The June 2025 edition of BAL Lawyer’s HR Breakfast Club, led by Special Counsel Ash Borg, delved into strategies for employers to manage the risks associated with unfair dismissal claims. The session provided a refresher of the legislative provisions and recent case law relating to unfair dismissal, along with practical guidance on addressing legal and procedural considerations in workplace decision-making. Here are the key takeaways.
Ash discussed the legislative provisions on unfair dismissal in the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act), noting how section 381 sets out the objectives of the unfair dismissal legislative framework. These include balancing the needs of businesses and employees, establishing quick and flexible procedures, and emphasising reinstatement as the primary remedy. He also outlined the criteria for unfair dismissal under section 385 of the FW Act as a dismissal that the Fair Work Commission (FWC) is satisfied is harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, and not a case of genuine redundancy, or not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code.
Ash noted that the high-income threshold, currently set at $175,000 (and increasing to $183,100 from 1 July 2025), limits eligibility for unfair dismissal protections. Employees earning above this threshold are only covered if they are subject to a modern award or enterprise agreement. He referred to the case of Clements-Kupsch v Saxon Energy Services Australia Pty Ltd [2015] FWC 4081 as an example where an employee earning above the threshold remained covered due to award coverage. Ash also explained that under section 323 of the FW Act, the threshold calculation includes an employee’s wage or salary, salary sacrifice amounts, and the agreed money value of non-monetary benefits. It excludes bonuses, overtime (with some exceptions), reimbursements, commissions, and superannuation.
What Makes a Dismissal Unfair?
Ash explained that section 387 of the FW Act provides specific criteria for determining whether a dismissal is harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. Relevant considerations include:
Ash noted that valid reasons for dismissal commonly include serious misconduct (such as theft, fraud, or safety breaches), genuine redundancy, or the exercise of a contractual right to terminate employment. Under Fair Work Regulation 1.07, serious misconduct is defined as wilful or deliberate behaviour that is inconsistent with the continuation of the employment contract.
Ash walked through the steps that should be taken when dealing with unfair dismissal claims:
Ash discussed common jurisdictional objections that employers may raise before the conciliation stage, including where:
“No dismissal” objections may also arise in cases involving voluntary resignation or genuine redundancy. Ash highlighted that the primary remedies available are reinstatement and compensation. Compensation in lieu of reinstatement is capped at the lower of 26 weeks’ pay or half the high-income threshold. In practice, awards of compensation alone are typically modest, with a median outcome of 5–7 weeks’ pay. Fewer than 0.4% of applicants receive the maximum compensation limit.
While reinstatement is technically the primary remedy, compensation is more commonly awarded. Only a small percentage of successful unfair dismissal claims result in reinstatement.
Typical missteps include:
Ash stressed the importance of:
BAL Lawyers provides advice and legal representation in investigations, disciplinary and unfair dismissal matters for both employers and employees.
If you are an HR professional and would like to attend our future HR Breakfast Club forums, please visit our monthly forum page and register to attend.
If you have any questions or queries about the information in this summary, or if you are experiencing any issues and need advice, please contact the BAL Lawyers Employment & Investigations team on 02 6274 0999.