She admitted lying - but the employer skipped every step of a fair process
A childcare centre fired an educator for lying about dropping out of her diploma - and the Fair Work Commission still ruled the dismissal unfair.
The educator had worked at a Frankston-based childcare centre for five years when she was dismissed on April 2, 2026. Her employer terminated her after discovering she had secretly withdrawn from a diploma of education course and lied about it when asked directly.
The Commission found the employer had a valid reason to dismiss. The educator admitted at the hearing that she was dishonest with the centre's director on April 1, 2026, when asked why her diploma trainer had not attended the site that day. She had actually pulled out of the course two weeks earlier, on March 17, and had asked the trainer not to tell her employer.
She later conceded that fear of losing her job - while she was already looking for other work - drove the dishonesty. She apologised the same evening after the director confronted her with an email from the trainer revealing the withdrawal. A termination letter followed the next morning.
But a valid reason alone was not enough. The Commission found serious procedural failures on the employer's part. The educator was not told her job was at risk before the decision to terminate was made. No disciplinary meeting took place. She was never given a chance to respond to the reasons for her dismissal before it was finalised.
The employer also claimed it had issued a second written warning in March 2026 for separate performance concerns. The Commission gave this no weight. The employer conceded the warning was never put in writing and could not identify when any verbal discussion took place. The educator credibly denied receiving it. An earlier first warning from May 2025 - which the educator accepted and did not challenge at the time - was acknowledged, but the Commission noted it carried limited weight because it was not a final warning.
On the diploma withdrawal itself, the Commission found it did not amount to a valid reason for dismissal. There was no contractual requirement for the educator to stay enrolled. The employer had encouraged and supported the course, and the educator had agreed to undertake it, but that agreement did not turn her withdrawal into a breach of her employment contract.
The employer also tried to have the case thrown out under the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code - a set of rules that gives small businesses with fewer than 15 employees a simpler process for defending dismissals. That argument failed. Cross-examination revealed the centre actually employed 15 people at the time of dismissal - 13 educators, a chef, and a part-time cleaner - putting it above the small business threshold.
The Commission ordered $3,927.15 in compensation. It started with 12 weeks' pay at $872.70 per week ($10,472.40), based on its finding that the educator would likely have stayed only another 12 weeks given she was already job-hunting before the dismissal. That figure was reduced by 25% because the educator provided no documentary evidence of her job-search efforts after dismissal. It was then reduced by a further 50% to account for the admitted dishonesty that contributed to the dismissal. Neither party sought reinstatement.
The case is a sharp reminder that getting the reason right is only half the job. An employer can have solid grounds to dismiss and still lose an unfair dismissal claim if the process does not give the employee proper notice, a chance to respond, and a fair hearing before the decision is made.
The decision was handed down on September 14, 2026.
