Amid rising unfair dismissal claims in schools, two recent Fair Work Commission decisions provide helpful guidance on when teacher misconduct justifies dismissal.
Introduction
Uncertainty around how schools should respond to teacher misconduct has contributed to an increase in unfair dismissal claims. Two recent Fair Work Commission decisions have clarified where the line is drawn between acceptable behaviour management and when dismissal is justified.
The decisions in McLoghlin v St Columba’s College Ltd [2025] FWC 1554 and Paramjit Brownson v Australia International Islamic College Ltd [2025] FWC 1551 highlight the boundaries of acceptable conduct for school staff when disciplining students. Both cases involved confrontations with students, but the outcomes differed significantly. One dismissal was upheld, while the other was found to be ‘absurd’.
Under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), employers must ensure that dismissals are based on valid reasons and follow a procedurally fair process. If a school staff member fails to comply with relevant child protection and school policies, this may justify dismissal. However, the employer must consider all circumstances and conduct a proper investigation before deciding to dismiss the employee.
These recent decisions provide guidance for schools navigating the challenges of staff discipline while managing and preventing the risks of unfair dismissal claims.
McLoghlin v St Columba’s College Ltd [2025] FWC 1554
The Fair Work Commission upheld the dismissal of a science laboratory technician who ‘forcefully slapped’ a student’s hand during class. While the lab technician admitted to the conduct, she argued her dismissal was disproportionate and unfair.
The incident occurred after a biology dissection lesson when the student was incorrectly packing away dissection equipment. The lab technician claimed that she slapped the student’s hand as a reflex to prevent the student from hurting herself.
Following the incident, the principal spoke with the lab technician explaining that she had received both a report and video recording of the event. The lab technician claimed that the footage, taken on another student’s laptop, did not capture the entire incident. Before the recording, the student had been flicking pieces of a dissected bull’s eye at another student. The lab technician directed the student to stop and got ‘cross’ when it appeared the student had disregarded instructions.
The lab technician was stood down on full pay during an investigation, after which the principal terminated her employment. In her defence, the lab technician cited her 16 years of good service and alleged her dismissal was motivated by cost-cutting. The principal rejected these claims, stating the process had been fair and noting the lab technician role still existed, indicating no ulterior motive.
The principal gave evidence that the college had a clear policy prohibiting staff from using physical means or corporal punishment to discipline students. The lab technician had been trained on and was aware of the policy.
The Commission was satisfied that the slap was not an act of protection but rather a reaction to frustration and stated, ‘in this day and age, it is difficult to imagine situations in which it would be appropriate for a teacher or a school assistant to slap the hand of a student, but if there are any such situations, this was not one of them.’
Ultimately, the Commission found that there was a valid reason for the lab technician’s dismissal. While her long service was acknowledged, her failure to take full responsibility for her conduct weighed against her.
Paramjit Brownson v Australia International Islamic College Ltd [2025] FWC 1551
A high school teacher was awarded $55,786.90 in compensation after the Fair Work Commission found her dismissal for allegedly raising her voice at students to be ‘absurd’.
At first instance, the Commission directed that the college reinstate the teacher. On appeal, the Full Bench overturned this decision, ruling that the matter should be reheard. At the rehearing, the Commission considered complaints made by three students. The first student explained that the teacher often ‘raised her voice above her normal conversational tone’. However, the Commission explained this was inevitable as the teacher would have to raise her voice at times to deal with escalating levels of misbehaviour.
The Commission did not rely on the evidence from the other students as they had a history of misbehaving and their complaints appeared exaggerated. The Commission explained, ‘if the students wanted to stop feeling upset about their treatment by the teacher, there was an easy way to achieve this – stop misbehaving’.
The Commission accepted the teacher’s contentions, which were supported by evidence that other teachers also raised their voices to manage disruptive behaviour.
The Commission found the true motivation for the dismissal was a detailed email the teacher had sent to other staff members. The email contained allegations of inappropriate behaviour from the college director at a school event. The Commission was satisfied that the email had upset the college director and triggered a ‘contrived and flawed’ disciplinary process, which included fabricated file notes and a sudden shift away from supporting the teacher’s classroom techniques.
Although the college conducted a reasonably thorough investigation, this did not outweigh the fact that the teacher had been unfairly targeted by the college director for vindictive personal reasons.
The Commission found there was no valid reason for the teacher’s dismissal, noting that ‘while it is obviously preferable to resolve misbehaviour in a calm and quiet manner, it is unrealistic to expect that will always be sufficient.’ It added that if there were genuine concerns about the teacher’s conduct towards students, other steps would have been fairer and more appropriate than summary dismissal.
Key takeaways for employers
- Physical discipline will not be justifiable – As seen in McLoghlin, even minor physical contact is unacceptable, regardless of what the intention is. This can be a valid reason for dismissal, particularly where the teacher has been trained on policies prohibiting such behaviour.
- Consider the context of the incident and intention – Brownson illustrates that a teacher raising their voice in response to misbehaviour may be reasonable behaviour management, not misconduct. Before taking disciplinary action, employers should carefully consider whether a teacher’s actions were proportionate to the circumstances.
- Have clear policies and procedures in place – Employers should ensure that they maintain clear, well‑communicated policies on student discipline and appropriate conduct. All staff should receive regular training on these obligations to reduce uncertainty and set clear boundaries.
- Ensure there are valid grounds for dismissal – Dismissal must be based on valid reasons and carried out through a procedurally fair process. Employers are required to conduct thorough and impartial investigations, allowing employees an opportunity to respond to allegations. Decisions should not be influenced by ulterior motives, as this undermines fairness and increases the risk of unfair dismissal claims.
If you have any questions regarding the issues raised in this article, please contact Annie Smeaton or a member of our workplace relations and safety team.
