Angela Paladino v The University of Melbourne [2026] FWC 559

[2026] FWC 559 The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 23 February 2026. In the original decision: 1. In Paragraph 2, Mr Tracey is inadvertently described as Counsel for the Respondent when in fact he appeared for the Applicant, 2. In Paragraph 287, there was a typographical error that led to the wrong clause of the Enterprise Agreement being identified. 3. The list of appearances on the final page omitted M Lange who also acted for the Respondent. Timothy Broadstock Associate to Deputy President Masson Dated 25 February 2026 -- 1 of 91 -- -- 2 of 91 -- 1 Fair Work Act 2009 s.394—Unfair dismissal Angela Paladino v The University of Melbourne (U2025/1903) DEPUTY PRESIDENT MASSON MELBOURNE, 23 FEBRUARY 2026 Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – multiple allegations said to collectively constitute serious misconduct – some allegations sustained or partially sustained – sustained allegations fail to establish a valid reason for dismissal - dismissal found to be unfair – reinstatement ordered along with maintenance of continuity of employment. Introduction [1] This decision concerns an application made by Ms Angela Paladino (Dr Paladino) for an unfair dismissal remedy pursuant to s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 Cth (the Act). Dr Paladino who was employed by The University of Melbourne (the University) alleges she was dismissed on 5 February 2025. The unfair dismissal application was lodged by Dr Paladino on 19 February 2025. [2] The matter was listed for hearing before me on 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 July and 26 August 2025 to deal with the merits of the application. Both parties filed material in advance of the hearing in accordance with directions issued. Mr Jack Tracey of Counsel, who was granted permission to appear on behalf of the Applicant (Dr Paladino) pursuant to s 596(2) of the Act, called Dr Paladino to give evidence. Mr Mark Felman of Counsel who was granted permission to appear on behalf of the University pursuant to s 596(2) called the following witnesses to give evidence; • Tessa Brinley – Case Management Officer in the Business Services Department of the University. • Wynand Bezuidenhout – Director Strategy, Planning and Resources in Faculty of Business and Economics (FBE). • Dr Andy Wear – Senior Lecturer in Higher Education in Williams Centre for Learning Advancement (WCLA) in the FBE. • Dr Camille Dickson-Deane – Senior Lecturer at University of Technology of Sydney (UTS). • Ms Jessica Kerr – Director Workplace Integrity for the University. • Professor Jamie Evans – Pro Vice-Chancellor (Students and Education) for the University. • Professor Nicola Phillips – Provost for the University. [2026] FWC 559 [Note: An appeal pursuant to s.604 (C2026/3831) was lodged against this decision.] DECISION -- 3 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 2 • Ms Catherine Pollard – Director Workplace Relations for the University. • Ms Genevieve Curtain – Director Human Resources in FBE. • Professor Paul Jensen – Deputy Dean of the FBE. Background Applicant’s employment [3] Dr Paladino commenced employment with the University in 1997 and during the course of her employment was engaged in the following roles; • in 1997 as a Sessional Casual employee; • from 1 January 2001 until 31 December 2001 as a Senior Tutor in the Department of Management and Marketing (DMM) (Academic, Level A); • from 1 January 2002 until 31 August 2007 as a Lecturer in the DMM (Academic, Level B); • from 1 September 2007 until 31 December 2009 as a Senior Lecturer in the DMM (Academic, Level D); • from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2015, as Associate Professor of Marketing; • from 1 July 2015 until 5 February 2025 as: (i) Director of the WCLA, in the FBE; and (ii) Professor in the FBE; • from 1 January 2023 until 31 December 2024, Dr Paladino also held the role of Deputy Vice-President of the University’s Academic Board; and • from 1 January 2025 until 5 February 2025, Dr Paladino also held the role of Vice- President of the University’s Academic Board. [4] Dr Paladino was employed pursuant to a contract of employment dated 2 April 20151 (the Contract of Employment) and at the time of her dismissal was covered by the University of Melbourne Enterprise Agreement 20242 (the Enterprise Agreement) which came into force on 10 April 2024. In her capacity as Vice President of the Academic Board, Dr Paladino was entitled to receive remuneration of $330,6693 as at the date of her dismissal. [5] Between January 2001 and 5 February 2025, Dr Paladino was employed to work in the FBE or its predecessor faculty. In July 2015 Dr Paladino became Director of the WCLA which is the only specialist centre within the FBE that is not embedded within one of the five departments (Economics, Accounting, Finance, Management and Marketing, and The Melbourne Institute) reporting to the Dean of the FBE. Dr Paladino in her role as Director of -- 4 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 3 the WCLA reported to the Deputy Dean of the FBE, who at the time of her dismissal was Professor Jensen4. [6] The WCLA was established in 2015 and is an independent centre. It provides support and professional development training for teachers and educators in the FBE. It does not teach or manage students; it is a repository for best practice in teaching and learning - both online and face to face and is responsible for supporting innovative teaching methods in the FBE. The WCLA employs academic and professional staff who report to the Director. The professional staff include administrative personnel who assist with the operation of the WCLA5. Investigation and Disciplinary Process [7] In the first half of 2023, formal complaints were made to the University’s HR team members about Dr Paladino by three employees of the University. On 30 June 2023, the University appointed an external investigator6 (Ms Diana Taylor AM of Diana Taylor Legal Consulting) to conduct an investigation into the complaints. On or around 5 September 2023, Dr Paladino attended a meeting with Professor Jensen and Yao Liu (Human Resources Business Partner - FBE), with Professor Karen Farquharson attending as Dr Paladino’s support person. At this meeting, Dr Paladino was informed that the University was commencing an investigation into complaints received against her7. [8] On 5 September 2023, Professor Jensen emailed8 Dr Paladino notifying her that the University had commenced an investigation into allegations against her, and that the Workplace Investigations team were finalising the allegations and would contact her regarding next steps. The email also notified Dr Paladino that she would be placed on interim arrangements and that Professor Jensen would contact her shortly to discuss these arrangements. The interim arrangements referred to were, that Dr Paladino was stood aside from her role of Director of the WCLA, while being able continue working in her capacity as a tenured Professor and as Deputy Vice-President of the Academic Board. On the same day, Professor Jensen emailed9 FBE staff announcing that Dr Paladino was on a leave of absence from her role as Director of the WCLA, and that any queries in relation to the matter were to be directed to himself or Professor Gahan. [9] On 18 October 2023, Dr Paladino emailed10 Jessica Kerr and requested information about the investigation. On 19 October 2023, Ms Kerr emailed11 Dr Paladino replying to Dr Paladino’s email dated 18 October 2023. On 27 October 2023, Dr Paladino sent another email12 to Ms Kerr attaching a letter with further questions about the investigation. On 30 October 2023, Ms Kerr replied13 to Dr Paladino’s email of 27 October 2023. On 1 November 2023, Dr Paladino emailed14 Ms Kerr again attaching a letter with further questions about the investigation. Further correspondence was then exchanged between Dr Paladino and Ms Kerr on 22 and 24 November 2023 in relation to the investigation. [10] On 27 November 2023, Ms Kerr sent an email15 to Dr Paladino to which was attached a letter setting out the allegations (Letter of Allegations). The Letter of Allegations stated that the University had engaged Ms Taylor to undertake an investigation and prepare a report, reach findings of fact about what occurred; and comment on whether any conduct constituted a breach of a workplace policy, standard or procedure. The letter stated that Ms Taylor would interview Dr Paladino and would contact her directly to arrange the interview. -- 5 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 4 [11] Various correspondence was then exchanged between Dr Paladino, Ms Kerr, and Ms Taylor in relation to the investigation. This included correspondence from Dr Paladino on 12 & 21 December 2023 and 18 January 202416 in which Dr Paladino raised further questions regarding the investigation including requesting identification of the complainants. Ms Kerr responded to the correspondence from Dr Paladino, including on 19 January 2024 when she confirmed that named individuals had provided their permission for their names to be included in the allegations17. [12] On 31 January 202418, Dr Paladino provided her initial written response to the allegations. In correspondence dated 20 February 202419, Ms Kerr wrote to Dr Paladino and asked when she would be available for an interview with Ms Taylor. Dr Paladino responded on 23 February 202420, inviting Ms Taylor to supply her with any additional questions and requesting that she receive advance notice of any questions. Dr Paladino also asked questions about the University’s preliminary assessment and the application of the Appropriate Workplace Behaviour Policy (AWB Policy). Ms Kerr responded on 26 February 202421 and offered to meet with Dr Paladino to discuss the investigation. She explained that the University did not consider it helpful to provide Dr Paladino with a copy of the complaints received and that allegations would be more appropriate, and that Ms Taylor would contact Dr Paladino and provide her with the questions she would like to ask. [13] On 12 March 202422, Ms Kerr again wrote to Dr Paladino stating she understood that Dr Paladino had some questions for her and asked whether Dr Paladino would prefer to meet in person or ask further questions via email. On 13 March 202423, Dr Paladino replied to Ms Kerr attaching a letter asking questions about the investigation. Ms Kerr then responded on 26 March 202424 advising that the questions raised in Dr Paladino’s 13 March 2024 correspondence were matters for Ms Taylor to coordinate. She stated that there was no procedural basis for Dr Paladino to not participate in an interview and requested she attend an interview with Ms Taylor, at one of two times proposed on either 5 or 10 April 2024. [14] On 28 March 202425, Dr Paladino submitted her supplementary response to questions she received from Ms Taylor. In providing her response, Dr Paladino advised Ms Taylor that she had endeavoured to respond to Ms Taylor’s questions. Dr Paladino asked Ms Taylor to send her any questions in relation to her supplementary response and requested that any questions be provided at least one week prior to any interview. Dr. Paladino noted that she was on approved leave on the interview dates suggested by Ms Kerr and stated she was available from 9-11am on 17 April to speak to Diana Talyor if this was suitable. On 5 April 202426, Diana Taylor sent an email to Dr Paladino acknowledging the supplementary response received, noting that she would follow up should she require it. [15] On 1 May 202427, Dr Paladino emailed Ms Curtain about the investigation, including asking why she was summarily suspended from her role as Director - WCLA. On 2 May 202428, Ms Curtain emailed Dr Paladino replying to her email of 1 May 2024 in which she stated that the Workplace Investigations team had been handling Dr Paladino’s matter since June 2023, that Dr Paladino was placed on interim workplace arrangements and advised to refrain from approaching or speaking to any staff members from the WCLA. In this email, Ms Curtain advised Dr Paladino that the investigator was finishing her report and that it was expected within a fortnight. -- 6 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 5 [16] On 15 May 2024, Dr Paladino emailed Ms Kerr to ask for confirmation of how long it would take the University to make a decision and whether it would be made in consultation with any other person. On 15 May 2024, Ms Kerr responded that it would likely take 2-3 weeks but may take slightly longer as it was over 180 pages, and Workplace Relations had the report and was considering the findings29. On 19 June 202430, Dr Paladino emailed Ms Kerr, attaching a letter dated 18 June 2024. In that letter, Dr Paladino raised several matters including her concerns at the delay in conclusion of the investigation, unanswered questions she had previously raised and the decision to put ‘interim arrangements’ in place that resulted in her removal as Director of the WCLA. On 24 June 2024, Ms Kerr sent a note stating that she would respond to Dr Paladino in due course. On 3 July 202431, Dr Paladino wrote to Ms Curtain seeking an update on the investigation outcome. [17] On 4 July 202432, Ms Curtain emailed Dr Paladino stating that she would shortly receive an invitation from Professor Kofman to attend a meeting to advise her of the outcome of the investigation. The investigation outcome meeting with Professor Kofman and Ms Curtain was held on 10 July 2024 to which Dr Paladino attended, accompanied by her support person, Professor Farquasson. Dr Paladino was informed at the meeting by Professor Kofman, amongst other things, that a finding of serious misconduct had been made against her33. On 10 July 2024 Ms Curtain emailed Dr Paladino, attaching a letter from Professor Kofman regarding the outcome of the initial investigation and provided Ms Taylor’s Summary of Investigation Findings34 (without attachments). The letter stated that ten allegations were substantiated and four allegations were partially substantiated against Dr Paladino, and it was the University’s view that Dr Paladino had engaged in serious misconduct. The email and the letter stated that Dr Paladino could seek a review of the University’s view of serious misconduct under the Enterprise Agreement. [18] On 17 July 202435, Dr Paladino emailed Ms Curtain requesting a review under clause 1.39.3.5 of the Enterprise Agreement. On 23 July 202436, Ms Pollard emailed Dr Paladino stating that the University had engaged Julian Riekert, Partner at Lander & Rogers, to conduct an impartial review of the University’s initial assessment of serious misconduct. [19] On 25 July 202437, Dr Paladino emailed Ms Curtain attaching a letter outlining further queries and requests in respect of the investigation. Dr Paladino relevantly asked for copies of the investigation report, any further communication between Ms Taylor and the University, the original complaints, witness statements, and notes from the meeting of 5 September 2023. Dr Paladino further requested the names of the person who edited the summary report, the original complainants, any new complainants, the decision-makers who decided to proceed to a full investigation, and all persons Professor Jensen had consulted with in relation to the interim arrangements decision. Dr Paladino also asked whether there was oversight of the investigation by the Vice Chancellor, Chief People Officer or Provost. [20] On 26 July 202438, Dr Paladino emailed Ms Pollard and raised concerns with the appointment of Mr Riekert. On 29 July 2024, Ms Pollard emailed Dr Paladino stating that the University did not necessarily agree that Mr Riekert lacked impartiality, but the University would nonetheless source an alternative reviewer. -- 7 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 6 [21] On 30 July 202439, Ms Kerr emailed Dr Paladino in reply to her email dated 25 July 2024. Ms Kerr relevantly stated that the summary report was drafted by the investigator and was the same as what any decision-maker would receive. Ms Kerr also stated that the University had provided Dr Paladino with allegations signed off by the complainants and that the University was not required to provide Dr Paladino with the original complaints. Ms Kerr confirmed that allegations were drafted on the basis of the interviews held. Ms Kerr advised of the circumstances in which new complainants may have been added, the process used to decide to investigate Dr Paladino, who approved the investigation and who had oversight of it. Ms Kerr confirmed that the University relied on the findings of the investigation. [22] On 7 August 202440, Dr Paladino emailed Professor Kofman attaching a letter of the same date refuting the finding of serious misconduct and setting out her concerns about the investigation. Later that day, Professor Kofman emailed Dr Paladino acknowledging receipt of her email and stating that he was overseas that week and would not be able to access the documents41. [23] On 12 August 202442, Ms Pollard emailed Dr Paladino stating that Amanda Junkeer, Partner at Gadens, had been appointed as the reviewer to conduct an impartial review of the University’s initial assessment of serious misconduct. On 3 September 202543, Dr Paladino emailed Ms Junkeer, attaching her submissions for Ms Junkeer’s review. [24] On 30 September 202444, Ms Kerr emailed Dr Paladino attaching a response to Dr Paladino’s letter dated 7 August 2024. Ms Kerr informed Dr Paladino that matters pertaining to the investigation were referred to Ms Kerr, the initial assessment of serious misconduct was referred to Ms Pollard for her consideration and response, and that matters pertaining to Human Resources and/or faculty actions were referred to Ms Curtain. On 8 October 202445, Dr Paladino emailed Ms Kerr in reply to her email of 30 September 2024 attaching a letter dated 7 October 2024. Dr Paladino relevantly stated that she was waiting for a response from Ms Junkeer and from Professor Kofman. [25] On 14 October 202546, Ms Junkeer delivered her review report dated 14 October 2025. The report relevantly found that none of the conduct considered in isolation was likely to be considered serious misconduct; but that the findings were properly based and that it was open to the University to find that Dr Paladino’s conduct, when assessed in totality, constituted serious misconduct47. [26] On 6 December 202448, Mr Sean Hogan (Executive Director - Workplace Relations) emailed Dr Paladino attaching a letter dated 5 December 2024, responding to matters raised in Dr Paladino’s letters to Ms Curtain dated 24 July 2024, to Professor Kofman dated 7 August 2024, and to Ms Kerr dated 7 October 2024. Mr Hogan relevantly stated that the University believed it had accorded Dr Paladino procedural fairness throughout both the initial investigation by Ms Taylor and the impartial review investigation conducted by Ms Junkeer and declined to provide Dr Paladino with any further material. [27] On 11 December 2024, a provisional decision to terminate Dr Paladino’s employment made by the University’s Provost, Professor Phillips, was communicated by Professor Kofman and Ms Curtain in a meeting with Dr Paladino. Dr Paladino was advised amongst other things, -- 8 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 7 of the outcome of the review investigation and that Professor Kofman was not the decision- maker in relation to the decision to terminate Dr Paladino’s employment49. [28] On 11 December 202450, Professor Phillips emailed Dr Paladino a letter, stating that: (a) the University was of the view that Dr Paladino’s conduct constituted serious misconduct; (b) the University intended to terminate Dr Paladino’s employment for serious misconduct; (c) the University proposed to pay Dr Paladino six months’ salary in lieu of notice; and (d) in accordance with the Enterprise Agreement and within 24 hours, Dr Paladino could provide any new personal or mitigating information not previously submitted to the University for final consideration. [29] Dr Paladino requested and was granted an extension of time until 9am on 16 December 2024 within which to respond51. [30] On 13 December 202452, Dr Paladino emailed Professor Phillips stating that she was exercising her rights pursuant to clause 1.42.8 of the Enterprise Agreement to initiate a dispute with respect to the proposed termination of her employment. On the same day, Dr Paladino also responded to Mr Hogan’s letter dated 5 December 202453. On 16 December 202454, Mr Hogan emailed Dr Paladino a copy of Ms Junkeer’s review report and confirmed that arrangements had commenced to convene a dispute committee (Dispute Committee) pursuant to clause 1.42.8 of the Enterprise Agreement. [31] On 9 January 202555, Ms Pollard emailed Dr Paladino stating the University had convened the Dispute Committee pursuant to clause 1.42.8 of the Enterprise Agreement. She advised Dr Paladino of the names of the Dispute Committee members and that Professor Evans would chair it. Ms Pollard’s email relevantly requested that Dr Paladino provide her written submissions and supporting material to the Dispute Committee by noon on 20 January 2025 and that the Dispute Committee would convene on 24 January 2025 at 2.00pm. [32] On 14 January 202556, Dr Paladino emailed Professor Evans raising that Professor Evans could have a perceived conflict of interest due to his close working relationship with Professors Jensen and Gahan. Dr Paladino also asked whether it was appropriate to include Ms Pollard in the email communication given she may be called to appear by the Dispute Committee, which she regarded as an ‘obvious conflict of interest.’ Dr Paladino also asked for information about the Dispute Committee process and requested a change in the meeting date so her support person could attend. [33] On 17 January 202557, Mr Hogan emailed Dr Paladino replying to her email to Professor Evans of 14 January 2025. Mr Hogan relevantly said that the University did not consider there to be a conflict of interest by way of Ms Pollard’s and Professor Evans’ involvement in the Dispute Committee. He further stated that the University did not propose to reschedule the meeting to accommodate the availability of Dr. Paladino’s support person and advised Dr Paladino of the arrangements for the Dispute Committee. -- 9 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 8 [34] On 20 January 202558, Professor Evans emailed Dr Paladino, Ms Pollard and the Dispute Committee, attaching the agenda for the Dispute Committee meeting. On 20 January 202559, Dr Paladino emailed the Dispute Committee to which she attached her written submissions. [35] On 24 January 2025, the Dispute Committee chaired by Professor Evans, convened via videoconference. Dr Paladino was not provided with a copy of the University’s written submissions to the Dispute Committee. Likewise, the University was not provided with a copy of Dr Paladino’s written submissions. The parties made oral submissions to the Dispute Committee in private sessions, which were not attended by the other party. The University was represented by Ms Pollard who appeared before the Dispute Committee after Dr Paladino. The Dispute Committee did not recall Dr Paladino to address or answer any questions arising from the University’s submissions60. [36] The Dispute Committee delivered a report dated 4 February 202561 that comprised six paragraphs dealing with a summary of the Dispute Committee discussion which relevantly found that, on balance, the process was fair, and the intended action of the University was supported by the evidence and was proportionate to the circumstances. [37] On 5 February 202562, Professor Phillips emailed Dr Paladino attaching a letter confirming Dr Paladino’s termination of employment (the Employment Termination Letter). The Employment Termination Letter relevantly stated the following; “…………… Serious Misconduct – Termination of Employment I refer to the letter dated 11 December 2024 (copy attached) where you were advised that the University of Melbourne (the University) had received complaints against you and, following an investigation process, formed the view that your behaviour constituted serious misconduct. Further you were advised that the University: • considered your conduct to be at odds with the University’s values, University policy, and the standards of behaviour the community expects from staff in a leading education institution; and • intended to terminate your employment (with payment of six months’ salary in lieu of notice), noting this decision is considered by the University to be proportionate to the seriousness of the matter, valid and defensible. On 11 December 2024, you were given the opportunity to provide new personal or mitigating information not previously provided for final consideration by the University in accordance with clause 1.39.8 of the University of Melbourne Enterprise Agreement 2024 (2024 Enterprise Agreement). On 13 December 2024, you raised a dispute in accordance with clause 1.42.8 of the 2024 Enterprise Agreement (Dispute). Based on the Dispute the University deferred the termination of employment pending the outcome of the Dispute process. -- 10 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 9 The Dispute Committee convened on Friday, 24 January 2025 at 2.00 pm to consider the Dispute raised by you. You were given the opportunity to provide the Dispute Committee with your submissions and supporting information regarding the disputed matters by way of written and verbal submissions and supporting material. The decision of the Dispute Committee is as follows: • the process was fair; • the intended action of the University was supported by the evidence; and • the intended action was proportionate to the circumstances. Based on the decision of the Dispute Committee, the University’s decision that your conduct is considered to be serious misconduct in accordance with the 2024 Enterprise Agreement and termination of employment (with payment of six months’ salary in lieu of notice) is valid, defensible and proportionate remains unchanged. I confirm that your employment is terminated effective today, 5 February 2025. ………….” Has Dr Paladino been dismissed? [38] A threshold issue to be determined in this matter is whether Dr Paladino has been dismissed from her employment. The circumstances in which a person is taken to be “dismissed” are set out in s 386 of the Act. Section 386(1) relevantly provides as follows: (1) A person has been dismissed if: (a) the person’s employment with his or her employer has been terminated on the employer’s initiative; or (b) the person has resigned from his or her employment, but was forced to do so because of conduct, or a course of conduct, engaged in by his or her employer. [39] Section 386(2) of the Act sets out circumstances where an employee has not been dismissed, none of which are presently relevant. There is no dispute, and I find that Dr Paladino’s employment with the University terminated at the initiative of the University. Initial matters [40] Having found that Dr Paladino was dismissed within the meaning of s 386(1) of the Act, I am now obliged under section 396 of the Act, to decide the following matters before considering the merits of the application: (a) whether the application was made within the period required in subsection 394(2); -- 11 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 10 (b) whether the person was protected from unfair dismissal; (c) whether the dismissal was consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code; and (d) whether the dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy. [41] Relevant to the determination of the preliminary matters I am satisfied that; • Dr Paladino was dismissed on 5 February 2025 and filed her unfair dismissal application on 19 February 2025, that latter date being within 21 days of the date of her dismissal; • at the time of Dr Paladino’s dismissal, the University employed approximately 10,000 employees and is therefore not a small business employer within the meaning of s 23 of the Act; • Dr Paladino commenced employment with the University in July 1997 and at the time of her dismissal, had been employed for a period of approximately 27.5 years, that period being more than the minimum employment period of six months; • Dr Paladino’s annual base remuneration was approximately $330,669 at the time of her dismissal and she was covered in her employment by the Enterprise Agreement; and • Dr Paladino was not dismissed due to the University no longer requiring her job to be performed by anyone because of changes in the operational requirements of the University’s enterprise. [42] Having considered each of the initial matters, I am satisfied that the application was made within the required period in subsection 394(2), Dr Paladino was a person protected from unfair dismissal, the small business fair dismissal code does not apply, and the dismissal was not a genuine redundancy. I am now required to consider the merits of the application, and it is to that I now turn. Was the dismissal harsh, unjust, or unreasonable? [43] Section 387 of the Act provides that, considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, the Commission must take into account: (a) whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person’s capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees); and (b) whether the person was notified of that reason; and (c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person; and -- 12 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 11 (d) any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal; and (e) if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person – whether the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal; and (f) the degree to which the size of the employer’s enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and (g) the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and (h) any other matters that the FWC considers relevant. Whether valid reason for the dismissal – s 387(a) [44] The University contends that Dr Paladino engaged in a pattern of inappropriate behaviour which, when viewed in totality, establishes a valid reason for the termination of her employment. It is submitted by the University that some conduct is more serious, some less so, but what emerges is a pattern of behaviour that created a culture and climate of fear in the WCLA; underpinned by abuse, disrespect, unjustified micromanagement, gaslighting, and the undermining and exploitation of academic leadership to whom Dr Paladino reported to. The University seeks to rely on a range of allegations, including those found to be substantiated and some found to be unsubstantiated in Ms Taylor’s investigation. There are also new allegations that were not subject to investigation by Ms Taylor and were not relied on by the University at the time of Dr Paladino’s dismissal. The University categorises the conduct into various subsets; behaviour that was rude and disrespectful, micromanaging and controlling, dishonest, divisive, insubordinate and bullying. The Applicant for her part rejects the University’s contentions in respect of whether the conduct occurred, or whether particular behaviour if it did occur was so serious as to establish a valid reason for her dismissal. [45] It is convenient at this point to list each of the allegations put against Dr Paladino and relied on by the University in these proceedings. The allegations listed below have been grouped together where they relate to a particular staff member or complainant. Where the allegation was subject to investigation by Ms Taylor, I have identified the Investigation Report (the IR) allegation number for cross referencing purposes. The allegations are as follows; 1. Telling Dr Wear that Dr Chia left the WCLA because Dr Johnston was hard to work with (IR 6(a)). 2. Sending Dr Wear an email that implied he had not been attending the office (IR 1(k)). 3. Telling Dr Johnston that Dr Wear had been talking negatively about her (IR 6(f)). -- 13 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 12 4. Refusing Dr Wear’s request for personal leave for fatigue and instead requiring him to take annual leave (IR 5(e)). 5. Telling Dr Wear he would not get people asking him whether he had a nice time overseas after every conference after he raised her failure to ask about the conference. 6. Telling Dr Wear that doors were open and people were laughing after he left, when he raised concerns about the Centre’s culture. 7. Failing to arrange a supervisory one-on-one meeting with Dr Wear for five months. 8. Telling Dr Wear to submit receipts for all items purchased on a work credit card when the University policy only requires receipts for purchases over $75. 9. Telling Dr Wear she had lost trust in him because he did not update her on changes to his annual leave plans. 10. Requiring Dr Wear to engage in an unnecessary and burdensome administrative process to extend his credit card limit where she could have approved the request herself. 11. Unreasonably berating Dr Wear for searching flights to Armenia. 12. Telling Ms Lowenstein that Ms Brinley had been complaining about her (IR 6(d)). 13. Contacting Ms Brinley during a period of leave to find a non-urgent receipt (IR 1(g)) 14. Failing to pay attention to or recall Ms Brinley’s personal information (IR 1(e) and (f)). 15. Making demeaning comments about Ms Brinley’s tattoos, hair and personal grooming (IR 1(b)). 16. Criticising Ms Brinley in front of her colleagues for sending too many emails after Dr Paladino told Ms Brinley to copy her into all emails. 17. Only allowing Ms Brinley to complete her asset management duties when Dr Paladino was physically present, which was infrequent and then requesting a status update on the task from Ms Brinley. 18. Repeatedly reminding Ms Brinley that she had once failed to send an email. 19. Misrepresenting to Ms Brinley that she could work full-time till the end of her contract. 20. Only informing Dr Johnston that she had cancelled her credit card the night before she was due to travel to a conference, and misrepresenting Dr Johnston’s participation in the conference to Mr Bezuidenhout and Professor Jensen (IR 3(b)). 21. Reprimanding Dr Johnston for trivial matters in a condescending way. -- 14 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 13 22. Misrepresenting to Professor Jensen and Dr Murawski that Dr Cotronei-Baird did not want to teach a subject called Street Finance unless she was paid an additional loading in circumstances where Dr Cotronei-Baird had told Dr Paladino otherwise (IR 2(d)). 23. Telling Professor Peter Gahan that Professor Jensen agreed any work on the Review would be put on hold until after she returned to her role, when she knew Professor Jensen had not agreed to this. 24. Firmly denying Professor Jensen raised a strategic review with her when she knew this was not true. 25. Failing to engage with the Review by not responding to requests for interviews or responding late in circumstances where she was required to participate. 26. Screaming at staff. 27. Telling Dr Dickson-Deane she did not see value in her work. 28. Making a disrespectful comment about Dr Dickson-Deane’s work ethic and sensitivity. 29. Subjecting Dr Dickson-Deane’s work to additional scrutiny not applied to other staff after Dr Dickson-Deane told her she did not want to be screamed at. 30. Belittling Dr Dickson-Deane’s invitation to be an editor of two journals. 31. Controlling Dr Dickson-Deane’s research and journal publication. 32. Requesting Dr Dickson-Deane finish work for the Centre after Dr Dickson-Deane’s employment ended and proposing to withhold her pay until it was completed. 33. Making snide remarks about Dr Corrin to the effect that she was stupid or did not know what she was doing. Witness Credit [46] As the University seeks to rely on the totality of its pressed allegations to establish a valid reason for Dr Paladino’s dismissal, it is necessary for me to consider and make findings in relation to each of the allegations. Before doing so, it is appropriate for me to deal with the credit of key witnesses. There are significant evidentiary conflicts between Dr Paladino and Dr Wear, Dr Dixon-Deane, and Ms Brinley and much of the witness evidence is unsupported by corroborating evidence. It is to the matter of witness credit I firstly turn. Dr Paladino [47] Dr Paladino presented as reserved and quietly spoken while giving evidence. She was subject to cross-examination that extended over three days of the hearing. The University submit that she was not a ‘witness of truth’ for reasons including; that she gave dishonest -- 15 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 14 evidence, was evasive in her responses, gave inconsistent evidence, gave manufactured evidence, and engaged in blame shifting. [48] Dealing firstly with the claimed blame shifting. I accept that Dr Paladino was critical of other parties involved in these proceedings, including those who made allegations against her or participated in the investigation and/or disciplinary process. That is entirely unremarkable in circumstances where many of the allegations initially made against her and investigated by Ms Taylor were unsubstantiated, or only partially substantiated. As will become apparent from my findings below, I have also found that the vast majority of allegations pressed in these proceedings were not established to the requisite satisfaction. Dr Paladino may be forgiven for feeling ill-treated in these circumstances. [49] The allegation of manufactured evidence is misconceived in my view. That is because of the large volume of material including fresh allegations that Dr Paladino was forced to confront in these proceedings. It is entirely normal for witnesses to provide fresh evidence during cross-examination in response to questioning. The fact that the evidence may not have been led as evidence in chief does not automatically lead to an assumption that it was ‘manufactured.’ None of the examples cited by the University persuades me that Dr Paladino was an unreliable witness. [50] Turning next to whether Dr Paladino was evasive in her responses. She was resolute in her denial of many of the allegations, which manifested at times in a reluctance to make concessions that could and should have been easily made. This at times required a series of follow up questions by both the University’s Counsel and the Commission to extract a direct response or an obvious concession. This reluctance to answer questions directly or make concessions may be explained by an unwillingness to make admissions or statements that damaged her case, in circumstances where her career and reputation was at stake. Even so, it was an unhelpful approach, that lessens the confidence that may be placed on her uncorroborated evidence. [51] Turning finally to the University submission that Dr Paladino gave dishonest evidence. The University cites a number of examples of dishonest evidence. Two of the matters referred to are dealt with below; Dr Paladino’s failure to notify Dr Johnston of her credit card cancellation, and her evidence that she did not ask Dr Dixon-Deane to complete work after she had left the WCLA. I have made findings in relation to both of those matters. In the latter case, Dr Paladino’s evidence was contradicted by documentary evidence which revealed she had requested completion of the work, a point she properly conceded when shown the relevant emails. The fact that Dr Paladino’s evidence was shown to be wrong does not make it dishonest, noting that the allegation related to an event that took place in 2019. As to Dr Paladino’s failure to notify Dr Johnston of the credit card cancellation I have made adverse findings below against Dr Paladino in relation to that conduct. As to the third matter raised by the Respondent, Dr Paladino’s evidence that she did not know why Professor Jensen held concerns over her holding dual roles was self-serving and unnecessary. A concession was ultimately made by Dr Paladino in response to prolonged questioning. [52] Having regard to the above, it is appropriate that I exercise caution in relying solely on Dr Paladino’s oral evidence, not because I regard Dr Paladino as a witness of poor credit, as I found her to be generally credible. It is the case that a large number of allegations have been -- 16 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 15 made against her over the course of the investigation initiated by the University, and in these proceedings. The sheer number of allegations, many of which were not pressed before the Commission, the aged nature of many of the allegations both pressed and withdrawn, the volume of hearsay evidence advanced and the lack of detail or specificity of when particular alleged events occurred require careful consideration of all relevant evidence. Dr Wear [53] Dr Wear commenced employment with the University on 18 October 2021 as a Senior Lecturer in Higher Education in the WCLA. He currently reports to Professor Gahan, Associate Dean – Teaching and Learning as the Director role in the WCLA is vacant. He formerly reported to Dr Paladino. [54] Dr Wear presented as reluctant to make concessions in his evidence, appeared overly sensitive in his dealings with Dr Paladino and inclined to make complaints about Dr Paladino without a reasonable basis to do so. See for example his reaction to his 2022 Performance Development Review (PDR) when he complained to HR, stating he was ‘insulted’ by it (the PDR). In his correspondence to HR, he went to great lengths to critique almost every comment in the extract provided from the PDR63. When cross-examined on the 2022 PDR, Dr Wear maintained that the general content of the PDR was insulting, that aspects of it were critical of him and was a poor example of a PDR64. Dr Wear also refused to accept that Dr Paladino made positive comments in the PDR including that Dr Wear was ‘tracking well,’ ‘continuing to develop’ and able to take on the peer mentoring lead at short notice.65 [55] A fair reading of Dr Wear’s 2022 PDR reveals that Dr Paladino made both positive comments about his performance and identified areas for focus and/or development. That with respect to Dr Wear is the desirable approach to be taken in a PDR. Dr Wear’s apparent reflex to view all of the comments as somehow critical of him reveals a strong prejudice against Dr Paladino. Dr Wear’s instinct to view any comments made by Dr Paladino in a less favourable light was tellingly exposed when Dr Wear sought to distinguish ‘feedback’ from receiving ‘acknowledgement’ when describing Dr Paladino’s comment that he took on the peer mentoring at short notice. When pressed, he agreed he held a view that he had not received enough ‘acknowledgement’ from Dr Paladino. Dr Wear’s view about his 2022 PDR was unreasonable and the fact that he felt compelled to raise a complaint about it reveals the prejudice and generally negative view he held towards Dr Paladino. [56] Dr Wear also failed to disclose in his evidence the contact he had with Dr Dixon-Deane in the lead-up to the proceedings. This was in circumstances where Dr Wear commenced at the University long after Dr Dixon-Deane had ceased her employment and Dr Wear had not otherwise worked with her. This only emerged when Dr Dixon-Deane was cross-examined, which occurred after Dr Wear had given his evidence. While Dr Wear was under no obligation to disclose his contact with Dr Dixon-Deane, his failure to do so raises questions about his lack of candour. [57] Some of Dr Wear’s evidence in relation to Dr Paladino