‘Absurd’: FWC rules against school firing teacher for yelling at students

The “absurd” reasoning behind a high school teacher’s sacking was slammed by the Fair Work Commission in a recent unfair dismissal case.

The Fair Work Commission recently dealt with an unfair dismissal application filed by a former high school teacher at the Australian International Islamic College.

According to the commission, the basis of the high school teacher’s dismissal was described as “absurd”, relying on allegations that she yelled at her misbehaving students, constituting serious misconduct, thus justifying the dismissal.

This was quickly dismantled by the commission after key evidence was brought forward by a student who did not have a cordial relationship with the high school teacher. Despite this, the student clarified that other senior teachers were known for yelling at students more often than the teacher who was subsequently dismissed for doing so.

“The reality is that [the teacher] and her superiors have the difficult responsibility of having to deal with escalating levels of misbehaviour by students. It is inevitable that this will at times involve using a raised voice or yelling. There are few other levers at the disposal of schoolteachers to deal with escalating levels of misbehaviour,” said the commission.

Instead of the yelling being the main reason behind the dismissal, the commission found that the process was flawed and contrived as it derived from the teacher’s disapproval of her supervisor’s behaviour towards another colleague.

The supervisor admitted to speaking towards another colleague in an inappropriate manner, with the dismissed teacher alleging that he spoke “in a very aggressive and inappropriate manner” towards another teacher twice – which occurred in front of parents, staff, and students.

Both the dismissed teacher and the teacher who was victim to the behaviour attended a meeting where the supervisor apologised. However, the meeting ended with the pair walking out as the supervisor began blaming his actions on staff not providing appropriate supervision.

Following this, the teacher was extremely critical of the supervisor – sending a detailed email to various colleagues recapping his behaviour. The commission found that this action “triggered the contrived and flawed subsequent sequence of events”.

From that point, the supervisor was found to have driven the dismissal of the teacher, with the commission negating his evidence on the basis that he had a history of falsifying documents and the fact that his evidence was “indicative of someone who is searching for any possible angle to justify [the teachers] dismissal”.

Overall, the commission found that there was no valid reason for dismissal, finding that the teacher conducted herself appropriately in dealing with students.

It was also found that a subsidiary to the supervisor “made a mess of arranging the evidence to justify [the supervisor’s] dismissal”, claiming that he “clearly created false case notes and diary entries to try and assist with the case”, which the commission found was encouraged by the supervisor.

“[The teacher] was unfairly targeted by [the supervisor] for vindictive personal reasons,” the commission said.

The teacher received $55,786.90 plus superannuation of $6,415.4, with reinstatement not being appropriate given the nature of the unfair dismissal.