//
[2026] FWC 559
General information, not legal advice.
Fair Work Commission
2026-02-23
Original judgment source is linked above.
The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 23 February 2026.
[2026] FWC 559 [Note: An appeal pursuant to s.604 (C2026/3831) was lodged against this decision.]
s.394 - Unfair dismissal
Application for an unfair dismissal remedy - multiple allegations said to collectively constitute serious misconduct - some allegations sustained or partially sustained - sustained allegations fail to establish a valid reason for dismissal - dismissal found to be unfair - reinstatement ordered along with maintenance of continuity of employment.
[1] This decision concerns an application made by Ms Angela Paladino (Dr Paladino) for an unfair dismissal remedy pursuant to s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 Cth (the Act). Dr Paladino who was employed by The University of Melbourne (the University) alleges she was dismissed on 5 February 2025. The unfair dismissal application was lodged by Dr Paladino on 19 February 2025.
[2] The matter was listed for hearing before me on 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 July and 26 August 2025 to deal with the merits of the application. Both parties filed material in advance of the hearing in accordance with directions issued. Mr Jack Tracey of Counsel, who was granted permission to appear on behalf of the Applicant (Dr Paladino) pursuant to s 596(2) of the Act, called Dr Paladino to give evidence. Mr Mark Felman of Counsel who was granted permission to appear on behalf of the University pursuant to s 596(2) called the following witnesses to give evidence;
[3] Dr Paladino commenced employment with the University in 1997 and during the course of her employment was engaged in the following roles;
(a) the University was of the view that Dr Paladino's conduct constituted serious misconduct;
(b) the University intended to terminate Dr Paladino's employment for serious misconduct;
(c) the University proposed to pay Dr Paladino six months' salary in lieu of notice; and
(d) in accordance with the Enterprise Agreement and within 24 hours, Dr Paladino could provide any new personal or mitigating information not previously submitted to the University for final consideration.
I refer to the letter dated 11 December 2024 (copy attached) where you were advised that the University of Melbourne (the University) had received complaints against you and, following an investigation process, formed the view that your behaviour constituted serious misconduct. Further you were advised that the University:
On 11 December 2024, you were given the opportunity to provide new personal or mitigating information not previously provided for final consideration by the University in accordance with clause 1.39.8 of the University of Melbourne Enterprise Agreement 2024 (2024 Enterprise Agreement).
On 13 December 2024, you raised a dispute in accordance with clause 1.42.8 of the 2024 Enterprise Agreement (Dispute). Based on the Dispute the University deferred the termination of employment pending the outcome of the Dispute process.
The Dispute Committee convened on Friday, 24 January 2025 at 2.00 pm to consider the Dispute raised by you. You were given the opportunity to provide the Dispute Committee with your submissions and supporting information regarding the disputed matters by way of written and verbal submissions and supporting material.
The decision of the Dispute Committee is as follows:
Based on the decision of the Dispute Committee, the University's decision that your conduct is considered to be serious misconduct in accordance with the 2024 Enterprise Agreement and termination of employment (with payment of six months' salary in lieu of notice) is valid, defensible and proportionate remains unchanged. I confirm that your employment is terminated effective today, 5 February 2025.
[38] A threshold issue to be determined in this matter is whether Dr Paladino has been dismissed from her employment. The circumstances in which a person is taken to be "dismissed" are set out in s 386 of the Act. Section 386(1) relevantly provides as follows:
(a) the person's employment with his or her employer has been terminated on the employer's initiative; or
(b) the person has resigned from his or her employment, but was forced to do so because of conduct, or a course of conduct, engaged in by his or her employer.
[39] Section 386(2) of the Act sets out circumstances where an employee has not been dismissed, none of which are presently relevant. There is no dispute, and I find that Dr Paladino's employment with the University terminated at the initiative of the University.
[40] Having found that Dr Paladino was dismissed within the meaning of s 386(1) of the Act, I am now obliged under section 396 of the Act, to decide the following matters before considering the merits of the application:
(a) whether the application was made within the period required in subsection 394(2);
(b) whether the person was protected from unfair dismissal;
(c) whether the dismissal was consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code; and
(d) whether the dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy.
[41] Relevant to the determination of the preliminary matters I am satisfied that;
[42] Having considered each of the initial matters, I am satisfied that the application was made within the required period in subsection 394(2), Dr Paladino was a person protected from unfair dismissal, the small business fair dismissal code does not apply, and the dismissal was not a genuine redundancy. I am now required to consider the merits of the application, and it is to that I now turn.
Was the dismissal harsh, unjust, or unreasonable?
[43] Section 387 of the Act provides that, considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, the Commission must take into account:
(a) whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person's capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees); and
(b) whether the person was notified of that reason; and
(c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person; and
(d) any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal; and
(e) if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person - whether the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal; and
(f) the degree to which the size of the employer's enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and
(g) the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and
(h) any other matters that the FWC considers relevant.
Whether valid reason for the dismissal - s 387(a)
[44] The University contends that Dr Paladino engaged in a pattern of inappropriate behaviour which, when viewed in totality, establishes a valid reason for the termination of her employment. It is submitted by the University that some conduct is more serious, some less so, but what emerges is a pattern of behaviour that created a culture and climate of fear in the WCLA; underpinned by abuse, disrespect, unjustified micromanagement, gaslighting, and the undermining and exploitation of academic leadership to whom Dr Paladino reported to. The University seeks to rely on a range of allegations, including those found to be substantiated and some found to be unsubstantiated in Ms Taylor's investigation. There are also new allegations that were not subject to investigation by Ms Taylor and were not relied on by the University at the time of Dr Paladino's dismissal. The University categorises the conduct into various subsets; behaviour that was rude and disrespectful, micromanaging and controlling, dishonest, divisive, insubordinate and bullying. The Applicant for her part rejects the University's contentions in respect of whether the conduct occurred, or whether particular behaviour if it did occur was so serious as to establish a valid reason for her dismissal.
[45] It is convenient at this point to list each of the allegations put against Dr Paladino and relied on by the University in these proceedings. The allegations listed below have been grouped together where they relate to a particular staff member or complainant. Where the allegation was subject to investigation by Ms Taylor, I have identified the Investigation Report (the IR) allegation number for cross referencing purposes. The allegations are as follows;
[46] As the University seeks to rely on the totality of its pressed allegations to establish a valid reason for Dr Paladino's dismissal, it is necessary for me to consider and make findings in relation to each of the allegations. Before doing so, it is appropriate for me to deal with the credit of key witnesses. There are significant evidentiary conflicts between Dr Paladino and Dr Wear, Dr Dixon-Deane, and Ms Brinley and much of the witness evidence is unsupported by corroborating evidence. It is to the matter of witness credit I firstly turn.
[47] Dr Paladino presented as reserved and quietly spoken while giving evidence. She was subject to cross-examination that extended over three days of the hearing. The University submit that she was not a 'witness of truth' for reasons including; that she gave dishonest evidence, was evasive in her responses, gave inconsistent evidence, gave manufactured evidence, and engaged in blame shifting.
[48] Dealing firstly with the claimed blame shifting. I accept that Dr Paladino was critical of other parties involved in these proceedings, including those who made allegations against her or participated in the investigation and/or disciplinary process. That is entirely unremarkable in circumstances where many of the allegations initially made against her and investigated by Ms Taylor were unsubstantiated, or only partially substantiated. As will become apparent from my findings below, I have also found that the vast majority of allegations pressed in these proceedings were not established to the requisite satisfaction. Dr Paladino may be forgiven for feeling ill-treated in these circumstances.
[49] The allegation of manufactured evidence is misconceived in my view. That is because of the large volume of material including fresh allegations that Dr Paladino was forced to confront in these proceedings. It is entirely normal for witnesses to provide fresh evidence during cross-examination in response to questioning. The fact that the evidence may not have been led as evidence in chief does not automatically lead to an assumption that it was 'manufactured.' None of the examples cited by the University persuades me that Dr Paladino was an unreliable witness.
[50] Turning next to whether Dr Paladino was evasive in her responses. She was resolute in her denial of many of the allegations, which manifested at times in a reluctance to make concessions that could and should have been easily made. This at times required a series of follow up questions by both the University's Counsel and the Commission to extract a direct response or an obvious concession. This reluctance to answer questions directly or make concessions may be explained by an unwillingness to make admissions or statements that damaged her case, in circumstances where her career and reputation was at stake. Even so, it was an unhelpful approach, that lessens the confidence that may be placed on her uncorroborated evidence.
[51] Turning finally to the University submission that Dr Paladino gave dishonest evidence. The University cites a number of examples of dishonest evidence. Two of the matters referred to are dealt with below; Dr Paladino's failure to notify Dr Johnston of her credit card cancellation, and her evidence that she did not ask Dr Dixon-Deane to complete work after she had left the WCLA. I have made findings in relation to both of those matters. In the latter case, Dr Paladino's evidence was contradicted by documentary evidence which revealed she had requested completion of the work, a point she properly conceded when shown the relevant emails. The fact that Dr Paladino's evidence was shown to be wrong does not make it dishonest, noting that the allegation related to an event that took place in 2019. As to Dr Paladino's failure to notify Dr Johnston of the credit card cancellation I have made adverse findings below against Dr Paladino in relation to that conduct. As to the third matter raised by the Respondent, Dr Paladino's evidence that she did not know why Professor Jensen held concerns over her holding dual roles was self-serving and unnecessary. A concession was ultimately made by Dr Paladino in response to prolonged questioning.
[52] Having regard to the above, it is appropriate that I exercise caution in relying solely on Dr Paladino's oral evidence, not because I regard Dr Paladino as a witness of poor credit, as I found her to be generally credible. It is the case that a large number of allegations have been made against her over the course of the investigation initiated by the University, and in these proceedings. The sheer number of allegations, many of which were not pressed before the Commission, the aged nature of many of the allegations both pressed and withdrawn, the volume of hearsay evidence advanced and the lack of detail or specificity of when particular alleged events occurred require careful consideration of all relevant evidence.
[53] Dr Wear commenced employment with the University on 18 October 2021 as a Senior Lecturer in Higher Education in the WCLA. He currently reports to Professor Gahan, Associate Dean - Teaching and Learning as the Director role in the WCLA is vacant. He formerly reported to Dr Paladino.
[55] A fair reading of Dr Wear's 2022 PDR reveals that Dr Paladino made both positive comments about his performance and identified areas for focus and/or development. That with respect to Dr Wear is the desirable approach to be taken in a PDR. Dr Wear's apparent reflex to view all of the comments as somehow critical of him reveals a strong prejudice against Dr Paladino. Dr Wear's instinct to view any comments made by Dr Paladino in a less favourable light was tellingly exposed when Dr Wear sought to distinguish 'feedback' from receiving 'acknowledgement' when describing Dr Paladino's comment that he took on the peer mentoring at short notice. When pressed, he agreed he held a view that he had not received enough 'acknowledgement' from Dr Paladino. Dr Wear's view about his 2022 PDR was unreasonable and the fact that he felt compelled to raise a complaint about it reveals the prejudice and generally negative view he held towards Dr Paladino.
[56] Dr Wear also failed to disclose in his evidence the contact he had with Dr Dixon-Deane in the lead-up to the proceedings. This was in circumstances where Dr Wear commenced at the University long after Dr Dixon-Deane had ceased her employment and Dr Wear had not otherwise worked with her. This only emerged when Dr Dixon-Deane was cross-examined, which occurred after Dr Wear had given his evidence. While Dr Wear was under no obligation to disclose his contact with Dr Dixon-Deane, his failure to do so raises questions about his lack of candour.
[57] Some of Dr Wear's evidence in relation to Dr Paladino was either wrong, which he was forced to accept when giving evidence, or generalised and non-specific in detail. Examples include;
[58] The above causes me to approach Dr Wear's evidence in relation to Dr Paladino with caution. That is because Dr Wear discloses a negative and prejudiced view towards Dr Paladino and her communication with him. This in my view manifests in Dr Wear perceiving communication from and treatment by Dr Paladino in a negative light, whether justified or not.
[59] Dr Dixon-Deane is a Senior Lecturer at UTS, a Deputy Head of School Research, and a member of the School of Professional Practice and Leadership (the School). Between June 2016 and July 2019, she was employed by the University on a fixed term basis as a Lecturer / Educational Designer in the WCLA.
[63] Finally, Dr Dixon-Deanes evidence relates to events that took place between June 2016, when she commenced employment with the University in the WCLA, and up until her departure in July 2019. The evidence relates to events, that even if they did occur, occurred several years ago; which calls in to question both the quality of recollection of events and what if any weight should be given to what are 'stale' events. It also does not appear that Dr Dixon-Deane regarded her concerns about Dr Paladino as so serious as to warrant a formal complaint. For example, her allegation that Dr Paladino 'screamed' at staff, which is dealt with below, which was not raised by her or any other staff member at the time despite her agreeing it was a serious allegation.
