Pariya Masroor v Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2025] FWC 1825 (26 June 2025)

• [43] Section 387(b) requires me to take into account whether the employee "was notified of that reason." Sections 387(b) and (c) direct the FWC's inquiry to matters of procedural fairness. In general terms a person should not exercise legal power over another, to that person's disadvantage and for a reason personal to him or her, without first affording the affected person an opportunity to present a case (per Crozier v Palazzo Corporation Pty Ltd (2000) 98 IR 137 at 151 [70] citing FAI Insurances Ltd v Winneke [1982] HCA 26; (1982) 151 CLR 342; Kioa v West [1985] HCA 81; (1985) 159 CLR 550; Annetts v McCann and others (1990) 170 CLR 596).

• [44] In context, the inquiry to be made under s.387(b) is whether the employee was "notified" of that reason before the employer made the decision to terminate (per Sydney Trains v Trevor Cahill [2021] FWCFB 1137 at [60]). The reference to "that reason" is a reference to the valid reason(s) found to exist under s.387(a) and the reference to being "notified" is a reference to explicitly putting the reasons to the employee in plain and clear terms (per Bartlett v Ingleburn Bus Services Pty Ltd [2020] FWCFB 6429 at [19]).

(2000) 98 IR 137

(1982) 151 CLR 342

(1985) 159 CLR 550

(1990) 170 CLR 596