The workplace issue employers often ignore

HR managers are overlooking the human cost of dismissal settlements, according to one workplace relations expert.

The stress of being a witness in Fair Work claims often goes unnoticed, says Ming-Lyn Hii, principal consultant at EMA Consulting.

Many organisations, she said, are managing workplace psychosocial hazards “in a way that’s reactive rather than preventative”; and when it comes to formal tribunal proceedings, witnesses are often put at risk without proper harm prevention in place.

It begins with how hearings - and what they demand - are perceived.

“Requiring an employee to attend as a witness is itself a psychosocial hazard,” Hii said.

“This is one of the most emotionally demanding things they can ask someone to do. It consumes you well before the actual hearing day. Productivity suffers. Relationships in the workplace get strained. It’s like being stuck in a cycle of anxiety for months, lying awake at night, replaying events you thought you’d moved past.”

“Employees spend weeks, even months, knowing they’ll eventually have to step into a witness box and be cross-examined by someone who might try to discredit them.”

“For most, it’s their first time at the Fair Work Commission, which makes the uncertainty worse since they have no idea what to expect.”

As a representative and industrial advocate in the FWC, Hii has seen the weight on employees during this process, and noticed how employers often mishandle what is a crucial moment for employees.

A noticeable gap, she noted, lies between how people think tribunal proceedings work and what is actually involved. What might present as an administrative, documentary process is, in fact, “adversarial, human and exhausting”.

She said: “Right now, the decision to proceed to a formal hearing is treated almost entirely as a legal and commercial assessment. Cost, merits, precedent, how the CEO personally views the accusations.”

“You have to ask: who is harmed if we proceed, and is that harm preventable?”

Acknowledging settlement is not always an option, Hii maintained that if businesses ignore reasonable, practicable alternatives that eliminate individual risk, they expose themselves to scrutiny.

“This change in thinking is a necessary shift,” she said.

“The second shift is about the role of HR.”

“At conciliation, HR isn’t just there to take instructions and relay them to the other side. I think that’s a superficial version of the role.”

In this way, it is not a structural problem, but a skill deficiency – and one that can be supplemented.

“Strong HR means stepping up with real advice, not just facilitating a room. It’s advising up about the real-life implications, telling executives things they might not want to hear, and framing them in a way that enables an informed decision,” Hii said.

“This is a core HR skill, but it’s not taught that way because the practical reality of formal proceedings can be a bit mysterious until you’ve experienced it firsthand.”

As such, Hii recommended treating the decision to proceed to hearing as an industrial, commercial and human risk. This means preparing witnesses, providing support, and taking any steps to reduce uncertainty.

“When the employer is the one directing someone to attend, they’ve taken responsibility for putting that individual at foreseeable risk. That’s a preventable outcome, and it should be framed as one,” she said.

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.