30-year public servant lost unfair dismissal battle against Commonwealth government

After nearly three decades in public service, a Services Australia employee has lost her unfair dismissal case, with the agency citing that she “could not meet the standard required” for her role.

A Services Australia employee has been denied her unfair dismissal claim, with the Fair Work Commission ruling that repeated performance issues justified her termination, despite her long service and personal hardships.

In a decision handed down by commissioner Redford at the end of July, Kelly Pritchard’s claim was dismissed, with the commission finding that her April 2025 termination followed a fair, year-long performance management process.

Pritchard began her career in 1996 at the Department of Human Services, which was later restructured into Services Australia, an executive agency of the Commonwealth government.

For most of her career, she served as a service officer in the debt management division – responsible for raising and recovering debts arising from overpayments to welfare recipients.

The commissioner noted that the work carried out by a service officer like Pritchard can be “stressful” and subject to public scrutiny, particularly in the wake of the robodebt royal commission, which exposed significant flaws in the debt recovery system and the pressures faced by those performing the work.

Although Pritchard had served for nearly three decades, her employment was terminated after Services Australia cited ongoing “performance issues” that persisted throughout her 15-month performance management process.

Concerns about Pritchard’s performance first arose in late 2023, when her supervisor reportedly “formed concerns” after reviewing her work, some of which stemmed from listening to her calls with customers.

Specifically, her supervisor’s concerns centred on how Pritchard engaged with customers, describing her interactions as “inconsistent with operational guidelines” and noting that she provided “unauthorised comment or information beyond the scope of what is required”.

To address these concerns, Services Australia initiated a staged performance management process, beginning with an Informal Support Plan in January 2024.

Over six weeks, Pritchard underwent weekly reviews against three targets intended to assess her performance in key areas of her role, yet she failed to meet all three targets in any single week.

Even after being moved to a different performance management process, which Services Australia argued had “lower” performance standards than her previous plan, Pritchard’s results didn’t improve.

Redford observed that while Pritchard viewed the process as subjective, the assessments were conducted by multiple supervisors and quality officers and “based on objectively set standards.”

In mid-2024, Pritchard was placed on her final performance management plan, with Services Australia making clear that not meeting the set expectations could lead to her dismissal.

However, Services Australia once again determined that Pritchard had not met the required standards.

Evidence presented to the commissioner detailed multiple ongoing issues, including “providing customers with inaccurate information”, “leaving customers on hold for long periods”, “taking extended breaks”, and even telling a customer, “I’m about to lose my job anyway, so why not.”

At the conclusion of the plan, after completing a final assessment, her supervisor formally recommended that Pritchard’s employment be terminated.

Before finalising the dismissal, Services Australia’s national manager of workplace relations discussed with Pritchard and her union representative that he “was open” to exploring a transfer for Pritchard to an alternative role in another team at a different site.

He noted that the proposal was made in light of her nearly three decades of service and the potential superannuation consequences of losing her job just before reaching that milestone.

As the role Pritchard proposed was deemed unsuitable and all potential alternative placements were unavailable due to her level, Services Australia formally terminated her employment for unsatisfactory performance on 8 April 2025.

While Redford recognised that losing her job after nearly three decades would be “life changing”, he ruled that Services Australia had a legitimate reason for Pritchard’s dismissal, noting her continued failure to meet required standards and that she had been given full “procedural fairness”.