Childcare trainee fired over text wins unfair dismissal claim, compensation

A trainee dismissed over allegations of misconduct had her dismissal deemed unfair by the Fair Work Commission.

Victoria Russell, a former employee of a childcare centre in Baulkham Hills, objected to her dismissal over a September 2025 text message in the Fair Work Commission.

On 4 February 2026, deputy president Tony Slevin ruled Russell’s dismissal was unfair, rejecting her employer Edustellar’s unsubstantiated allegations that Russell engaged in misconduct and performance concerns.

The traineeship

Russell, who signed a training contract in November 2024, said health concerns led to her tendering her resignation twice, but Edusteller convinced her to stay on both occasions.

Following this, Russell and Edustellar agreed on a reduction of hours from full-time to part-time hours of 15 hours per week.

The deputy president found that in order for Russell to be eligible to work at the childcare centre, she was to complete a child protection certificate within three months of commencing her traineeship.

Further, it found that Russell completed the requirements for the certificate; however, she would still need to complete a final practical observation.

Two days before her dismissal, she began to make arrangements with an assessor.

Text dismissal

On 16 September 2025, Lin Zhou, an owner of Edustellar, sent Russell a text message stating there had been reports from staff and parents that Russell had allegedly engaged in inappropriate interactions with children and used inappropriate language while on the job.

Zhou claimed there had been reports that it caused some fear and distress to these children, and she had failed to complete her training and her mandatory child protection course.

In the text, Zhou said: “Given these circumstances, you are not permitted to continue working with children at our centre. We appreciate the time you have spent with us and wish you the best in your endeavours.”

The commission found that Edustellar relied upon two things to establish misconduct: firstly, that she had engaged in misconduct in her interaction with children at the childcare centre; and secondly, that she had not completed her training for the child protection course.

In its 4 February decision, the commission found that there was no material that gave evidence for the incidents than undated letters, Edustellar did not make it clear when the events occurred or when they were reported to the company, there was no investigation or assessment made to verify the allegations, and the reports were accepted at face value.

Despite Edustellar’s claims, the deputy president accepted that Russell had completed her training and was just waiting to be assessed.

Speaking about the final practical observation, Slevin said: “Edustellar merely needed to wait for that to occur and the qualification would be complete.”

A flawed procedure

Slevin ruled that Edustellar’s evidence “[does] not provide a basis for concluding that there was a valid reason for dismissal”.

“The procedure followed was flawed, and Edustellar did not provide the type of support that organisations who take on trainees can be expected to provide,” he said.

The commission ruled that the dismissal was unfair, upholding Russell’s application.

As neither Russell nor Edustellar believed that reinstatement would be an appropriate remedy, the commission found that compensation would be the best course of action.

However, the commission found that Russell would have worked at least up until the conclusion of her traineeship contract, which would have been a further eight months past her termination.

Slevin ordered that Edustellar grant $10,230.00 plus superannuation in lost wages to Russell, to be paid in four equal instalments – equivalent to eight months of wages.

The case citation: Ms Victoria Russell v Edustellar Pty Ltd (U2025/15204).