was either wrong, which he was forced to accept when giving evidence, or generalised and non-specific in detail. Examples include; -- 17 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 16 • Dr Wear conceded that an email he claimed to have received from Dr Paladino on or around May 2023 in relation to the hiring of a new Office Administrator may have come from Ms Puglielli and not Dr Paladino66. • Dr Wear conceded that despite claiming in his witness statement that he ‘rarely’ received positive feedback or acknowledgement from Dr Paladino67, he had in fact received positive communication from Dr Paladino ‘from time to time.’68 and • Dr Wear also gave evidence of telephone conversations he held with Dr Paladino on or around August 2021 and September 2021 about the job he applied for at the WCLA. He stated that the tone of her communication in the first call made him feel as though he had asked a stupid question in relation to his job application. In respect of the second call when Dr Paladino rang to advise that his job application had been successful, he stated that her tone was not congratulatory.69 He accepted however during cross-examination that Dr Paladino had ‘warmly congratulated’ him on his appointment during the September 2021 phone call.70 [58] The above causes me to approach Dr Wear’s evidence in relation to Dr Paladino with caution. That is because Dr Wear discloses a negative and prejudiced view towards Dr Paladino and her communication with him. This in my view manifests in Dr Wear perceiving communication from and treatment by Dr Paladino in a negative light, whether justified or not. Dr Dixon-Deane [59] Dr Dixon-Deane is a Senior Lecturer at UTS, a Deputy Head of School Research, and a member of the School of Professional Practice and Leadership (the School). Between June 2016 and July 2019, she was employed by the University on a fixed term basis as a Lecturer / Educational Designer in the WCLA. [60] In my observation, Dr Dixon-Deane held a negative and vindictive view of Dr Paladino which was likely to colour her evidence. See for example the concessions she made during cross-examination about the prospect of Dr Paladino being reinstated. Her comments included that she would be ‘somewhat angered’, or a ‘little bit angered’ and reinstatement ‘would not make [Dr Dixon-Deane] feel good about it’ and that she wanted her own concerns about her treatment by Dr Paladino noted.71 She also expressed the view that Dr Paladino should not have any staff reporting to her if she were reinstated.72 However, this expression of concern at the prospect of Dr Paladino’s reinstatement, needs to be seen in the context of Dr Dixon-Deane having left her employment with the University in 2019. [61] Dr Dixon-Deane also displayed a lack of candour in her evidence on a critical point, that of her contact with Dr Wear prior to her giving evidence in these proceedings. When initially questioned about whether she knew Dr Wear, she responded that she had ‘heard the name.’73 She then conceded when pressed that she was ‘remembering something now’74 before then recalling her first contact with Dr Wear was at a conference75 and that she may have subsequently exchanged text messages with him76. She finally conceded that it was possible she had a Zoom meeting with Dr Wear in the semester following her initial meeting with him and that they discussed Dr Paladino.77 -- 18 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 17 [62] Further, Dr Dixon-Deane’s memory appeared selective and unreliable. For example, she was unable to recall who had contacted her in relation to these proceedings only a few weeks prior to the hearing78. Her unreliable memory, or lack of candour, was also on display in relation to the above-described contact with Dr Wear. Her attempt to explain her lack of recollection of communication with Dr Wear as due to the unimportance of that communication79 was utterly unconvincing in circumstances where she displayed a detailed recollection of matters relating to Dr Paladino that had allegedly occurred over six years previously. Her explanation that she only remembered bad things, not good things80, was similarly unconvincing. [63] Finally, Dr Dixon-Deanes evidence relates to events that took place between June 2016, when she commenced employment with the University in the WCLA, and up until her departure in July 2019. The evidence relates to events, that even if they did occur, occurred several years ago; which calls in to question both the quality of recollection of events and what if any weight should be given to what are ‘stale’ events. It also does not appear that Dr Dixon-Deane regarded her concerns about Dr Paladino as so serious as to warrant a formal complaint. For example, her allegation that Dr Paladino ‘screamed’ at staff, which is dealt with below, which was not raised by her or any other staff member at the time despite her agreeing it was a serious allegation. [64] All of the above causes me to approach Dr Dixon-Deane’s evidence with caution. Ms Brinley [65] Ms Brinley is employed by the University as a Case Management Officer in the Workplace Accessibility and Injury Support Team in the University’s Health and Safety Services Team which is within the University’s Business Services department. She has been in that role since 29 June 2023. Immediately prior to moving into her current role, Ms Brinley was employed in the role of Office Administrator in the WCLA on a fixed term basis, that being her first role with the University. [66] Ms Brinley was not an impressive witness and as such I also treat her evidence with some caution unless supported by corroborating documentary or witness evidence. Ms Brinley was not a candid or honest witness. During her cross-examination she conceded making false statements to Dr Paladino in December 2022 about receipts said by Ms Brinley to be located on her desk. In making the statement in an email to Dr Paladino, Ms Brinley knew the receipts were in fact, not on her desk.81 Ms Brinley also conceded during cross-examination that some of her evidence on both the occurrence and timing of a phone call with Dr Paladino on 20 December 2022 was wrong, the concession only being made after she was pressed repeatedly.82 [67] It is also apparent that Ms Brinley harboured some antipathy towards Dr Paladino, a point she conceded during cross-examination.83 When pressed on her negative view of Dr Paladino she was evasive in responding to questioning on whether she had referred to Dr Paladino as a ‘bitch’.84 That evasiveness was unconvincing in light of her strong rejection of the proposition put to her that she had been critical of other staff members within the WCLA85 and the clear recollections in her evidence of various communication with Dr Paladino during the time that Ms Brinley worked in the WCLA. -- 19 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 18 [68] Having considered witness credit, it is appropriate to now turn to the various allegations put against Dr Paladino in these proceedings. Allegation 1 - Telling Dr Wear that Dr Chia left the WCLA because Dr Johnston was hard to work with (IR 6(a)). [69] Dr Wear states that during a conversation between he and Dr Paladino over Dr Johnston and the DTE Program during Semester 2 in 2022, he disclosed to Dr Paladino that Dr Johnston was hard to work with, to which Dr Paladino responded, ‘That is why Austin Chia left’.86 The University submits that corroborating evidence that this comment was made by Dr Paladino can be found in the statements made by other staff within the WCLA to Ms Taylor during her formal investigation into Dr Paladino’s alleged conduct. Specifically, Dr Chia and Dr Cotronei- Baird are said by the University to have referred to the alleged comment during their interview with Ms Taylor87. [70] For her part, Dr Paladino denies making such a statement88 and refers to having sent an email to staff at the time Dr Chia left the WCLA on 25 June 2021, which was prior to Dr Wear commencing employment in the WCLA89. The email referred to Dr Chia leaving the WCLA to pursue a private industry career. [71] The statements made by Dr Chia and Dr Cotronei-Baird during Ms Taylor’s investigation are of some assistance. Dr Chia reported to Ms Taylor of having received a phone call after he left the WCLA from a ‘very distressed staff member’ claiming to have ‘heard a rumour or heard from someone else within the Centre that Angela (Dr Paladino) said that I left because of them.’ Dr Chia confirmed in response to questioning by Ms Taylor during his interview that the person he spoke with was Dr Johnston. Dr Cotronei-Baird claims in her statement to Ms Taylor that Dr Johnston came into her office visibly upset and disclosed to her that Dr Paladino had said to her (Dr Johnston) that Dr Chia had left because of her. Curiously, Dr Johnston when interviewed by Ms Taylor made no such claim that Dr Paladino had told her directly that Dr Chia left because of her (Dr Johnston)90. [72] Dr Cotronei-Baird, Dr Chia and Dr Johnston were not called to give evidence and as such limited weight can be placed on the hearsay evidence relied on, a point conceded by the University in its closing submission. Nevertheless, the fact that the issue was raised by both Dr Chia and Dr Cotronei-Baird during their interviews with Ms Taylor does support Dr Wear’s evidence that the comment was made by Dr Paladino in her conversation with Dr Wear in 2022. This of course invites a conclusion that the comment made by Dr Paladino about the reason for Dr Chia’s departure was passed on by Dr Wear to colleagues following his conversation with Dr Paladino. The irony is not lost on me that Dr Wear complains of Dr Paladino’s breach of confidentiality in respect of other matters discussed between them, yet he seems to have engaged in the same behaviour that he was so critical of, that of disclosing a matter discussed privately between himself and Dr Paladino. [73] I have the competing evidence of Dr Wear and Dr Paladino as to what was said by Dr Paladino in the conversation between them. Dr Paladino denies having made the comment while Dr Wear was equally adamant that she did. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Dr Paladino made such a comment. I prefer Dr Wear’s evidence because of the supporting comments made by Dr Chia and Dr Cotronei-Baird during Ms Taylor’s investigation. The latter -- 20 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 19 statements made to Ms Taylor during her investigation suggests that Dr Wear disclosed to at least one of his colleagues the exchange between he and Dr Paladino at some point before the matter was raised in Ms Taylor’s investigation. [74] I am satisfied that Dr Paladino made a comment to Dr Wear during a conversation in semester 2 in 2022 to the effect that Dr Chia left the WCLA because of Dr Johnston. The comments were made in the context of a disclosure by Dr Wear to Dr Paladino that he found it difficult to work with Dr Johnston. While Dr Paladino may have been well placed to comment on the reasons for a subordinate’s departure, she should not have done so to Dr Wear who was a subordinate of Dr Paladino and a colleague of Dr Johnston. The comment was unnecessary and inappropriate as it related to both a current and former staff member’s working relationship. That was none of Dr Wear’s business. While inappropriate, and unnecessary; the comment does not in itself rise to the level of misconduct that would establish a valid reason, it is appropriate to weigh it with any other adverse findings made in relation to Dr Paladino’s conduct. Allegation 2 - Sending Dr Wear an email that implied he had not been attending the office (IR 1(k)). [75] This allegation related to an email sent by Dr Paladino to Dr Wear on 10 May 2023 which stated as follows; “Hi Andy, Just checking in to see if you are feeling okay? You seem to be coming in on average one/two days per week for the past three weeks. Just wanting to check if you need any support with anything? Let me know when you can, Angela”91 [76] Dr Wear responded shortly after receiving Dr Paladino’s email on 10 May 2023 in the following terms; “Hi Angela, I’ll be in 3 days this week (4 if you include this evening’s TBE Follow-up Session) and was in 4 days the last two weeks! I’m guessing we just haven’t crossed paths! All good here. Cheers”92 [77] Dr Wear gave evidence that he had been working in the office a lot at that time and did not accept Dr Paladino’s explanation that she was concerned about his health or that she thought he was not in the office because his keys were not in his office door. Dr Wear says he took Dr Paladino’s email as inferring he was ‘skiving off,’ that it was a veiled attempt at monitoring where and when he was working and was viewed by him as an example of Dr Paladino’s -- 21 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 20 controlling behaviour. Dr Wear says he was also conscious that the University had implemented an initiative to get staff back to the office and read the email as a criticism of him for working from home93. [78] For her part, Dr Paladino denied the email was sent as a means of checking up on Dr Wear because of the University’s working from home policy94, or that she was implying that he was ‘skiving off’95. She went on to explain that Dr Wear failed to make mention in his evidence of a medical incident on 20 April 2023,when Dr Wear had suffered chest pains which caused him to leave work and attend an emergency department. She points out that an incident report for that event was logged on 8 May 2023. Significantly, her email was sent only two days later, underlining that her concern was for Dr Wear’s well-being, evidenced further by her raising the matter during a subsequent check-in meeting96. [79] While Dr Wear ascribed a negative motive on the part of Dr Paladino in sending her email to him on 10 May 2023, I am unable to accept Dr Wear’s subjective view of Dr Paladiono’s motives for the reasons I have set out above in dealing with Dr Wear’s credit. I found Dr Paladino’s evidence and explanation for the email to be credible. The fact that the Applicant may have been attending the office more regularly at the time then was observed by Dr Paladino does not mean Dr Paladino’s email was sent with a negative intent. The inference Dr Wear draws is neither reasonable in my view, nor supported by the evidence in circumstances where Dr Paladino strenuously denied the imputed motive for her email. It follows that the allegation that the email constituted rude or disrespectful behaviour towards Dr Wear is not sustained. Allegation 3 - Telling Dr Johnston that Dr Wear had been talking negatively about her (IR 6(f)). [80] Dr Wear gave evidence that during a conversation with Dr Paladino in Semester 2 2022, he and Dr Paladino discussed his working relationship with Dr Johnson who was a colleague of Dr Wear. He says he advised Dr Paladino that he enjoyed working with Dr Johnson but that the program (the DTE Program) she ran seemed complex and overengineered. Dr Paladino was said to have agreed and stated that it (the DTE Program) was not complex or over-engineered when she had run it97. Dr Wear further states that shortly after this conversation, he observed his relationship with Dr Johnston became increasingly ‘frosty’ with her responses to him becoming terse, abrupt, and strained. In further conversations with Dr Paladino at the time, Dr Wear raised the issue of his deteriorating relationship with Dr Johnston and the need for some kind of project management for the DTE Program, which Dr Paladino agreed with and encouraged him to discuss with Dr Johnston98. [81] Dr Wear says he then had direct discussions with Dr Johnston on or about 13 May 2022 during which Dr Johnston advised she had been harangued by Dr Paladino over how complex and over engineered the DTE Program was. Dr Wear states Dr Johnston also told him that Dr Paladino had told her that he (Dr Wear) had raised the issues of the complexity and over- engineered nature of the DTE Program with Dr Paladino, knowledge of which had caused Dr Johnston to become frosty towards Dr Wear. He says Dr Johnston further explained to him during their conversation that Dr Paladino had in fact imposed more onerous reporting requirements which had pushed Dr Johnston into creating a more complex system of running the DTE Program99. -- 22 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 21 [82] Dr Wear states that he was upset by his conversations with Dr Johnston because it became obvious to him that Dr Paladino was giving different information to him and Dr Johnston. He states this led him to feel that he could not trust Dr Paladino with confidential or personal information because she might share it with colleagues100. [83] While not accepting that she had asked Dr Wear at any stage about his relationship with Dr Johnston, Dr Paladino agreed during cross-examination that Dr Wear had commented during a meeting on the complexity of Dr Johnson’s DTE Program and that it seemed overengineered. She denied stating to Dr Wear that the DTE Program was not complex when she (Dr Paladino) had run it because she had never run the DTE Program in question. She accepted that Dr Wear may have said that Dr Johnston was ‘hard to work with’ and that in a further conversation they agreed on the need for project management of the DTE Program when the issue was raised by Dr Wear and she encouraged him to discuss any issues over the DTE Program directly with Dr Johnston. Dr Paladino denied both disclosing to Dr Johnston the comments Dr Wear made to Dr Paladino about the DTE Program or imposing more onerous requirements on Dr Johnston in running the DTE Program that made it more complex. She did, however, agree that she had advised Dr Johnston that the level of detail that she had sought to add was not particularly helpful101. [84] Dr Paladino also gave evidence that in her catch-up meetings with Dr Johnston, Dr Johnston raised her own concerns with what she described as Dr Wear’s Laissez Faire approach to tasks. Dr Paladino states that she spoke separately to Dr Wear and Dr Johnston as their line manager as it was her role to encourage them to work co-operatively102. [85] The evidence of Dr Wear and Dr Paladino differs significantly in respect of what Paladino is said to have stated to Dr Johnston following a conversation between Dr Wear and Dr Paladino regarding Dr Johnston’s DTE Program. In essence, Dr Wear claims that Dr Paladino disclosed to Dr Johnston, Dr Wear’s private criticism of Dr Johnston running of the DTE program. This, he claims, caused a deterioration in his relationship with Dr Johnston and for him to lose trust in Dr Paladino’s confidentiality. While accepting she made comments to Dr Johnston about unhelpful additions made to the DTE Program, Dr Paladino denied disclosing Dr Wear’s criticisms to Dr Johnston. [86] The University submits that Dr Wear’s version of events should be accepted because he was a ‘witness of truth’; ‘Dr Paladino was ‘not a witness of truth’ and that Dr Paladino’s written and oral evidence was inconsistent. The University argues that Dr Paladino admitted in her written evidence that she had discussed the DTE Program’s complexity with Dr Johnston but gave different evidence during cross-examination. I do not agree with the University’s characterisation of Dr Paladino’s evidence on this latter point. In her written evidence she confirms that she spoke with Dr Johnston about content she added to the DTE Program not being user friendly103, evidence which she confirmed during cross-examination. I find no tension between Dr Paladino’s written and oral evidence on this point. [87] As to the respective witness credit of Dr Wear and Dr Paladino, for the reasons previously set out, there is no basis to generally prefer the evidence of Dr Paladino or Dr Wear over the other in the case of the conversation regarding Dr Johnston and the DTE Program. Ultimately, the absence of direct evidence from Dr Johnston does not assist me resolve the evidentiary conflict between Dr Paladino and Dr Wear as to what was or was not said to Dr -- 23 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 22 Johnston by Dr Paladino. The only direct evidence of that conversation is that of Dr Paladino, who steadfastly denies having disclosed Dr Wear’s criticisms of the DTE Program to Dr Johnston. In the absence of any corroborating evidence, I find that the allegation that Dr Paladino engaged in divisive behaviour by disclosing negative comments made by Dr Wear to Dr Johnston is not sustained. [88] For the sake of completeness, even if I had found Dr Paladino had disclosed Dr Wear’s concerns of complexity and overengineering of the DTE Program to Dr Johnston, I would not find that disclosure constituted divisive behaviour, particularly where Dr Wear was critical of the DTE Program’s complexity and overengineering. Disclosure of Dr Wear’s concerns might rise to the level of indiscreet or ill-judged feedback from Dr Paladino and if so, it would be worthy of feedback and coaching. It would not in isolation establish misconduct, let alone serious misconduct in my view. Allegation 4 - Refusing Dr Wear’s request for personal leave for fatigue and instead requiring him to take annual leave (IR 5(e)). [89] Dr Wear gave evidence that before travelling to the UK for the BERA Conference in 2022, he discussed with Dr Paladino what to do if he was too tired to work on the Monday immediately following his long-distance flight return. He states that Dr Paladino said words to the effect that he should submit a personal or annual leave application, which led him to believe that either personal leave or annual leave could be used for such an absence.104 He travelled to the UK on 4 September 2022 and arrived back in Australia at 6.45am on Monday 12 September 2022. He says he felt very jet lagged on his return having not slept on the flight and submitted an application for one day of personal leave for Monday 12 September 2022. He subsequently received an email that his application for personal leave had been refused with a comment made by Dr Paladino that she was ‘returning this for correction as requested.’ Dr Wear subsequently resubmitted the application as annual leave which was approved.105 [90] Dr Paladino was unable to recall the conversation referred to by Dr Wear that was said to have occurred prior to his departure to the BERA Conference but stated that Dr Wear was consistently told to take sick leave if he was ill and other leave if there was no illness involved106. Dr Paladino also referred during Ms Taylor’s investigation to advice given by Professor Jensen to Dr Wear in the previous year in relation to the same issue in dealing with expectations in respect of overseas travel, in response to which Dr Wear agreed to be clearer in his communication. It is also the case that Dr Wear elected to take an additional day beyond the conclusion of the conference on 9 September 2025 before returning to Australia. He was notified by Dr Paladino on 30 September 2025 that the additional day would need to be taken as annual leave107. [91] Dr Paladino also stated during Ms Taylor’s investigation that after receiving the personal leave application from Dr Wear, she discussed it with him and given he agreed he was not sick, Dr Paladino requested he resubmit the application as annual leave.108 Dr Wear failed to mention this conversation in his evidence. [92] I am satisfied that Dr Wear was previously advised by Professor Jensen of the circumstances in which he could claim personal leave. He was not suffering an illness on his -- 24 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 23 return from the BERA conference, a point that was discussed between he and Dr Paladino on 13 September 2022. I see no tension between Dr Wear’s understanding that he would be entitled to claim either personal or annual leave for the day with Dr Paladino’s view that he would be entitled to personal leave if he were ill but could otherwise apply for annual leave. The requirement imposed by Dr Paladino that Dr Wear submit an annual leave application rather than a personal leave application, does not constitute controlling or micromanaging behaviour in my view. The allegation that Dr Paladino’s refusal of the personal leave request constituted misconduct that would support a finding of valid reason for her dismissal is not sustained. Allegation 5 - Telling Dr Wear he would not get people asking him whether he had a nice time overseas after every conference after he raised her failure to ask about the conference. [93] Dr Wear states that on his return from the BERA Conference in September 2022, he had a conversation with Dr Paladino about his conference trip during which he questioned Dr Paladino why she had not asked Dr Wear how the conference went. He states Dr Paladino replied with words to the effect, ‘This is not how it happens here. You’re not going to get people saying to you every time you go overseas, did you have a nice time.’109 Dr Wear agreed during cross examination that he may have shared his BERA Conference experience at a team meeting where Dr Paladino was present. [94] Dr Paladino states that she and Dr Wear discussed the BERA Conference and the ‘rounds of the table’ section at staff meetings were also used to allow staff to provide updates to the rest of the team on work and conference matters. During cross-examination she denied using the words claimed to have been made by her during a conversation with Dr Wear about the BERA Conference.110 [95] While neither party advanced corroborating evidence, I prefer Dr Wear’s evidence. It was clear and unequivocal while Dr Paladino did not address Dr Wear’s evidence on this point directly in her lengthy reply witness statement, other than to confirm she had discussed the conference with Dr Wear on his return111. When cross-examined on the claimed statement to Dr Wear, she replied, ‘No, it wouldn’t have been that.’ Dr Paladino’s response during cross- examination was more equivocal than a denial of the conversation, which at the least suggests she could not recall what was said in the conversation. I am satisfied that Dr Paladino made the statement to Dr Wear as claimed by Dr Wear. [96] I am satisfied that Dr Paladino made the statement to Dr Wear as claimed by Dr Wear. While the comment demonstrated an insensitivity on the part of Dr Paladino, I do not accept the comment was rude or disrespectful and would not in isolation establish misconduct, let alone serious misconduct. Allegation 6 - Telling Dr Wear that doors were open and people were laughing after he left when he raised concerns about the Centre’s culture. [97] Dr Wear states that a facilitated discussion with Dr Paladino was conducted by Lindsay Newton (HR Business Partner – FBE) on 3 November 2022 to assist in resolving concerns Dr Wear held in relation to Dr Paladino’s behaviour. He states that during the course of that discussion Dr Paladino responded to Dr Wear’s concerns over the workplace culture by saying words to the effect that ‘When you were in Liverpool, the doors were open and people were in -- 25 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 24 the corridors laughing, but only after you left.’ Dr Paladino while not addressing Dr Wear’s evidence in her reply witness statement, denied during cross-examination that the alleged comment was made. The University did not call evidence from Ms Newton which is unfortunate as such evidence would have assisted to resolve the evidentiary conflict between Dr Wear and Dr Paladino on the discussion. The failure to call Dr Newton is surprising given the nature of the alleged comments made by Dr Paladino during the facilitated conversation that Ms Newton was witness too. [98] In circumstances where Dr Paladino flatly denied using the words attributed to her, where the dialogue was Dr Wear’s re-construction of a discussion that took place some three years ago and where an independent witness to that discussion was not called to give evidence, I am not satisfied that the University has established the comment was made as alleged. It follows that the allegation is not sustained. Allegation 7 - Failing to arrange a supervisory one-on-one meeting with Dr Wear for five months. [99] Dr Wear states that Dr Paladino failed to hold a supervision meeting with him from 15 December 2021 to May 2022, which he says he raised in an email to Dr Paladino on or around May 2022. He further states that he received a reply to the effect that Ms Puglielli arranges meetings, that Dr Paladino did not apologise or express any concern that no meeting had been held for several months; and that instead of acknowledging the issue, appeared to blame Ms Puglielli.112 Under cross-examination, Dr Wear agreed that meetings between he and Dr Paladino did take place during the first five months of his employment,113 but then distinguished those meetings as not being one on one meetings dealing with his ‘development and growth’114 [100] Dr Paladino disagreed with Dr Wear’s evidence regarding the scheduling of regular meetings. She states that monthly meetings were held and that her recollection was that she engaged with Dr Wear when they were both in the office and his door was open. She further states that a one-on-one meeting took place on 14 December 2021, and after she returned from leave, further meetings took place on 19 January 2022, 10 March 2022, 16 March 2022, and 5 April 2022. Dr Paladino believes there was no one-on-one meeting scheduled in February 2022 which she recalls Dr Wear raising in the March 2022 PDR meeting. She further states that when the issue of scheduling of meetings was raised with her, it was addressed immediately, and she apologised for the oversight115. During cross-examination, Dr Paladino confirmed that the meetings she referred to were one-on-one meetings116. [101] The University contends that Dr Paladino’s evidence was inconsistent because at a later point in her reply witness statement, she refers to ‘informal catch-ups over coffee’ with staff to allow discussion of matters that were important to them. Dr Paladino states that these catch-ups were arranged as part of good leadership practice and had been the process she had used since she commenced as a Director of the WCLA.117 The University also contends that Dr Paladino was being dishonest in her statement that meetings took place on 10 and 16 March 2022, although did not advance the basis for claiming she was being dishonest. [102] It appears to me that Dr Paladino and Dr Wear had a different view as to the nature of the catch-up meetings they held. Dr Wear concedes that meetings were held although his view is that those meetings were not in the form that constituted one-on-one meetings that allowed -- 26 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 25 discussion of his development and growth. Dr Paladino for her part appears to characterise the informal catch-ups she held with staff as meetings. In circumstances where there were meetings held between Dr Paladino and Dr Wear in the relevant period, even though there is a disagreement over the nature of those meetings, I am not satisfied the allegation is sustained. [103] In any case, to the extent there may have been deficiencies in the conduct of meetings between December 2021 and May 2022, those deficiencies were remedied. In those circumstances, I am not satisfied that the allegation, even if sustained, constitutes misconduct that would establish a valid reason for dismissal. Allegation 8 - Telling Dr Wear to submit receipts for all items purchased on a work credit card when the University policy only requires receipts for purchases over $75. [104] Dr Wear states that around the time he was planning his BERA Conference attendance, Dr Paladino told him he was required to keep receipts for every expense he incurred and to upload the receipts to the Themis system, the internal financial management program (Themis). He states he formed the viewed based on this and earlier conversations that the University policy required all receipts to be uploaded to Themis. He says he was also aware that Dr Paladino closely monitored all expenses that staff placed on their credit cards, which he says was based on advice he received from Dr Calma.118 On his return from the BERA Conference, Dr Wear uploaded all his expenses to Themis which was an onerous process because he had to upload every receipt with a description of the expense. He states that most of the expenses were under $75 which he subsequently established by talking to Finance were not required as only expenses over $75 needed to be uploaded.119 When cross-examined, Dr Wear maintained his evidence that he had been told by Dr Paladino to upload all receipts.120 [105] Dr Paladino denied having stated to Dr Wear that he was required to keep and upload all receipts for his conference attendance and confirmed that only expenses over $75 were required to be kept and uploaded. Dr Paladino then referred to credit card training Dr Wear would have received.121 Relevantly, Dr Paladino also sent an email sent to Dr Wear on 30 September 2022 that specifically referred to credit card training undertaken on commencement of employment and that Finance were able to assist via the Service Now platform.122 [106] While neither party provided a copy of the relevant policy or of training that Dr Wear may have undertaken in use of credit cards when he commenced employment, it appears uncontroversial that only expenses that exceed $75 are required to be uploaded onto Themis. That ought to have been apparent to Dr Wear given he had commenced employment only 10 months before his BERA Conference attendance in September 2022. I note that Dr Wear did not contend in his evidence that he had not received training in credit card use. Moreover, Dr Paladino specifically referred to that training and the availability of Finance to assist Dr Wear immediately prior to his departure for the BERA Conference. [107] In the above circumstances I find it inherently implausible that Dr Paladino would have made a statement to Dr Wear that was demonstrably wrong, which would have been understood by Dr Wear to be wrong if he had done the credit card training on commencement of employment and where Dr Paladino specifically referred Dr Wear to Finance for assistance in relation to his expenses immediately before his overseas departure. For these reasons I prefer -- 27 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 26 the evidence of Dr Paladino that no such statement was made to Dr Wear that he was required to upload all expenses regardless of the value. The allegation is not sustained. Allegation 9 - Telling Dr Wear she had lost trust in him because he did not update her on changes to his annual leave plans. [108] Dr Wear states he requested annual leave on or about 22 May 2022 for the purpose of visiting his grandmother in Queensland and having a break with his wife. His request for leave was approved by Dr Paladino. Shortly before Dr Wear’s approved leave commenced, his grandmother’s retirement home was ‘locked down’ and his parent’s house was flooded. Dr Wear states he consequently changed his plans and took a holiday to Thailand instead which he advised Dr Paladino of on his return from leave, to which he says Dr Paladino responded by saying the holiday sounded amazing and raised no other concerns.123 During the previously referred to discussion with Dr Paladino on 3 November 2022 facilitated by Ms Newton, Dr Wear states Dr Paladino made a comment to the effect that ‘Andy went on holiday to Thailand, when he previously told me that he was visiting his grandmother, I completely lost trust in him.’124 [109] In cross-examination, Dr Wear agreed that he had told Dr Paladino that he was going to visit his sick grandmother in Qld, agreed that his approved leave fell within a busy period at the University and that his change in travel arrangements was not communicated to Dr Paladino before he went on leave. Dr Wear rejected that his failure to advise of his changed travel plans to Dr Paladino disclosed a lack of frankness or that he had ‘been caught out’ by Dr Paladino.125 [110] Dr Paladino in her evidence responded that Dr Wear had not accurately portrayed the circumstances relating to the Thailand holiday, its timing, and the impact of his absence on colleagues. She states that Dr Wear requested urgent leave at short notice at a very busy time for the tutor program for which he was a ‘leading component.’ Dr Paladino further states that she told Dr Wear that the University’s expectation was that academics do not usually take a holiday when it is a busy time such as at semester commencement. She further stated that Dr Wear explained to her that he wanted to see his sick grandmother as he may not have another opportunity to do so. Dr Paladino approved the leave and asked Dr Wear to speak to the team to see if they were able to support his absence and to note what support the team would need from Dr Paladino.126 Dr Paladino says she was surprised to be subsequently advised by Dr Wear that he had taken a holiday to Thailand when he called her to advise he had contracted COVID- 19 and had missed his return flight. This, according to Dr Paladino, placed additional pressure on the team.127 Following approval of the leave and prior to his departure on leave, Dr Wear did not advise Dr Paladino in writing or verbally that his leave plans had changed.128 [111] During her cross-examination, Dr Paladino gave the following evidence; • denied using the words that she had lost trust in Dr Wear during the facilitated discussion with Ms Newton;129 • agreed that the Thailand trip was discussed during the facilitated discussion, could not remember the context of the conversation but denied she was unhappy with Dr Wear;130 • confirmed that the team had to scramble to cover Dr Wear’s leave absence;131 -- 28 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 27 • could recall Dr Wear telling her on his return from leave that he had changed his travel plans and gone to Thailand instead because his grandmother’s retirement home was locked down but could not recall responding to Dr Wear to the effect that the trip sounded amazing;132 and • believed she had made a file note of her conversation with Dr Wear during which she approved his leave and that it was probably in her notebook, but she did not include a copy in her materials because of the volume of material. She did attach the relevant email dated 22 May 2022, in which she communicated her leave approval decision to Dr Wear.133 [112] I am satisfied that Dr Paladino approved Dr Wear’s leave request at short notice even though the leave fell within a busy period and placed pressure on Dr Wear’s colleagues, of which Dr Wear was aware. The leave was approved because of the personal circumstances advanced by Dr Wear in his discussions with Dr Paladino, being in part because of his desire to visit his sick grandmother as he may not get another chance to do so. In these circumstances, Dr Wear’s lack of candor with Dr Paladino about his changed circumstances in the lead up to the leave is surprising and, in my view, reflects poorly on Dr Wear. [113] Dr Paladino while denying during cross-examination that she was annoyed at Dr Wear when she became aware of the Thailand trip, was entitled to question Dr Wear’s transparency given the background to the leave approval. She should have raised that concern directly with Dr Wear at the time of his return from leave. While Dr Paladino denied saying she had lost trust in Dr Wear during the facilitated meeting on 22 November 2022, she could not recall the words used or the context of the discussion about the Thailand holiday. I find it unlikely that the Thailand trip would have arisen during the facilitated discussion unless a specific concern was raised by Dr Paladino. This supports Dr Wear’s version of the discussion as does his clearer recollection of the context in which the Thailand trip issue was raised during the meeting. [114] Having regard to the above, I am satisfied that the issue of Dr Wear’s Thailand trip arose during the facilitated discussion in the context of Dr Paladino responding to Dr Wear’s concerns over the workplace culture and Dr Wear’s relationship with Dr Paladino. I am further satisfied that Dr Paladino made the comment that she had lost trust in Dr Wear because of his lack of communication in relation to his change in holiday plans. Dr Paladino’s apparent concern was that Dr Wear failed to disclose a change in his annual leave arrangements in circumstances where his annual leave application was approved by her despite the application being at short notice and at a busy time of year. The application was approved due to Dr Wear’s pressing personal circumstances. [115] While Dr Paladino may have held concerns over Dr Wear’s lack of transparency or candour over his altered annual leave arrangements, that concern should have been discussed at the time the issue arose and not several months later in the facilitated meeting. To suggest the comments were rude and disrespectful overstates the severity of the comment in circumstances where Dr Paladino had a legitimate reason to question Dr Wear’s transparency. The concern was, however, raised in an inappropriate, and unprofessional manner. It does not, however, rise to the level of misconduct that would on its own establish a valid reason for Dr Paladino’s dismissal. I also note that the comments were made in a facilitated discussion at -- 29 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 28 which an HR representative was present and there is no evidence that Dr Paladino was cautioned, counselled or otherwise spoken to about her comment at the time. Allegation 10 - Requiring Dr Wear to engage in an unnecessary and burdensome administrative process to extend his credit card limit where she could have approved the request herself. [116] Dr Wear claims that Paladino engaged in unreasonable behaviour by not approving a credit card limit extension via Service Now, in circumstances where the cost of planned work travel to Brazil exceeded the $5000 limit on his University credit card. Because of that decision, Dr Wear was forced to work with Ms Brinley to raise a purchase order which he says was a time consuming and convoluted process which took days to complete. He goes on to state that since Dr Paladino’s dismissal, he has twice requested and received approval of a credit limit extension by his manager.134 [117] Dr Paladino did not accept that declining Dr Wear’s request credit limit extension was unreasonable or that a purchase order did not properly address the situation. She referred to other staff having claimed personal expenses on University credit cards and others claiming overly high amounts that were inconsistent with policy. She further states that the expenses Dr Wear received approval to claim over his credit card limit were usually paid for by the University’s administrators who had a higher credit limit for this purpose.135 During cross- examination Dr Paladino explained that raising a purchase order was a ‘simple thing’, accepted that while she had the discretion to extend the credit card limit she did not exercise that discretion; it was not something she had previously done and that she applied a consistent approach in not approving credit card limit extensions.136 [118] I am satisfied that Dr Paladino declined to extend the credit limit on Dr Wear’s credit card in circumstances where she had the discretion to authorise an extension in the credit card limit. I also accept that she adopted a consistent process of not approving such requests, that also being within her discretion. While