[64] All of the above causes me to approach Dr Dixon-Deane's evidence with caution.
[65] Ms Brinley is employed by the University as a Case Management Officer in the Workplace Accessibility and Injury Support Team in the University's Health and Safety Services Team which is within the University's Business Services department. She has been in that role since 29 June 2023. Immediately prior to moving into her current role, Ms Brinley was employed in the role of Office Administrator in the WCLA on a fixed term basis, that being her first role with the University.
[68] Having considered witness credit, it is appropriate to now turn to the various allegations put against Dr Paladino in these proceedings.
Allegation 1 - Telling Dr Wear that Dr Chia left the WCLA because Dr Johnston was hard to work with (IR 6(a)).
[72] Dr Cotronei-Baird, Dr Chia and Dr Johnston were not called to give evidence and as such limited weight can be placed on the hearsay evidence relied on, a point conceded by the University in its closing submission. Nevertheless, the fact that the issue was raised by both Dr Chia and Dr Cotronei-Baird during their interviews with Ms Taylor does support Dr Wear's evidence that the comment was made by Dr Paladino in her conversation with Dr Wear in 2022. This of course invites a conclusion that the comment made by Dr Paladino about the reason for Dr Chia's departure was passed on by Dr Wear to colleagues following his conversation with Dr Paladino. The irony is not lost on me that Dr Wear complains of Dr Paladino's breach of confidentiality in respect of other matters discussed between them, yet he seems to have engaged in the same behaviour that he was so critical of, that of disclosing a matter discussed privately between himself and Dr Paladino.
[73] I have the competing evidence of Dr Wear and Dr Paladino as to what was said by Dr Paladino in the conversation between them. Dr Paladino denies having made the comment while Dr Wear was equally adamant that she did. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Dr Paladino made such a comment. I prefer Dr Wear's evidence because of the supporting comments made by Dr Chia and Dr Cotronei-Baird during Ms Taylor's investigation. The latter statements made to Ms Taylor during her investigation suggests that Dr Wear disclosed to at least one of his colleagues the exchange between he and Dr Paladino at some point before the matter was raised in Ms Taylor's investigation.
[74] I am satisfied that Dr Paladino made a comment to Dr Wear during a conversation in semester 2 in 2022 to the effect that Dr Chia left the WCLA because of Dr Johnston. The comments were made in the context of a disclosure by Dr Wear to Dr Paladino that he found it difficult to work with Dr Johnston. While Dr Paladino may have been well placed to comment on the reasons for a subordinate's departure, she should not have done so to Dr Wear who was a subordinate of Dr Paladino and a colleague of Dr Johnston. The comment was unnecessary and inappropriate as it related to both a current and former staff member's working relationship. That was none of Dr Wear's business. While inappropriate, and unnecessary; the comment does not in itself rise to the level of misconduct that would establish a valid reason, it is appropriate to weigh it with any other adverse findings made in relation to Dr Paladino's conduct.
Allegation 2 - Sending Dr Wear an email that implied he had not been attending the office (IR 1(k)).
[75] This allegation related to an email sent by Dr Paladino to Dr Wear on 10 May 2023 which stated as follows;
Just checking in to see if you are feeling okay? You seem to be coming in on average one/two days per week for the past three weeks. Just wanting to check if you need any support with anything?
[76] Dr Wear responded shortly after receiving Dr Paladino's email on 10 May 2023 in the following terms;
I'll be in 3 days this week (4 if you include this evening's TBE Follow-up Session) and was in 4 days the last two weeks!
I'm guessing we just haven't crossed paths! All good here.
[79] While Dr Wear ascribed a negative motive on the part of Dr Paladino in sending her email to him on 10 May 2023, I am unable to accept Dr Wear's subjective view of Dr Paladiono's motives for the reasons I have set out above in dealing with Dr Wear's credit. I found Dr Paladino's evidence and explanation for the email to be credible. The fact that the Applicant may have been attending the office more regularly at the time then was observed by Dr Paladino does not mean Dr Paladino's email was sent with a negative intent. The inference Dr Wear draws is neither reasonable in my view, nor supported by the evidence in circumstances where Dr Paladino strenuously denied the imputed motive for her email. It follows that the allegation that the email constituted rude or disrespectful behaviour towards Dr Wear is not sustained.
Allegation 3 - Telling Dr Johnston that Dr Wear had been talking negatively about her (IR 6(f)).
[85] The evidence of Dr Wear and Dr Paladino differs significantly in respect of what Paladino is said to have stated to Dr Johnston following a conversation between Dr Wear and Dr Paladino regarding Dr Johnston's DTE Program. In essence, Dr Wear claims that Dr Paladino disclosed to Dr Johnston, Dr Wear's private criticism of Dr Johnston running of the DTE program. This, he claims, caused a deterioration in his relationship with Dr Johnston and for him to lose trust in Dr Paladino's confidentiality. While accepting she made comments to Dr Johnston about unhelpful additions made to the DTE Program, Dr Paladino denied disclosing Dr Wear's criticisms to Dr Johnston.
[87] As to the respective witness credit of Dr Wear and Dr Paladino, for the reasons previously set out, there is no basis to generally prefer the evidence of Dr Paladino or Dr Wear over the other in the case of the conversation regarding Dr Johnston and the DTE Program. Ultimately, the absence of direct evidence from Dr Johnston does not assist me resolve the evidentiary conflict between Dr Paladino and Dr Wear as to what was or was not said to Dr Johnston by Dr Paladino. The only direct evidence of that conversation is that of Dr Paladino, who steadfastly denies having disclosed Dr Wear's criticisms of the DTE Program to Dr Johnston. In the absence of any corroborating evidence, I find that the allegation that Dr Paladino engaged in divisive behaviour by disclosing negative comments made by Dr Wear to Dr Johnston is not sustained.
[88] For the sake of completeness, even if I had found Dr Paladino had disclosed Dr Wear's concerns of complexity and overengineering of the DTE Program to Dr Johnston, I would not find that disclosure constituted divisive behaviour, particularly where Dr Wear was critical of the DTE Program's complexity and overengineering. Disclosure of Dr Wear's concerns might rise to the level of indiscreet or ill-judged feedback from Dr Paladino and if so, it would be worthy of feedback and coaching. It would not in isolation establish misconduct, let alone serious misconduct in my view.
Allegation 4 - Refusing Dr Wear's request for personal leave for fatigue and instead requiring him to take annual leave (IR 5(e)).
[92] I am satisfied that Dr Wear was previously advised by Professor Jensen of the circumstances in which he could claim personal leave. He was not suffering an illness on his return from the BERA conference, a point that was discussed between he and Dr Paladino on 13 September 2022. I see no tension between Dr Wear's understanding that he would be entitled to claim either personal or annual leave for the day with Dr Paladino's view that he would be entitled to personal leave if he were ill but could otherwise apply for annual leave. The requirement imposed by Dr Paladino that Dr Wear submit an annual leave application rather than a personal leave application, does not constitute controlling or micromanaging behaviour in my view. The allegation that Dr Paladino's refusal of the personal leave request constituted misconduct that would support a finding of valid reason for her dismissal is not sustained.
Allegation 5 - Telling Dr Wear he would not get people asking him whether he had a nice time overseas after every conference after he raised her failure to ask about the conference.
[96] I am satisfied that Dr Paladino made the statement to Dr Wear as claimed by Dr Wear. While the comment demonstrated an insensitivity on the part of Dr Paladino, I do not accept the comment was rude or disrespectful and would not in isolation establish misconduct, let alone serious misconduct.
Allegation 6 - Telling Dr Wear that doors were open and people were laughing after he left when he raised concerns about the Centre's culture.
[97] Dr Wear states that a facilitated discussion with Dr Paladino was conducted by Lindsay Newton (HR Business Partner - FBE) on 3 November 2022 to assist in resolving concerns Dr Wear held in relation to Dr Paladino's behaviour. He states that during the course of that discussion Dr Paladino responded to Dr Wear's concerns over the workplace culture by saying words to the effect that 'When you were in Liverpool, the doors were open and people were in the corridors laughing, but only after you left.' Dr Paladino while not addressing Dr Wear's evidence in her reply witness statement, denied during cross-examination that the alleged comment was made. The University did not call evidence from Ms Newton which is unfortunate as such evidence would have assisted to resolve the evidentiary conflict between Dr Wear and Dr Paladino on the discussion. The failure to call Dr Newton is surprising given the nature of the alleged comments made by Dr Paladino during the facilitated conversation that Ms Newton was witness too.
[98] In circumstances where Dr Paladino flatly denied using the words attributed to her, where the dialogue was Dr Wear's re-construction of a discussion that took place some three years ago and where an independent witness to that discussion was not called to give evidence, I am not satisfied that the University has established the comment was made as alleged. It follows that the allegation is not sustained.
Allegation 7 - Failing to arrange a supervisory one-on-one meeting with Dr Wear for five months.
[102] It appears to me that Dr Paladino and Dr Wear had a different view as to the nature of the catch-up meetings they held. Dr Wear concedes that meetings were held although his view is that those meetings were not in the form that constituted one-on-one meetings that allowed discussion of his development and growth. Dr Paladino for her part appears to characterise the informal catch-ups she held with staff as meetings. In circumstances where there were meetings held between Dr Paladino and Dr Wear in the relevant period, even though there is a disagreement over the nature of those meetings, I am not satisfied the allegation is sustained.
[103] In any case, to the extent there may have been deficiencies in the conduct of meetings between December 2021 and May 2022, those deficiencies were remedied. In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that the allegation, even if sustained, constitutes misconduct that would establish a valid reason for dismissal.
Allegation 8 - Telling Dr Wear to submit receipts for all items purchased on a work credit card when the University policy only requires receipts for purchases over $75.
[106] While neither party provided a copy of the relevant policy or of training that Dr Wear may have undertaken in use of credit cards when he commenced employment, it appears uncontroversial that only expenses that exceed $75 are required to be uploaded onto Themis. That ought to have been apparent to Dr Wear given he had commenced employment only 10 months before his BERA Conference attendance in September 2022. I note that Dr Wear did not contend in his evidence that he had not received training in credit card use. Moreover, Dr Paladino specifically referred to that training and the availability of Finance to assist Dr Wear immediately prior to his departure for the BERA Conference.
[107] In the above circumstances I find it inherently implausible that Dr Paladino would have made a statement to Dr Wear that was demonstrably wrong, which would have been understood by Dr Wear to be wrong if he had done the credit card training on commencement of employment and where Dr Paladino specifically referred Dr Wear to Finance for assistance in relation to his expenses immediately before his overseas departure. For these reasons I prefer the evidence of Dr Paladino that no such statement was made to Dr Wear that he was required to upload all expenses regardless of the value. The allegation is not sustained.
Allegation 9 - Telling Dr Wear she had lost trust in him because he did not update her on changes to his annual leave plans.
[111] During her cross-examination, Dr Paladino gave the following evidence;
[112] I am satisfied that Dr Paladino approved Dr Wear's leave request at short notice even though the leave fell within a busy period and placed pressure on Dr Wear's colleagues, of which Dr Wear was aware. The leave was approved because of the personal circumstances advanced by Dr Wear in his discussions with Dr Paladino, being in part because of his desire to visit his sick grandmother as he may not get another chance to do so. In these circumstances, Dr Wear's lack of candor with Dr Paladino about his changed circumstances in the lead up to the leave is surprising and, in my view, reflects poorly on Dr Wear.
[113] Dr Paladino while denying during cross-examination that she was annoyed at Dr Wear when she became aware of the Thailand trip, was entitled to question Dr Wear's transparency given the background to the leave approval. She should have raised that concern directly with Dr Wear at the time of his return from leave. While Dr Paladino denied saying she had lost trust in Dr Wear during the facilitated meeting on 22 November 2022, she could not recall the words used or the context of the discussion about the Thailand holiday. I find it unlikely that the Thailand trip would have arisen during the facilitated discussion unless a specific concern was raised by Dr Paladino. This supports Dr Wear's version of the discussion as does his clearer recollection of the context in which the Thailand trip issue was raised during the meeting.
[114] Having regard to the above, I am satisfied that the issue of Dr Wear's Thailand trip arose during the facilitated discussion in the context of Dr Paladino responding to Dr Wear's concerns over the workplace culture and Dr Wear's relationship with Dr Paladino. I am further satisfied that Dr Paladino made the comment that she had lost trust in Dr Wear because of his lack of communication in relation to his change in holiday plans. Dr Paladino's apparent concern was that Dr Wear failed to disclose a change in his annual leave arrangements in circumstances where his annual leave application was approved by her despite the application being at short notice and at a busy time of year. The application was approved due to Dr Wear's pressing personal circumstances.
