Worker challenges firing after being accused of inappropriate conduct
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an unfair dismissal case involving a worker who was summarily dismissed for allegedly raising her voice at people under her supervision.
The case concerned an employee with three years of service who challenged her termination after being accused of yelling and using inappropriate disciplinary methods.
The worker argued that raising her voice was a necessary part of managing disruptive behaviour and maintaining order in challenging situations.
She contended that her actions were proportionate responses to serious misconduct by those under her supervision, and that her employer had previously supported her disciplinary approach until she challenged senior management's conduct.
The worker was employed as a mathematics teacher and Year 9 pastoral coordinator at an Australian International Islamic College from around late 2020 until December 2023.
Her role specifically involved assisting other teachers with disciplinary matters for Year 9 students, placing her at higher risk of complaints due to the nature of her responsibilities.
The employment issues began when a student sent an email complaint in June 2023 about her teaching techniques and alleged yelling in mathematics class.
The college promptly directed its deputy principal to investigate the matter and arrange classroom observations.
The initial investigation was conducted over several months, with the former head of secondary observing the worker's behaviour in classes.
In August 2023, the investigator told the deputy principal that the complaint could not be justified, stating that the worker "was and is firm with her expectations in a difficult and challenging classroom environment, but is fair at all stages."
During cross-examination at the hearing, the complainant student revealed that senior staff members also regularly yelled at students.
When asked about whether the college's senior leaders supported the worker's recommendations despite knowing she raised her voice, the student responded:
"Yes, because that's what their meant to do...they are those types of teachers. No offence to them but they're kind of similar to each other."
The FWC examined detailed behavioural records from the college's student management system, which revealed extensive misconduct by two key complainant students throughout October 2023.
One student accumulated 19 separate behavioural incidents within that month alone, logged by various teachers including the worker.
These incidents included lateness, truancy, bullying, harassment, defiance of college policy, disruptive classroom behaviour, and disrespectful conduct.
The second student had 14 recorded behavioural incidents during the same period, including disruptive behaviour, laptop misuse, dangerous conduct, and defiance of college policies.
The records showed that multiple teachers across the school were experiencing significant difficulties managing these students' behaviour, not just the worker.
Throughout October 2023, the worker had been regularly communicating with senior staff about the escalating behavioural issues via email.
Email evidence confirmed that senior staff were "completely supportive of the disciplinary actions [the worker] had been taking" against both students, with one student scheduled for internal suspension before the situation changed dramatically in November 2023.
The turning point came during a college event on 3 November 2023, when the college director spoke inappropriately to another teacher in front of parents, staff, and students.
The affected teacher requested a meeting to discuss the director's behaviour, with the worker serving as her support person. During the 6 November meeting, the director apologised for his conduct, but the worker and the affected teacher left when he began blaming his actions on staff not providing appropriate supervision.
The worker then sent a detailed email on 7 November 2023 to the director and other senior staff, criticising his leadership during the event and suggesting improvements for future situations.
The FWC concluded that this email "upset [the director] and triggered the contrived and flawed subsequent sequence of events that led to [the worker's] dismissal."
Within days of this confrontation, the same students whose behaviour the college had previously supported the worker in managing suddenly submitted formal written complaints against her on 8 and 15 November 2023.
The college initiated a formal investigation following the student complaints, with various allegations compiled in a letter dated 28 November 2023.
However, the FWC identified serious credibility problems with key college witnesses and evidence. The person who made the termination decision was found to have created false documentation to support the case against the worker.
The FWC accepted arguments that this decision-maker "created case file notes in early 2024 and falsely claimed that the notes were prepared in 2023."
When challenged about repeatedly recording 2024 dates on documents supposedly prepared in late 2023, his explanation of "human error" and "typos" was found unconvincing.
Other college witnesses provided vague, general evidence without specific dates, contexts, or particulars of alleged misconduct.
Crucially, none of these staff members had reported their alleged concerns about the worker's behaviour when it supposedly occurred, despite being required under college policy to report such matters to the principal.
Applying the Fair Work Act test for unfair dismissal, the FWC found no valid reason existed for the worker's termination.
The decision stated: "I consider it is absurd to suggest that a high school teacher can be found to have committed serious misconduct simply because they have raised their voice towards misbehaving students."
The worker explained her disciplinary approach during the hearing: "there are times when a teacher does have to raise her voice and usually it is because a student is either not following instructions or putting other students into danger or is doing something that is disrupting the entire class."
She clarified that while she had raised her voice and yelled at students, she also regularly counselled them about appropriate behaviour.
The FWC accepted the worker's evidence about her interactions with the misbehaving students, including her statements to them about making her life "miserable."
The decision noted: "I think these comments were completely understandable given the array of misbehaviour from both students as recorded in the [student management system] entries from various teachers."
Despite finding the dismissal unfair, the FWC rejected reinstatement due to relationship breakdown and the worker's retention of confidential college information after her dismissal.
The FWC awarded maximum compensation of $55,786.90 plus superannuation, equivalent to six months' salary. The decision concluded:
"There is already a well-documented shortage of schoolteachers in Australia, that problem will only be exacerbated if schools rush to dismiss competent and experienced teachers simply because some students complain about being spoken to in a raised voice when they have been misbehaving."
