University professor challenges dismissal based on near-decade-old misconduct

A university professor’s employment was recently reinstated after the Fair Work Commission found his 2024 dismissal based on allegations dating back to 2017 was unfair and harsh.

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently described a dismissal as both unfair and harsh after a university professor’s employment was terminated based on allegations of serious misconduct, which dated back to 2017.

In December 2024, a professor and chair of reservoir engineering was dismissed from the University of Melbourne after an external investigation laid substantiated allegations against him for his conduct towards a student back in 2017.

In 2017, a German student requested the professor to supervise her Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). At the time, both were freshly removed from relationships, leading to intimate email and message exchanges between the pair during their association.

Nearing the end of their association, the student informed another professor within the department that her supervisor had expressed that “he wanted her to be his girlfriend”, requesting a new supervisor due to how “overly personal” their dealings had become.

This professor reported this request to the university’s HR department, which subsequently held a meeting with the student where she voiced her experiences. The student told the HR team that the professor expressed sadness about breaking up with his girlfriend, described how beautiful his girlfriend was, gave details about their sex life, and ultimately “would not stop bothering” the student.

The student gained a new supervisor to finish her PhD, with the allegations at the time in 2018 going no further. The professor remained in his role from 2018 right through to 2024 with “no evidence of any concerns having been raised about his behaviour over this time”.

Sexual harassment allegations in 2024

In 2024, another professor within the department received a lengthy email from the student, which involved serious allegations against her former supervisor. The allegations claimed that in 2017, the professor asked her to have a “sextual relationship until he can find someone adequate for himself” – ultimately alleging that she experienced sexual harassment during her time at the University of Melbourne.

The allegations were passed on to the HR department, which eventually received a formal complaint from the student, which alleged that her supervisor sexually and mentally abused her for 14 months, sent her emails about sexual subjects, wanted to abuse her, complimented her appearance and “forced” her to work for free.

Based on the seriousness of the allegations, the HR department engaged an external investigator who interviewed the supervisor and gained access to the pair’s email and message exchanges.

The external investigation did not lead to a substantiated allegation that the professor had sexually harassed the student. Instead, an allegation was formed that the supervisor breached workplace policy by communicating with the student “in an unprofessional, inappropriate, personal and intimate manner”.

In the email exchanges, the supervisor (who was born in Germany) said: “And I come from the German 69 culture – anything goes, naked in the swimming pool. My mum gave me contraceptives when I was 12 …”

In another, he messaged the student at 1:00am, stating: “I am burning.”

Romantic feelings

Although the investigator concluded that the supervisor was in breach of workplace regulations, it was noted that romantic feelings were being expressed from both sides.

According to the message exchanges, the student was seen instigating communications of a personal nature, and expressing her love for the supervisor – which she had not mentioned in her formal complaint.

The supervisor attempted to claim that when he personally became aware that the student was showing romantic feelings towards him, he “changed the way he interacted with her”.

The investigator disagreed, claiming that he continued to engage with her in an “overly personal manner” well after realising she had feelings for him. In one instance, the student allegedly attempted to strip during a FaceTime call between the two. The investigator argued that this should have made it clear to the supervisor that their association had gone too far.

The investigator found that the supervisor “was in a position of significant power as the supervisor of a vulnerable woman who had recently arrived in Australia from a different cultural background, and who had disclosed to him a history of domestic trauma”.

The university considered the allegations and concluded that the supervisor conducted serious misconduct – to which the supervisor agreed that he had “made bad choices”.

He added that at the time, his personal life had fallen apart and that, absorbed with his own problems, he had lacked the awareness that is a prerequisite for an effective professional relationship.

Despite the “deep regret” of his conduct, and that in the years that have passed he “had learned to improve his emotional wellbeing”, the university terminated his employment on 17 December 2024 without notice.

Unfair dismissal decision

The supervisor’s initial objections to his dismissal were that the email exchanges were made through private channels during “out-of-hours” time frames. He also noted that the issues were originally handled back in 2017 and 2018 – claiming that it was “unfair” for it to be revisited years later.

The university rebutted that they were not made aware of his “inappropriate messages” until 2024.

In reviewing his application claiming unfair dismissal, Fair Work Commission deputy president Alan Colman expressed that the actions taken by the supervisor back in 2017 and 2018 were “inappropriate and that they contravened the Appropriate Workplace Behaviour Policy (AWB Policy)” as he himself admitted.

Colman also added that “all PhD students are vulnerable vis-à-vis their supervisors, and it will not always be apparent whether they have special vulnerabilities. This underscores the rationale for having a policy such as the AWB Policy, and its importance.”

However, he claimed that a “prominent” feature of the case was that the allegations occurred seven years prior to the dismissal.

“One feels instinctively that this was unfair. Generally, if a worker is to be dismissed for misconduct, this should happen in good time, not years after the event ...” said Colman.

“The university might say that [the supervisor] should have known that he would be dismissed for his misconduct, should it be discovered, but I disagree. While the conduct was serious, and dismissal was a possible outcome, it was not a foregone conclusion that the university would proceed to terminate his employment for this behaviour.”

“There is no evidence that anyone has expressed so much as a concern about his behaviour over the many years of service he rendered to the university following his misconduct in 2017. Nor did he have a record of any disciplinary offences prior to this time. In my opinion, the decision to dismiss [the supervisor] in such circumstances was harsh.”

Finding the dismissal as both unfair and harsh, Colman did not “hold any concern that” the supervisor would breach the AWB Policy again. He, therefore, granted the supervisor a reinstatement, which maintains both the continuity of his employment and his continuous service.

He was also granted $28,098.12 in back pay.