[115] While Dr Paladino may have held concerns over Dr Wear's lack of transparency or candour over his altered annual leave arrangements, that concern should have been discussed at the time the issue arose and not several months later in the facilitated meeting. To suggest the comments were rude and disrespectful overstates the severity of the comment in circumstances where Dr Paladino had a legitimate reason to question Dr Wear's transparency. The concern was, however, raised in an inappropriate, and unprofessional manner. It does not, however, rise to the level of misconduct that would on its own establish a valid reason for Dr Paladino's dismissal. I also note that the comments were made in a facilitated discussion at which an HR representative was present and there is no evidence that Dr Paladino was cautioned, counselled or otherwise spoken to about her comment at the time.
Allegation 10 - Requiring Dr Wear to engage in an unnecessary and burdensome administrative process to extend his credit card limit where she could have approved the request herself.
[118] I am satisfied that Dr Paladino declined to extend the credit limit on Dr Wear's credit card in circumstances where she had the discretion to authorise an extension in the credit card limit. I also accept that she adopted a consistent process of not approving such requests, that also being within her discretion. While that approach may appear arbitrary, Dr Paladino applied a consistent approach and did not single Dr Wear out for special treatment. While Dr Wear may have been aggrieved at Dr Paladino's inflexibility, no evidence was led by either party regarding the relevant policy, procedures or other documents that might guide managers in the exercise of their discretion. In these circumstances I am not satisfied that Dr Paladino's decision to decline to extend the credit card limit of Dr Wear constituted unreasonable management action in circumstances where there was an alternative means to arrange payment of the relevant expenses. The allegation of misconduct is not sustained.
Allegation 11 - Unreasonably berating Dr Wear for searching flights to Armenia.
[121] The University questions Dr Paladino's credibility in her evidence, in part because she failed to include in her reply statement any reference to requesting Dr Wear to provide a heads up in the future and only introduced that 'new evidence' during cross-examination. That criticism is rejected in circumstances where Dr Paladino was responding to events that occurred over three years ago, where the allegation was not put to her during Ms Taylor's investigation and the sheer volume of discreet allegations pressed by the University requiring a response from Dr Paladino in these proceedings, including a significant number of fresh allegations not previously raised. It is unsurprising that she did not provide a forensic response in her reply statement on every single point raised in the evidence of the University's witnesses. As it is, Dr Paladino was asked a series of questions in cross-examination and provided candid responses. She was not dogmatic that she used specific words but rather said to Dr Wear 'something to the effect' of requesting he give her a heads up in the future. Such a request is entirely plausible in circumstances where she may have felt blindsided by the notification that went directly to Professor Kofman.
[122] As to Dr Wear's perception of Dr Paladino's tone, I approach that evidence with caution. That is because of the passage of time, the fact that the allegation was not raised as part of the initial investigation and Dr Wear's tendency to adopt a negative and prejudiced view towards Dr Paladino and her communication with him. For these reasons I prefer the evidence of Dr Paladino and as such the allegation is not sustained.
Allegation 12 - Telling Ms Lowenstein that Ms Brinley had been complaining about her (IR 6(d)).
[125] Ms Brinley's evidence of what Dr Paladino did or did not say to Ms Lowenstein is hearsay and was not supported by evidence called from Ms Lowenstein who was a direct participant in the alleged conversation with Paladino. In these circumstances I prefer the direct evidence of Dr Paladino who rejected the comments attributed to her by Ms Brinley. The allegation is not sustained.
Allegation 13 - Contacting Ms Brinley during a period of leave to find a non-urgent receipt (IR 1(g))
[130] It is unarguable that Dr Paladino called Ms Brinley on 20 December 2022 during a period of Ms Brinley's annual leave. The call was in relation to the outstanding expense receipts for the pre-Christmas WCLA bowling club event which Ms Brinley had paid for using her University credit card. Despite there being a finance 'work around' to avoid the need to locate the missing receipts before the 21 December 2022 deadline, Dr Paladino was clearly anxious to resolve the matter to her satisfaction prior to the finance deadline. I accept however that Dr Paladino would not have called Ms Brinley on 20 December 2022 had Ms Brinley not sent an email that day to Dr Paladino containing false information that the receipts were on Ms Brinley's work desk. I accept Ms Brinley may have felt under pressure to communicate with Dr Paladino on 20 December 2022, because of earlier communication between the two over the outstanding receipts. That does not however explain or excuse the false statement made in her email to Dr Paladino, that the receipts were on her work desk.
[131] While the call made by Dr Paladino on 20 December 2022 might be explained by Ms Brinley's email earlier that day to Dr Paladino, the call was unnecessary and should not have been made. A simple email response by Dr Paladino to Ms Brinley to the effect that Ms Brinley should enjoy her holiday would have been the appropriate course. It was not an urgent matter on any reasonable assessment when an alternate means of managing the issue had already been identified by Finance. While the contact was unnecessary and should not have been made, it does not on its own rise to the level of establishing misconduct that would establish a valid reason for Dr Paladino's dismissal.
Allegation 14 - Failing to pay attention to or recall Ms Brinley's personal information (IR 1(e) and (f)).
[135] I am not satisfied on the evidence that Dr Paladino either forgot personal information disclosed to her by Ms Brinley or that Dr Paladino told Ms Brinley she needed to have a bachelor's degree for her level 6 role. My reasons are as follows. Firstly, the events referred to by Ms Brinley lack specificity as to timing. Secondly, Ms Brinley changed her evidence during cross-examination when she conceded that Dr Paladino had shown empathy regarding her personal circumstances, that concession being consistent with the evidence given by Dr Paladino. Thirdly, Ms Brinley also agreed that Dr Paladino was supportive in relation to Ms Brinley undertaking further studies. Fourthly, the claim that Dr Paladino stated there was a requirement for Ms Brinley to hold a bachelor's degree was clearly at odds with the fact Ms Brinley was initially offered the level 6 role and had her contract renewed despite not holding a bachelor's degree. I find it unlikely that Dr Paladino would have recruited Ms Brinley and renewed her contract despite her not possessing a bachelor's degree and then later state to Ms Brinley that she needed a bachelor's degree for the role. The more plausible explanation is that Dr Paladino encouraged Ms Brinley to pursue further education, a point Ms Brinley conceded. Finally, Dr Paladino's evidence was credible and consistent and there was no corroborating evidence led by the University in support of Ms Brinley's evidence. In these circumstances I prefer Dr Paladino's evidence on the disputed points.
Allegation 15 - Making demeaning comments about Ms Brinley's tattoos, hair and personal grooming (IR 1(b)).
[136] Ms Brinley gave evidence that Dr Paladino made demeaning comments about her appearance as follows;
[138] It is not possible on the evidence before me to reach the requisite satisfaction that the alleged comments were made by Dr Paladino to Ms Brinley. Even if the alleged comments were made, the accuracy of Ms Brinley's subjective interpretation of the intent of the comments is unable to be verified given Dr Paladino's denial of any negative intention and the absence of any corroborating evidence. The allegations are not sustained on the evidence.
Allegation 16 - Criticising Ms Brinley in front of her colleagues for sending too many emails after Dr Paladino told Ms Brinley to copy her into all emails.
Allegation 17 - Only allowing Ms Brinley to complete her asset management duties when Dr Paladino was physically present, which was infrequent and then requesting a status update on the task from Ms Brinley.
[144] There is no evidence beyond Ms Brinley's claim and Dr Paladino's denial that Ms Brinley was prevented from accessing the storeroom without Dr Paladino's presence and that this impacted on Ms Brinley's ability to perform her allocated tasks. If it were the case that Ms Brinley was prevented from accessing the storeroom unless Dr Paladino was present and given that according to Ms Brinley, Dr Paladino was rarely present in the office;: her evidence would have been strengthened by evidence of her following up with Dr Paladino regarding her presence in the office, to enable the stocktake to be conducted by Ms Brinley. There was no such evidence. Nor was there any evidence of Ms Brinley being counselled or criticised for not completing the stocktake task. This might have been expected if Ms Brinley's claim that Dr Paladino was prone to criticising Ms Brinley's performance at any opportunity were correct. Given the conflicting evidence and lack of any corroborating evidence I am not satisfied that the allegation is sustained.
Allegation 18 - Repeatedly reminding Ms Brinley that she had once failed to send an email.
[145] Ms Brinley further states that Dr Paladino told Ms Brinley in or around November 2022 that she had not sent an email in an accusatory and infantilising tone. While unable to recall what the email related to, she states that she had a problem with the email server which meant the email ended up in the Outlook outbox and had not been sent. She says she eventually rectified the issue and sent the email and then advised Dr Paladino of the reason for it not being sent. According to Ms Brinley, the issue was then raised on a further five occasions by Dr Paladino.
[147] In circumstances where Dr Paladino confirmed she had reason to remind Ms Brinley of incomplete tasks from to time, that evidence being consistent with the less than glowing view of Ms Brinley's performance held by Dr Paladino, I find it likely that Dr Paladino did raise with Ms Brinley that she had not completed a task. That evidence does not contradict Ms Brinley's evidence that a concern was raised in relation to an unsent email. I consequently accept that Dr Paladino raised a concern with Ms Brinley about an unsent email. As to the allegation that the issue was raised in an accusatory or infantilising tone and on five subsequent occasions, I am unable to make such a finding on the evidence before me. While I am satisfied Dr Paladino raised Ms Brinley's failure to send an email, the allegations that Ms Brinley was repeatedly reminded of this is not sustained. The raising of incomplete tasks with Ms Brinley does not constitute misconduct or inappropriate behaviour on the part of Dr Paladino.
Allegation 19 - Misrepresenting to Ms Brinley that she could work full-time till the end of her contract.
[150] Neither Ms Brinley nor Dr Paladino retreated during cross-examination from their respective evidence regarding Ms Brinley's claims about Dr Paladino misrepresenting the hours she could work to the end of her contract. While there was no corroborating witness evidence called there are matters that do assist inform my finding on this allegation.
[151] Firstly, the claim by Ms Brinley that Dr Paladino took such a relaxed and generous approach to Ms Brinley working full-time hours beyond the period of need for the Conference strikes me as out of character for Dr Paladino. Dr Paladino was accused by witnesses for the University of many things, including being arbitrary, inflexible, prone to micromanagement and being budget focused. See for example Dr Paladino's approach to pursuing the missing receipts from Ms Brinley in December 2022 or her unwillingness to exercise her discretion to increase the credit card limit for Dr Wear (both dealt with above). Dr Paladino's approach to cost management more generally tells against a finding that she agreed to increase Ms Brinley's hours for the balance of her contract when the need for such increased hours had ended.
[152] Secondly, Dr Paladino's evidence regarding Ms Brinley having completed her work variation in Themis to cover the period up to the end of the Conference was not challenged by the University. As Ms Brinley input the work variation into Themis herself, she would have been acutely aware of the limited duration of the full-time hours. Had Dr Paladino told Ms Brinley that she would be able to work the full-time hours until the end of the fixed-term contract in March 2023 or until the end of 2022, it would have required a further work variation. No steps were taken by Ms Brinley to pursue a further work variation at the time the advice was allegedly provided to her by Dr Paladino or at any subsequent point in time.
[153] The above matters cause me to prefer Dr Paladino's evidence. I am not satisfied that she misrepresented to Ms Brinley that she could work full-time hours until the end of her contract in March 2023. The allegation is rejected.
Allegation 20 - Only informing Dr Johnston that she had cancelled her credit card the night before she was due to travel to a conference and misrepresenting Dr Johnston's participation in the conference to Mr Bezuidenhout and Professor Jensen (IR 3(b)).
[154] Dr Johnston was an Associate Lecturer in the WCLA. At the end of 2022 she resigned from her role in the WCLA to take up a new role in the Faculty of Arts. She had however been approved by the WCLA to attend a conference in Adelaide (the AARE Conference) prior to her resigning from her WCLA role. Dr Johnston's last day in the WCLA was 18 November 2022 and the AARE Conference was on 27 November - 1 December 2022. Relevantly, Dr Johnston had been issued with a University credit card when she commenced in the WCLA. Dr Johnston's transfer to the Faculty of Arts, her attendance at the AARE Conference after her departure from the WCLA, and which Faculty should bear the balance of conference attendance costs set off a chain of emails and communication between several people. It also led to the cancellation of Dr Johnston's credit card by Dr Paladino just prior to Dr Johnston's departure for the conference. The following chronology of events is apparent by reference to various emails and evidence of witnesses;
Just a note to confirm that I am currently finalising my credit card transactions before my last day on Friday. You will receive a Themis notification soon for the AARE 2022 Conference accommodation invoice.
