Two recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) decisions offer contrasting outcomes for schools navigating the complex terrain of staff misconduct towards children. These cases highlight the legal and ethical boundaries of acceptable behaviour in student discipline and underscore the importance of proportionality, policy alignment, and procedural fairness when considering termination. They also raise key safeguarding considerations for educational institutions.
Case 1: A Physical Act with Lasting Consequences
Jillian McLoghlin v St Columba’s College Ltd [2025] FWC 1554
Background
Ms Jillian McLoghlin, a science laboratory technician at the College, was dismissed for misconduct following an incident where she forcefully slapped a student’s hand during a biology lesson.
While Ms McLoghlin claimed it was a reflexive act to prevent harm involving a scalpel, she acknowledged being frustrated with the students. The College reported the allegations to the Commission for Children and Young People (CCYP), conducted an investigation, and subsequently terminated her employment.
FWC Decision
Ms McLoghlin’s application for an unfair dismissal remedy under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) was dismissed. The FWC found that the College had a valid reason for dismissal based to her conduct, and the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.
In reaching this conclusion, the FWC found:
- Undisputed conduct: Video footage showed the slap was forceful and inappropriate in the school environment and caused the student to recoil. Her safety justification lacked credibility and conflicted with her own admissions.
- Clear breach of policy: The College’s Child Safe Code of Conduct explicitly prohibits physical discipline.
- Fair process: Despite minor procedural delays, Ms McLoghlin was given a fair chance to respond. Her failure to acknowledge the seriousness of her actions weakened her case.
- Lack of remorse and insight: The FWC noted Ms McLoghlin’s long service and good record but found that she minimised and failed to take full responsibility for her conduct, referring to it as “one little incident” and “trivial”. Her attempt to attribute blame to a lack of training was dismissed, as knowing that slapping a student is impermissible does not require specific training.
Case 2: The Limits of Vocal Authority
Paramjit Brownson v Australian International Islamic College Ltd [2025] FWC 1551
Background
Ms Paramjit Brownson, a high school teacher and Pastoral Coordinator, was summarily dismissed for allegedly yelling at misbehaving students. She argued her actions were consistent with school norms and necessary to manage escalating misbehaviour. She also alleged her dismissal followed criticisms she raised about school leadership.
This was a rehearing of an unfair dismissal application after an earlier reinstatement order was quashed on appeal.
Decision
The FWC found that Ms Brownson was unfairly dismissed and ordered the College to pay Ms Brownson $55,786.90 (plus superannuation). Reinstatement was ruled out due to ongoing fair treatment and a breakdown in trust when Ms Brownson saved confidential information to her personal device.
In reaching its decision, the FWC’s conclusion considered each of the factors under s387 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) including:
- Reasonable disciplinary conduct: yelling at misbehaving students was found appropriate within her pastoral role. The FWC noted that other staff had used similar strategies when managing student behaviour.
- Unreliable complaints: Student complaints lacked credibility and were either previously dismissed or not rigorously assessed.
- Policy breaches unsubstantiated: Alleged violations of conduct and child protection policies were not proven, and the College exaggerated the seriousness of the allegations.
- Procedural shortcomings: Although due process was followed, the absence of a valid reason, coupled with findings of personal animosity from leadership, rendered the dismissal unfair.
- Contrived dismissal: The FWC concluded that the decision to terminate was driven by personal conflict, not genuine performance or conduct issues.
The FWC found the lack of a valid reason for dismissal and the contrived nature of Ms Brownson’s termination outweighed the procedural aspects where the College had met its obligations (e.g., notification and opportunity to respond). The FWC also noted that less severe options, such as training, counselling, or role changes, would have been fairer if genuine concerns about her interactions with students had existed.
What Sets These Cases Apart?
The central distinction lies in the nature of the conduct and the integrity of the investigation.
- In McLoghlin, physical discipline was clearly inconsistent with policy, unjustified by context, and followed by a fair and evidence-based process. The dismissal was upheld.
- In Brownson, the disciplinary conduct was more nuanced, within accepted norms, and investigated through a process compromised by bias and lacked substantive justification. The dismissal was overturned.
These cases underscore the importance of proportionality, policy clarity, process integrity, and credible investigation, especially in classroom discipline contexts.
Safeguarding and Reporting Implications
Where staff behaviour involves potential harm to children, employers must also meet external reporting obligations, including under the relevant reportable conduct scheme.
- Physical discipline, especially involving violence or risk of harm, is likely to be reportable.
- Verbal discipline, such as raising one’s voice, may not meet the threshold unless it causes significant emotional or psychological harm and is not reasonable or lawful.
Employers should carefully consider guideline published by regulators to determine whether allegations are reportable.
Key Takeaways for Employers
- Context and proportionality matter: Not all disciplinary actions warrant dismissal. Physical discipline is rarely defensible, while verbal discipline must be assessed in its full context.
- Policy alignment is critical: Misconduct must be assessed in line with clearly communicated and consistently enforced policies.
- Investigations must be fair and impartial: A flawed or biased process can invalidate even well-intentioned disciplinary action.
- Ensure valid grounds for dismissal: Procedural compliance is not enough if the underlying reasons for dismissal lack merit.
Report when required: Be clear on your safeguarding obligations and act promptly where reportable conduct may be involved.
How we can help
Our Workplace Relations team assists employers with managing disciplinary matters to minimise risk and ensure compliance with employment law. Additionally, our Safeguarding team advises on external reporting obligations and investigations arising from staff conduct involving children or young people.
Moores can help you navigate the complexities of staff conduct and ensure your organisation is protected—legally, ethically, and operationally.
Contact us
Please contact us if you would like further information on how we can assist.
Subscribe to our email updates and receive our articles directly in your inbox.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should seek legal advice regarding the application of the law to your organisation.