Private messages fall under work policy in this ruling
A dismissal over seven‑year‑old misconduct has ended with a reinstated professor, testing how far HR policies reach into private messages and historic complaints.
On February 19, 2026, the Fair Work Commission Full Bench dismissed an appeal by the University of Melbourne, leaving in place an earlier ruling that the dismissal of a senior academic was unfair and that he should be reinstated with back pay.
At the centre of the case is Dr Matthai, a professor and Chair of Reservoir Engineering who supervised a PhD student referred to as AB. In May and June 2017, he exchanged a series of emails, text messages and calls with AB that the Commission later described as highly personal, intimate and romantic. Some of the contact occurred via his private email and outside campus, including an invitation to his birthday party.
The University's Appropriate Workplace Behaviour Policy was found to apply to all of those interactions, despite the off‑duty setting and private channels. As the Deputy President at first instance put it, "I consider that the workplace of an academic supervisor is present during any interaction with a PHD student."
AB was an international student who had recently arrived in Australia. From mid‑2017 she raised concerns informally with senior academics and human resources staff, saying she no longer wanted Dr Matthai as her supervisor. Evidence showed she feared a formal complaint would jeopardise her PhD and her position in Australia. The university changed her supervision arrangements. In August 2018, AB discontinued her original PhD and commenced a new doctorate under a different supervisor, which she completed in 2023. No formal investigation took place at the time.
On January 2, 2024, shortly after finishing her PhD, AB made a formal complaint alleging sexual harassment and supplied copies of the 2017 messages. A further detailed complaint followed on January 19, 2024. An independent investigator reported on June 25, 2024 that the behaviour policy had been breached.
On October 2, 2024, the university notified Dr Matthai of its provisional view that his conduct amounted to serious misconduct and could justify termination. In his October 7, 2024 response, he accepted the findings, acknowledged his behaviour had been highly inappropriate and expressed regret. He was summarily dismissed on December 17, 2024.
Dr Matthai lodged an unfair dismissal application on December 24, 2024. On July 7, 2025, Deputy President Colman found serious misconduct and a valid reason for dismissal, but concluded the dismissal was harsh. The Deputy President stated: "Dr Matthai's communications with AB in 2017 contravened the AWB Policy and constituted serious misconduct for the purposes of the 2024 Agreement. The University was right to be concerned about this. However, because the misconduct had occurred over 7 years earlier, and Dr Matthai had maintained an unblemished record over this time, I consider that the dismissal of Dr Matthai in December 2024 was harsh, and therefore unfair." Reinstatement was ordered along with $28,098.12 in lost remuneration, less tax, and continuity of employment.
The University of Melbourne appealed, arguing insufficient weight had been given to the seriousness of the misconduct, its behaviour policy, the reasons for delay and its asserted loss of trust and confidence in Dr Matthai. The Full Bench granted permission to appeal on public interest grounds, then rejected every ground. It held the Deputy President was entitled to treat the seven‑year gap and unblemished record as making dismissal harsh, and that his assessment of Dr Matthai's insight and unlikely future breach was open on the evidence.
For senior people leaders, the ruling makes three things clear. Serious misconduct tied to old events can still lead to reinstatement where an employee has many subsequent years of clean service. Behaviour policies can extend to private messages and social contact wherever there is an ongoing work relationship and clear power imbalance. And while delayed complaints from vulnerable individuals can rightly prompt action years later, the time gap and the employee's subsequent record will be central to whether termination is ultimately seen as fair.
