Unfair Dismissal Ruling Stands, Despite "Profoundly Troubling" Evidence

Why It Matters

The ruling underscores the high evidentiary burden on employers to prove factual errors when contesting unfair dismissal decisions, shaping how universities and other organisations manage misconduct investigations.

Key Takeaways

• Fair Work Commission upheld unfair dismissal finding.
• Professor dismissed for 2017 inappropriate student relationship.
• Appeal denied due to insufficient factual error proof.
• Ruling highlights burden of proof on employers.
• Impacts university misconduct policies and legal risk.

Pulse Analysis

Australia’s unfair dismissal framework places the onus on employers to demonstrate that a termination decision was based on a factual mistake. The Fair Work Commission (FWC) acts as the arbiter, applying a two‑step test: first, whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable; second, whether the employer can prove a legal error. In this case, the FWC full bench affirmed the unfair dismissal outcome, noting that the university failed to meet the stringent proof requirement despite the seriousness of the alleged misconduct.

The professor’s case centers on a 2017 incident where he allegedly engaged in overly personal and romantic communication with a supervised student, breaching the university’s behaviour policy. While the institution’s investigation uncovered “profoundly troubling” evidence, the FWC determined that the employer could not conclusively prove the employee’s insight into his conduct, a key element for overturning the unfair dismissal finding. This highlights a critical gap between substantive misconduct findings and procedural fairness, reminding academic institutions that policy enforcement must be paired with rigorous, documented decision‑making processes.

For businesses and higher‑education providers, the decision serves as a cautionary tale. Employers must ensure that investigations are transparent, evidence is meticulously recorded, and employees are given clear opportunities to respond. Failure to do so can result in costly unfair dismissal rulings, reputational damage, and heightened scrutiny from regulators. As workplaces increasingly grapple with complex behavioural standards, the FWC’s stance reinforces the need for robust compliance frameworks that balance employee rights with organisational safety and integrity.