Language Barriers and Procedural Fairness

For many workers in Australia, English isn’t their first language. That doesn’t make them any less capable, committed or professional — but it can make workplace conversations, especially high-stakes ones like disciplinary meetings or warnings, more difficult to navigate.

And when a dismissal follows one of those conversations, the question of fairness becomes even more important.

In unfair dismissal law, the Fair Work Commission must consider not just whether there was a valid reason for letting someone go — but whether the process followed was fair, reasonable and respectful. This includes whether the employee actually understood what was being said, what was expected of them, and what consequences might follow.

If English isn’t your first language and your employer failed to explain things clearly, rushed you through a disciplinary meeting, or didn’t allow you the chance to ask questions or seek clarification, those gaps in understanding can turn a dismissal from lawful to unfair.

For example, if an employer delivers a formal warning or raises allegations of misconduct, but does so using complicated terms, written letters with legal language, or vague verbal comments, you may not fully grasp the seriousness of what’s happening. If they then rely on your “failure to respond” or claim that you “didn’t deny the allegation” as a reason to dismiss you, the Commission will want to know whether you actually understood the situation in the first place.

The same applies if the employer didn't provide access to a translator, didn't check whether you were comfortable with the language used in the meeting, or didn’t offer you a support person who could assist in clarifying things. In these situations, the process can be judged as procedurally unfair — even if the employer believed they were being reasonable.

This isn’t about making excuses or lowering standards. It’s about recognising that communication matters — and that employees should not be disadvantaged simply because they’re still improving their English.

The Commission has, in several decisions, placed real weight on whether the employee’s background and English proficiency were taken into account when a dismissal occurred. Where it’s clear the worker didn’t fully understand the process or the reasons for termination, and the employer failed to make allowances or offer support, the dismissal may be found harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

If you’ve been dismissed and felt like you weren’t given a real chance to speak up — or you didn’t understand the meeting, the warning letter, or the steps being taken — that’s worth raising. You have the right to be heard, and to have the process explained in a way you can genuinely understand. That’s not a luxury — it’s a legal safeguard.

At Workplace Justice, we represent employees from all backgrounds. Many of our clients speak English as a second language, and we know just how often language barriers are ignored or dismissed by employers. If you were rushed through a warning process, confused by your dismissal, or were denied a proper explanation, we’ll help you challenge it — and stand up for your right to fair treatment.

Unfair dismissal claims aren’t just about what was done — they’re about how it was done. And if you weren’t given a fair chance to understand and respond, the law is on your side.