Professor’s ‘implausible’ claims not enough for reinstatement and compensation

An academic from the University of Canberra could not convince the Fair Work Commission that an exit agreement should be made void due to an alleged period of sickness during a redundancy employment period.

The application was dismissed under section 594 of the Fair Work Act after commissioner Damian Sloan found that a mutually signed negotiated exit agreement was not signed under pressure or in an incapacitated state of mind.

The applicant, an associate professor employed by the University of Canberra, was made redundant on 16 January 2026. As part of the enterprise agreement that applied to his employment, the applicant opted to maintain employment rather than exit and receive a separation package.

Due to his wishes to remain, the university’s chief people officer noted that working through the employment period would reduce final payment accordingly.

The applicant also requested “your support in allowing me to exit at any time the university wish with the same offer” or, if this was not possible, “extra time to consider the demotion offer”, noting that they were soon to undergo surgery and therefore “not in a position to make a decision about the demotion until after my sick leave ends on 20 January”.

When the request to extend the deadline for response was not granted by the university, the applicant and chief people officer negotiated a financial settlement of 12 weeks’ salary and the signing of a deed of release that included “confidentiality provisions and release the University from any current or future claims pertaining to your employment and the redundancy”.

The applicant allegedly signed a copy of the agreement with hand-made alterations that were eventually partly concessioned by the university.

However, the applicant sent an email to the chief people officer 10 days after his employment ended that said he was not mentally stable to sign the deed, that it was signed under pressure and in a rush, saying: “I wish to get out of this deed as it is void.”

Further, a second email raised “serious concerns regarding the validity and enforceability of the agreement”.

The applicant commenced unfair dismissal proceedings on 2 February 2026, contending that the redundancy was not genuine and the exit agreement was void or voidable on multiple grounds, also seeking reinstatement and compensation.

The university maintained that the agreement constituted an “accord and satisfaction” of any employment cause of action, requesting the commission dismiss the application under section 399A or s 587 of the act.

It further contended that the applicant’s commencement of proceedings after the agreement was concluded should not stop the commission from exercising its powers and that the application was frivolous, vexatious or had no reasonable prospect of success.

In opposition, the applicant contended that the question for the commission was not the existence of the agreement but whether it was appropriate to rely on the agreement to deny access to a statutory unfair dismissal remedy.

During proceedings, the applicant requested Sloan make two orders under section 594 to ensure confidential media information remained so, and that their involvement was not publicly disclosed. The grounds for these requests were the sensitive and private nature of the medical information that may damage his professional standing – as would the publication of their name – that the publication of their name would affect engagement with government and policy decision-making, that the reputational damage would also affect colleagues or students he had interacted with, that his employment could be mischaracterised without full context, and that any public interest did not outweigh the potential harm it would cause.

The university similarly opposed this argument on the grounds that “it remains a matter for the FWC’s discretion as to whether even that course of action is considered necessary”.

Sloan did not determine it necessary to approve the orders, noting that the information was unlikely to stigmatise the applicant in the way they suggested, nor would it be necessary to traverse the medical evidence in full, or that it be published.

Further, certain conclusions rely on the potential disclosure of medical evidence; otherwise they may be considered speculative assertions regarding the impact of disclosure.

Sloan surmised that the applicant “has not demonstrated that his fears as to the harm he will suffer are reasonable and soundly based”.

While it was noted that the applicant “may suffer embarrassment and even damage to his professional standing as a result” of Sloan’s decision, he furthered that it would be a result of “the principle of open justice”.

“His contentions fall short of providing a basis on which the commission can reasonably reach the conclusion that it is ‘actually necessary’ to make orders of the type he seeks,” he said.

This was echoed in Sloan’s reasons for rejecting the other aforementioned grounds.

In consideration of the unfair dismissal application itself, Sloan noted that the applicant was purportedly not requesting the commission set the agreement aside, but that some of the evidence submitted did go to the question of validity or enforceability.

Despite this, the commission determined that the agreement was a binding settlement that extinguished any cause of action, and that any arguments that the applicant was not in a right state of mind were disproven by a lack of evidence and the email chain with the chief people officer.

It was also not accepted that the university placed any pressure on the applicant to sign; and in fact, the applicant may have delayed the signing himself.

The argument that the university did not explain in practical and clear terms the effect of the agreement was also not accepted.

In this way, Sloan determined that the application be dismissed under section 587(1)(c) of the act, with further actions regarding a potential cost order to be made in due course.

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