This extract of an unfair dismissal decision of the Fair Work Commission illustrates how the dismissal of an employee may be regarded as relevantly unfair notwithstanding there being a valid reason for it.
“Is the Commission satisfied that the dismissal of the Applicant was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable?
[40]
I have made findings in relation to each matter specified in s 387 of the Act as relevant. I must consider and give due weight to each as a fundamental element in determining whether the termination was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.16
[41]
I have found that the Applicant’s dismissal was supported by a valid reason and that she had received a previous warning regarding her conduct and performance. These factors weigh in favour of a finding that the dismissal was not unfair. There were, however, significant procedural failures of the Respondent in carrying out the dismissal. Those failures were such that the Applicant was denied an opportunity to explain her conduct or seek to persuade the Respondent that dismissal was not appropriate. This weighs strongly in favour of a finding that the dismissal was unfair. I accept the Respondent had limited resources due to its size, which contributed to the flawed investigation and disciplinary process. The weight I give to that criteria and the valid reason for dismissal is not sufficient to displace the weight I give to the significant procedural failures. The remaining criteria were either not relevant or weighed neutrally in my consideration.
[42]
Having considered each of the matters specified in s 387 of the Act, I have weighed the presence of a valid reason for dismissal and the First Warning against the serious procedural failures described above in the context of the size of the Respondent’s business. On balance I am satisfied that the dismissal was unjust because of the procedural failures. The dismissal was consequently unfair.”
De Ath v The Trustee for Evans Family Trust [2026] FWC 3487 delivered 14 September 2026 per Masson DP