that approach may appear arbitrary, Dr Paladino applied a consistent approach and did not single Dr Wear out for special treatment. While Dr Wear may have been aggrieved at Dr Paladino’s inflexibility, no evidence was led by either party regarding the relevant policy, procedures or other documents that might guide managers in the exercise of their discretion. In these circumstances I am not satisfied that Dr Paladino’s decision to decline to extend the credit card limit of Dr Wear constituted unreasonable management action in circumstances where there was an alternative means to arrange payment of the relevant expenses. The allegation of misconduct is not sustained. Allegation 11 - Unreasonably berating Dr Wear for searching flights to Armenia. [119] Dr Wear states that he received criticism from Dr Paladino for minor administrative mistakes. He raises an incident in which he sought a quote for flights via the University’s on- line travel platform in February 2022, to attend a conference in Armenia for the European Education Research Association. He states he sought the quote to see if it were feasible to fly to Armenia from a cost perspective and would not have arranged to travel to Armenia unless approved to do so. He was aware that Dr Paladino would normally receive an automatic notification when he sought the quote but was unaware that Armenia was a high-risk location. Because it was a high-risk location, the on-line platform overrode the normal notification process and sent the notification to the Dean of the FBE, Professor Kofman. He states this -- 30 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 29 caused Dr Paladino to berate him for his action in obtaining the quote, that he could tell from Dr Paladino’s tone that she was very unhappy with him, that her response gave him the impression that she thought he had been deliberately negligent and that it reflected poorly on her.137 [120] Dr Paladino states that Dr Wear’s perceptions of her reaction to the Armenian travel quote being sought by him are not accurate. She says she was obliged to tell him of the issue raised by Dr Kofman and that the feedback provided was to ensure Dr Wear was aware of the University’s policy.138 During cross-examination Dr Paladino maintained that she had not berated Dr Wear, could not remember her exact words but recalls using words to the effect that he should just give her a heads up next time. [121] The University questions Dr Paladino’s credibility in her evidence, in part because she failed to include in her reply statement any reference to requesting Dr Wear to provide a heads up in the future and only introduced that ‘new evidence’ during cross-examination. That criticism is rejected in circumstances where Dr Paladino was responding to events that occurred over three years ago, where the allegation was not put to her during Ms Taylor’s investigation and the sheer volume of discreet allegations pressed by the University requiring a response from Dr Paladino in these proceedings, including a significant number of fresh allegations not previously raised. It is unsurprising that she did not provide a forensic response in her reply statement on every single point raised in the evidence of the University’s witnesses. As it is, Dr Paladino was asked a series of questions in cross-examination and provided candid responses. She was not dogmatic that she used specific words but rather said to Dr Wear ‘something to the effect’ of requesting he give her a heads up in the future. Such a request is entirely plausible in circumstances where she may have felt blindsided by the notification that went directly to Professor Kofman. [122] As to Dr Wear’s perception of Dr Paladino’s tone, I approach that evidence with caution. That is because of the passage of time, the fact that the allegation was not raised as part of the initial investigation and Dr Wear’s tendency to adopt a negative and prejudiced view towards Dr Paladino and her communication with him. For these reasons I prefer the evidence of Dr Paladino and as such the allegation is not sustained. Allegation 12 - Telling Ms Lowenstein that Ms Brinley had been complaining about her (IR 6(d)). [123] Ms Brinley claims that concerns she raised confidentially with Dr Paladino during a conversation in October or November 2022 about a colleague Ms Lowenstein were subsequently disclosed by Dr Paladino to Ms Lowenstein. She states she became aware that her concerns about Ms Lowenstein had been disclosed to her because of growing tension between Ms Lowenstein and herself. She says she reached out to Ms Lowenstein in early 2023 to ‘clear the air’ and during the course of their conversation Ms Lowenstein said to her that ‘I distanced myself from you because Dr Paladino told me that you have been complaining about my work and that I wasn’t doing my job’. Ms Brinley says this disclosure by Dr Paladino caused her to lose trust and confidence in her.139 [124] Dr Paladino denied that she had disclosed to Ms Lowenstein that Ms Brinley had complained to Dr Paladino that Ms Lowenstein was not doing her job.140 She went on to state -- 31 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 30 that Ms Lowenstein and Ms Brinley clashed for over a year in relation to Ms Brinley’s difficulty in completing tasks, as a result of which Ms Lowenstein reported back to Dr Paladino that she often had to complete tasks allocated to Ms Brinley.141 When cross-examined on her evidence, Dr Paladino maintained that she had not passed on Ms Brinley’s complaints about Ms Lowenstein to Ms Lowenstein.142 [125] Ms Brinley’s evidence of what Dr Paladino did or did not say to Ms Lowenstein is hearsay and was not supported by evidence called from Ms Lowenstein who was a direct participant in the alleged conversation with Paladino. In these circumstances I prefer the direct evidence of Dr Paladino who rejected the comments attributed to her by Ms Brinley. The allegation is not sustained. Allegation 13 - Contacting Ms Brinley during a period of leave to find a non-urgent receipt (IR 1(g)) [126] Ms Brinley gave evidence that WCLA arranged an end-of-year lawn bowls function on 2 December 2022 at the Brunswick Bowling Club, which she paid for towards the end of the function using her University credit card. Because she had forgotten the pin for the card, the payment of $170 was split into two payments, that of $80 & $90. Because Ms Brinley was unable to find the receipt when looking for it on 5 December 2022, she called the Finance team and was told that she did not need to provide a receipt for the payment as it was under $200. Later that day, she submitted the request for Dr Paladino’s approval of the expense via Themis. She states that Dr Paladino rejected the expense and said she needed a receipt. In a subsequent discussion with her, Ms Brinley states Dr Paladino said words to the effect. ‘I need you to track all your expenses and keep receipts for every expense, including expenses under $200. It doesn’t matter what Finance says.’143 [127] As a consequence of the discussion with Dr Paladino, Ms Brinley states that she was very stressed as she was scheduled to take six weeks’ annual leave on 15 December 2022 to go home to NSW for her brother’s wedding on 17 December 2022, to bury her triplet brother on the anniversary of his death and to take a family holiday to Japan. Ms Brinley says she was unable to locate the receipt before she commenced her annual leave and was rebuffed by Dr Paladino in relation to an alternate arrangement: submitting the expense and retrospectively attaching the receipt when Ms Brinley located it on her return from leave. She advised Dr Paladino that she would continue to look for the receipt.144 [128] Ms Brinley commenced leave on 15 December 2022 and drove to her father’s house on the Central Coast in NSW. She says she noticed a missed phone call from Dr Paladino on 20 December 2022, which was the anniversary date of her brother’s death. She subsequently spoke with Dr Paladino between 4-5pm that day and despite telling Dr Paladino that it was the anniversary of her brother’s death, she claims Dr Paladino persisted in her request for a copy of the receipt. Ms Brinley says she checked her laptop to see if she had kept a photo of the receipt and remembered getting upset and agitated during the call. She further states that it was such a significant and emotional day that the missing receipt was comparatively unimportant which made her feel angry, hurt and shocked at Dr Paladino’s approach which she considered incredibly disrespectful.145 -- 32 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 31 [129] Dr Paladino states that she sent an email to Ms Brinley on 14 December 2025 asking if she could submit any outstanding expenses from her credit card as they needed to be paid from the budget for 2022. She says had received a reminder from finance requiring the WCLA to submit all expenses before the end of the year, with the deadline for submission, coding and approval being 21 December 2022. She agrees that she called Ms Brinley on 20 December 2022 and spoke with her for approximately six minutes. She says she only did so because Ms Brinley sent her two work emails that day and claims that she would not have otherwise contacted Ms Brinley on her leave. In one of the emails, Ms Brinley advised Dr Paladino that the two receipts were on her work desk,146 a statement Ms Brinley subsequently conceded in cross-examination was false.147 While stating it was not her normal practice to contact staff on leave, Dr Paladino says she contacted Ms Brinley on 20 December 2022 because; • she could upload the expense before the finance deadline if Ms Brinley had the receipts;148 • she assumed Ms Brinley had the receipts;149 • there was an urgency in completing all expenses before year end;150 and • calling Ms Brinley was in response to communication Ms Brinley had initiated.151 [130] It is unarguable that Dr Paladino called Ms Brinley on 20 December 2022 during a period of Ms Brinley’s annual leave. The call was in relation to the outstanding expense receipts for the pre-Christmas WCLA bowling club event which Ms Brinley had paid for using her University credit card. Despite there being a finance ‘work around’ to avoid the need to locate the missing receipts before the 21 December 2022 deadline, Dr Paladino was clearly anxious to resolve the matter to her satisfaction prior to the finance deadline. I accept however that Dr Paladino would not have called Ms Brinley on 20 December 2022 had Ms Brinley not sent an email that day to Dr Paladino containing false information that the receipts were on Ms Brinley’s work desk. I accept Ms Brinley may have felt under pressure to communicate with Dr Paladino on 20 December 2022, because of earlier communication between the two over the outstanding receipts. That does not however explain or excuse the false statement made in her email to Dr Paladino, that the receipts were on her work desk. [131] While the call made by Dr Paladino on 20 December 2022 might be explained by Ms Brinley’s email earlier that day to Dr Paladino, the call was unnecessary and should not have been made. A simple email response by Dr Paladino to Ms Brinley to the effect that Ms Brinley should enjoy her holiday would have been the appropriate course. It was not an urgent matter on any reasonable assessment when an alternate means of managing the issue had already been identified by Finance. While the contact was unnecessary and should not have been made, it does not on its own rise to the level of establishing misconduct that would establish a valid reason for Dr Paladino’s dismissal. Allegation 14 - Failing to pay attention to or recall Ms Brinley’s personal information (IR 1(e) and (f)). [132] Ms Brinley gave evidence that Dr Paladino did not listen to her. She gave an example of where Dr Paladino failed to recall at a later time, personal information disclosed by Ms Brinley when explaining to Dr Paladino why Ms Brinley had not completed her bachelor’s degree.152 The information disclosed by Ms Brinley included that she had suffered brain cancer in 2016, her mother died when Ms Brinley was 16, her triplet brother died unexpectedly in 2020 -- 33 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 32 and she was stuck in NSW for 4 months during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Ms Brinley, the importance of a bachelor’s degree for her Level 6 role was reinforced by Dr Paladino on multiple occasions (more than 10 times), including in front of other staff, despite the possession of a bachelor’s degree not being a Level 6 role requirement.153 [133] When cross-examined on her evidence on Dr Paladino’s disinterest in listening to her, Ms Brinley conceded that there may have been occasions when Dr Paladino did listen to her and had empathised with her about her family situation but she could not recall Dr Paladino encouraging her to seek professional help through the Employee Assistance Program (EAP).154 Ms Brinley also agreed that Dr Paladino had encouraged her to resume her higher education studies because it was important to her career progression.155 [134] Dr Paladino disputes Ms Brinley’s version of the discussions referred to in her evidence and recalls that all she could offer Ms Brinley during their conversation about Ms Brinley’s health and family issues was her condolences and to ask Ms Brinley if she needed more support.156 She disputes that Ms Brinley raised her family matters often and recalls Ms Brinley raising the issue of further study when she needed advice.157 She denies having told Ms Brinley that she needed a bachelor’s degree to perform her level 6 role and points to the fact that Ms Brinley was recruited in 2022 and that her contract was renewed in 2023 despite Ms Brinley not possessing a bachelor’s degree.158 Dr Paladino also denied making statements in front of Dr Cotronei-Baird about the need for Ms Brinley to obtain a bachelor’s degree.159 [135] I am not satisfied on the evidence that Dr Paladino either forgot personal information disclosed to her by Ms Brinley or that Dr Paladino told Ms Brinley she needed to have a bachelor’s degree for her level 6 role. My reasons are as follows. Firstly, the events referred to by Ms Brinley lack specificity as to timing. Secondly, Ms Brinley changed her evidence during cross-examination when she conceded that Dr Paladino had shown empathy regarding her personal circumstances, that concession being consistent with the evidence given by Dr Paladino. Thirdly, Ms Brinley also agreed that Dr Paladino was supportive in relation to Ms Brinley undertaking further studies. Fourthly, the claim that Dr Paladino stated there was a requirement for Ms Brinley to hold a bachelor’s degree was clearly at odds with the fact Ms Brinley was initially offered the level 6 role and had her contract renewed despite not holding a bachelor’s degree. I find it unlikely that Dr Paladino would have recruited Ms Brinley and renewed her contract despite her not possessing a bachelor’s degree and then later state to Ms Brinley that she needed a bachelor’s degree for the role. The more plausible explanation is that Dr Paladino encouraged Ms Brinley to pursue further education, a point Ms Brinley conceded. Finally, Dr Paladino’s evidence was credible and consistent and there was no corroborating evidence led by the University in support of Ms Brinley’s evidence. In these circumstances I prefer Dr Paladino’s evidence on the disputed points. Allegation 15 - Making demeaning comments about Ms Brinley’s tattoos, hair and personal grooming (IR 1(b)). [136] Ms Brinley gave evidence that Dr Paladino made demeaning comments about her appearance as follows; • On or around June or July 2022 and March 2023, Dr Paladino said words to the following effect with a smirk on her face when pointing to Ms Brinley’s tattoos; ‘I don’t -- 34 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 33 mind them but other people at the University might care, and I am fine with tattoos, but the University might have a bit of old school opinions.’ Following the comment, Ms Brinley says she worried academics at the University would be bothered by her tattoos and felt ‘unusual’ or out of place at the University.160 • On 3-4 occasions between around July 2022 and March 2023, Dr Paladino said words to the following effect in a sarcastic tone; ‘your hair is big and curly or wild’ followed by ‘my hair is similar, but I make sure I straighten and blow-dry mine’. Ms Brinley states the comment made her feel self-conscious about her hair and compounded her sense of insecurity that had been triggered by the tattoo comment.161 • Dr Paladino frequently complimented other staff regarding their outfits in front of Ms Brinley which felt to Ms Brinley like an indirect criticism of her in circumstances where Dr Paladino did not make such comments to Ms Brinley when she wore more feminine clothing. Ms Brinley perceived these comments to other staff as indirect criticism of Ms Brinley’s appearance.162 [137] Dr Paladino denied making derogatory comments about Ms Brinley’s appearance or clothing choices. She recalled an ‘amicable conversation’ about a dress Ms Brinley had made herself to wear to her brother’s wedding, photos of which were sent by Ms Brinley to Dr Paladino. Dr Paladino also rejects the negative motives or reactions Ms Brinley sought to assign to her in relation to Dr Paladino smirking, using a sarcastic tone or implying criticism of Ms Brinley by making positive comments about colleagues.163 [138] It is not possible on the evidence before me to reach the requisite satisfaction that the alleged comments were made by Dr Paladino to Ms Brinley. Even if the alleged comments were made, the accuracy of Ms Brinley’s subjective interpretation of the intent of the comments is unable to be verified given Dr Paladino’s denial of any negative intention and the absence of any corroborating evidence. The allegations are not sustained on the evidence. Allegation 16 - Criticising Ms Brinley in front of her colleagues for sending too many emails after Dr Paladino told Ms Brinley to copy her into all emails. [139] Ms Brinley states that early in her employment, Dr Paladino told her that she wanted to be copied into all emails and would follow up with Ms Brinley if she was not copied in. Notwithstanding this request, Mr Brinley states that Dr Paladino would then make ‘frequent’ comments in front of Ms Brinley’s colleagues that gave the impression Ms Brinley was sending too many emails to Dr Paladino and was not skilled at her job. Ms Brinley further states that Dr Paladino’s comments hurt her feelings, made her feel incompetent and that she needed micromanaging.164 [140] Dr Paladino denied requesting to be copied into all emails to staff members within the University unless there was a need for her to be ‘looped into the information.’ As to Ms Brinley’s claim that Dr Paladino would request a copy of an email if she were not copied in, Dr Paladino highlights the absence of any email evidence of such requests having been provided in evidence by Ms Brinley or the dates on which this occurred.165 -- 35 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 34 [141] The evidence from Ms Brinley in relation to this allegation is unsatisfactory in the following respects. Firstly, there is no documentary evidence of any email requests or responses by Dr Paladino in relation to the claimed request to be copied in to all emails or to be provided copies of emails she had not received. Ms Brinley herself states that Dr Paladino had access to the shared WCLA email inbox166. This begs the question, why she would need to request a copy of emails if she could access the WCLA inbox anyway? Secondly, Ms Brinley’s claim that Dr Paladino made frequent comments in front of colleagues about the volume of emails sent by Ms Brinley is unsupported by the names of those colleagues, let alone corroborating evidence from such witnesses. Having regard to the deficiencies in Ms Brinley’s evidence, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the allegation is sustained. Allegation 17 - Only allowing Ms Brinley to complete her asset management duties when Dr Paladino was physically present, which was infrequent and then requesting a status update on the task from Ms Brinley. [142] Ms Brinley claims that Dr Paladino would do things that made it impossible for her to do her job efficiently and then criticise Ms Brinley when she had not completed the job quickly. Ms Brinley refers in her evidence to Dr Paladino asking her to oversee asset management within the first month of Ms Brinley starting her employment in the WCLA. This she states required her to review items in the storeroom including documents stored in three filing cabinets, review other electronic assets, and conduct a stocktake to account for the items. Despite the task being allocated to her, Ms Brinley went on to claim that Dr Paladino did not allow Ms Brinley to enter the storeroom without Dr Paladino being present. She states that despite this preventing her from completing the asset management duties, Dr Paladino still followed up with her to ask for a status update, which made Ms Brinley feel like she was not doing her job properly.167 [143] Dr Paladino denied restricting Ms Brinley’s access to the storeroom for stocktake purposes to only those times when Dr Paladino was present. She states Ms Brinley had access to the storeroom when she needed and went on to claim that Ms Brinley sometimes appeared absent-minded and lost the keys to the storeroom as well as sometimes forgetting to lock the key cabinet and compactus which contained high value items. She further states that Ms Brinley would sometimes take a long time tidying the compactus and noting its contents at the expense of completing other tasks. Dr Paladino also argued that Ms Brinley’s inefficiency was not on Dr Paladino’s account but her own.168 [144] There is no evidence beyond Ms Brinley’s claim and Dr Paladino’s denial that Ms Brinley was prevented from accessing the storeroom without Dr Paladino’s presence and that this impacted on Ms Brinley’s ability to perform her allocated tasks. If it were the case that Ms Brinley was prevented from accessing the storeroom unless Dr Paladino was present and given that according to Ms Brinley, Dr Paladino was rarely present in the office;: her evidence would have been strengthened by evidence of her following up with Dr Paladino regarding her presence in the office, to enable the stocktake to be conducted by Ms Brinley. There was no such evidence. Nor was there any evidence of Ms Brinley being counselled or criticised for not completing the stocktake task. This might have been expected if Ms Brinley’s claim that Dr Paladino was prone to criticising Ms Brinley’s performance at any opportunity were correct. Given the conflicting evidence and lack of any corroborating evidence I am not satisfied that the allegation is sustained. -- 36 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 35 Allegation 18 - Repeatedly reminding Ms Brinley that she had once failed to send an email. [145] Ms Brinley further states that Dr Paladino told Ms Brinley in or around November 2022 that she had not sent an email in an accusatory and infantilising tone. While unable to recall what the email related to, she states that she had a problem with the email server which meant the email ended up in the Outlook outbox and had not been sent. She says she eventually rectified the issue and sent the email and then advised Dr Paladino of the reason for it not being sent. According to Ms Brinley, the issue was then raised on a further five occasions by Dr Paladino. [146] Dr Paladino rejected that she had informed Ms Brinley in an ‘accusatory and infantilising tone’ that she had failed to send an email or that she had subsequently raised the issue on several occasions. She did acknowledge that she did have to remind Ms Brinley of matters to be attended to, as Ms Brinley sometimes forgot to pay an invoice or claimed to have done something which had not been done. According to Dr Paladino, this created extra work for her to maintain supplier relationships and ensure payments were made within the University terms of trading.169 Dr Paladino responded in cross-examination that there were a few occasions when Ms Brinley thought she had sent an email, but it was stuck in the Outlook outbox but denied she had raised this issue on five subsequent occasions.170 [147] In circumstances where Dr Paladino confirmed she had reason to remind Ms Brinley of incomplete tasks from to time, that evidence being consistent with the less than glowing view of Ms Brinley’s performance held by Dr Paladino, I find it likely that Dr Paladino did raise with Ms Brinley that she had not completed a task. That evidence does not contradict Ms Brinley’s evidence that a concern was raised in relation to an unsent email. I consequently accept that Dr Paladino raised a concern with Ms Brinley about an unsent email. As to the allegation that the issue was raised in an accusatory or infantilising tone and on five subsequent occasions, I am unable to make such a finding on the evidence before me. While I am satisfied Dr Paladino raised Ms Brinley’s failure to send an email, the allegations that Ms Brinley was repeatedly reminded of this is not sustained. The raising of incomplete tasks with Ms Brinley does not constitute misconduct or inappropriate behaviour on the part of Dr Paladino. Allegation 19 - Misrepresenting to Ms Brinley that she could work full-time till the end of her contract. [148] Ms Brinley states that in or around August 2022, Dr Paladino asked her to assist Professor Spear from the Accounts Department of the FBE with the Future of Management Education Conference at the University (the Conference). The event was a 4-day international conference being hosted by the University and chaired by Professor Spear. Ms Brinley says she had a couple of conversations with Dr Paladino about the Conference during which she says Dr Paladino told her that she could work full-time to the end of her fixed term contract in March 2023. She says she resigned her role at JB Hi-Fi on the basis of the Dr Paladino’s advice to her about the full-time hours.171 Ms Brinley states that in a subsequent conversation during a scheduled one-on-one meeting in or around September/October 2022, Dr Paladino said that she could continue working full-time hours after the conference was over until the end of the year. She says that while this was different information to that previously provided to her, she didn’t raise the issue with Dr Paladino.172 According to Ms Brinley, Dr Paladino’s position changed again in late November, when she advised Ms Brinley that she would return to her part-time -- 37 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 36 contract hours of 0.6 fulltime equivalent (FTE) hours at the end of the conference. At the end of the Conference, Ms Brinley went back to working 3 days per week.173 [149] Dr Paladino rejects that she agreed to Ms Brinley working full-time hours until the end of her contract. She says Ms Brinley was clearly advised that the extra work for Professor Spear was within the timeframes supplied following which she would revert back to her contracted fractional role. Dr Paladino further states that Ms Brinly was provided with a clear Themis work hour variation for a fixed period of time which Ms Brinley herself entered into the system. According to Dr Paladino, the work variation specified the dates relating to Ms Brinley’s extra hours of work with the full-time hours finishing on the last day of the Conference which was stated on the work pattern. She further states that Ms Brinley’s full-time hours between 8 September – 14 November 2022 were temporary and task specific. Dr Paladino was aware that Ms Brinley worked at JB Hi-Fi on a casual basis, which she encouraged Ms Brinley to maintain until Ms Brinley secured on-going full-time employment elsewhere; as her position at the WCLA was for a fixed and limited period.174 [150] Neither Ms Brinley nor Dr Paladino retreated during cross-examination from their respective evidence regarding Ms Brinley’s claims about Dr Paladino misrepresenting the hours she could work to the end of her contract. While there was no corroborating witness evidence called there are matters that do assist inform my finding on this allegation. [151] Firstly, the claim by Ms Brinley that Dr Paladino took such a relaxed and generous approach to Ms Brinley working full-time hours beyond the period of need for the Conference strikes me as out of character for Dr Paladino. Dr Paladino was accused by witnesses for the University of many things, including being arbitrary, inflexible, prone to micromanagement and being budget focused. See for example Dr Paladino’s approach to pursuing the missing receipts from Ms Brinley in December 2022 or her unwillingness to exercise her discretion to increase the credit card limit for Dr Wear (both dealt with above). Dr Paladino’s approach to cost management more generally tells against a finding that she agreed to increase Ms Brinley’s hours for the balance of her contract when the need for such increased hours had ended. [152] Secondly, Dr Paladino’s evidence regarding Ms Brinley having completed her work variation in Themis to cover the period up to the end of the Conference was not challenged by the University. As Ms Brinley input the work variation into Themis herself, she would have been acutely aware of the limited duration of the full-time hours. Had Dr Paladino told Ms Brinley that she would be able to work the full-time hours until the end of the fixed-term contract in March 2023 or until the end of 2022, it would have required a further work variation. No steps were taken by Ms Brinley to pursue a further work variation at the time the advice was allegedly provided to her by Dr Paladino or at any subsequent point in time. [153] The above matters cause me to prefer Dr Paladino’s evidence. I am not satisfied that she misrepresented to Ms Brinley that she could work full-time hours until the end of her contract in March 2023. The allegation is rejected. Allegation 20 - Only informing Dr Johnston that she had cancelled her credit card the night before she was due to travel to a conference and misrepresenting Dr Johnston’s participation in the conference to Mr Bezuidenhout and Professor Jensen (IR 3(b)). -- 38 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 37 [154] Dr Johnston was an Associate Lecturer in the WCLA. At the end of 2022 she resigned from her role in the WCLA to take up a new role in the Faculty of Arts. She had however been approved by the WCLA to attend a conference in Adelaide (the AARE Conference) prior to her resigning from her WCLA role. Dr Johnston’s last day in the WCLA was 18 November 2022 and the AARE Conference was on 27 November – 1 December 2022. Relevantly, Dr Johnston had been issued with a University credit card when she commenced in the WCLA. Dr Johnston’s transfer to the Faculty of Arts, her attendance at the AARE Conference after her departure from the WCLA, and which Faculty should bear the balance of conference attendance costs set off a chain of emails and communication between several people. It also led to the cancellation of Dr Johnston’s credit card by Dr Paladino just prior to Dr Johnston’s departure for the conference. The following chronology of events is apparent by reference to various emails and evidence of witnesses; • On 16 November 2022 at 5.04pm, Dr Johnston sent an email to Dr Paladino in relation to her upcoming travel to the AARE Conference. The email relevantly stated the following; “………….. Just a note to confirm that I am currently finalising my credit card transactions before my last day on Friday. You will receive a Themis notification soon for the AARE 2022 Conference accommodation invoice. As I will be handing my credit card over to Sonia on Friday, I will submit any outstanding conference-related expenses including my taxi and meal receipts for reimbursement via Themis. Please let me know if there is anything further you need. ……….”175 • On 16 November 2022, Dr Paladino wrote to Mr Wynand Bezuidenhout, the Director Strategy, Planning and Resources in FBE in relation to Dr Johnston’s email. Dr Paladino was unhappy about Dr Johnston ‘pushing through’ the conference costs in circumstances where Dr Johnston would no longer be employed by the WCLA. She sought Mr Bezuidenhout’s comments on a draft email she was proposing to send to Dr Johnston.176 • On 17 November 2025 following prompting by Dr Paladino, Mr Bezuidenhout responded to her that the proposed email looked fine.177 • On 17 November 2022, Dr Paladino then sent Dr Johnston an email in reply to her email of the previous days. The email response was copied to Ms Puglielli and Mr Bezuidenhout and stated as follows; “…….. Thanks for your email, Alexandra. Appreciate that you are working your way through all of this. A note however that FBE funds are provided to stimulate research activity for FBE staff. This conference will take place while you will be -- 39 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 38 employed in the Faculty of Arts and therefore will be of benefit to another faculty. This cost was only put through this week when notice had already been provided of departure. While FBE will not seek reimbursement for the previous expenses paid in August, we are not in a position to cover further research costs. Could you please check with your new supervisor, Elizabeth and note a Faculty of Arts account code for this expense? All other expenses associated with this conference (meals, etc.... indicated below) will need to be covered by your new faculty (Arts). Please also check that any direct debits, memberships and any recurring costs have been cancelled from this card. I have confirmed this information with our Director - Strategy, Planning and Resources (ccd here). Please let me know if you have any questions at all. Sending my very best wishes, ………….”178 • On 18 November 2022 at 3.40pm, Ms Puglielli responded to Dr Paladino’s email and copied in all the recipients of that earlier email to Dr Johnston on 17 November 2022. Ms Puglielli’s response questioned the logic of WCLA not paying the balance of the conference costs given that Dr Johnston was ‘representing’ the WCLA at the AARE Conference, which may be reflected on the conference program. She also questioned the need for Dr Johnston to return the credit card as Dr Johnston would remain an employee of the University and that Finance could simply change the default approver of expenses.179 • On 18 November 2022 at 4.31pm, Dr Johnston responded to Ms Puglielli’s email thanking her for the ‘thoughtful reply’. In doing so she sent her response to the previously noted email participants while also copying in Dr Cotronei-Baird. In her response Dr Johnston explained that her participation in the AARE Conference would benefit the FBE, noting that the relevant research project and conference presentation had been approved by the FBE and she maintained that the right course of action would be for the FBE to meet its financial obligations in accordance with the University’s Financial Code of Conduct Policy (MPF13338).180 Her opinion as to the benefit of her conference participation to FBE was supported by Dr Cotronei-Baird.181 • On 18 November 2022 at 4.47pm, Mr Bezuidenhout then responded Dr Johnston, copying in all noted email participants, as follows; “………. A lot more new background info here for me. Thanks for sharing. FBE s financial commitments here are clear enough. Lets push ahead. I will let Angela or Valerie jump in here if any outcomes from the conference attendance were expected. -- 40 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 39 ……..”182 • On 18 November 2022 at 4.51pm, Dr Paladino sent an email only to Mr Bezuidenhout in response to his email of 18 November 2022 asking if he had time to take a call.183 • On 18 November 2025 at 5.32pm, Dr Paladino also sent an email to Mr Bezuidenhout, copied to Professor Jensen, in relation to finalisation of Dr Johnston’s credit card transaction. She states in her email that she was copying in Professor Jensen in order to obtain clarity moving forward. The email relevantly stated the following; “…………… Alexandra has pushed through advance payments for a domestic hotel stay in Adelaide (just under $1800 for 5 nights) before leaving the faculty today and has expected that we reimburse all payments associated with the conference while she is now employed in Arts. This is using the $10,000 FBE allocation (not a competitive grant). Finance have flagged other costs on her credit card, so I’m not aware of what these are yet. To clarify, the research project mentioned in the trail below is completed in her capacity as a member of the Arts Faculty and is yet to be approved by the research committee. The AARE program and abstracts do not note any affiliation. So, there is no mention of FBE. See attachment. They only use an app and there is no uni, faculty or centre affiliation noted on the program. Since the paper will still be presented by Valerie, there is no obligation for Alexandra to represent the faculty. Rather, this is a PD exercise for her own development and networking benefit. There is no concrete outcome expected from Alexandra’s conference participation to the centre specifically. Rather, her affiliation will change to the Faculty of Arts. When academics leave the employment of departments, do departments continue to reimburse/pay costs when they are then employed at another university or other area of the university? Even when their paper submission happened many months prior? This seems unrealistic to me, but if this is a norm of the faculty, then please confirm. We certainly have not done this for other members who have left the centre in the past. This will then inform approvals for others moving forward. We also have issues with Alexandra taking the FBE laptop to Arts despite being asked to leave all equipment in the office. Arts have apparently not provided a great laptop but again, this creates more admin for us to follow up with. If you could please confirm that paying for advance deposits and costs for this conference for Alexandra is acceptable while she is employed with the Faculty of Arts, that would be great. …………..”184 -- 41 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 40 • On 19 November 2022 at 6.18pm, Professor Jensen responded to Dr Paladino and Mr Bezuidenhout in relation to Dr Paladino’s email of 18 November 2022 as follows; “Angela From my perspective, if she isn’t presenting, then we shouldn’t pay for her costs (i.e. Arts can cover the cost if they want her to attend for professional development). Cheers Paul” • Mr Bezuidenhout in his evidence states that Professor Jensen’s email overturned his earlier decision that was communicated by him to Dr Johnston that the FBE would cover Dr Johnston’s remaining AARE Conference attendance costs.185 The email chain between Dr Paladino, Professor Jensen and Mr Bezuidenhout in which payment for the AARE Conference was canvassed was not shared with Dr Johston. As stated by Dr Paladino in an email to Mr Bezuidenhout on 25 November 2022, it would not have been an appropriate email to share with Dr Johnston.186 • On 22 November 2022 at 10.20am, Dr Johnston responded to the email Mr Bezuidenhout sent to her on 18 November 2022 in which he indicated support for the FBE paying the balance of her AARE Conference costs. In doing so, she copied in Dr Paladino. Dr Johnston stated as follows; “……. You are most welcome Wynand, and many thanks for your positive support. Confirming that all AARE conference related expenditure made via the University issued credit card will be coded to the WCLA account string. Following this an application for the credit card transfer will be submitted through Themis for Angela to sign off. Please let me know if there is anything further required. I am very much looking forward to representing WCLA and the University at the conference. ……….” • On 25 November 2022, Dr Johnston was notified at her farewell function by Dr Palaldino that the credit card had been cancelled. • On 25 November 2022 at 6.32pm, Dr Johnston sent a further email to Mr Bezuidenhout and Dr Cotronei-Baird (copied to Dr Paladino and Ms Puglielli) thanking him again for confirming FBE’s support for accepting the AARE costs. She went on to advise that she had just been advised by Dr Palaldino that her credit card had been cancelled. This she said was not in alignment with what had been agreed in the email thread to which Dr Johnston had been engaged in. Because of the cancellation of the credit card, she was -- 42 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 41 left in a difficult position as she was due to fly out to the conference within 24 hours. She requested Mr Bezuidenhout call her as a matter of urgency.187 • On 25 November 2022 at 8.51pm, Mr Bezuidenhout sent an email to Dr Paladino requesting that she respond to Dr Johnston’s email sent at 6.32pm that day.188 • On 25 November 2022 at 9.34pm, Dr Paladino responded to Mr Bezuidenhout, copying in Professor Jensen, and stated as follows; “………. Hi Wynand, I already advised Alexandra this afternoon to have a personal credit card and funds available, as we all need to do in case our corporate cards don’t work. She was under the impression that the WCLA needs to pay for all her expenses given the email that she had received from you. She sought a confirmation that a full reimbursement of funds would happen from FBE, which I asked her to clarify with you. Could you please address her comments in the first instance about “confirming FBE’s financial commitments ... for pushing ahead to fund this conference through FBE”. She needs a confirmation from you that the cost is not covered by us. Let me know if you need any more from me. ……..”189 • On 28 November 2022, Mr Bezuidenhout sent an email just to Professor Jensen in which he said in reference to the conference cost reimbursement issue canvassed in multiple earlier emails, “This one looks pretty messy. Free for a call today?” 