Not all dismissals which are carried out in a procedurally unfair manner will be held to be relevantly unfair; thus
“Conclusion
[34] I have made findings in relation to each matter specified in s.387 of the FW Act. I must consider and give due weight to each as a fundamental element in determining whether the termination was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.19
[35] This is an unfortunate case. Ms Wei is clearly a very hardworking, proud, and dedicated person. Ms Wei was passionate about her role with Echo Group and particularly about work being performed more efficiently. Ms Wei’s relationship with Echo Group deteriorated dramatically following her disagreement with Mr Pilton on 4 September 2024. Ms Wei developed serious mental health conditions which are still not fully resolved. Echo Group has raised concerns with Ms Wei’s conduct and performance in defending these proceedings, because it is understandably concerned about Ms Wei’s request to be reinstated. The raising of these matters has been upsetting for Ms Wei in circumstances where she is already struggling with serious mental health issues.
[36] After taking account of the matters identified in s.387 of the FW Act, I find that Ms Wei’s dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. There was a valid reason for Ms Wei’s dismissal related to her capacity. I consider this factor weighs strongly against finding that Ms Wei was unfairly dismissed. Although Ms Wei’s dismissal was procedurally unfair, procedural defects do not mean a dismissal will be unfair in every case. I accept Echo Group’s submission that the affording of procedural fairness would have been extremely unlikely to alter the ultimate decision to dismiss Ms Wei. Ms Wei could not have provided medical evidence that she was fit to return to her substantive role with Echo Group because she clearly was not. Ms Wei remains unfit for work in mid-2025. Even Dr Pokharel, who indicated in a report dated 4 March 2025 that returning to work may be therapeutic for Ms Wei, expressed concern that “working at the pre-injury workplace could be detrimental to [Ms Wei’s] mental health.”20
[37] Even if I had found that Ms Wei was unfairly dismissed, I am not satisfied that I could have awarded a remedy to Ms Wei. I consider reinstatement is completely inappropriate in this case. I am not satisfied it would be safe for Ms Wei to resume working for Echo Group in any role. The medical evidence suggests returning to work with Echo Group would be likely to jeopardise Ms Wei’s recovery. It has been clear during this case that dealing with Echo Group creates stress and anxiety for Ms Wei. I would not order that Ms Wei return to working for Echo Group in those circumstances. Ms Wei also consistently maintained that she does not seek compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Ms Wei resisted the issuing of production orders sought by Echo Group concerning her income since dismissal on the ground that she is expressly not seeking compensation. I would be highly unlikely to conclude it is appropriate to make a compensation order in favour a person that does not wish to be compensated.
[38] I find that Ms Wei’s dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable and that Ms Wei was not unfairly dismissed.”
Wei v Echo Group Corporation Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 1807delivered 25 June 2025 per Crawford C