Two recent decisions of the Fair Work Commission have tested the boundaries of what constitutes reasonable conduct by school staff in dealing with student behaviour. While both cases involved school employees dismissed after confrontations with students, the outcomes diverged significantly.
In each case, the nature of the worker’s conduct was closely examined: one teacher was awarded maximum compensation for unfair dismissal, while another school assistant had her termination upheld. These cases highlight how context, intent, and proportionality weigh heavily in disciplinary decisions under the Fair Work Act.
Background and context
In the first case, a science laboratory technician with 16 years of service at a college was terminated after an incident during a biology lesson, where she slapped a student’s hand. The technician maintained that her actions were prompted by safety concerns, but the college viewed the conduct as serious misconduct and summarily dismissed her. She responded by lodging an unfair dismissal application, arguing that the decision to terminate her employment was harsh and unreasonable given her long, unblemished record.
The second case centres on a high school teacher who was also summarily dismissed following a confrontation with a student. The teacher claimed that her dismissal was not only unfair but also the result of ongoing issues with school leadership, rather than the incident itself. Both cases underscore the difficulties schools face in handling disciplinary matters involving young people, and highlight the importance of fair, transparent processes when responding to allegations of misconduct.
The contrasting circumstances and arguments in each case illustrate the need for employers to balance the seriousness of the incident with the context and history of the staff member involved.
Case 1: Teacher’s unfair dismissal application over yelling deemed unfair
In Paramjit Brownson v Australian International Islamic College Ltd [2025] FWC 1551, the Fair Work Commission found that the dismissal of a high school teacher, as an employee, for yelling at misbehaving students was not only unjust but likely triggered by unrelated interpersonal conflict with school leadership.
Commissioner Crawford held that it was “absurd” to treat raised voices as serious misconduct in the absence of abusive or threatening language, especially in the context of misbehaving students. The Commission accepted the teacher’s version of events, supported by evidence that other staff members also used raised voices to manage disruptive behaviour. Notably, some of the student complaints appeared exaggerated or inconsistent, and even referenced that other teachers yelled more frequently.
Instead, the real motivation for the dismissal was found to be a detailed and critical email the teacher had sent, which constituted a formal complaint regarding the inappropriate behaviour of the school director during a public event. The email prompted what the commissioner called a “contrived and flawed” disciplinary process, including the fabrication of file notes, a report generated as part of the process, and shifting rationales for termination. The school’s management was criticised for its handling of the disciplinary process.
Although reinstatement was initially ordered, the Commission reversed this decision in light of later conduct and the breakdown of trust between the teacher and the school, instead awarding the teacher maximum compensation of $55,786.90 plus superannuation.
Key takeaways:
- Raising one’s voice in response to misbehaviour is not, by itself, serious misconduct.
- A flawed and retaliatory process can render a dismissal unfair.
- Reinstatement may be denied where the employment relationship has irreparably broken down.
Case 2: Slap on student’s hand justifies dismissal
By contrast, in Jillian McLoghlin v St Columba’s College Ltd [2025] FWC 1554, the Fair Work Commission upheld the dismissal of a long-serving science lab technician who slapped the hand of a 15-year-old student during class. The technician appeared frustrated at the time of the incident.
The incident was captured in a student’s phone video and clearly showed the technician slapping the student’s hand with a sound loud enough to be audible in the footage. The technician claimed a safety justification for her actions, stating the slap was a reflexive act to prevent the student from harming herself with a scalpel. However, the incident was thoroughly investigated, and the Commission considered various factors under the Fair Work Act, including the technician’s explanation, procedural fairness, and mitigating circumstances. The Fair Work Commission accepted that the technician acted out of frustration but rejected her safety justification, finding the action was not a credible response to the situation.
Deputy President Colman found the slap was “entirely unwarranted,” and that the technician’s failure to fully accept responsibility for her conduct, including referring to the event as ‘one little incident’ to minimise its seriousness, despite her 16 years of unblemished service, weighed against her case. Attempts to blame the incident on a lack of training or to minimise its seriousness further eroded her credibility and demonstrated a loss of sense regarding the seriousness of her actions.
Concerns about the student’s misconduct were acknowledged, but Deputy President Colman was unequivocal in stating that “in this day and age” there are virtually no circumstances in which it is appropriate for school staff to strike students. The risk posed to students and children by such actions, and the importance of safeguarding children in the school environment, were central to the Fair Work Commission’s findings.
Key takeaways:
- Physical contact in the form of a slap, even if brief or reactive, can constitute valid grounds for dismissal.
- Intentions based on safety must be credible and supported by context.
- Minimising the seriousness of misconduct or shifting blame undermines procedural fairness claims.
A nuanced approach to determining valid reason and fairness
| Aspect | Case 1 (Teacher) | Case 2 (Lab Assistant) |
| Misconduct Allegation | Yelling at misbehaving students | Slapping student’s hand during class |
| Context | Verbal discipline amidst disruption; no physical contact | Physical contact following student misbehaviour; lack of proper equipment such as safety tools cited as a contributing factor |
| Intent | Disciplinary intent, with evidence of standard practice | Claimed safety intent, but found to be frustration-based |
| Procedural Issues | Fabricated evidence, flawed process, retaliatory motive; lack of permission for certain actions during investigation | No procedural flaws; dismissal process found fair, with the presence of a union representative during the hearing |
| Other considerations | Reinstatement Initially ordered, later revoked due to relationship breakdown | Did not fully accept responsibility; attempted to minimise conduct |
| Outcome | Dismissal unfair; maximum compensation awarded, including 12 weeks’ pay | Dismissal upheld as fair |
These decisions underscore the Fair Work Commission’s nuanced approach in distinguishing between discipline and misconduct. While both cases involved student discipline and terminated employment, the outcomes hinged on the proportionality of the conduct, credibility of the explanations, and integrity of the employer’s process, including the presence of witnesses or union representatives during proceedings.
The Fair Work Commission made clear that while yelling at students may not always be desirable, it is not automatically misconduct. Physical contact, however – especially when driven by frustration – is unlikely to be tolerated, regardless of prior service or provocations. These cases serve as a critical reminder for school employers to ensure procedural fairness, obtain proper permission where required, provide adequate equipment, and for educators to maintain professional boundaries even under pressure.
How can Business Chamber Queensland help?
Whether the challenge is preventing unfair dismissal claims or defending appropriate termination actions, Business Chamber Queensland’s Workplace Advisory team can play a vital role in equipping employers with the tools, advice, and representation needed to handle these matters lawfully, fairly and confidently.
Business Chamber Queensland can:
- Advise on legally sound and procedurally fair processes for managing alleged misconduct.
- Review draft show cause letters, disciplinary notices, and performance records to ensure compliance with the Fair Work Act.
- Guide employers on how to conduct unbiased and well-documented investigations, including handling witness evidence appropriately and ensuring decisions are not retaliatory.
- Help employers understand when conduct falls short of serious misconduct and explore lesser disciplinary alternatives.
- Represent employers in unfair dismissal proceedings, including lodging responses, participating in conciliation conferences, and preparing for full hearings.
Business Chamber Queensland members with HR services as part of their membership can reach out at any time on 1300 731 988. For all other Queensland businesses, the team also offer cost-effective consulting services to help you navigate HR or workplace challenges, and to help you put the policies in place your workforce needs to thrive.
Read more about the cases:
Paramjit Brownson v Australian International Islamic College Ltd [2025] FWC 1551 (5 June 2025)
Jillian McLoghlin v St Columba’s College Ltd [2024] FWC 1554 (5 June 2025)
