[2024] FWC 3424
Citation: [2024] FWC 3424
What happened
The Applicant, a team leader at Parks Victoria's Dandenong Ranges Botanical Gardens, was involved in a dispute following an altercation with an employee of a café tenant, the Respondent, on August 26, 2023. Parks Victoria initiated a disciplinary investigation, proposing termination of her employment. The Applicant filed a dispute application under the Fair Work Act 2009, concerning the application of Parks Victoria's Enterprise Agreement 2021, specifically regarding misconduct procedures and termination outcomes. The dispute arose from complaints about the café's operation, which the Applicant had previously handled but was later instructed not to directly engage with. The Applicant had worked for Parks Victoria for 21 years.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission found that the Applicant was not afforded procedural fairness and natural justice during the disciplinary investigation. However, the Commission also found that the proposed termination of her employment was a fair and reasonable outcome, not disproportionate to the seriousness of the matter. The decision was based on an examination of the Enterprise Agreement's clauses regarding misconduct procedures and disciplinary outcomes. The Commissioner considered evidence from the Applicant, her supervisors, and character statements from a co-worker.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure that disciplinary procedures are followed fairly and that employees are given adequate opportunity to respond to allegations. Clear communication regarding roles and responsibilities is crucial, particularly when changes are implemented, to avoid misunderstandings and potential disputes. Parks Victoria's instruction to the Applicant to cease direct contact with the café tenant, without clear documentation or explanation, contributed to the dispute.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2024fwc3424.pdfWant more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. The full FWC and Federal Court library behind every advisor answer is on Pro.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Just need today sorted? A Day Pass is 25 questions over 24 hours, no account. Get a Day Pass — $4.99
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections