The chief executive officer need not lay a formal disciplinary charge under Part X against a probationary prison officer; the chief executive officer may directly invoke the power under reg 5(4) to form the opinion that the officer is unsatisfactory or unsuitable and discharge the officer, without invoking the detailed disciplinary procedures of Part X.

In an appeal under s80I(1)(d) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA), the appeal involves a review of the employer's decision de novo. The Board is to consider the appeal based on the evidence before it, not merely on the basis of whether the employer made the right decision available to it at the time. The Board has greater scope to substitute its own view for that of the employer.

A probationary employee is entitled to a proper opportunity to prove themselves, but the employer reserves the right to determine the employment with appropriate notice provided they have reason for so doing.

A probationary employee can expect to be counselled and informed they are not meeting required standards, to be given reasonable training, and to be warned of possible consequences of failure to improve; provided this is done, an employee who is on probation would have little cause to complain if dismissal occurs.

Probation is not a licence for harsh, oppressive, capricious, arbitrary or unfair treatment of a probationer.

A probationary employee is able to seek reinstatement, but an employer is entitled to terminate a probationary employee more easily; length of service is not generally a factor because probationary employment is for a finite period during which assessment, training and skill acquisition can occur and compatibility can be assessed.

In determining an appeal against probationary dismissal, the Board may legitimately have regard to and place weight upon the employer's subjective view of the employee's suitability for ongoing employment.

A decision to terminate probationary employment is consistent with the purpose and principles of probation where: (a) concerns were genuinely held; (b) the right to terminate was not misused or abused; (c) the employee was adequately informed they were not meeting required standards, including consequences of failure to improve; and (d) the employee received adequate support and training to enable satisfactory performance.

Probationary employment is a far less secure mode of employment than permanent employment and a probationary employee can be dismissed more easily, but probationary employment is not a licence to dismiss unfairly.

A probationary employee dismissed after receiving regular documented feedback about performance deficiencies, assistance to improve, and notice that poor performance jeopardises employment has limited prospects of success on a claim of unfair dismissal.

Where an employer has limited its consideration in a termination decision to a specific incident, discovery of broader performance assessments throughout the probation period is not relevant to assessing fairness of the discharge decision.

In the context of a probationary dismissal, the key issue is whether it was unfair for the respondent to terminate the applicant's employment based on the applicant's conduct in accessing a restricted document without authorization and not immediately reporting the access.