.50 at [19].
82 Sydney Trains v Gary Hilder [2020] FWCFB 1373 (Hilder).
83 Exhibit R5.
84 DCB p.56 Exhibit R3.
85 Ibid.
86 Bartlett v Ingleburn Bus Services Pty Ltd [2020] FWCFB 6429, [19]; Reseigh v Stegbar Pty Ltd [2020] FWCFB 533, [55].
87 Crozier v Palazzo Corporation Pty Ltd (2000) 98 IR 137, 151.
88 Previsic v Australian Quarantine Inspection Services Print Q3730 (AIRC, Holmes C, 6 October 1998).
89 Ibid.
90 DCB p.55 Exhibit R2.
91 Ibid.
92 DCB pp.30-32.
93 DCB p.31 Exhibit A1. “As per employment agreement outlined section 6.6 Employees numbers will be counted on a random
basis to check for accuracy. Where an employee's number does not match reported amount, an investigation will ensue and if
employee is found of fraudulent reporting it will result in immediate dismissal. It is up to the employer to determine allowable
miscounts within reason of human error. As per company policy any counts under 5 is permissible as human error. As your
count was found to be fraudulent your employment with Springtime Poultry PTY Ltd is terminated effective immediately.”
94 FW Act s.387(b).
95 Ibid s.387(c).
96 Ibid s.387(d).
97 DCB p.52 Exhibit R1.
98 DCB p.31 Exhibit A1.
99 Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) reg 1.07.
100 DCB p.44 Exhibit R1 at [1.7].
101 DCB p.55 Exhibit R2.
102 DCB p.31 Exhibit A1.
103 FW Act s.387(f).
104 Ibid s.387(g).
105 DCB pp.14-15 at [11].
106 DCB p.55 Exhibit R2.
107 DCB p.53 (last paragraph), Exhibit R1.
108 DCB p.50 at [10] Exhibit R2.
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2020fwcfb1373.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2020fwcfb6429.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2020fwcfb533.htm
[2025] FWC 798
14
109 DCB p.26; see also Makin v Glaxosmith Kline Australia Pty Ltd [2010] FWA 2211.
110 DCB p.15 at [12].
111 [2014] FWC 5072 at [255]-[256].
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2010fwa2211.htm
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/html/2014fwc5072.htm
