Introduction
A senior academic with nearly three decades at the University of Melbourne has been reinstated by the Fair Work Commission (FWC), which found her dismissal for alleged serious misconduct was not justified.
The Commission’s decision, issued on 23 February 2026, requires the University to return Dr Angela Paladino to her substantive academic leadership role, concluding that the employer had not proven most of the allegations relied upon to terminate her employment.
Background to the Dismissal
Dr Paladino joined the University in 1997 and progressed through the academic ranks to become a tenured Professor and Director of the Williams Centre for Learning Advancement (WCLA). Immediately prior to her termination in February 2025, she also served as Vice-President of the University’s Academic Board, an elected position. Her annual remuneration exceeded $330,000.
The University dismissed her following an investigation into workplace conduct concerns raised by three staff members. In total, the employer relied on 33 allegations accumulated over several years. These included claims that her leadership style was overly controlling, discourteous, divisive, insubordinate, and at times dishonest or intimidating.
The University argued that even if single incidents were relatively minor, the pattern of behaviour collectively amounted to serious misconduct.
Investigation and University Findings
An external investigator examined the complaints, followed by an independent review. The reviewer observed that none of the alleged behaviours, considered individually, would typically meet the threshold for serious misconduct. However, the reviewer indicated it was open to the University to view the overall pattern as sufficiently serious.
The University proceeded to dismissal on that basis.
Fair Work Commission Decision
Deputy President Masson undertook a detailed analysis of each allegation and the supporting evidence. The Commission ultimately concluded that most allegations were not proven.
In assessing witness evidence, the decision noted credibility concerns. One witness was found to have provided inaccurate information and to hold personal hostility toward Dr Paladino. Another displayed a strongly negative and punitive attitude. A third interpreted events unfavourably regardless of context. These credibility issues undermined the employer’s case.
Only a small number of allegations were partly or fully substantiated. The Commission held these were insufficient to justify termination for serious misconduct.
Accordingly, the dismissal was ruled harsh, unjust and unreasonable.
Importance of Long Service and Lack of Prior Action
A key factor in the outcome was Dr Paladino’s 27.5 years of service combined with the University’s failure to formally address leadership concerns during her employment.
Evidence showed her manager had reservations about her leadership style for some time but had not formally raised them with her through warnings, counselling, or performance management. The Commission criticised this in strong terms, noting the inconsistency between longstanding concerns and the absence of prior action before dismissal.
Remedy Ordered
The Commission ordered reinstatement within 28 days of the decision. Dr Paladino returns to her tenured Professor and WCLA Director position with continuity of employment preserved.
However, she was not reinstated to the elected Academic Board Vice-Presidency because that role had already been filled. The Commission also declined to award back pay, noting she had received six months’ pay in lieu of notice and had not demonstrated active efforts to obtain alternative work.
Lessons for HR and Employers
This case highlights several practical principles for managing misconduct risk:
1. Volume of allegations does not equal seriousness
Multiple minor complaints do not automatically create a serious misconduct case. Each allegation must be independently credible and sufficiently serious.
2. Evidence quality is critical
Witness reliability and motivation can determine the strength of a case. Decision-makers should rigorously test evidence before relying on it.
3. Performance management cannot be skipped
Where concerns relate to leadership or behaviour over time, documented feedback, warnings, and support are essential — especially for long-serving senior employees.
4. Historical concerns must be acted on
Allowing issues to persist unaddressed and then relying on them at dismissal creates legal risk.
5. Long tenure increases scrutiny
The absence of prior corrective action will weigh heavily against an employer when terminating a long-standing employee.
Takeaway
The decision reinforces that serious misconduct findings must rest on clear, credible, and proportionate evidence. Employers who rely on accumulated complaints without prior management action or reliable witness support face significant reinstatement risk.
For HR practitioners, the case is a reminder that fair process and documented performance management remain the strongest defence in disciplinary decisions.
Reduce Dismissal Risk Before You Act
This case reinforces that serious misconduct findings must be backed by credible evidence and fair process.
Before proceeding with termination, ensure your investigation, documentation, and performance management steps would withstand Fair Work scrutiny.
Liquid HR provides practical support through workplace investigations, disciplinary guidance, and structured performance management. You can also explore our broader HR Outsourcing services, for ongoing compliance and risk support.
If you’re facing a complex misconduct issue, speak to our team before making a final decision.
