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 climate change immigration Australian foreign policy parliament social security welfare reform school education welfare policy health financing elections Australian Defence Force emissions trading women higher education private health insurance people trafficking Indigenous Australians illicit drugs gambling health reform federal election 2010 United Nations Employment Asia Middle East Medicare Australian Bureau of Statistics statistics sport health forced labour federal budget Afghanistan Industrial Relations Carbon Pricing Mechanism politics income management dental health United States aid disability child protection environment poker machines Australia in the Asian Century Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency steroids World Anti-Doping Agency National Disability Insurance Scheme detention aged care 43rd Parliament slavery health system Fair Work Act Australian Public Service governance labour force people smuggling transport debt taxation international relations constitution New Zealand food WADA Australian Crime Commission pharmaceutical benefits scheme public service reform law enforcement children's health Aviation foreign debt gross debt net debt defence capability parliamentary procedure Senate Senators and Members ALP ASADA Australian Federal Police criminal law Newstart Parenting Payment multiculturalism Youth Allowance sea farers federal state relations accountability Papua New Guinea youth paid parental leave pensions same sex relationships corruption coal seam gas customs planning federal election 2013 Australian Electoral Commission doping OECD crime health risks International Women's Day Gonski Review of Funding for Schooling sex slavery Special Rapporteur Northern Territory Emergency Response social policy terrorist groups Australian Security Intelligence Organisation carbon tax mining High Court Higher Education Loan Program HECS military history electoral reform employer employee renewable energy regional unemployment fishing European Union Federal Court family assistance skilled migration banking United Nations Security Council Australian economy forestry food labelling vocational education and training Drugs UK Parliament welfare systems Indonesia social media children Constitutional reform local government codes of conduct terrorist financing homelessness Parliamentary remuneration money laundering Trafficking in Persons Report energy science social inclusion human rights paternalism terrorism World Trade Organization Australia public health China housing affordability bulk billing political parties water productivity health policy Governor-General US economy trade unions domestic violence export liquefied natural gas foreign bribery firearms question time speaker superannuation public housing election results by-election expertise public policy climate Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change leadership voting Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry regulation Pacific Islands reserved seats research and development new psychoactive substances synthetic drugs UNODC ASIO intelligence community carbon markets animal health middle class welfare ADRV Census Indigenous constitutional recognition of local government referendum consumer laws PISA competition policy royal commission US politics violence against women language education baby bonus Leaders of the Opposition citizen engagement policymaking Australia Greens servitude Trafficking Protocol forced marriage Population rural and regional mental health alcohol entitlements ministries Hung Parliament social citizenship maritime Iran transparency ANZUS regional students school chaplains federal budget 2011-12 salary Medicare Locals primary care Building the Education Revolution 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 asylum refugees immigration political finance donations foreign aid disability employment Economics efficiency human rights; Racial Discrimination Act employment law bullying asylum seekers Animal law; food copyright Australian Law Reform Commission industry peace keeping contracts workplace policies same-sex marriage disorderly conduct integrity retirement Parliament House Australian Secret Intelligence Service welfare standing orders prime ministers election timetable sitting days First speech defence budget submarines workers financial sector Canada Somalia United Kingdom GDP Tasmania world heritage political engagement leave loading Trade; tariffs; safeguards; Anti-dumping public interest disclosure whistleblowing Productivity Commission limitation period universities Ireland cancer gene patents genetic testing suspension of standing and sessional orders live exports infant mortality 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 Rent Assistance obesity evidence law sacrament of confession sexual abuse US presidential election international days DFAT UN General Assembly deregulation Regulation Impact Statements administrative law small business Breaker Morant regional engagement social determinants of health abortion Members suspension workplace health and safety marine reserves hearing TAFE Victoria astronomy resources sector YMCA youth parliament Korea fuel rebate Australian Greens presidential nomination Racial Discrimination Act political parties preselection solar hot water Financial Action Taskforce Horn of Africa peacekeeping piracy Great Barrier Reef Stronger futures political financing political education Social Inclusion Board early childhood National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care Murray-Darling Basin sanctions Norway hospitals republic President Barack Obama Presidential visits qantas counselling Korean peninsula Work Choices biosecurity hendra environmental law federalism federation preselection therapeutic goods Therapeutic Goods Administration plebiscites computer games pests suicide nuclear COAG Ministerial Councils floods ADHD stimulant medication advertising electricity extradition standards conscience votes poverty preventative health rural health coastal erosion Parliamentary Budget Office NATO work-life balance

Show all
Show less