3D-printed gun sees teacher’s termination upheld

A teacher with more than 20 years’ tenure has not secured an unfair dismissal after bringing a prop handgun to their high school.

The Fair Work Commission determined that bringing the replica to a high school breached the teacher’s professional obligations and duty of care, and failed to consider the risk factor to teenage students.

The applicant had been employed since 27 January 2004 until their termination on 7 January 2026 for serious misconduct.

Following a meeting that discussed ways of more practically engaging students in their subjects, the teacher 3D-printed a replica handgun over the weekend of 5–6 April, with the alleged intention of showing their students.

The replica allegedly pulled back at the top like that of a real firearm.

Ahead of classes on 7 April, a colleague at the high school allegedly said of the replica, “you can’t show that to students”, which was allegedly met with confusion from the applicant.

The incident was reported to the principal, school operations, and eventually the Australian Federal Police (AFP), who attended the school on 9 April and later seized the replica and printing equipment and issued a formal caution to the teacher.

The AFP confirmed the handgun contravened the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) (Schedule 1).

The teacher was suspended with pay under clauses G6.2 G6.5 of the ACT Public Sector Education Directorate (Teaching Staff) Enterprise Agreement 2023–2026 and later issued a Notice to Show Cause – Termination of Employment on 15 April. The notice explained reasons for the decision and sought a response within a week.

The teacher then “vehemently” denied an intention to show the replica to students, and sought a warning as opposed to termination.

The investigation was then reported to the Teacher Quality Institute (TQI) and referred to the APS Public Sector Standards Commissioner under G5.1 of the agreement. Further, the teacher was notified that they were being moved to a suspension without pay.

The matter was further referred to the Professional Standards Unit, Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate. When given the chance to respond, the teacher clarified that they did intend to show the item to students, and that their earlier contradiction had been made in a state of shock.

Further, the teacher claimed they did not show the printed item to the students after the reaction of their colleague, acknowledged the conduct was ill-advised, and explained they were suffering from burnout and fatigue at the time.

Training and potential transfer were also offered as opposed to termination.

Despite this, the Professional Standards Unit identified the allegations as substantial and concluded there was a proposed serious misconduct finding.

In response, the educator’s lawyers denied the conduct as serious misconduct under the Fair Work Regulations 2009 and proposed resignation should reinstatement be impossible.

Another apology was sent on 13 December. Despite this, the investigators concluded there was no change to the proposed decision, with the teacher terminated under subclause G.9.2.5 of the agreement, effective from 7 January 2026.

According to commissioner Sarah McKinnon, the matter to be determined was whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, unreasonable, or unfair.

In consideration, McKinnon identified a high likelihood that the teacher would’ve shown the prop to students had there been no intervention, and that the conduct “posed a risk to the safety and wellbeing of staff and students, as well as reputational risk to ACT Education”.

It was also noted: “Replica firearms are prohibited for a reason: they look real.”

It was also noted that the conduct was contrary to section 9 of the Public Sector Management Act (PSM Act), met the description of serious misconduct in Regulation 1.07 of the FW Regulations and was contrary to five clauses of the ACT Education Code of Conduct for Teachers, School Leaders and Principals.

While McKinnon accepted “there was no malice involved in the events of 5–7 April 2025” but that the conduct was “not simply misguided … they showed an astonishing lack of judgement for such an experienced teacher”.

She said: “The same lack of judgement was apparent in [applicant’s] subsequent attempts to downplay the seriousness of the incident.”

Further, the source of the plans that instructed how to print the gun was inconsistent, with McKinnon finding they were likely sourced from the internet.

In this way, it was determined the conduct met the agreement’s description of serious misconduct.

ACT Education’s dismissal process was also considered appropriate.

Even while acknowledging the employee’s almost 22 years of service, the likely financial ramifications of termination and likely difficulty in finding another employment, McKinnon was satisfied that the dismissal was not unfair, finding ACT Education had a valid reason for termination and followed the process fairly.

“The matters relied upon in this regard do not outweigh the seriousness of the incident or tip the balance sufficiently in favour of a conclusion that the dismissal was harsh, unreasonable or unjust,” she said.

“I am not satisfied that dismissal was a disproportionate response to the conduct in the circumstances.”

Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?
Make HR Leader a preferred news source on Google.