As I will be handing my credit card over to Sonia on Friday, I will submit any outstanding conference-related expenses including my taxi and meal receipts for reimbursement via Themis. Please let me know if there is anything further you need.
Thanks for your email, Alexandra. Appreciate that you are working your way through all of this. A note however that FBE funds are provided to stimulate research activity for FBE staff. This conference will take place while you will be employed in the Faculty of Arts and therefore will be of benefit to another faculty. This cost was only put through this week when notice had already been provided of departure. While FBE will not seek reimbursement for the previous expenses paid in August, we are not in a position to cover further research costs.
Could you please check with your new supervisor, Elizabeth and note a Faculty of Arts account code for this expense? All other expenses associated with this conference (meals, etc.... indicated below) will need to be covered by your new faculty (Arts).
Please also check that any direct debits, memberships and any recurring costs have been cancelled from this card. I have confirmed this information with our Director - Strategy, Planning and Resources (ccd here).
Please let me know if you have any questions at all. Sending my very best wishes,
A lot more new background info here for me. Thanks for sharing. FBE s financial commitments here are clear enough.
I will let Angela or Valerie jump in here if any outcomes from the conference attendance were expected.
Alexandra has pushed through advance payments for a domestic hotel stay in Adelaide (just under $1800 for 5 nights) before leaving the faculty today and has expected that we reimburse all payments associated with the conference while she is now employed in Arts. This is using the $10,000 FBE allocation (not a competitive grant). Finance have flagged other costs on her credit card, so I'm not aware of what these are yet. To clarify, the research project mentioned in the trail below is completed in her capacity as a member of the Arts Faculty and is yet to be approved by the research committee.
The AARE program and abstracts do not note any affiliation. So, there is no mention of FBE. See attachment. They only use an app and there is no uni, faculty or centre affiliation noted on the program. Since the paper will still be presented by Valerie, there is no obligation for Alexandra to represent the faculty. Rather, this is
a PD exercise for her own development and networking benefit. There is no concrete outcome expected from Alexandra's conference participation to the centre specifically. Rather, her affiliation will change to the Faculty of Arts.
When academics leave the employment of departments, do departments continue to reimburse/pay costs when they are then employed at another university or other area of the university? Even when their paper submission happened many months prior? This seems unrealistic to me, but if this is a norm of the faculty, then please confirm. We certainly have not done this for other members who have left the centre in the past.
This will then inform approvals for others moving forward. We also have issues with Alexandra taking the FBE laptop to Arts despite being asked to leave all equipment in the office. Arts have apparently not provided a great laptop but again, this creates more admin for us to follow up with.
If you could please confirm that paying for advance deposits and costs for this conference for Alexandra is acceptable while she is employed with the Faculty of Arts, that would be great.
From my perspective, if she isn't presenting, then we shouldn't pay for her costs (i.e. Arts can cover the cost if they want her to attend for professional development).
You are most welcome Wynand, and many thanks for your positive support.
Confirming that all AARE conference related expenditure made via the University issued credit card will be coded to the WCLA account string. Following this an application for the credit card transfer will be submitted through Themis for Angela to sign off.
Please let me know if there is anything further required. I am very much looking forward to representing WCLA and the University at the conference.
I already advised Alexandra this afternoon to have a personal credit card and funds available, as we all need to do in case our corporate cards don't work.
She was under the impression that the WCLA needs to pay for all her expenses given the email that she had received from you. She sought a confirmation that a full reimbursement of funds would happen from FBE, which I asked her to clarify with you.
Could you please address her comments in the first instance about "confirming FBE's financial commitments ... for pushing ahead to fund this conference through FBE". She needs a confirmation from you that the cost is not covered by us.
Thanks for reaching out and apologies for the slow reply. We hope you are well and that your trip is going well.
I think that it would be fair to say that the circumstances here are uncommon, i.e. the timing of your conference attendance when you are leaving our Faculty and moving to another. We would not usually cover these costs. But these are unusual circumstances. We have re-evaluated and will, given this situation, reimburse you for the reasonable business related travel costs incurred during your trip. These costs will be reimbursed by exception and would not set a precedent. Please request reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses via iExpenses and charge these against the WCLA budget with Angela as approver, providing relevant supporting documents where required.
There is not much we can do about your UoM purchasing card. If your new supervisor permits access to a card then you will be able to apply for a new card.
[155] During cross-examination Professor Jensen gave the following evidence;
[156] During his cross-examination Mr Bezuidenhout gave the following evidence;
[157] During her cross-examination in relation to the events that led to the cancellation of Dr Johnston's credit card, Dr Paladino gave the following evidence;
[158] What emerges from the evidence is that Dr Paladino held a strong view that the FBE should not be required to pick up the balance of costs associated with Dr Johnston's attendance at the AARE Conference. That view was held in spite of Dr Johnston's attendance having been approved several months earlier and despite her co-presenting at the conference with Dr Cotronei-Baird. The only circumstances that had changed was Dr Johnston's resignation from her role in the WCLA which took effect on Friday 18 November 2022, following which she moved to the Faculty of Arts. Dr Paladino reasoned that the receiving faculty should pick up the costs as the new faculty stood to benefit from Dr Johnston's personal development flowing from conference attendance. Professor Jensen shared the view the FBE should not bear the remaining conference costs, although that view was based on his understanding that Dr Johnston was not presenting at the Conference. It seems Dr Johnston accepted that position as well, at least on 16 November 2022, when she stated she would return the credit card.
[159] While there are multiple subsequent emails between various parties, it is clear that Dr Paladino acted quickly to cancel Dr Johnston's credit card on or about 17 or 18 November 2022. That action immediately followed Dr Johnston advising her on 16 November 2022 that she would be handing in her credit card before she finished with the WCLA on 18 November 2022. Given the absence of clear policy on the treatment of credit cards when staff transfer between faculties, the action to cancel the card in these circumstances does not appear to have been contrary to policy, a point conceded by Professor Jensen during cross-examination. Despite his evidence in chief that he was concerned about Dr Paladino's behaviour in cancelling the card, Mr Bezuidenhout also conceded in cross-examination that it was not unreasonable in the circumstances for the card to have been cancelled as Dr Johnston had already confirmed to Dr Paladino that she would return the credit card on 18 November 2022. This begs the question as to what one would do with a returned credit card other than cancel it? I am not satisfied that Dr Paladino acted inappropriately by cancelling the credit card.
[160] What then followed was a chain of emails and various communication in which the FBE's position of paying or not paying for Dr Johnston's residual AARE conference attendance costs changed. Initially, Dr Johnston was advised by Dr Paladino on 17 November 2022 that FBE would not bear the residual conference costs. That position was overtaken by Mr Bezuidenhout's email on 18 November 2022 when he confirmed that the FBE would pay, only for that position to be reversed on the basis of Professor Jensen's intervention on 19 November 2022. It does not however appear that either Dr Paladino or Mr Bezuidenhout advised Dr Johnston that the position of the FBE had changed following Professor Jensen's email of 19 November 2022. That is evident by Dr Johnston's subsequent email on 22 November 2022 when she thanked Mr Bezuidenhout for his earlier confirmation that FBE would accept the residual conference costs. It was not until the 25 November 2022 that Dr Johnston became aware that her credit card had been cancelled.
[161] I take no issue with Dr Paladino's decision to cancel Dr Johnston's credit card on or about 17/18 November 2022. Much was made by the parties as to whether that action of Dr Paladino was or was not consistent with normal practice. It is unnecessary for me to resolve that point as the action was not inconsistent with policy, was preceded by Dr Johnston advising she would return the card on 18 November 2022 and was accepted by Mr Bezuidenhout during cross-examination as having been reasonable in the circumstances.
[162] Dr Paladino's subsequent communication does however require scrutiny. While she was consistent in her position of resisting FBE's responsibility for Dr Johnston's residual AARE Conference costs, there is no evidence that she confirmed the cancelation of the credit card to either Dr Johnston when it occurred or in any of her subsequent communication with Mr Bezuidenhout or Professor Johnston between 18-25 November 2025. Furthermore, Dr Paladino was not clear in her 18 November 2022 email to Mr Bezuidenhout and Professor Jensen that Dr Johnston was co-presenting at the AARE Conference although she did reference that Dr Cotronei-Baird would still present the paper at the conference and that it was unnecessary for Dr Johnston to represent the FBE. These communication failures were, in my view, errors of omission on Dr Paladino's part. There were clearly other conversations that occurred on or around this time in relation to Dr Johnston's credit card, but recollections of each of the key leaders on what was discussed varied. For her part Dr Paladino claimed to have had discussions with Professor Jensen about Dr Johnston's credit card while he says he did not sanction the credit card cancellation and would never have given this direction.
[163] For their parts, Mr Bezuidenhout and Professor Jensen can also be criticised for their failure to canvass their change in position with Dr Paladino before Mr Bezuidenhout confirmed with Dr Johnston on 29 November 2022 that the FBE would reimburse her conference costs. I note at this point that Mr Bezuidenhout's email to Dr Johnston on 29 November 2022 made clear that the circumstances were 'uncommon', that the FBE would not usually reimburse the costs in these circumstances, that reimbursement was being done by exception and that it would not set a precedent. I also note that by this point Mr Bezuidenhout was fully aware of the all the circumstances of Dr Johnston's role at the AARE Conference. His comments to Dr Johnston in his email reinforce the validity of Dr Paladino's position on the FBE not being responsible for Dr Johnston's residual conference attendance costs in the circumstances.
[164] Having regard to all of the evidence I accept that Dr Paladino cancelled Dr Johnston's University credit card on or about 17/18 November 2022 following Dr Johnston advising her on 16 November 2022 that she would be returning the card to Ms Puglielli on Friday 18 November 2022. I am not satisfied that cancellation of the card in these circumstances was contrary to policy or inappropriate in the circumstances. I certainly do not accept the University's description of this conduct as 'nasty.' Having regard to Dr Paladino's approach to managing costs, cancellation of the card is unsurprising in my view.
[165] What is however more problematic is Dr Paladino's subsequent communication failures, in respect of both Dr Johnston and to Mr Bezuidenhout and Professor Jensen. Dr Johnston was unaware that her University credit card had been cancelled until Friday 25 November 2022 just prior to her departure for the conference. Dr Paladino was right to apologise to Dr Johnston for that lack of communication. As to Dr Paladino's communication with Mr Bezuidenhout and Professor Jensen, it discloses a lack of clarity or the full information that should have been provided. While I am unable to conclude Dr Paladino provided false information to either men, she failed to provide the necessary information that would have allowed the matter to be resolved more quickly and more efficiently than it was. These communication failures on Dr Paladino's part represent poor judgement and poor leadership on her part.
[166] In assessing the severity of this conduct, the following is relevant. Both Mr Bezuidenhout and Professor Jensen expressed concerns about Dr Paladino's conduct in cancelling Dr Johnston's credit card. Neither of them raised their concerns with her at the time. While Mr Bezuidenhout may be forgiven for his failure to raise his concern given that Dr Paladino did not report to him, no such excuse can be found for Professor Jensen. Unfortunately, Professor Jensen's 'regret' at not having raised his concern at the time was a familiar refrain from the Professor. He claimed to have held various concerns over Dr Paladino's leadership over a period of time but failed to raise those concerns with her. It smacks of managerial cowardice in circumstances where the Professor's evidence is now laced with criticism of Dr Paladino.
[167] Having regard to the University's knowledge of this matter in November 2022 and its failure to deal with it at the time, I give limited weight to the conduct. It does not rise to the level of serious misconduct, nor constitute conduct that would on its own establish a valid reason for Dr Paladino's dismissal.
Allegation 21 - Reprimanding Dr Johnston for trivial matters in a condescending way.
[171] It follows from the foregoing that I am not satisfied that the conduct occurred as alleged by Dr Wear. The allegation is not sustained.
Allegation 22 - Misrepresenting to Professor Jensen and Dr Murawski that Dr Cotronei-Baird did not want to teach a subject called Street Finance unless she was paid an additional loading in circumstances where Dr Cotronei-Baird had told Dr Paladino otherwise (IR 2(d)).
[178] When cross-examined on his evidence, Professor Jensen;
[182] The essence of this allegation is that Dr Paladino misrepresented to Professor Jensen in or about July 2022, that Dr Cotronei-Baird did not wish to teach the Street Finance course unless she received a GFL. That misrepresentation was said by Dr Jensen to have been revealed to him when Dr Cotronei-Baird advised him during a discussion in December 2022 that she was willing to run the Street Finance course 'on load' without a GFL.
[183] I accept that Dr Paladino told Professor Jensen during a discussion in July 2022 that Dr Cotronei-Baird did not want to teach Street Finance unless she received a GFL. That advice was consistent with earlier communication of Dr Cotronei-Baird's position on the GFL, as communicated by her in an email in October 2021 to Professor Jensen. She clearly believed she should receive the GFL and sought its restoration after it was withdrawn in 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic interruption of the Street Finance course.
