Worker argues assessment process was biased despite year-long support and intervention
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently examined an unfair dismissal claim involving a long-serving government employee who was terminated after failing to meet performance standards despite extensive support and intervention processes.
The case arose after the worker was unable to achieve required quality targets during multiple performance improvement plans spanning over a year at a federal agency responsible for administering social security payments.
The worker argued her dismissal was unfair, challenging the integrity of the performance management process and claiming she had been subjected to excessive and biased scrutiny by her supervisor.
She maintained that the assessment process was subjective and that the quality standards required were unachievable, particularly the 95% accuracy target that effectively required perfect performance.
The employer contested the worker's claim, arguing the dismissal was justified due to persistent performance issues that continued despite comprehensive support measures. The agency maintained that high accuracy standards were essential for the proper administration of Australia's social security system and that the worker had been given extensive opportunities to improve her performance over more than 12 months.
Long serving employee faces performance concerns
The employment relationship involved a worker who had been employed for twenty-nine years and eleven months at the government agency responsible for administering social security payments. For much of her career, the worker had worked as a "Service Officer" involved in "debt raising" - calculating and raising debts within compliance areas where overpayments had been made to recipients.
In July 2022, the worker returned to the Payment Assurances Operations Branch after completing a temporary role. Her supervisor downgraded the worker's "proficiency rating" from "Proficient" to "Learner" because she had not raised a debt for about 12 months, meaning all her work required checking rather than sample reviews.
During late 2023, the team manager began forming concerns about the worker's performance through scrutiny, including listening to customer calls, identifying instances where the worker engaged inconsistently with operational guidelines by providing superfluous or unauthorised information beyond the required scope.
Multiple support plans fail to achieve targets
The team manager implemented an "Informal Support Plan" on 17 January 2024, involving weekly reviews over six weeks against three targets including sustaining 95% "Quality On Line" accuracy. However, the worker conceded she was unable to meet all three goals in any one week, resulting in placement on a "Back on Track Plan."
This plan ran from March to September 2024 with reduced goals, but the agency determined the worker met both goals in only one of ten weeks. During this period, the worker continued making mistakes, including failing to follow privacy verification processes and providing customers with unnecessary information.
The worker was then placed on an eight-week Formal Performance Counselling plan from October to December 2024, with the team manager warning that failure to meet expectations could result in termination. The agency assessed that she had not met either goal in any of the eight weeks and had met neither goal in five weeks.
Alternative employment discussions unsuccessful
In early 2025, the National Manager was briefed on the worker's case with a termination recommendation. On 22 January 2025, he provided a letter advising the agency was considering terminating her employment based on unsatisfactory performance. The worker and union challenged the process integrity, alleging excessive and biased scrutiny.
Considering her long service and potential superannuation implications of ceasing just short of 30 years, the decision maker offered to explore transferring her to an alternative role. The worker declined a child support role as unsuitable and proposed a residential aged care assessment role, but no positions were available at her classification level.
Unfortunately, while these discussions occurred, the worker's performance continued deteriorating with issues including dwindling work output, taking extended breaks and continuing mistakes. The only available redeployment option remained the role she had rejected.
Application dismissed on valid performance grounds
The FWC found that the performance critique was "sound and well-founded," noting the agency was entitled to require adherence to customer interaction guidelines. The Commission accepted that despite extensive support, the worker was unable to meet standards across three successive performance plans over more than 12 months.
The Commission found the worker's claim that the process was illegitimate and biased "had no basis and is unfounded," noting her performance was assessed by various people including quality control personnel. The FWC determined the standards were objective and scrutiny arose from legitimate performance concerns given the nature of social security administration work.
The FWC concluded: "Having considered each of the factors set out in s 387 of the Act, I find that they largely weigh in favour of a determination that [the agency's] decision to dismiss [the worker] was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable."
The Commission dismissed the application, finding that while personal circumstances meant significant consequences after nearly 30 years' service, "they do not outweigh the other factors which justify the decision."
