Fair Work Commission clarifies differences between a support person and advocate

Parliament house flag post

Fair Work Commission clarifies differences between a support person and advocate

Posted 16/05/2014 by Jaan Murphy

In February 2014, the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) handed down a judgement in which the nature and role of a ‘support person’ in discussions relating to a dismissal were discussed.

Background

In December 2012, Ms de Laps resigned from her position as the Executive Officer of the Victorian Association for the Teaching of English (VATE) and commenced unfair dismissal proceedings in the FWC. At first instance Ms de Laps was successful, with the FWC Commissioner finding that due to conduct engaged in by the VATE, including the refusal ‘to allow Ms de Laps to have an advocate at [a relevant] meeting’, she had been constructively dismissed (i.e. forced to resign). The Commissioner found that the VATE’s actions also pointed ‘strongly to a process that was not intended to be fair’. VATE appealed the decision.

Unfair Dismissal under the Fair Work Act

The Fair Work Act 2009 (FWA) provides that a person has been unfairly dismissed when:

The refusal to allow Ms de Lap to have an ‘advocate’ attend proposed meetings at which her performance was to be discussed was a significant issue in the case for two interrelated reasons. First, it was alleged that it formed part of a course of conduct designed to force Ms de Laps to resign. Second, it was alleged that the refusal would also make the constructive dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

The role of a support person under the Fair Work Act

Section 387 of the FWA contains the criteria which the FWC or a court must take into account when determining if a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. One of these factors is whether there was ‘any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal’ (paragraph 387(d)). In the Explanatory Memorandum to the FWA, it was noted that:

This factor [paragraph 387(d)] will only be a relevant consideration when an employee asks to have a support person present in a discussion relating to dismissal and the employer     unreasonably refuses.  It does not impose a positive obligation on employers to offer an employee the opportunity to have a support person present when they are considering dismissing them.  It will be one factor FWA must consider when determining whether a dismissal was unfair, having regard to all of the circumstances, including the capacity of the employee to respond to the allegations put to him or her without such a support person being present. (emphasis added).

The FWC appeared to differentiate between an ‘advocate’ and a ‘support person’ when it stated that:

…in considering whether a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the Commission is required to take into account ‘any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal’. Given that legislative provision and in the absence of any other obligation to allow an advocate, we do not think a refusal by VATE to allow Ms de Laps an advocate at the [relevant] meeting can be regarded as constituting an element of procedural unfairness. (emphasis added).

What is the difference between a support person and an advocate?

As paragraph 387(d) of the FWA refers to a support person assisting ‘…any discussions relating to dismissal’, it would appear that they can assist the employee during the discussions, which by implication includes talking to them. Further, it appears reasonable to conclude that when an employee is provided adequate notice of proposed discussions relating to their potential or actual dismissal, a support person may assist the employee’s preparations.

Decisions suggest that a ‘support person’ is not confined to offering emotional support. Instead, whilst a support person cannot speak on an employee’s behalf, they can (at a minimum) help the employee formulate what to say, speak during the discussions to provide advice and also undertake other supportive actions (for example, taking notes).

Hence it would appear that the primary distinction between an ‘advocate’ and a ‘support person’ would seem to be that only an advocate can speak on behalf of the employee.

Why is the case important?

The case provides useful insight into the differences between an advocate and support person and what they can and cannot do. It also clarifies that there is no requirement for employers to inform employees of the ability to have a support person present at discussions relating to dismissal, and that this is a right that an employee must positively seek to enforce.

Finally, the case has already been cited as support for the proposition that the refusal of an employer to allow ‘the attendance of a person as an advocate’ is ‘not to be regarded as constituting an element of procedural unfairness’, and is therefore not  an indication of a harsh, unjust or unreasonable dismissal.


Thank you for your comment. If it does not require moderation, it will appear shortly.
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter Add | Email Print

FlagPost

Flagpost is a blog on current issues of interest to members of the Australian Parliament


Parliamentary Library Logo showing Information Analysis & Advice

Archive

Syndication

Tagcloud

Refugees asylum immigration Australian foreign policy Parliament climate change elections women social security Australian Bureau of Statistics Employment indigenous Australians Sport illicit drugs people trafficking taxation Medicare welfare reform Australian Defence Force higher education welfare policy United Nations health financing gambling Asia Middle East criminal law disability Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency World Anti-Doping Agency United States federal budget school education forced labour aid statistics Australian Electoral Commission WADA income management Industrial Relations emissions trading dental health Australia in the Asian Century steroids detention Private health insurance OECD ASADA labour force transport Law Enforcement Australian Federal Police people smuggling poker machines National Disability Insurance Scheme Australian Crime Commission 43rd Parliament slavery election results Papua New Guinea Australian Public Service constitution International Women's Day corruption Afghanistan Fair Work Act child protection Aviation debt federal election 2013 parliamentary procedure ALP New Zealand Newstart Parenting Payment political parties Census politics High Court skilled migration voting Federal Court terrorist groups Higher Education Loan Program HECS governance youth paid parental leave environment foreign debt gross debt net debt defence capability customs Senate doping health crime health risks multiculturalism aged care Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling sex slavery sea farers Special Rapporteur leadership United Kingdom UK Parliament Electoral reform banking firearms public policy Population violence against women domestic violence mental health China ADRV terrorism science research and development social media pensions welfare ASIO intelligence community Australian Security Intelligence Organisation accountability public service reform Carbon Pricing Mechanism carbon tax mining military history employer employee fishing by-election European Union same sex relationships international relations coal seam gas family assistance planning Senators and Members United Nations Security Council Australian economy food vocational education and training Drugs health reform Indonesia children codes of conduct terrorist financing health system money laundering early childhood education Canada Financial sector national security fuel disability employment Tasmania integrity transparency Australian Secret Intelligence Service sexual abuse federal state relations World Trade Organization Australia housing affordability bulk billing water renewable energy children's health health policy Governor-General US economy export liquefied natural gas foreign bribery question time speaker superannuation expertise climate Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry food labelling Pacific Islands reserved seats new psychoactive substances synthetic drugs UNODC carbon markets Indigenous constitutional recognition of local government local government consumer laws PISA royal commission US politics language education baby bonus Leaders of the Opposition Parliamentary remuneration Australia Greens federal election 2010 servitude Trafficking Protocol energy forced marriage rural and regional Northern Territory Emergency Response ministries social citizenship human rights emissions reduction fund; climate change child care funding refugees immigration asylum procurement Indigenous health e-voting internet voting nsw state elections 44th Parliament 2015 ABS Age Pension Death penalty capital punishment execution Bali nine Bali bombings Trade EU China soft power education Fiji India Disability Support Pension Antarctica Diplomacy by-elections state and territories workers Bills anti-corruption fraud bribery corporate ownership whistleblower G20 economic reform innovation standards NATO Members of Parliament Scottish referendum Middle East; national security; terrorism social services Criminal Code Amendment (Misrepresentation of Age to a Minor) Bill 2013 online grooming sexual assault of minors ACT Assembly public health smoking plain packaging tobacco cigarettes Asia; Japan; international relations Work Health and Safety Migration; asylum seekers; regional processing China; United States; international relations fiscal policy Racial Discrimination Act; social policy; human rights; indigenous Australians Foreign policy Southeast Asia Israel Palestine regional unemployment asylum refugees immigration political finance donations foreign aid Economics efficiency productivity human rights; Racial Discrimination Act employment law bullying asylum seekers Animal law; food copyright Australian Law Reform Commission industry peace keeping contracts workplace policies trade unions same-sex marriage disorderly conduct retirement Parliament House standing orders public housing prime ministers election timetable sitting days First speech defence budget submarines Somalia GDP forestry world heritage political engagement leave loading Trade; tariffs; safeguards; Anti-dumping public interest disclosure whistleblowing Productivity Commission regulation limitation period universities Ireland cancer gene patents genetic testing suspension of standing and sessional orders animal health live exports welfare systems infant mortality middle class welfare honorary citizen railways disciplinary tribunals standard of proof World Health Organisation arts international students skilled graduate visas temporary employment visas apologies roads Italy national heritage NHMRC nutrition anti-dumping Constitutional reform referendum Rent Assistance competition policy pharmaceutical benefits scheme obesity evidence law sacrament of confession US presidential election international days DFAT UN General Assembly deregulation Regulation Impact Statements administrative law small business Breaker Morant homelessness regional engagement social determinants of health abortion Youth Allowance Members suspension citizen engagement policymaking workplace health and safety Trafficking in Persons Report marine reserves hearing TAFE Victoria astronomy resources sector YMCA youth parliament alcohol Korea rebate Australian Greens presidential nomination Racial Discrimination Act entitlements political parties preselection solar hot water Financial Action Taskforce Horn of Africa peacekeeping piracy Great Barrier Reef Stronger futures political financing Hung Parliament political education social inclusion Social Inclusion Board maritime early childhood National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care Murray-Darling Basin Iran sanctions Norway hospitals republic President Barack Obama Presidential visits ANZUS qantas

Show all
Show less
Back to top