Employers who wish to control who attends their meetings
about an employee's performance need to understand what they
can, and can't, exclude.
When an employee is being performance-managed or investigated,
one issue that can arise is the proper role of the support person.
But what is a support person? Is it the same as an advocate?
This is not mere semantics. Under section 387(d) of the Fair
Work Act, one factor that is taken into account in assessing
whether a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable is whether
there was an unreasonable refusal to permit the employee to be
accompanied by a "support person" at any discussions
relating to the dismissal. Understanding the role of a support
person, and how far an employer can go to control what they can do,
is an important element of successfully and lawfully managing
A recent decision of the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission,
Victorian Association for the Teaching of English Inc v Debra de
Laps  FWCFB 613, appears to be the first to discuss the
substantive role of the support person, and suggests that employees
do not have an inherent right to be represented by an
"advocate" at a meeting to discuss allegations.
A right to a support person, not an advocate
Ms de Laps was asked to attend a meeting by her employer, the
Victorian Association for the Teaching of English Inc
(VATE), to discuss her work performance. She was
given two days' notice, and told:
"You may bring a support person
if you wish. Please note that the role of the support person is to
provide you with emotional support. The support person is not to
act as your advocate and should not speak on your
She protested against the VATE's failure to provide
particulars of the allegations, refusal to permit an advocate and
the short time-frame. The VATE sent her another letter detailing
the allegations, and gave her three days to respond. Her response
was a resignation, followed by unfair dismissal proceedings.
The case turned on one issue: was Ms de Laps forced to resign by
the VATE's conduct, including by refusing her an advocate?
The Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission said she had not, and
crucially that there is no inherent right for employees to elect to
be accompanied by an advocate:
"Under the FW Act, 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
meeting on 17 December 2012 can be regarded as constituting an
element of procedural unfairness."
Is a support person just for emotional support?
The demarcation between "support person" and
"advocate" has not been clearly drawn yet. As employers
do not have to tell employees of their right to a support a person,
and section 387(d) only becomes an issue when an employee's
request for a support person is unreasonably refused, the question
of what, exactly, a support person does has rarely been an issue.
This might be more by chance than anything else. Certainly
employers who wish to control who attends their meetings about an
employee's performance need to understand what they can, and
The Full Bench's comment suggests that there is a conceptual
difference between "advocate" and "support
person"; the primary distinction would seem to be that the
former can speak on behalf of the employee, but the latter
Does this mean a support person is just there for emotional
There is some suggestion in another decision that they are not
confined to offering emotional support (as important as that can
often be), and that there might normally be some element of
preparation that a support person would undertake (Roberts v
McCreag Pty Ltd  FWC 5505).
Moreover, the language of section 387(d), "to assist at any
discussions", suggests that a support person is not merely a
passive bystander. For instance, as a general observation, they may
be able to help an employee formulate what to say, provide advice
and take notes of the matters being discussed. Speaking on behalf
of the employee will, however, place them beyond the scope of
support person and into the role of advocate.
Given the evolving significance of support persons and the
uncertainty surrounding their role, we have certainly not seen the
last of this issue.
Clayton Utz communications are intended to provide
commentary and general information. They should not be relied upon
as legal advice. Formal legal advice should be sought in particular
transactions or on matters of interest arising from this bulletin.
Persons listed may not be admitted in all states and
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Long experience representing many of Australia's leading employers has taught us that in employment litigation the identity of an employee's representative is a major factor in how employee litigation runs.
Treasurer Scott Morrison recently announced changes to a number of 2016 Budget superannuation contribution measures.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).