See Fair Work Act 2009 s.387(h)
Any other matters must be relevant in the context of the circumstances of the particular case.
Not every submission that is made has to be dealt with, but those which are centrally relevant to the consideration of whether a dismissal was unfair should be given adequate consideration.
Differential treatment compared to treatment of other employees may be taken into account.
The Fair Work Commission will approach claims of differential treatment in other cases with caution as a basis for supporting a finding that a termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
The Commission must be satisfied that any examples of differential treatment where no termination occurred are properly comparable, comparing 'apples with apples'.
There must be sufficient evidence to support the examples provided to ensure a proper comparison can be made.
The impact of the dismissal on the employee's personal or economic situation may be taken into account.
The ability to find alternative work, particularly in a small town where the former employer is the only employer (or employs the majority of the population) may result in prolonged period of unemployment or under-employment for the employee.
The employee's work performance or history is a factor that can be taken into account.
A long unblemished record will weigh in the employee's favour and may be relied on as a factor for the Commission to consider in determining if the termination of employment was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.
A situation where an employee is summarily dismissed can also be a relevant factor that may be taken into account.
Summary dismissal is the most severe form of termination of employment. By its nature, summary dismissal indicates and records some very serious wrongdoing. Summary dismissal is implemented without any notice or payment in lieu of a period of notice. A summary dismissal may also remove entitlements to certain service related payments such as accrued long service leave. Summary dismissal should be clearly distinguished from a dismissal with notice or payment for the notice period.
In cases involving summary dismissal, the proportionality of the dismissal may be considered under s.387(h). In other words, was the penalty imposed a disproportionate response to the conduct complained of?
Procedural fairness is concerned with the decision making process followed or steps taken by a decision maker rather than the actual decision itself.
Procedural fairness is one of the factors that the Commission will take into consideration when deciding if a dismissal has been harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Procedural fairness can take many forms, such as:
The terms ‘procedural fairness’ and ‘natural justice’ have similar meaning and can be used interchangeably.
Procedural fairness is one aspect of the rules of natural justice.
Procedural fairness requires that a person who may be affected by a decision be informed of the case against him or her and that he or she be given an opportunity to answer it.
The rules of natural justice are flexible, requiring fairness in all the circumstances, including the nature of the power exercised and the statutory provisions governing its exercise.
What is fair will depend on the particular statutory framework within which the decision is taken.
Ordinarily, procedural fairness would require that an allegation be put to a person and they be given an opportunity to answer it before a decision was made.
 Kehagias v Unilever Australia Limited, Print Q0498 (AIRCFB, Watson SDP, Williams SDP, Larkin C, 29 April 1998).
 Sipple v Coal & Allied Mining Services Pty Limited T/A Mount Thorley Warkworth Operations  FWCFB 2586 (Catanzariti VP, Harrison SDP, Bull C, 24 April 2015) at para. 18; citing Soliman v University of Technology, Sydney  FCAFC 146 (24 October 2012) at paras 55–57, [(2012) 207 FCR 277]; Linfox Australia Pty Ltd v Fair Work Commission  FCAFC 157 (13 December 2013) at para. 47; Fox v Australian Industrial Relations Commission  FCAFC 150 (27 September 2007) at paras 37, 40.
 Sexton v Pacific National (ACT) Pty Ltd, PR931440 (AIRC, Lawler VP, 14 May 2003) at para. 33. See also Davis v Collinsville Coal Operations, PR953370 (AIRCFB, Harrison SDP, McCarthy DP, Redmond C, 19 November 2004) at para. 31; National Jet Systems Pty Ltd v Mollinger, Print R3130 (AIRCFB, Giudice J, Polites SDP, Gregor C, 18 March 1999) at para. 25; SERCO Gas Services Pty Ltd v Alkemade and others, Print R6090 (AIRCFB, Ross VP, Polites SDP, Hingley C, 21 June 1999) at para. 6; Department of Employment and Workplace Relations v Oakley (2004) 137 IR 321 .
 Ricegrowers Co-operative Limited v Schliebs, PR908351 (AIRCFB, Duncan SDP, Cartwright SDP, Larkin C, 31 August 2001) at para. 26; citing Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd  HCA 24 (11 October 1995), [(1995) 185 CLR 410]; Gasz v Mobil Refinery Australia Pty Ltd, PR960826 (AIRCFB, Watson SDP, Hamilton DP, Lewin C, 1 August 2005) at para. 17; Ashley v Statewide Autistic Services Inc, PR959835 (AIRCFB, Ross VP, O'Callaghan SDP, Cribb C, 7 July 2005) at para. 110.
 Ricegrowers Co-operative Limited v Schliebs, PR908351 (AIRCFB, Duncan SDP, Cartwright SDP, Larkin C, 31 August 2001) at para. 27.
 Streeter v Telstra Corporation Limited  AIRCFB 15 (Acton SDP, Cartwright SDP, Larkin C, 24 January 2008) at para. 25, [(2008) 170 IR 1]; Cunningham v Australian Bureau of Statistics (2005) 148 IR 20; Gasz v Mobil Refinery Australia Pty Ltd, PR960826 (AIRCFB, Watson SDP, Hamilton DP, Lewin C, 1 August 2005) at para. 17.
 Streeter v Telstra Corporation Limited  AIRCFB 15 (Acton SDP, Cartwright SDP, Larkin C, 24 January 2008) at para. 27, [(2008) 170 IR 1].
 Streeter v Telstra Corporation Limited  AIRCFB 15 (Acton SDP, Cartwright SDP, Larkin C, 24 January 2008) at para. 27, [(2008) 170 IR 1]; Department of Employment and Workplace Relations v Oakley (2004) 137 IR 321 ; Sabeto v Waterloo Car Centre Pty Ltd (2003) 123 IR 222 .
 Puszka v Ryan Wilks Pty Ltd T/A Ryan Wilks Proprietary Limited  FWC 1132 (Cambridge C, 7 March 2019) at para. 41.
 See for example Odgers v Central Queensland Services Pty Ltd  FWC 7150 (Hunt C, 15 October 2019) at paras 220–240.
 See for example Naoum v ISS Security Pty Ltd ABN: 14 001 375 186  FWC 6421 (Cambridge C, 27 September 2019) at paras 49–52.
 Butterworths Australian Legal Dictionary, 1997, at p. 928.
 McIntosh v Australian Federal Police  FWCFB 6662 (Acton SDP, Smith DP, Lewin C, 8 October 2014) at para 64; citing Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj  HCA 11 (14 March 2002) at para. 40 (per Gaudron and Gummow JJ).
 Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj  HCA 11 (14 March 2002) at para. 40 (per Gaudron and Gummow JJ).
 Kioa v West  HCA 81 (18 December 1985) at para. 21 (per Wilson J), [(1985) 159 CLR 550]; citing Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation  HCA 41 (15 October 1963) at para. 13 (Kitto J), [(1963) 113 CLR 475].