- Parliamentary Business
- Senators and Members
- News & Events
- About Parliament
- Visit Parliament
Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Fair Work Commission clarifies differences between a support person and advocate
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.
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:
â¢ the person has been dismissed, and
â¢ the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, and
â¢ the dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code, and
â¢ the dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy.
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
…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
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.