In Emery v Cutlers The Law Firm 2015 FWC 52 delivered on 14 January 2015 Deputy President Sams made some very useful observations about the nature of procedural fairness.
In Wadey v Y.M.C.A. Canberra  IRCA 568 (‘Wadey’), Moore J made clear that an employer cannot merely pay ‘lip service’ to the requirement to give an employee an opportunity to respond to allegations concerning the employee’s conduct. His Honour said:
‘In my opinion the obligation imposed on an employer by that section has, for present purposes, two relevant aspects. The first is that the employee must be made aware of allegations concerning the employee’s conduct so as to be able to respond to them. The second is that the employee must be given an opportunity to defend himself or herself. The second aspect, the opportunity to defend, implies an opportunity that might result in the employer deciding not to terminate the employment if the defence is of substance. An employer may simply go through the motions of giving the employee an opportunity to deal with allegations concerning conduct when, in substance, a firm decision to terminate had already been made which would be adhered to irrespective of anything the employee might say in his or her defence. That, in my opinion, does not constitute an opportunity to defend.’
That said, procedural fairness steps should be applied in a commonsense and practical manner. In Gibson v Bosmac Pty Ltd (1995) 60 IR 1 (‘Gibson’), Wilcox CJ said at 7:
‘Ordinarily, before being dismissed for reasons related to conduct or performance, an employee must be made aware of the particular matters that are putting his or her job at risk and given an adequate opportunity of defence. However, I also pointed out that the section does not require any particular formality. It is intended to be applied in a practical, commonsense way so as to ensure that the affected employee is treated fairly. 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 is enough to satisfy the requirements of the section.’