See Fair Work Act 2009 s.392
Compensation may be considered only after the Fair Work Commission is satisfied that reinstatement is inappropriate. Compensation will only be ordered where the Commission considers it appropriate. It is designed to compensate an unfairly dismissed employee in lieu of reinstatement for losses reasonably attributable to the unfair dismissal.
Compensation cannot be awarded for shock, distress or humiliation, or other analogous hurt, caused to a dismissed employee by the manner of the person's dismissal.
Section 392(2) of the Fair Work Act sets out the criteria for determining the amount of compensation that may be ordered.
The Commission is to take all circumstances into account, including:
No one consideration 'is to be regarded as paramount but regard must still be had to each of them'.
See Fair Work Act s.392(2)(a)
The employer must 'present evidence and/or argument as to the financial situation' of the business and 'the likely effect that an order for compensation' will have on the viability of the business.
'A mere submission that difficulties for the business will occur' is not sufficient. Evidence should be produced in order for the Commission to properly consider this issue.
See Fair Work Act s.392(2)(b)
A short period of service 'on its own is not a powerful force making for a compensation remedy (or a compensation order of significant quantum)'.
A period of 20 months' employment has been considered not to be a lengthy period of time but in those particular circumstances did not incline the Commission to reduce any order for compensation.
 Fair Work Act s.390(3)(a); see for example Nguyen v Vietnamese Community in Australia t/a Vietnamese Community Ethnic School South Australia Chapter  FWCFB 7198 (Ross J, Gostencnik DP, Wilson C, 21 October 2014).
 Kable v Bozelle, Michael Keith T/A Matilda Greenbank  FWCFB 3512 (Catanzariti VP, Watson VP, Gostencnik DP, 22 May 2015) at para. 17.
 Fair Work Act s.392(4).
 Fair Work Act s.390(2).
 Davidson v Griffiths Muir's Pty Ltd  FWA 4342 (Richards SDP, 23 June 2010) at para. 140.
 Varani v Independent Advocacy in the Tropics Incorporated T/A Independent Advocacy Townsville  FWA 1633 (Richards SDP, 22 March 2011) at para. 92.