[184] I accept that Dr Paladino supported Dr Cotronei-Baird during the period of payment of GFL to her from 2017, on the basis that teaching Street Finance did not impact on Dr Cotronei-Baird's performance of her core WCLA work. That support was called into question in 2022 when Dr Cotronei-Baird prioritised Street Finance teaching at a time she had been relieved of some WCLA work because of ill-health. The prioritisation of the Street Finance teaching was not initially brought to Dr Paladino's attention by Dr Cotronei-Baird. I also accept the evidence of Dr Paladino that her concern was not whether Dr Cotronei-Baird did or did not receive the GFL but whether the broader equity issue of treatment of other WCLA staff in a similar position was given proper consideration. That was not an unreasonable concern in my view for a leader to hold.
[185] Against this backdrop a decision was reached in mid-2022 by Professor Jensen in conjunction with others to change arrangements for the delivery of the Street Finance course and move to a more sustainable arrangement. In part because of advice received from Dr Paladino, that Dr Cotronei-Baird required a GFL. That decision was overturned in December 2022 when Professor Jensen authorised Dr Cotronei-Baird to run the course 'on load'.
[186] Returning to the allegation that Dr Paladino 'lied' to Dr Jensen, I am not satisfied the allegation has been made out. My reasons for that finding are as follows:
[187] Firstly, Dr Cotronei-Baird had been paid the GFL from 2017/2018 until 2021 and sought its restoration for 2022. There was a history of the payment being made, making it entirely reasonable that she would have seen it (the GFL) as a legitimate entitlement for performing additional work. It would be a rare employee that would lightly concede the loss of an entitlement without loss of the accompanying work.
[188] Secondly, the matter of the GFL payments had been the subject of numerous discussions and communications between Dr Paladino, Professor Jensen, Dr Murawski and Dr Cotronei-Baird over a number of years. In these circumstances it is inherently unlikely in my view that Paladino would not have held discussions with Dr Cotronei-Baird about the Street Finance course and payment of the GFL, and would have understood what Dr Cotronei-Baird's position was on the GFL.
[189] Thirdly, while the University seeks to undermine Dr Paladino's evidence because of her failure to mention in her reply statement that Dr Cotronei-Baird had mentioned in discussions her requirement to be paid the GFL for teaching Street Finance, that criticism is undermined by Dr Cotronei-Baird's own position as communicated in her email to Professor Jensen in 2021.
[190] Fourthly, Dr Cotronei-Baird was the person best placed to give evidence on what she did or did not say to Dr Paladino about teaching the Street Finance course with or without a GFL. She was not called to give evidence, thus undermining the University's case on this allegation.
[191] Fifthly, Professor Jensen properly conceded that by the time he spoke with her in December 2022, Dr Cotronei-Baird may have changed her position from that previously communicated by her to Dr Paladino. Such a change in heart would be entirely unremarkable in circumstances where Dr Cotronei-Baird had been advised she had been relieved of teaching the Street Finance course for 2023 in mid-2022.
[192] Finally, any confusion over the competing information provided to Professor Jensen by Dr Paladino in July 2022 and Dr Cotronei-Baird in December 2022 could have been easily resolved at the time by Professor Jensen. That he chose not to confront Dr Paladino at the time, despite agreeing that 'lying to him' was a serious issue, speaks either to Professor Jensen's lack of competence as a leader; or that the issue was not as serious as now contended by him and the University.
Allegation 23 - Telling Professor Gahan that Professor Jensen agreed any work on the Review would be put on hold until after she returned to her role when she knew Professor Jensen had not agreed to this.
"Just to clarify how we will proceed from here: it is important to delineate between two distinct elements of the process which appear to be conflated in your response.
[196] Dr Paladino then responded to the 25 August 2023 email in the following terms on 4 September 2023;
"Thanks Paul - from our discussion I had understood that we would consider the recommendations together (you, Peter and I) and discuss which would be viable or not in the first tranche before presenting a balanced set to the WCLA team. In any case, now that there will no longer be any discussion, could you please send the melines/dates for the process noted below?
I would appreciate being able to review the power points a few days in advance.
[197] Professor Jensen then responded to Dr Paladino on 4 September 2023 as follows;
The WCLA presentation will be at a very high level and will not focus on specific recommendations at this stage. I will send you a draft of the presentation for your comments by COB tomorrow. From there we will have a range of consultations with you, HoDs and other stakeholders about which recommendations to focus on before we take a paper to Faculty executive on 27th November for consideration.
[198] It is noted that while Professor Jensen was aware at the time of the above-described email exchange that formal complaints had been raised regarding Dr Paladino's conduct, and that an investigation had been initiated; she was not advised of the investigation into her conduct and stood aside from her WCLA Director role until notified by Professor Jensen on 5 September 2023.
It had been agreed in my meeting with Paul Jensen that any work on the strategic review would be put on hold until after I returned to the Director role. I am therefore not clear why feedback is being sought on this and why work continues to progress on this front and for a future strategic plan when I have not been able to be present at discussions, meetings and workshops given my role.
It is important that the statement that "It had been agreed in my meeting with Paul Jensen that any work on the strategic review would be put on hold until after I returned to my Director role" is not consistent with my recollections of the discussion (which could be confirmed by Yao's notes of the meeting). It is also inconsistent with emails I have sent to Angela over the past two months (which I will forward to you) which provide some updates on the process and seek input from her on the review.
[204] In her reply to Professor Jensen's evidence, Dr Paladino variously states that;
[205] This allegation can be distilled into a simple point. Professor Jensen and Dr Paladino held a different view on what was discussed in relation to the Review during the 5 September 2023 meeting at which Dr Paladino was stood aside from her WCLA Director role. Unhelpfully, witnesses to that discussion, Professor Farquharson and Yao Liu (Human Resources Business Partner - FBE) were not called to give evidence. Yao Liu's meeting notes that were referred to by Professor Jensen in his 4 November 2023 email, were not produced in evidence, which suggests the notes may not have assisted resolve the evidentiary conflict. Nor did Dr Paladino produce the meeting notes that she refers to in her evidence.
[208] Secondly, if Dr Paladino was seeking to misrepresent the discussion of 5 September 2023 in her email to Professor Gahan, it was done in a very unsophisticated way, as the alleged misrepresentation was done in plain sight. The email sent to Professor Gahan was copied to Professor Jensen, who had the opportunity to immediately correct Dr Paladino's statement. He did not do so, which again raises doubts about the evidence he now gives. While this failure to address the statement is consistent with the observation I have made above about Professor's Jensen's apparent management failures, it also calls into question the reliability of his evidence, more so in circumstances where Yao Liu was present at the 5 September 2023 meeting but was not called to give evidence.
[209] Thirdly, contrary to Professor Jensen's claim in his 4 November 2023 email to Professor Gahan, there is no evidence before me that he sent emails to Dr Paladino over the previous two months regarding the Review. The statement he made in the 4 November 2023 email appears on the evidence to be factually incorrect. It is true there were emails exchanged between Professor Jensen and Dr Paladino about the Review and progression of the Report recommendations, but the emails in evidence pre-date the 5 September 2023 meeting at which Dr Paladino was stood aside from the WCLA Director role. The only email in evidence from Professor Jensen to Dr Paladino between 5 September and 1 November 2023 is the email dated 31 October 2023 in which he was 'checking in' with Dr Paladino regarding her welfare. Dr Paladino gave unchallenged evidence that in the two months following her standdown from the Director role, she did not receive any update on the WCLA or the Review. The fact that the emails from Professor Jensen regarding the Review pre-date the 5 September 2023 is significant: Dr Paladino being relieved of the Director role from that date might bear upon the Review process as she was a key stakeholder, if not a final decision maker. In those circumstances it would be unremarkable for the issue of the Review status to have been discussed in the 5 September 2023 meeting, as claimed by Dr Paladino.
[210] Finally, while Professor Jensen and Dr Paladino may have a different recollection of the discussion about the status of the Review when Dr Paladino was stood aside from the WCLA Director role, that does not establish that Dr Paladino deliberately misrepresented the discussion in her email to Professor Gahan. Having regard to Professor Jensen's predisposition of avoiding a difficult discussion with Dr Paladino, it is more than merely plausible that the issue was discussed and that Professor Jensen was unclear at best on the status of the Review while Dr Paladino was on a 'leave of absence' from the Director role.
Allegation 24 - Firmly denying Professor Jensen raised a strategic review with her when she knew this was not true.
[213] The allegation is again a serious one as it goes to whether Dr Paladino was being dishonest about when she was first advised of the Review. The evidence discloses that Professor Jensen and Dr Paladino hold a different recollection about when the Review was first raised with Dr Paladino. No documentary evidence was produced that indicates notification in November 2022. Nor was Professor Gahan called to give evidence in support of Professor Jensen's claim that their recollections aligned. I accept that recollections may differ on matters such as when a matter was or was not discussed. That Professor Jensen and Dr Paladino may hold different recollections does not elevate the position to one of dishonesty on the part of Dr Paladino. I am consequently not satisfied that a requisite level of proof exists that would make good the allegation of dishonesty on the part of Dr Paladino.
Allegation 25 - Failing to engage with the Review by not responding to requests for interviews or responding late in circumstances where she was required to participate.
[215] Professor Jensen also refers to an email he received from Professor Clinton on 4 May 2023 which was sent in response to a previous email in which Professor Jensen queried whether his attendance at Dr Paladino's interview was required. Professor Clinton responded as follows;
I was going to ask you the same question. I think better without you there under the circumstances. I'll respond to her today with some broad areas. I was going to ask her for one specific question to ask faculty members today anyway, so I'll couch it in this email and be very general. Its reasonable for her to ask for a heads up on the questions however, her weird change in behaviour when in and outside of the faculty and constant barbs really don't do her any favours. I assume she is very concerned about her own leadership and the team going forward so I'm trying to be kind.
I hope you didn't feel blindsided yesterday when I asked about your presence at the interviews, I meant to say something before yesterday's meeting.
(a) "I have some fairly strong and somewhat negative views about the Williams Centre and concerns about its viability;"
(b) "the centre leadership is very hierarchical and not aligned with Faculty or University strategic thinking;"
(c) "the review team found it astonishing that the centre leadership could say no to the Dean;" and
[217] When cross examined on his evidence Professor Jensen gave the following evidence;
[220] The evidence of the University is limited to what Dr Jensen states was communicated to him by Professor Clinton during the period of the Review, which he acknowledged during cross-examination. Strikingly given the seriousness of the allegations said to have been made by Professor Clinton, she was not called to give evidence on her interactions with Dr Paladino. Consequently, the statements and opinions she is said to have expressed to Professor Jensen were unable to be tested in cross-examination. Nor were the claims made by Professor Jensen regarding Dr Paladino's alleged failure to engage with Professor Clinton or the Review supported by any emails exchanged between Professor Clinton and Dr Paladino. I also note that Dr Paladino's alleged conduct towards Professor Clinton and the Review do not appear to have been raised with her at the time by Professor Jensen.
[221] The University's failure to call Professor Clinton, the absence of any relevant documentary evidence of Dr Paladino's delays or lack of cooperation with the Review and Dr Paladino's detailed denials of the allegation leads me to find there is insufficient evidence to establish that the alleged conduct occurred. The allegation is not sustained.
[226] I am not satisfied that the alleged conduct occurred as stated by Dr Dixon-Deane for the following reasons. Firstly, the time that has elapsed since the events leads me to place less weight on the allegation in circumstances where it was not raised by Dr Dixon-Deane or any other staff member at the time. Secondly, for the reasons that I have previously given, I treat Dr Dixon-Deane's evidence with caution given the vindictiveness and negativity she displays towards Dr Paladino. Thirdly, Dixon-Deane's memory is selective and unreliable for the reasons I have also previously discussed above when dealing with her credit. Fourthly, I found unconvincing her rationale for not raising what is on its face a serious issue of 'screaming' at staff while willing to raise concern with HR about other matters. That is in circumstances where Dr Dixon-Deane introduced new evidence during cross-examination that issues relating to Dr Paladino were routinely raised, albeit not with HR. Finally, there was no corroborating evidence led from either Dr Corrin or Dr Calma. While Dr Calma's interview by Ms Taylor and comments he made at that time were not able to be tested through cross-examination, no comments were made by him in that interview that would support Dr Dixon-Deane's evidence on the alleged 'screaming' by Dr Paladino.
Allegation 27 - Telling Dr Dickson-Deane she did not see value in her work.
