A dismissed employee has the task of convincing the relevant Commission that the dismissal was, in real and objective terms, harsh or unjust or unreasonable. This will depend on the facts in the particular case and on general standards of industrial fairness. For instance, in cases of inefficiency or misconduct, (except where there is gross inefficiency or gross misconduct) an employer is expected to clearly and formally warn the employee that a repetition of the inefficiency or misconduct, or similar behaviour, will not be tolerated and, if it is repeated, that dismissal will result. An employer who, by indulgence or inattention, has permitted certain practices to occur in the workplace (such as sleeping on the job) cannot decide to amend the situation by sacking a worker as an example to the rest. Before dismissal an employer is expected to consider any alternative action, such as, if the circumstances warrant, changing the employee to a lower classification or job in the workplace. Although this may amount to dismissal if the employee refuses, the fact that the harshness of the dismissal was offset by the offer of other employment will be taken into account.

Where there has been misconduct serious enough to warrant dismissal, (such as theft) the employer does not have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that that a particular employee is guilty. However, the employer must have conducted a reasonable investigation and be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that this particular worker has committed misconduct serious enough to warrant dismissal [Hooper v. Bi-Lo Pty Ltd I.76/1992].