[229] While I have previously noted my reservations about Dr Dixon-Deane's evidence, Dr Paladino concedes in her reply witness statement that she may have had conversations with Dr Dixon-Deane about where she should focus her publishing and research efforts. At the very least this might have been perceived by Dr Dixon-Deane as a criticism of her work and may provide support for her evidence that Dr Paladino did not value her work more generally. I also note that Dr Paladino changed her evidence from having no recollection to denying the comments attributed to her. That she may not have recalled such a conversation would be understandable given the passage of time and lack of specificity as to the timing of the alleged discussion.
[230] Given the inconsistency in Dr Paladino's evidence and the concession she made about what she may have said to Dr Dixon-Deane, I find it more likely than not that there was a conversation between the two at an unspecified time about Dr Dixon-Deane's work and that during that conversation Dr Paladino made comments that at the very least cast doubt on the value of Dr Dixon-Deane's work. While it is claimed there were express statements made by Dr Paladino that she did not value Dr Dixon-Deane's work, I find it more likely that Dr Paladino would have indirectly questioned the value of the Dr Dixon-Deane's work by referring to the FBE's preference for journal publications and research work, that adds value to the Faculty. I accept that such comments would have been perceived as questioning the value of Dr Dixon-Deane's work. That said, at worst it would have been insensitive on Dr Paladino's part but would not constitute misconduct that would establish a valid reason for her dismissal particularly in circumstances where the comments were made some time between 7-8 years ago. I am not satisfied that the comment was made by Dr Paladino as alleged.
Allegation 28 - Making a disrespectful comment about Dr Dickson-Deane's work ethic and sensitivity.
[233] The allegation rises no higher that Dr Dixon-Deane having perceived a comment from Dr Paladino as implying Dr Dixon-Deane was not working. The comment if made, could have just as easily been an innocent inquiry from Dr Paladino after she had not seen Dr Dixon-Deane for a period of time. That would be a far from unusual question from a manager. As to Dr Dixon-Deane's claim that she was then described by Dr Paladino as being 'sensitive;' on the basis of the material before me, I agree with that assessment if indeed the comment was made Dr Paladino as claimed. The allegation taken at its highest does not amount to inappropriate behaviour on Dr Paladino's part let alone misconduct. It is therefore unnecessary for me to resolve the evidentiary conflict over whether the comments were made although I note Dr Paladino denies the allegation. The allegation that the conduct constitutes rude or disrespectful behaviour is not sustained.
Allegation 29 - Subjecting Dr Dickson-Deane's work to additional scrutiny not applied to other staff after Dr Dickson-Deane told her she did not want to be screamed at.
[236] The absence of any corroborating documentary evidence such as other witness evidence or calendar records of WCLA staff workshops and/or emails containing feedback from WCLA staff who reviewed Dr Dixon-Deane's workshop, means there is a fragile evidentiary basis to support the allegation. It again relies entirely on Dr Dixon-Deane's assertion that something occurred which is strenuously denied by Dr Paladino. As I have previously found, I treat the evidence of Dr Dixon-Deane with caution in these circumstances. A such I am not satisfied the conduct occurred as alleged. Even were I to have found the conduct occurred I would place little or no weight on it given the passage of time since the alleged incident occurred.
Allegation 30 - Belittling Dr Dickson-Deane's invitation to be an editor of two journals.
[240] The case for the University in respect of this allegation again suffers from a lack of documentation that might have otherwise supported Dr Dioxon-Deane's evidence. Reference to a work planning assessment document completed by Dr Dixon-Deane or a document that had been allegedly locked by Dr Paladino ought to have been recoverable from the University's records but has not been produced. Moreover, Dr Paladino's evidence that the work assessment plan document referred to by Dr Dixon-Deane was in fact not used in the WCLA, could have been easily rebutted by the production of such a document by the University. It consequently remains unclear exactly what document Dr Dixon-Deane was referring to.
[241] I accept however that Dr Dixon-Deane was invited to join the editorial board of two journals. That is made clear by Dr Paladino's claim to have encouraged Dr Dixon-Deane to engage with that work, albeit Dr Dixon-Deane denies that specific claim of encouragement by Dr Paladino. The difficulty with Dr Dixon-Deane's evidence is that it suggests Dr Paladino had a negative view of her performance, which is at odds with Dr Paladino's support for Dr Dixon-Deane, as evidenced by her acceptance into the FBE Women in Leadership Program. Dr Dixon-Deane agreed that Dr Paladino had been supportive, in that respect. That stands in stark contrast with alleged comments made by Dr Paladino that questioned Dr Dixon-Deane's competence and selection for the journal editorial role.
[243] Based on the above I find it inherently unlikely that Dr Paladino made the comments as alleged. I am consequently not satisfied that the alleged conduct occurred.
Allegation 31 - Controlling Dr Dickson-Deane's research and journal publication.
[246] Dr Paladino gave the following evidence in response;
[247] I accept that Dr Paladino was clear on the requirement for WCLA staff to focus and prioritise research that was relevant to the FBE, that being of benefit to business academics. That requirement would inevitably guide the subject matter of research undertaken by WCLA staff. Dr Paladino's evidence that this was communicated to staff as well as being included in PDs was unchallenged. Dr Paladino also confirmed that staff would come and seek advice from her in relation to their work. This is unsurprising given her position of Director and the need to ensure that WCLA work was relevant to the FBE. It would be strange indeed if WCLA academic staff were at liberty to pursue research that had little relevance to the strategic remit of the WCLA or the FBE without consequence. I am frankly surprised that any issue could be taken with the proposition that the performance of WCLA engaged academics would be assessed based on the relevance of their research and publications to the WCLA and FBE.
[248] Having regard to the above, it is more than likely that Dr Paladino would have discussed these requirements with Dr Dixon-Deane, particularly in the context of the latter looking to publish her thesis. As to whether Dr Paladino made the statements attributed to her by Dr Dixon-Deane, I am unable to make such a finding. Dr Dixon-Deane claims she was advised at least twice by Dr Paladino that her performance assessment would be compromised by her not publishing in a particular journal yet gave no evidence on whether her performance assessment was actually adversely affected in any year because of her research and publishing decisions. I also note that no other current or former academics employed in the WCLA, particularly those more recently engaged, gave evidence of the research and publishing 'straitjacket' complained of by Dr Dixon-Deane. The allegation is not sustained and even if it were, I would give it little weight given the significant passage of time since the alleged conduct.
Allegation 32 - Requesting Dr Dickson-Deane to finish work for the Centre after Dr Dickson-Deane's employment ended and proposing to withhold her pay until it was completed.
[253] It is clear from the email exchanges referred to above that Dr Paladino was displeased with the quality and timeliness of Dixon-Deane's outstanding project work at the time of her termination of employment. Dr Paladino was so displeased that she questioned whether Dr Dixon-Deane's final pay could be withheld pending finalisation of the outstanding work. There was no legal basis to withhold pay, of which Ms Quintal correctly advised Dr Paladino. I note that the issue of withholding pay was raised as a question and/or an opinion by Dr Paladino, rather than as a direction. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that Dr Paladino requested Dr Dixon-Deane complete the outstanding project work after her departure from the WCLA and also internally raised the prospect of withholding Dr Dixon-Deane's final pay.
[254] The email exchange reveals that not only was Dr Paladino aggrieved at the outstanding work of Dr Dixon-Deane but also reveals she did not understand the rights and obligations of the University in relation to making final termination payments to departing employees. In the circumstances, Ms Quintal appears to have played the role HR plays in many organisations, that of professionally correcting the 'misguided' views and understanding of line managers when it comes to workplace rights and obligations. There is no evidence that Dr Dixon-Deane had her final pay withheld or that Dr Paladino ignored or sought to override the advice she received from Ms Quintal. While the allegation is sustained, it does not rise to the level of misconduct. If it did, the University should have dealt with at the time as HR were clearly aware of Dr Paladino's position, it having been directly communicated to Ms Quintal.
Allegation 33 - Making snide remarks towards Dr Corrin to the effect that she was stupid or did not know what she was doing.
[257] I accept that Dr Corrin may have been upset at being performance managed by Dr Paladino and find that she confided in Dr Dixon-Deane about that, which supports Dr Paladino's view of the closeness of the relationship between the two. The fact that Dr Corrin may have been upset about being performance managed is not remarkable or necessarily reflective that she was being subjected to an unreasonable process or poor behaviour on Dr Paladino's part. There is simply no evidence that the performance management process being followed was inappropriate.
[258] There is a particular irony in this allegation in the sense that Dr Dixon-Deane infers that Dr Paladino was conducting an unreasonable performance management process because it was upsetting Dr Corrin. The fact that Dr Paladino actually engaged in a performance management process, which is undoubtedly a difficult process for most managers and employees, may be distinguished from how Dr Paladino was herself dealt with by Professor Jensen, the latter showing an avoidance of dealing with performance concerns he claimed to hold about Dr Paladino. As to the staff interviewed by Ms Taylor during her investigation; their views could not be tested and as such I place little weight on their comments. As to Ms Puglielli's 'gut feeling,' a performance management process is liable to be difficult for an employee. They either improve their performance or are liable to be moved on. That Ms Puglielli may have gained an impression that Dr Corrin was under pressure, is in my view, entirely unremarkable in the circumstances.
[259] Returning to the specific allegation, Dr Dixon-Deane acknowledges she could not recall specific words used by Dr Paladino but recalls the impression she gained. Noting my earlier comments about Dr Dixon-Deane's selective and unreliable memory and given the long passage of time since the events which could have been anytime between 2016 and 2019, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the conduct occurred as alleged. The allegation is consequently dismissed.
[261] I have made findings in relation to the various matters that the University relies on in seeking to establish that a valid reason exists for Dr Paladino's dismissal. I am satisfied that Dr Paladino engaged in the conduct alleged in six of the 33 allegations relied on and pressed in these proceedings. It is consequently necessary for me to consider whether the established conduct, when considered separately or together, establishes a valid reason for Dr Paladino's dismissal. It is to that I now turn.
[262] I am satisfied that the following conduct is established, specifically that Dr Paladino;
[263] As earlier stated, the University contends that Dr Paladino engaged in a pattern of behaviour which considered in totality constitutes serious misconduct and establishes a valid reason for dismissal. The pattern of behaviour was said by the University to be rude and disrespectful, micromanaging and controlling, dishonest, divisive, insubordinate, and bullying. I reject the University's contentions for the reasons that follow.
[264] While the University's submission was based on the full suite of allegations pressed during proceedings, I have found only six of those allegations sustained with some only partially substantiated. The much narrower range of findings I have made necessarily weakens the contention that Dr Paladino engaged in an egregious pattern of conduct. Further, when the conduct I have found established, is considered against the pattern and types of behaviour alleged by the University, it falls well short of the severity the University contends. Dealing with each of the established conduct matters, the following may be said.
[265] Dr Paladino's comment to Dr Wear that Dr Chia left because of Dr Johnston was made during a private conversation between Dr Paladino and Dr Wear, during which Dr Wear was himself complaining about Dr Johnston. While the content of the private conversation should not have been disclosed, the comment was as I have already found, inappropriate and unnecessary. I am not satisfied that Dr Paladino's ill-judgement in making the comment was so serious as to demonstrate a pattern of divisive behaviour, noting that I have made no other findings of divisive behaviour on Dr Paladino's part.
[266] Dr Paladino's comment to Dr Wear that he would not get people asking him whether he had a nice time overseas after every conference he attended was perhaps blunt and insensitive at worst. Dr Wear sought acknowledgment from Dr Paladino in relation to his conference attendance that was not forthcoming. It does not however rise to the level of being rude, disrespectful or bullying in my view.
[267] The frank statement by Dr Paladino during a facilitated discussion between her and Dr Wear that she had lost trust in him, was, as I have previously found, inappropriate and unprofessional, particularly because of the timing of the comment being made several months after the incident of concern arose. The University characterises the comment as rude, disrespectful and bullying. I do not accept that characterisation given the comment was made in a discussion mediated by a HR representative. By its very nature, such mediated discussions can produce frank and unwelcome opinions and comments which is one of the reasons the discussions are facilitated. It can be hardly surprising that a comment is sometimes made in such discussions that provokes a negative response from the other party. If the comment was deemed so offensive it should have been immediately addressed by the HR representative. It was not.
[268] Dr Paladino's phone call to Ms Brinley about a missing receipt while Ms Brinley was on annual leave was, as I have found, unnecessary and should not have occurred. That said, the phone call was prompted by an email earlier on the day of the phone call from Ms Brinley to Dr Paladino. That email, which included knowingly false information, prompted Dr Paladino to contact Ms Brinley to finalise the issue of the outstanding receipt prior to the close of the reporting period. While it reveals an unnecessarily pedantic approach of Dr Paladino in the management of expenses, I do not accept that the example in isolation establishes micromanaging or controlling behaviour. Even if it did, it would not when considered with other conduct I have found, rise to the level of severity that would establish a valid reason for dismissal.
[269] Turning to Dr Paladino's cancellation of Dr Johnston's credit card immediately prior to her departure to the AARE Conference, I have made no adverse finding against Dr Paladino in relation to the cancellation of the card per se. The claim that the card's cancellation in itself constituted bullying behaviour by Dr Paladino towards Dr Johnston is wholly undermined by Mr Bezuidenhout's concession that cancellation of the card was appropriate in the circumstances and also his subsequent advice to Dr Johnston that the FBE's agreement to cover the conference costs was contrary to its normal approach and was by exception.
[270] It is the subsequent communication by Dr Paladino to Dr Johnston, Professor Jensen and Mr Bezuidenhout following the credit card's cancellation that I have found was problematic. Dr Paladino should have immediately notified Dr Johnston that her University credit card had been cancelled on or about 17/18 November 2022, rather than on 25 November 2022 which was just prior to Dr Johnston's departure for the conference. That communication failure allowed Dr Johnston to develop a belief that she would be able to use the card at the conference based on Mr Bezuidenhout's advice on 18 November 2022 that the FBE would cover her residual conference costs. This communication failure on the part of Dr Paladino along with her less than clear communication of the conference background to Professor Jensen and Mr Bezuidenhout was a clear failure on Dr Paladino's part. The communication omissions reflect poorly on Dr Paladino, but do not as I have found above rise to the level of deliberate misrepresentation as contended by the University.
[271] Finally, Dr Palaldino's attempt to get Dr Dixon-Deane to complete work after she had left the WCLA and to withhold her final pay is characterised by the University as micromanaging and controlling. I do not agree with that characterisation. The better view is that Dr Paladino was frustrated with the poor quality and incomplete nature of the project work she expected Dr Dixon-Deane to complete during her notice period. As the work had not been completed to Dr Paladino's satisfaction, she requested Dr Dixon-Deane to complete the work and also questioned internally whether Dr Dixon-Deane's final pay could be withheld. As I have earlier found, Dr Palaldino's misunderstanding of the rights of the University to withhold Dr Dixon-Deane's final pay was corrected by HR, was not overruled by Dr Paladino, and HR did not regard Dr Paladino's behaviour as warranting any counselling or follow-up at the time. I finally note that this allegation dates to 2019 which greatly diminishes its currency in my view.
[272] It follows from the foregoing that when all of the substantiated allegations are considered whether separately or cumulatively, I am not satisfied that the University has established a 'sound, defensible or well founded' reason for Dr Palaldino's dismissal. The dismissal lacked a valid reason, which weighs heavily in favour of a finding that the dismissal was unfair.
Opportunity to respond to any reason related to capacity or conduct - s 387(c)
[274] An employee protected from unfair dismissal should be provided with an opportunity to respond to any reason for their dismissal relating to their conduct or capacity. An opportunity to respond is to be provided before a decision is taken to terminate the employee's employment.[347]
[276] Dr Paladino had multiple opportunities to respond to certain allegations. This included the opportunity to respond to the initial allegations in the course of Ms Taylor's investigation, an opportunity to respond in the course of Ms Junkeer's review of the investigation findings and a further opportunity to make submissions to the Disputes Committee that was established on her application pursuant to clause 1.42.8 of the Enterprise Agreement. While these opportunities were provided to the Applicant through the course of the disciplinary process, a large number of the allegations initially made were not pressed in these proceedings. Significantly, over 24 fresh allegations were raised during the course of these proceedings that Dr Paladino was not given an opportunity to respond to prior to her dismissal. In these circumstances I am not satisfied that a reasonable opportunity was provided to Dr Paladino to respond to a large number of matters now relied upon. This weighs in favour of a finding that Dr Paladino's dismissal was unfair.
[277] Where an employee protected from unfair dismissal has requested a support person be present to assist in discussions relating to the dismissal, an employer should not unreasonably refuse that person being present. Dr Paladino was accompanied by a support person (Professor Farquason) in relevant meetings. I consequently regard this factor as a neutral consideration.
Warnings regarding unsatisfactory performance - s 387(e)
[278] Dr Paladino's dismissal was based on serious misconduct and did not relate to unsatisfactory performance. This factor is therefore not relevant in the circumstances.
Impact of the size of the University on procedures followed - s 387(f)
[279] The University's Form F3 indicates that at the time of Dr Paladino's dismissal it employed approximately 10,000 employees. The University does not contend that its size adversely impacted on what it described as a fair and transparent process in managing Dr Paladino's dismissal. This factor weighs neutrally in my consideration.
Impact of absence of dedicated human resources management specialist/expertise on procedures followed - s 387(g).
[280] The evidence in this matter indicates that the University had access to the services of in-house human resources and workplace relations specialists. This factor weighs neutrally in my consideration.
[281] Dr Paladino raised a number of matters which she contends speak to the dismissal being harsh, unjust or unreasonable. The matters are considered below.
Whether dismissal was disproportionate to the substantiated conduct
[282] Having found there was no valid reason, it clearly follows that the dismissal was disproportionate to the established conduct. That is not to say that Dr Paladino was a good leader. My findings in relation to her conduct establishes that she was not without her failings as a leader, although they were not so serious as to justify her dismissal. Should she have handled particular situations better. Of course. Should she have had issues of concern held by her managers raised with her in a timely manner. Certainly. Should she have been given direct and clear feedback about areas for improvement in her leadership. Undoubtedly. Unfortunately, the University singularly failed to promptly raise issues of concern or provide clear feedback that would have assisted Dr Paladino improve as a leader.
[283] What was particularly telling was Professor Jensen's persistent failure to raise matters of concern with Dr Paladino, those concerns dating back to at least mid-2022. Despite those concerns, Professor Jensen rated Dr Paladino as 'exceeds expectations' in her 2022 performance review. When pressed about his failure to raise matters of concern directly or in a timely manner, Professor Jensen could only respond that it was a matter of 'regret' he had not done so. For an institution that prides itself on a reputation of academic excellence, and where HR/IR expertise is available to support staff, such an ineffective approach to performance management is troubling to say the least.
[284] My criticism of the University is not confined to Professor Jensen's instinctive avoidance of difficult conversation with Dr Paladino. HR's role in the performance review and management process is also worthy of scrutiny. Despite the issues of Dr Paladino's alleged leadership deficiencies being known, there is little evidence of intervention by HR to address those issues in a meaningful way. The following extracts of an exchange between myself and the FBE's HR Director, Ms Curtain during her cross-examination is particularly revealing in respect of the performance review and performance management process.
Would it surprise you, or perhaps I will go to Dr Paladino's - I think it's at 204. Can you go to page 204 of court book 1. Sorry, 202 is where it starts. Are you at page 206? This is just the supervisor comments in relation to Dr Paladino. This is for the 2022 year? ‑Yeah.
Does the rating that Dr Paladino received for that year surprise you? ‑It doesn't surprise me, because it's very common for an academic supervisor to write meeting/exceeding expectations, because it's such a broad category that you would have to really be not performing in your role to rate anything else. So almost - - -
Where in this performance - and if you want to take some time to read it, but can you identify anywhere in this performance development review where any concerns were raised in relation to Dr Paladino's leadership of the centre? ‑I mean I probably don't need to read it, because it would be - it would be very common for these sorts of things not to be put on a performance review. I mean it's just - it's the performance culture at the university that a lot of the time these things are not documented on a performance review.
Is it normal culture for the university not to provide candid feedback to underperforming leaders about their performance; is that what you're saying? ‑I mean feedback would be given verbally, and feedback would be addressed, but in terms of documenting it on something like an annual - a performance review. Is this a triannual? In terms of actually documenting it on a review like this it would be very common.
(Audio malfunction) how ridiculous that sounds to me sitting here? ‑Yeah. No, and I completely agree.
Well, perhaps this question might help. Are you able to identify from your role as the director of Human Resources in the FBE faculty where at any time Dr Paladino received direct feedback that her performance as a leader was not up to scratch prior to being notified on the initiation of this investigation? ‑Yeah. I wasn't aware of any concerns that were raised by staff members prior to the investigation.
Were you aware of Dr Wear's concerns in late 22? ‑No, I wasn't. Not prior to the investigation, no.
So you're unaware whether there was any formal process by which those concerns were ventilated with Dr Paladino prior to the commencement of the investigation? ‑Yeah, that's right, I wasn't aware.
Does it surprise you that Professor Jensen, as I recall his evidence, confirmed that he didn't directly confront Dr Paladino with any concerns he had regarding their leadership of the centre; does that surprise you? It does a little bit, because generally - - -
A little bit? Yeah, generally he's very good with providing feedback, and he's a good leader. So, yeah, it does surprise me.
I have to be honest here, that admission having been made by Dr Jensen I didn't form that view that he was a good leader. You and I might have a different standard of leadership? Yeah."
[285] The above series of questions drew candid responses from Ms Curtain that reveal the inadequacy of the University's performance review and management process. The fact that the University might have held concerns about Dr Paladino as a leader, yet it did not warrant a direct discussion with her or any mention of concerns in her performance review, is extraordinary. More so in circumstances where only months later, a formal investigation alleging serious misconduct involving multiple matters, some stretching back to 2022, was initiated. I also note that the Enterprise Agreement includes detailed steps and processes for managing work performance and misconduct issues that stretch over several pages.
[286] While concerns were held by Professor Jensen, he consistently failed to raise those concerns with Dr Paladino. Had he done so, the outcome for Dr Paladino and the University might have been very different. It might have led to clear feedback that Dr Paladino needed to improve areas of her leadership if she wanted to remain in her role as Director of the WCLA. It might have led to the mandated participation of Dr Paladino in leadership development programs. It might have led to a performance improvement plan for Dr Paladino being implemented. It might have led to a change in the behaviours of Dr Paladino that the University says it is now so concerned about. It might have averted the disciplinary process that led to the termination of Dr Paladino's employment. None of these things occurred. Consequently, the disciplinary action taken was disproportionate to the conduct I have found occurred. In the circumstances, I regard this as harsh due to the lack of any semblance of a performance management process as well as the outcome, which weighs in favour of a finding of unfairness.
Whether dismissal complied with the Enterprise Agreement
[287] Self-evidently, the dismissal was not consistent with the Enterprise Agreement on the basis of my findings that the conduct did not constitute serious misconduct or establish a valid reason for dismissal. That is because clause 1.39.7.8 of the Enterprise Agreement only permits termination of employment in circumstances of 'serious misconduct' as defined (clause 1.39.2) or where an employee has received prior formal warnings in relation to their performance (clause 1.38.9.8). Neither of these circumstances were present. The fact that the dismissal was not consistent with the Enterprise Agreement is not however a matter that weighs heavily in my assessment of the dismissal because of my earlier findings on valid reason and procedural fairness.
Whether the investigation and dismissal process was procedurally fair
[288] Dr Paladino raises a number of concerns going to the investigation process, including the length of time that it took, her prolonged standdown from the role of Director of the WCLA for approximately 18 months and the unfairness of the external investigation. I have already found above that the disciplinary process was procedurally unfair for the reasons that the dismissal lacked a valid reason and that over 20 new allegations now relied upon were not put to the Applicant prior to her dismissal. In these circumstances it is unnecessary for me to further consider the claimed unfairness of the process, save for the following comments. The duration of the investigation and disciplinary outcome delivery of some 18 months is unacceptably long by any standard. That said, the number of allegations requiring investigation, the volume of material relied on by Dr Paladino in defending herself and Dr Paladino's challenges to aspects of the process, along with the appeal steps taken by her, all contributed to the delays.
[289] In circumstances where a significant component of the delay was contributed to by Dr Paladino, I am unwilling to cast the blame only at the feet of the University. As such, the length of time taken to complete the investigation and disciplinary process while regrettable is not a matter that weighs for or against a finding of unfairness. Similarly, Dr Paladino having been stood aside from the WCLA Director role was an appropriate step in circumstances where serious allegations had been made against her.
Whether Dr Paladino's length of service, employment record, personal circumstances and future employment prospects render the dismissal unfair
[290] The University rightly acknowledges that Dr Paladino's long employment history, senior position, unblemished record, Committee memberships at the University and her reputation are relevant considerations in assessing whether her dismissal was unfair.
[291] It is worth noting the following. Dr Paladino was employed by the University for approximately 27 years, was a senior academic in the FBE, was made a tenured Professor in 2015 and at the same time was appointed the Foundational Director of the WCLA. She was elected by her peers and professional colleagues to the Academic Board, initially to the position of Deputy Vice-President commencing January 2023, and ascended to the position of Vice-President of the Academic Board immediately prior to her dismissal. She submits she would have moved to the position of President of the Academic Board in due course, as she says such advancement is traditionally uncontested. Her employment record over 27 years was unblemished. She is 50 years of age and has spent most of her adult life working for the University. She also contends that but for her dismissal, she would have continued to work until retirement or at least until the age of 67 and that her professional reputation and career prospects have been damaged such that she is unlikely to be offered comparable or any employment at another university.
[292] The University argues that Dr Paladino has not filed any evidence going to the submission that her reputation has been damaged by the misconduct process and dismissal. That submission, in my view, defies common sense. It is hard to imagine how the reputation and career prospects of a senior academic would not be adversely impacted when dismissed after 27 years of service to the University. Even if I were to accept the University's submission on this point, the balance of the matters of Dr Paladino's seniority, length of service and an unblemished employment record leads me to find that the dismissal was harsh. This weighs in favour of a finding that the dismissal was unfair.
Whether Dr Paladino's loss of accrued entitlements renders the dismissal unfair
[293] Dr Paladino contends that her dismissal was rendered harsh by the loss of accrued entitlements including her remuneration package, staff research allowance account, defined benefit superannuation benefit and personal leave accrual. She also contends that her termination entitlements were calculated incorrectly. I do not accept that these matters in themselves render the dismissal harsh for the following reasons. Termination of employment inevitably leads to a loss of accrued entitlements including the matters raised by Dr Paladino. As to her claim that her termination entitlement was calculated incorrectly, or that she was entitled to receive her accrued staff research allowance, I am unable to resolve those matters on the material before me. Nor is it appropriate for me to do so as Dr Paladino is entitled to pursue her Enterprise Agreement and/or contractual entitlements in an appropriate jurisdiction.
Is the Commission satisfied that the dismissal of Dr Paladino was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable?
[295] I have found that Dr Paladino's dismissal was not supported by a valid reason. This weighs in favour of a finding that the dismissal was unfair. There were also significant procedural failures of the University in carrying out the dismissal. Also weighing in favour of a finding of harshness of the dismissal was Dr Paladino's seniority, her length of employment of 27 years with the University, her unblemished employment record and the failure of the University to effectively manage what it regarded as Dr Paladino's leadership deficiencies.
[296] Having considered each of the matters specified in s 387 of the Act, I have weighed the absence of a valid reason for dismissal, the procedural failures and harshness elements described above in the context of the size of the University's business. I am satisfied that the dismissal was unreasonable because it was not supported by a valid reason. It was unjust because of the procedural failures. Finally, it was harsh because of Dr Paladino's long and unblemished employment record and the University's failure to apply well documented performance management processes to address perceived shortcomings in Dr Paladino's leadership behaviour. The dismissal was consequently unfair.
[297] Section 390(1) of the Act permits but does not compel the Commission to order reinstatement of a dismissed person if it is satisfied that the person was protected from unfair dismissal and the person was unfairly dismissed. I have made findings above and am satisfied that both of these conditions are met.
[298] The Applicant seeks reinstatement while the University opposes it on grounds including Dr Paladino's credibility, her conduct was destructive of trust and confidence, she has shown no insight into her own behaviour and its effects on others and the impact on other staff who remain employed by the University.
[299] Dealing firstly with the evidence of witnesses, that had or were currently working in the FBE, on the impact of reinstatement of Dr Paladino. Ms Brinley has not worked in the WCLA since July 2023 so would have no ongoing direct involvement with Dr Palladino were she reinstated. The prospect of some future casual or work-related interaction on a campus with over 10,000 staff seems a limited possibility and does not tell against reinstatement. As to Dr Dixon-Deane's views on reinstatement, I regard those views as irrelevant in circumstances where she left her employment with the University in 2019.
[302] As to the contention that Dr Paladino's conduct was destructive of trust and confidence, I do not accept that contention, in circumstances where I have found most of the allegations are not sustained. I draw particular attention to the allegations of dishonesty which if sustained would not only have constituted serious misconduct but would have been destructive of trust and confidence. As dealt with at length above, the allegations of dishonesty on the part of Dr Paladino were not sustained, seriously undermining the claimed loss of trust and confidence. Professor Jensen conceded as much. The residual conduct that I have found did occur, does not rise to the level of either establishing a valid reason for dismissal or being fatal to trust and confidence between the parties.
[303] Turning finally to the submissions on Dr Paladino's credibility, and lack of insight, contrition or remorse for her behaviour, none of those matters weigh against an order of reinstatement. I have found Dr Paladino to be generally credible in her evidence and denial of the allegations made against her. She has defended herself vigorously, both before and following her dismissal. The claimed lack of credibility is rejected. As regards the alleged lack of contrition or remorse, that submission appears to proceed on a premise of Dr Paladino's guilt in relation to the alleged conduct. Putting to one side my finding that Dr Paladino did not engage in serious misconduct, she in any event acknowledged that there was room for improvement as a leader. That admission was appropriate having regard to the findings I have made against her. Had I found she had engaged in conduct that established a valid reason, a lack of contrition or remorse for the established misconduct would be relevant. No such misconduct has been established, substantially weakening the relevance of the University's argument.
[304] It follows from the foregoing that I am not persuaded that any of the matters raised by the University tell against reinstatement of Dr Paladino. In these circumstances I find that reinstatement would not be inappropriate and I will accordingly exercise my discretion to order Dr Paladino's reinstatement, which is to take effect within 28 days of the date of this decision.
[305] In reinstating Dr Paladino, she is to be reinstated as a tenured Professor and to her substantive position of Director of the WCLA which she held immediately prior to her dismissal. While Dr Paladino also held a Vice-Presidential position on the University's Academic Board at the time of her dismissal, the casual vacancy created by her dismissal has been filled, making reinstatement to that role impractical. It was in any case a position to which she was appointed for a 2-year period based on election by her academic peers. No assumptions can be reasonably made that Dr Paladino would have ascended to the Presidential role in the future. In these circumstances I decline to order her reinstatement to the Academic Board role.
[306] Further to the above, I also believe it is appropriate to make an order pursuant to s 391(2) of the Act that Dr Paladino's continuity of employment be maintained.
[307] Finally, it is appropriate to consider whether to issue an order under s 391(3) for the payment to Dr Paladino by the University of an amount of remuneration lost or likely to have been lost by Dr Paladino because of her dismissal. Section 391(4) specifies matters the Commission 'must' take into account, being;
(a) the amount of any remuneration earned by the person from employment or other work during the period between the dismissal and the making of the order for reinstatement; and
(b) the amount of any remuneration reasonably likely to be so earned by the person during the period between the making of the order for reinstatement and the actual reinstatement.
[308] Sections 391(4)(a)&(b) are expressed as mandatory considerations. As the making of an order for lost income is a discretionary decision, other matters may be taken into account as well as the above-referred mandatory considerations. In doing so I note that at the date of hearing, Dr Paladino had not obtained alternate employment or earned any income from other sources. Nor is there evidence before me that Dr Paladino is likely to earn any income during the period between the date of the order for reinstatement and the actual reinstatement. Significantly, she was unable to demonstrate any efforts to secure alternate employment since her dismissal, justifying that inaction on the basis of the time she had invested in preparing her unfair dismissal case. I believe a failure to demonstrate any loss mitigation effort is a relevant matter to be taken into account and tells against an award for income lost or likely to be lost. Also to be considered is that Dr Paladino received 6 months' pay in lieu of notice on termination. While the accuracy of the calculation of her final payment was disputed by Dr Paladino, avenues to pursue that complaint in a different jurisdiction are available to her.
[309] Having regard to the 6-months payment in lieu of notice Dr Paladino received on termination and the absence of evidence of loss mitigation efforts on her part, I decline to make an order for income lost or likely to have been lost pursuant to s 391(4) of the Act.
[310] I am satisfied that Dr Paladino was dismissed at the initiative of the University. Having been satisfied in respect of the other initial matters, I have considered and determined that the Applicant's dismissal was harsh, unjust, unreasonable and thereby unfair. I am further satisfied that reinstatement would not be inappropriate, that she must be reinstated as a tenured Professor and to her substantive position of Director of the WCLA within 28 days of this decision with continuity of her employment maintained. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued separately in conjunction with this decision.
[1] Exhibit A2, First Witness Statement of Angela Paladino, dated 24 April 2025, Annexure AP-3
[4] Statement of Agreed Facts, at [6]-[7]
[5] Statement of Agreed Facts, at [10]-[11]
[6] Exhibit R22, Witness Statement of Jessica Kerr, at [21]
[7] Statement of Agreed Facts, at [31]
[27] Exhibit R15, Witness Statement of Genevieve Curtain, dated 30 May 2025, Annexure GC-3
[29] Statement of Agreed Facts, at [55]
[33] Statement of Agreed Facts, at [61]
[49] Statement of Agreed Facts, at [75]
[50] Exhibit R2, Witness Statement of Nicola Phillips, dated 29 May 2025, Annexure NP-2
[58] Exhibit R19, Witness Statement of Jamie Evans, dated 29 May 2025, Annexure JE-2
[60] Agreed Statement of Facts, at [85]-[87]
[63] Exhibit R1, Annexure AW-7, at Court Book pp. 1810-1811
[66] Exhibit R1, at [107], Transcript at PN250
[87] Exhibit R23, at pp. 17 & 20, Exhibit R24, at p. 20-21
[88] Exhibit A3, at [121] & [123], Transcript at PN1769-1773
[89] Exhibit A3, at [128], Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-28
[91] Exhibit R1, Witness Statement of Andrew Wear, darted 29 May 2025, Annexure AW-6
[95] Exhibit A3, Second Witness Statement of Angela Paladino, at [171]
[107] Exhibit A3, Annexure AP-61, at Court Book p. 2878
[108] Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-28, Court Book at p.495
[120] Transcript at PN371-380, PN516-517
[122] Exhibit A3, Annexure AP-61, at Court Book p.2878
[139] Exhibit R3, Witness Statement of Tess Brinley, dated 29 May 2025, at [50]-[53]
[158] Ibid at [537], Transcript at PN2319-2320
[163] Exhibit A3, at [544]-[545], Transcript at PN2387-2398
[175] Exhibit R20, Witness Statement of Wynand Bezuidenhout, dated 29 May 2025, Annexure WB-1
[181] Exhibit R20, Annexure WB-3, at Court Book p.1723
[182] Exhibit R20, Annexure WB-1, at Court Book p.1706
[186] Exhibit R20, Annexure WB-2, at Court Book p.1716
[187] Exhibit R1, Annexure WB-3, at p. 1721
[192] Exhibit R20, Annexure WB-3, at Court Book at p.1721
[214] Exhibit A3, at [130], Transcript at PN1846-1847
[216] Exhibit R8, Witness Statement of Professor Paul Jensen, dated 2 June 2025, at [48]-[51]
[234] Exhibit A3, at [710], Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-38, at Court Book p.1146
[236] Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-38, at Court Book p.1150
[248] Exhibit R8, at [115], [118], [122]
[270] Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34 (30 June 1938), [(1938) [1938] HCA 34; 60 CLR 336]
[300] Exhibit R5, Witness Statement of Camille Dixon-Deane, dated 29 May 2025, at [17]-[28]
[323] Exhibit R5, at [55], Transcript at PN4751-4756
[324] Ibid at [56], Transcript at PN4761-4783
[329] Ibid at [227], Transcript at PN2933-2934
[331] Ibid at [231], Transcript at PN2943
[341] Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 333; (1995) 62 IR 371, 373.
[343] Walton v Mermaid Dry Cleaners Pty Ltd [1996] IRCA 267; (1996) 142 ALR 681, 685.
[344] Crozier v Palazzo Corporation Pty Ltd (2000) 98 IR 137, 151.
[345] Previsic v Australian Quarantine Inspection Services Print Q3730 (AIRC, Holmes C, 6 October 1998).
[347] Crozier v Palazzo Corporation Pty Ltd t/a Noble Park Storage and Transport Print S5897 (AIRCFB, Ross VP, Acton SDP, Cribb C, 11 May 2000), [75].
[348] RMIT v Asher [2010] FWAFB 1200; (2010) 194 IR 1, 14-15.
[349] Gibson v Bosmac Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 222; (1995) 60 IR 1, 7.
[350] ALH Group Pty Ltd t/a The Royal Exchange Hotel v Mulhall (2002) 117 IR 357, [51]. See also Smith v Moore Paragon Australia Ltd PR915674 (AIRCFB, Ross VP, Lacy SDP, Simmonds C, 21 March 2002), [92]; Edwards v Justice Giudice [1999] FCA 1836, [6]- [7].
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
Angela Paladino
The University of Melbourne [2026] FWC 559
(1995) 62 IR 371
(1996) 142 ALR 681
(2000) 98 IR 137
(2010) 194 IR 1
(1995) 60 IR 1
(2002) 117 IR 357