190 Mr Bezuidenhout states he had a conversation with Professor Jensen later that same day during which Professor Jensen agreed that FBE would reimburse Dr Johnston’s reasonable business costs associated with her AARE Conference attendance.191 • On 29 November 2022 at 1.05pm, Mr Bezuidenhout responded to Dr Johnston’s email of the 25 November 2022 as follows; “……….. Thanks for reaching out and apologies for the slow reply. We hope you are well and that your trip is going well. I think that it would be fair to say that the circumstances here are uncommon, i.e. the timing of your conference attendance when you are leaving our Faculty and moving to another. We would not usually cover these costs. But these are unusual -- 43 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 42 circumstances. We have re-evaluated and will, given this situation, reimburse you for the reasonable business related travel costs incurred during your trip. These costs will be reimbursed by exception and would not set a precedent. Please request reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses via iExpenses and charge these against the WCLA budget with Angela as approver, providing relevant supporting documents where required. There is not much we can do about your UoM purchasing card. If your new supervisor permits access to a card then you will be able to apply for a new card. …………..”192 [155] During cross-examination Professor Jensen gave the following evidence; • University policy was silent on the treatment of credit cards when employees transfer between faculties, which meant Dr Paladino’s cancellation of Dr Johnston’s card was not inconsistent with policy;193 • agreed that he had not told Dr Paladino at the time, that cancellation of Dr Johnston’s credit card was inappropriate in his view;194 and • agreed that while the incident confirmed his view of Dr Paladino’s poor management style, he did not raise it with her at the time and regretted that he had not had direct conversations with her about that issue and others;195 [156] During his cross-examination Mr Bezuidenhout gave the following evidence; • confirmed that he was concerned that Dr Paladino had not provided him with all relevant information in her email to him on 16 November 2022, but he had not raised that concern with her when it would have been appropriate to have done so.196 • agreed that it would have been proper for the University to cancel the credit card in circumstances where Dr Johnston had indicated in her email of 16 November 2022, that she would not be using the card at the AARE Conference and would be handing it back before the conference.197 • agreed that his view as to the reasonableness of Dr Paladino cancelling Dr Johnston’s credit card had changed as a consequence of Dr Johnston starting on 16 November 2022 that she would be returning the credit card, and that the cancellation was a reasonable course of action;198 and • agreed on reflection that Dr Paladino’s behaviour at the time was not unsatisfactory;199 [157] During her cross-examination in relation to the events that led to the cancellation of Dr Johnston’s credit card, Dr Paladino gave the following evidence; • agreed that Dr Johnston’s attendance at the AARE Conference would be of benefit to both Dr Johnston and the WCLA;200 -- 44 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 43 • approval of Dr Johnston’s attendance at the AARE Conference had to be of benefit to the FBE faculty as well as to her;201 • agreed that Dr Johnston was co-presenting at the AARE Conference with Dr Cotronei- Baird and that the subject matter of the presentation did not relate to the Faculty of Arts;202 • rejected that when seeking Mr Bezuidenhout’s endorsement of her proposed email to Dr Johnston on 16 November 2022, she should have provided him with more information about Dr Johnston’s role in co-presenting and went on to claim there had been Zoom discussions in relation to the background to the matter;203 • it was established practice that a faculty/department receiving an employee from another area of the University would pick up any residual costs such as those incurred by Dr Johnston’s pre-approved attendance at the AARE Conference;204 • she took the view based on previous practice and communication with Professor Jensen that the Arts Faculty should pick up the balance of Dr Johnston’s AARE conference attendance costs;205 • that Professor Jensen and Mr Bezuidenhout’s decision to reverse the earlier decision not to pick up the balance of the AARE Conference costs was a departure from past practice;206 • agreed that Professor Jensen’s response that FBE should not pick up the cost of Dr Johnston’s AARE Conference attendance was based on Dr Johnston not presenting at the conference which Dr Paladino claimed she subsequently discussed with him;207 • confirmed that she cancelled Dr Johnston’s credit card on or about 16 or 17 November 2022 after receiving Dr Johnston’s email on 16 November 2022, in which she had indicated she would be handing back her credit card;208 • agreed that she had not confirmed the credit card cancellation with Dr Johnston at the time she cancelled it, for which she subsequently apologised to Dr Johnston;209 • was adamant that she and Professor Jensen discussed Dr Johnston’s credit card, including its cancellation when Dr Johnston moved to the Faculty of Arts;210 and • agreed that she had already cancelled Dr Johnston’s credit card before the change in FBE’s position on conference expenses was communicated to Dr Johnston;211 [158] What emerges from the evidence is that Dr Paladino held a strong view that the FBE should not be required to pick up the balance of costs associated with Dr Johnston’s attendance at the AARE Conference. That view was held in spite of Dr Johnston’s attendance having been approved several months earlier and despite her co-presenting at the conference with Dr Cotronei-Baird. The only circumstances that had changed was Dr Johnston’s resignation from her role in the WCLA which took effect on Friday 18 November 2022, following which she -- 45 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 44 moved to the Faculty of Arts. Dr Paladino reasoned that the receiving faculty should pick up the costs as the new faculty stood to benefit from Dr Johnston’s personal development flowing from conference attendance. Professor Jensen shared the view the FBE should not bear the remaining conference costs, although that view was based on his understanding that Dr Johnston was not presenting at the Conference. It seems Dr Johnston accepted that position as well, at least on 16 November 2022, when she stated she would return the credit card. [159] While there are multiple subsequent emails between various parties, it is clear that Dr Paladino acted quickly to cancel Dr Johnston’s credit card on or about 17 or 18 November 2022. That action immediately followed Dr Johnston advising her on 16 November 2022 that she would be handing in her credit card before she finished with the WCLA on 18 November 2022. Given the absence of clear policy on the treatment of credit cards when staff transfer between faculties, the action to cancel the card in these circumstances does not appear to have been contrary to policy, a point conceded by Professor Jensen during cross-examination. Despite his evidence in chief that he was concerned about Dr Paladino’s behaviour in cancelling the card, Mr Bezuidenhout also conceded in cross-examination that it was not unreasonable in the circumstances for the card to have been cancelled as Dr Johnston had already confirmed to Dr Paladino that she would return the credit card on 18 November 2022. This begs the question as to what one would do with a returned credit card other than cancel it? I am not satisfied that Dr Paladino acted inappropriately by cancelling the credit card. [160] What then followed was a chain of emails and various communication in which the FBE’s position of paying or not paying for Dr Johnston’s residual AARE conference attendance costs changed. Initially, Dr Johnston was advised by Dr Paladino on 17 November 2022 that FBE would not bear the residual conference costs. That position was overtaken by Mr Bezuidenhout’s email on 18 November 2022 when he confirmed that the FBE would pay, only for that position to be reversed on the basis of Professor Jensen’s intervention on 19 November 2022. It does not however appear that either Dr Paladino or Mr Bezuidenhout advised Dr Johnston that the position of the FBE had changed following Professor Jensen’s email of 19 November 2022. That is evident by Dr Johnston’s subsequent email on 22 November 2022 when she thanked Mr Bezuidenhout for his earlier confirmation that FBE would accept the residual conference costs. It was not until the 25 November 2022 that Dr Johnston became aware that her credit card had been cancelled. [161] I take no issue with Dr Paladino’s decision to cancel Dr Johnston’s credit card on or about 17/18 November 2022. Much was made by the parties as to whether that action of Dr Paladino was or was not consistent with normal practice. It is unnecessary for me to resolve that point as the action was not inconsistent with policy, was preceded by Dr Johnston advising she would return the card on 18 November 2022 and was accepted by Mr Bezuidenhout during cross-examination as having been reasonable in the circumstances. [162] Dr Paladino’s subsequent communication does however require scrutiny. While she was consistent in her position of resisting FBE’s responsibility for Dr Johnston’s residual AARE Conference costs, there is no evidence that she confirmed the cancelation of the credit card to either Dr Johnston when it occurred or in any of her subsequent communication with Mr Bezuidenhout or Professor Johnston between 18-25 November 2025. Furthermore, Dr Paladino was not clear in her 18 November 2022 email to Mr Bezuidenhout and Professor Jensen that Dr Johnston was co-presenting at the AARE Conference although she did reference that Dr -- 46 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 45 Cotronei-Baird would still present the paper at the conference and that it was unnecessary for Dr Johnston to represent the FBE. These communication failures were, in my view, errors of omission on Dr Paladino’s part. There were clearly other conversations that occurred on or around this time in relation to Dr Johnston’s credit card, but recollections of each of the key leaders on what was discussed varied. For her part Dr Paladino claimed to have had discussions with Professor Jensen about Dr Johnston’s credit card while he says he did not sanction the credit card cancellation and would never have given this direction. [163] For their parts, Mr Bezuidenhout and Professor Jensen can also be criticised for their failure to canvass their change in position with Dr Paladino before Mr Bezuidenhout confirmed with Dr Johnston on 29 November 2022 that the FBE would reimburse her conference costs. I note at this point that Mr Bezuidenhout’s email to Dr Johnston on 29 November 2022 made clear that the circumstances were ‘uncommon’, that the FBE would not usually reimburse the costs in these circumstances, that reimbursement was being done by exception and that it would not set a precedent. I also note that by this point Mr Bezuidenhout was fully aware of the all the circumstances of Dr Johnston’s role at the AARE Conference. His comments to Dr Johnston in his email reinforce the validity of Dr Paladino’s position on the FBE not being responsible for Dr Johnston’s residual conference attendance costs in the circumstances. [164] Having regard to all of the evidence I accept that Dr Paladino cancelled Dr Johnston’s University credit card on or about 17/18 November 2022 following Dr Johnston advising her on 16 November 2022 that she would be returning the card to Ms Puglielli on Friday 18 November 2022. I am not satisfied that cancellation of the card in these circumstances was contrary to policy or inappropriate in the circumstances. I certainly do not accept the University’s description of this conduct as ‘nasty.’ Having regard to Dr Paladino’s approach to managing costs, cancellation of the card is unsurprising in my view. [165] What is however more problematic is Dr Paladino’s subsequent communication failures, in respect of both Dr Johnston and to Mr Bezuidenhout and Professor Jensen. Dr Johnston was unaware that her University credit card had been cancelled until Friday 25 November 2022 just prior to her departure for the conference. Dr Paladino was right to apologise to Dr Johnston for that lack of communication. As to Dr Paladino’s communication with Mr Bezuidenhout and Professor Jensen, it discloses a lack of clarity or the full information that should have been provided. While I am unable to conclude Dr Paladino provided false information to either men, she failed to provide the necessary information that would have allowed the matter to be resolved more quickly and more efficiently than it was. These communication failures on Dr Paladino’s part represent poor judgement and poor leadership on her part. [166] In assessing the severity of this conduct, the following is relevant. Both Mr Bezuidenhout and Professor Jensen expressed concerns about Dr Paladino’s conduct in cancelling Dr Johnston’s credit card. Neither of them raised their concerns with her at the time. While Mr Bezuidenhout may be forgiven for his failure to raise his concern given that Dr Paladino did not report to him, no such excuse can be found for Professor Jensen. Unfortunately, Professor Jensen’s ‘regret’ at not having raised his concern at the time was a familiar refrain from the Professor. He claimed to have held various concerns over Dr Paladino’s leadership over a period of time but failed to raise those concerns with her. It smacks of managerial cowardice in circumstances where the Professor’s evidence is now laced with criticism of Dr Paladino. -- 47 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 46 [167] Having regard to the University’s knowledge of this matter in November 2022 and its failure to deal with it at the time, I give limited weight to the conduct. It does not rise to the level of serious misconduct, nor constitute conduct that would on its own establish a valid reason for Dr Paladino’s dismissal. Allegation 21 - Reprimanding Dr Johnston for trivial matters in a condescending way. [168] Dr Wear states in his evidence that he heard Dr Paladino speaking to Dr Johnston in her office in an inappropriate way. He says he was able to hear the conversation as his office was located directly opposite Dr Paladino’s. While unable to recall the words used by Dr Paladino, Dr Wear states that her tone was agitated, condescending and was perceived by him as berating. He further recalls Dr Johnston saying on a number of occasions, ‘I won’t do it again’ and after one of these conversations, Dr Johnston came into his office sobbing.212 Dr Wear when cross- examined on his evidence maintained the accuracy of his evidence; that he could hear the tone of the conversation between Dr Paladino and Dr Wear, and that Dr Johnston came into his office after her conversation with Dr Paladino on at least one occasion in an upset state.213 [169] Dr Paladino rejects that she berated Dr Johnston or any other staff member. She also states that based on the scant details provided by Dr Wear; she does not accept that the incident occurred as alleged.214 [170] The evidence of Dr Wear is unconvincing in a number of respects. Firstly, the details of the words spoken by Dr Paladino and the dates on which he overheard the conversations between Dr Paladino and Dr Johnston were not provided. Secondly, Dr Johnston was not called to give evidence in relation to the alleged conversations. Thirdly, during the course of her interview215 with Ms Taylor during the investigation of Dr Paladino’s conduct, Dr Johnston was given an opportunity to talk more generally about her relationship with Dr Paladino and did not raise the issue of Dr Paladino berating her on more than one occasion. Fourthly, even if Dr Johnston was upset following a conversation with Dr Paladino, that is not determinative of whether Dr Paladino’s conduct towards her was inappropriate. Finally, I am not satisfied that there is evidence of a general pattern of behaviour by Dr Paladino of berating staff, which would support the specific allegation raised by Dr Wear. [171] It follows from the foregoing that I am not satisfied that the conduct occurred as alleged by Dr Wear. The allegation is not sustained. Allegation 22 - Misrepresenting to Professor Jensen and Dr Murawski that Dr Cotronei-Baird did not want to teach a subject called Street Finance unless she was paid an additional loading in circumstances where Dr Cotronei-Baird had told Dr Paladino otherwise (IR 2(d)). [172] Dr Cotronei-Baird was a Senior Lecturer in the WCLA from around 2016 to January 2025. During that period, she assisted Professor Murawski teach a subject called Street Finance. As part of the subject, students attend a disadvantaged school and provide guidance on financial literacy. According to Professor Jensen, Dr Cotronei-Baird initially taught Street Finance in addition to her regular work in the WCLA for which she was paid a General Facility Loading (GFL) to compensate her for the additional hours she spent teaching the subject. A GFL is not -- 48 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 47 paid if an academic can complete the additional work ‘on load,’ that is, as part of their regular work.216 [173] Professor Jensen states that during the course of Dr Cotronei-Baird teaching Street Finance, he had many one-on-one conversations with her about how teaching Street Finance would impact on her core WCLA duties. He says they discussed whether she would be able to do the work and whether she should continue to receive the GFL if she did. He states he ultimately decided it was appropriate for her to receive the GFL from around 2018/2019. Dr Cotronei-Baird ceased receiving the GFL from 2020/2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic period because the course was temporarily halted. Dr Cotronei-Baird did not receive the loading in 2021 because of the pandemic.217 [174] Professor Jensen further states in or around July 2022, he and Dr Paladino discussed Dr Cotronei-Baird teaching Street Finance during which he told Dr Paladino that he would not offer Dr Cotronei-Baird a GFL and asked Dr Paladino whether Dr Cotronei-Baird would teach Street Finance ‘on load’. He states that Dr Paladino responded that Dr Cotronei-Baird wanted to continue teaching Street Finance only if she was received a GFL and she continued to seek the said payment. Professor Jensen then said to Dr Paladino that they would need to find someone else to fill the subject and communicate this to Professor Murawski.218 [175] An email exchange took place between Dr Paladino and Dr Murawski between 14-19 July 2022219 regarding Street Finance delivery in 2023, to which emails Professor Jensen was copied in. During the exchange Dr Paladino confirmed that Dr Cotronei-Baird did not wish to continue teaching the Street Finance course unless she received a GFL and that WCLA academics more generally did not wish to take on teaching as part of their ‘on load’ work and wanted a GFL for such additional work. She stated that the best way forward would be to find a more sustainable resource to support Street Finance development and delivery.220 [176] Professor Jensen states that nothing further happened until December 2022 when Dr Cotronei-Baird came to see him during which conversation she stated she wanted to continue teaching Street Finance and was prepared to do it ‘on load’ and had never required a GFL to be paid. Based on that information, Professor Jensen authorised Dr Cotronei-Baird to teach Street Finance in 2023. He states that he changed his initial decision that Dr Cotronei-Baird would not teach Street Finance because that initial decision was based on what he states was misinformation from Dr Paladino that Dr Cotronei-Baird required payment of a GFL. He says he communicated his decision to authorise Dr Cotronei-Baird to teach Street Finance in 2023 to Dr Paladino on 16 December 2022, following which Dr Paladino sent him an email requesting to discuss the matter because of the implications for Dr Cotronei-Baird’s current work and the team.221 [177] Professor Jensen states he subsequently met with Dr Paladino as requested and that she raised concerns that Dr Cotronei-Baird teaching Street Finance would affect her WCLA responsibilities and that the precedent would impact on other staff and on the WCLA. No alternate options were identified, and he decided the best way forward was for Dr Cotronei- Baird to teach Street Finance ‘on load.’ Professor Jensen says he formed the view that Dr Paladino was not being honest with him about the potential solutions because she had previously told him that Dr Cotronei-Baird had required a GFL to teach Street Finance, which -- 49 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 48 Professor Jensen states was not true based on his December 2022 conversation with Dr Cotronei-Baird.222 [178] When cross-examined on his evidence, Professor Jensen; • agreed that he had not had ‘many’ one-on-one discussions with Dr Cotronei-Baird about the Street Finance course as claimed in his witness statement but only met her once;223 • he could not recall the date and location of the meeting he had with Dr Paladino in early July 2022’224 • confirmed his recollection that he asked Dr Paladino during the July 2022 meeting whether Dr Cotronei-Baird would teach Street Finance which drew the response that Dr Cotronei-Baird would only teach the course if she received a GFL;225 • accepted that what Dr Paladino told him in relation to Dr Cotronei-Baird’s attitude towards teaching Street Finance may well have been based on what Dr Cotronei-Baird told Dr Paladino;226 • agreed that he drew an inference from reading Dr Paladino’s email exchange with Dr Murawski between 14-19 July 2022 that Dr Cotronei-Baird did not agree to teach Street Finance without a GFL;227 • agreed that his surprise at Dr Cotronei-Baird stating during their December 2022 discussion that she would teach Street Finance ‘on load’ was not based on what Dr Paladino had told him but rather the inference he drew from the above-referred July 2022 email exchange;228 • rejected that he should resile from his evidence that Dr Paladino had mislead him on Dr Cotronei-Baird’s demand to be paid a GFL in order to teach Street Finance; 229 and • agreed that he preferred Dr Cotronei-Baird’s December 2022 advice to him of her willingness to teach Street Finance ‘on load’ over the advice he received from Dr Paladino and because of that he believed Dr Paladino mislead him230; • agreed that Dr Cotronei-Baird might have changed her view on teaching Street Finance without a GFL from the position she had previously communicated to Dr Paladino;231 and • agreed that his allegation that Dr Paladino had made a deliberate misrepresentation to him was pretty serious in that it constituted a lie, but he did not at any subsequent point raise that issue directly with Dr Paladino although he wished he had.232 [179] Dr Paladino states that Professor Jensen correctly recalls her advising him that Dr Cotronei-Baird would run the course, if she received a GFL.233 Dr Paladino rejects that she misled Professor Jensen regarding Dr Cotronei-Baird’s unwillingness to teach Street Finance without the GFL. Dr Paladino refers to the long history of discussions and communication in relation to the issue of payment of a GFL to Dr Cotronei-Baird. This included an email from -- 50 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 49 Dr Cotronei-Baird to Professor Jensen on 18 October 2021 where she referred to having historically been paid a GFL for teaching Street Finance, noted that she had foregone this payment during the pandemic and was seeking restoration of the GFL moving forward.234 She highlights that Dr Cotronei-Baird’s apparent agreement in discussion with Professor Jensen in December 2022 to teach Street Finance ‘on load’ was at odds with her earlier position of seeking a GFL payment.235 Dr Paladino also refers to her consistent concern that paying a GFL to Dr Cotronei-Baird would have equity implications for the team; evidenced by an email she sent to Professor Jensen in November 2021.236 [180] Dr Paladino also explained her concern at Professor Jensen’s decision to authorise the teaching of Street Finance ‘on load’ by Dr Cotronei-Baird. She states that if teaching were ‘on load’ than the same exemptions granted to Dr Cotronei-Baird in relation to her other WCLA work would also have to be extended to other academic staff within the WCLA. This she states would inevitably impact on delivery of core responsibilities by WCLA academic staff.237 [181] During cross-examination, Dr Paladino; • agreed she had a discussion with Professor Jensen in July 2022 regarding the Street Finance course and that budgetary constraints meant he had decided to not pay the GFL to Dr Cotronei-Baird;238 • agreed she had told Professor Jensen that Dr Cotronei-Baird did not want to teach Street Finance unless she received a GFL, which Dr Cotronei-Baird had mentioned to her;239 • accepted that she had not included in her reply witness statement any reference to Dr Cotronei-Baird having told her that she required a GFL in order to teach the Street Finance course;240 • did not agree she was worried about Dr Cotronei-Baird being paid the GFL as she had been paid this since 2018 and that Dr Paladino had been supportive of her all of that time;241 • while not resiling from her view that teaching ‘on load’ was generally disruptive to the WCLA, she reaffirmed that her concern with Dr Cotronei-Baird was more of an equity issue with other staff;242 • stated that contrary to Professor Jensen’s evidence, Dr Cotronei-Baird received payment of the GFL in 2022 due to an exemption granted that year, but did not receive it in 2021; • stated that Dr Cotronei-Baird was given some relief from her WCLA duties in 2022 because of illness, and it was not until she received an email from her in April 2022 that Dr Paladino realised that Dr Cotronei-Baird was prioritising the Street Finance teaching;243 • distinguished the concern she held in 2022 about Dr Cotronei-Baird teaching Street Finance from other years because in 2022, Dr Cotronei-Baird had been given relief -- 51 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 50 from certain WCLA work and had prioritised Street Finance teaching of which she had not advised Dr Paladino;244 • confirmed that Dr Cotronei-Baird was notified in July 2022 that 2022 was the last year she would receive the GFL for the Street Finance course;245 • denied she was unhappy with WCLA academic staff teaching Street Finance with or without a GFL, and stated that it was the equity issue across all staff she was concerned with;246 and • stated that Dr Cotronei-Baird consistently sought a GFL for teaching Street Finance both in her emails and in conversations with her;247 [182] The essence of this allegation is that Dr Paladino misrepresented to Professor Jensen in or about July 2022, that Dr Cotronei-Baird did not wish to teach the Street Finance course unless she received a GFL. That misrepresentation was said by Dr Jensen to have been revealed to him when Dr Cotronei-Baird advised him during a discussion in December 2022 that she was willing to run the Street Finance course ‘on load’ without a GFL. [183] I accept that Dr Paladino told Professor Jensen during a discussion in July 2022 that Dr Cotronei-Baird did not want to teach Street Finance unless she received a GFL. That advice was consistent with earlier communication of Dr Cotronei-Baird’s position on the GFL, as communicated by her in an email in October 2021 to Professor Jensen. She clearly believed she should receive the GFL and sought its restoration after it was withdrawn in 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic interruption of the Street Finance course. [184] I accept that Dr Paladino supported Dr Cotronei-Baird during the period of payment of GFL to her from 2017, on the basis that teaching Street Finance did not impact on Dr Cotronei- Baird’s performance of her core WCLA work. That support was called into question in 2022 when Dr Cotronei-Baird prioritised Street Finance teaching at a time she had been relieved of some WCLA work because of ill-health. The prioritisation of the Street Finance teaching was not initially brought to Dr Paladino’s attention by Dr Cotronei-Baird. I also accept the evidence of Dr Paladino that her concern was not whether Dr Cotronei-Baird did or did not receive the GFL but whether the broader equity issue of treatment of other WCLA staff in a similar position was given proper consideration. That was not an unreasonable concern in my view for a leader to hold. [185] Against this backdrop a decision was reached in mid-2022 by Professor Jensen in conjunction with others to change arrangements for the delivery of the Street Finance course and move to a more sustainable arrangement. In part because of advice received from Dr Paladino, that Dr Cotronei-Baird required a GFL. That decision was overturned in December 2022 when Professor Jensen authorised Dr Cotronei-Baird to run the course ‘on load’. [186] Returning to the allegation that Dr Paladino ‘lied’ to Dr Jensen, I am not satisfied the allegation has been made out. My reasons for that finding are as follows: [187] Firstly, Dr Cotronei-Baird had been paid the GFL from 2017/2018 until 2021 and sought its restoration for 2022. There was a history of the payment being made, making it entirely -- 52 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 51 reasonable that she would have seen it (the GFL) as a legitimate entitlement for performing additional work. It would be a rare employee that would lightly concede the loss of an entitlement without loss of the accompanying work. [188] Secondly, the matter of the GFL payments had been the subject of numerous discussions and communications between Dr Paladino, Professor Jensen, Dr Murawski and Dr Cotronei- Baird over a number of years. In these circumstances it is inherently unlikely in my view that Paladino would not have held discussions with Dr Cotronei-Baird about the Street Finance course and payment of the GFL, and would have understood what Dr Cotronei-Baird’s position was on the GFL. [189] Thirdly, while the University seeks to undermine Dr Paladino’s evidence because of her failure to mention in her reply statement that Dr Cotronei-Baird had mentioned in discussions her requirement to be paid the GFL for teaching Street Finance, that criticism is undermined by Dr Cotronei-Baird’s own position as communicated in her email to Professor Jensen in 2021. [190] Fourthly, Dr Cotronei-Baird was the person best placed to give evidence on what she did or did not say to Dr Paladino about teaching the Street Finance course with or without a GFL. She was not called to give evidence, thus undermining the University’s case on this allegation. [191] Fifthly, Professor Jensen properly conceded that by the time he spoke with her in December 2022, Dr Cotronei-Baird may have changed her position from that previously communicated by her to Dr Paladino. Such a change in heart would be entirely unremarkable in circumstances where Dr Cotronei-Baird had been advised she had been relieved of teaching the Street Finance course for 2023 in mid-2022. [192] Finally, any confusion over the competing information provided to Professor Jensen by Dr Paladino in July 2022 and Dr Cotronei-Baird in December 2022 could have been easily resolved at the time by Professor Jensen. That he chose not to confront Dr Paladino at the time, despite agreeing that ‘lying to him’ was a serious issue, speaks either to Professor Jensen’s lack of competence as a leader; or that the issue was not as serious as now contended by him and the University. Allegation 23 - Telling Professor Gahan that Professor Jensen agreed any work on the Review would be put on hold until after she returned to her role when she knew Professor Jensen had not agreed to this. [193] Professor Jensen states that he advised Dr Paladino in November 2022 that the FBE Executive had decided to review the WCLA (the Review). He explained the next steps in the process, including the development of the Terms of Reference and search for an external review team. Professor Jensen says he sought to reassure Dr Paladino that the Review was not about reducing staff. In early February 2023, Professor Clinton who was Professor in Evaluation in the University’s Faculty of Education was engaged to undertake the Review. The Review commenced in March 2023. As part of the Review, Professor Clinton sent a survey to all staff, interviewed key stakeholders (including WCLA staff and Departmental staff), and held focus groups.248 The Review was completed on 11 July 2023.249 -- 53 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 52 [194] As earlier stated, formal complaints were made by WCLA staff about Dr Paladino, of which Professor Jensen was made aware of in June/July 2023.250 Professor Jensen states that he was not sure how long the investigation of Dr Paladino would take and considered it necessary to implement the Review recommendations as soon as possible. In doing so, he says he still wanted to give Dr Paladino a chance to participate in the Review process, so he sent her an email on 23 August 2023251. He thanked Dr Paladino for her ‘constructive engagement’ with the Report that day. He also invited Paladino to provide any input or feedback she may have about the Report and its recommendations. He also advised Dr Paladino that he would arrange a meeting with her in the next fortnight.252 [195] Dr Paladino responded to Professor Jensen’s 23 August 2023 email on 24 August 2023 stating her belief that she and Professor Jensen had agreed to meet before discussing the Review with the Team, a statement Professor Jensen disagreed with.253 Professor Jensen then sent an email to Dr Paladino on 25 August 2023 in the following terms seeking to clarify her role in the Review process; “Just to clarify how we will proceed from here: it is important to delineate between two distinct elements of the process which appear to be conflated in your response. 1. Report to stakeholders (you, HoDs, WCLA staff) on the Review’s recommendations. That has commenced and the next point in the process will be a high-level, distilled summary of the report for WCLA staff which will happen in the next week or so (Phyllis is working to find a suitable time in the diaries). I am happy to share the PowerPoint presentation with you beforehand. 2. Implementation of the Report’s recommendations. Once all stakeholders have been consulted and provided feedback (which we have already asked from you), Senior Team will consider which recommendations to implement, modify or ignore. This will then be taken to Faculty Executive for final approval (which I am hoping will happen at the final Faculty Executive meeting of 2023. ………..”254 [196] Dr Paladino then responded to the 25 August 2023 email in the following terms on 4 September 2023; “Thanks Paul – from our discussion I had understood that we would consider the recommendations together (you, Peter and I) and discuss which would be viable or not in the first tranche before presenting a balanced set to the WCLA team. In any case, now that there will no longer be any discussion, could you please send the melines/dates for the process noted below? I would appreciate being able to review the power points a few days in advance. ……………”255 [197] Professor Jensen then responded to Dr Paladino on 4 September 2023 as follows; -- 54 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 53 “Thanks Angela The WCLA presentation will be at a very high level and will not focus on specific recommendations at this stage. I will send you a draft of the presentation for your comments by COB tomorrow. From there we will have a range of consultations with you, HoDs and other stakeholders about which recommendations to focus on before we take a paper to Faculty executive on 27th November for consideration. ……..”256 [198] It is noted that while Professor Jensen was aware at the time of the above-described email exchange that formal complaints had been raised regarding Dr Paladino’s conduct, and that an investigation had been initiated; she was not advised of the investigation into her conduct and stood aside from her WCLA Director role until notified by Professor Jensen on 5 September 2023. [199] On 31 October 2023257, Professor Jensen sent an email to Dr Paladino asking how she was doing and if there was anything he could do to assist/support her. Dr Paladino responded by email on 3 November 2023258 and requested to be kept appraised of developments for the WCLA, as she had been cut off from all communications since 5 September 2023. Professor Jensen replied on 4 November 2023, confirming that he was ‘happy to keep her posted on recent developments in WCLA (on both the operational and strategic fronts) as they unfold.’259 [200] Professor Gahan who was working as Acting Director of the WCLA during Dr Paladino’s leave of absence, sent an email to Dr Paladino on 1 November 2023260, which amongst other matters advised her that the WCLA was starting to implement the Review recommendations and asked if Dr Paladino would like to share any information to assist with refining the Review’s recommendations. On 3 November 2023 Dr Paladino responded by email261 to Professor Gahan, copied to Professor Jensen. She noted Professor Gahan’s email was the first update she had received about the WCLA since 5 September 2023 after two months of activities had passed, and went on to relevantly state as follows; “……….. It had been agreed in my meeting with Paul Jensen that any work on the strategic review would be put on hold until after I returned to the Director role. I am therefore not clear why feedback is being sought on this and why work continues to progress on this front and for a future strategic plan when I have not been able to be present at discussions, meetings and workshops given my role. ………………” [201] While not copying in Dr Paladino, Professor Jensen responded to her email by sending an email to Professor Gahan on 4 November 2023262, copied to Professor Koffman, Ms Curtain and Yao Liu in the following terms; “…………….. -- 55 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 54 We will need to seek some advice from HR on this. It is important that the statement that “It had been agreed in my meeting with Paul Jensen that any work on the strategic review would be put on hold until after I returned to my Director role” is not consistent with my recollections of the discussion (which could be confirmed by Yao’s notes of the meeting). It is also inconsistent with emails I have sent to Angela over the past two months (which I will forward to you) which provide some updates on the process and seek input from her on the review. ………” [202] Dr Jensen states he was shocked by Dr Paladino’s email of 3 November 2023 as he sent emails to Dr Paladino over the preceding two months which stated to her that the Review would continue in her absence. He says the email caused him to believe Dr Paladino was misrepresenting previous discussions and that she was trying to insert herself into the decision- making part of the Review. He further states that the email displayed a sense of entitlement and insubordination that was particularly inappropriate given she was at that time suspended from her WCLA Director role because of the investigation into her alleged misconduct.263 [203] When cross-examined on his evidence, Professor Jensen maintained that he had not stated as claimed by Dr Paladino in her email to Professor Gahan that the Review would be put on hold while Dr Paladino was stood down form the WCLA Director role. He accepted however, that her statement might not constitute a lie and may have been her perception of the discussion.264 [204] In her reply to Professor Jensen’s evidence, Dr Paladino variously states that; • she accepts that while it was ultimately the FBE Executive’s responsibility to determine matters in relation to Faculty departments, divisions or centres, her experience was that reviews are supposed to be a collaborative process;265 • it was her recollection that Professor Jensen had told her that the Review and its recommendations would indeed be a collegial and collaborative process, that she would be closely involved and that he would be happy for her to continue to work with him and the FBE senior leadership team to discuss the future direction of the WCLA;266 • despite her above-described understanding of the process, it proceeded with one meeting outlining a process that was not subsequently followed by the external reviewer;267 • following her suspension from the WCLA Director role on 5 September 2023, she was denied any further involvement with the WCLA, its staff or future direction;268 • while advised by Professor Jensen that she was welcome to participate in the Review and directions of the WCLA, she had been stood down from the Director role and was therefore confused at the time as to how she could contribute when prevented from interacting with WCLA staff;269 and -- 56 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 55 • contrary to Professor Jensen’s evidence, she believed that she and Professor Jensen had discussed during the 5 September 2023 meeting that the Review would be put on hold while she was stood down and that Professor Farquasson’s recollection was the same as hers. [205] This allegation can be distilled into a simple point. Professor Jensen and Dr Paladino held a different view on what was discussed in relation to the Review during the 5 September 2023 meeting at which Dr Paladino was stood aside from her WCLA Director role. Unhelpfully, witnesses to that discussion, Professor Farquharson and Yao Liu (Human Resources Business Partner - FBE) were not called to give evidence. Yao Liu’s meeting notes that were referred to by Professor Jensen in his 4 November 2023 email, were not produced in evidence, which suggests the notes may not have assisted resolve the evidentiary conflict. Nor did Dr Paladino produce the meeting notes that she refers to in her evidence. [206] The allegation that Dr Paladino deliberately misrepresented Dr Jensen’s position on the Review to Professor Gahan in her email dated 3 November 2023 is an extremely serious allegation. It goes to the heart of the professional relationship between two senior academic staff of the University. The allegation if established would in itself constitute serious misconduct in my view. Consequently, I accept that because of the seriousness of the allegation, the Briginshaw standard would apply270. Applying that standard and having regard to all of the evidence which I have summarised above, I am not satisfied that Dr Paladino deliberately misrepresented to Professor Gahan the discussion she had with Professor Jensen about the Review being put on hold while she was stood down. That she may have had a different recollection of the discussion does not mean she deliberately lied about it. My reasons for that conclusion are as follows. [207] Firstly, Professor Jensen presented as an unimpressive witness in that he disclosed a consistent failure to directly address concerns he held in relation to the alleged conduct and/or behaviour of Dr Paladino and later seek to rely on the matters not raised with her. This apparent avoidance appears to be a feature of Professor Jensen’s leadership style, that of not directly confronting alleged inappropriate behaviour by Dr Paladino. For example, where despite claiming Dr Paladino ‘lied’ to him about Dr Cotronei-Baird’s attitude to teaching Street Finance without a GFL and accepting that lying was a serious matter during cross-examination, he did not raise that concern directly with Dr Paladino at the time of the conduct. See also his failure to disclose to Dr Paladino, concerns that Dr Wear had been discussing regularly with him during 2022 or other concerns raised with him regarding the WCLA culture.271 Professor Jensen also accepted that he should have had more direct discussions with Dr Paladino about issues that arose,272 should have disclosed to her the purpose of leadership coaching he was encouraging to undertake in 2022, that his failure to do so was unfair to Dr Paladino273 and he accepted that he failed to raise concerns he held with Dr Paladino when undertaking her 2022 performance review.274 Having regard to the consistent failure of Professor Jensen to confront Dr Paladino with issues now claimed by the University to be serious, I treat his evidence in relation to what was discussed the meeting on 5 September 2023 with caution. [208] Secondly, if Dr Paladino was seeking to misrepresent the discussion of 5 September 2023 in her email to Professor Gahan, it was done in a very unsophisticated way, as the alleged misrepresentation was done in plain sight. The email sent to Professor Gahan was copied to Professor Jensen, who had the opportunity to immediately correct Dr Paladino’s statement. He -- 57 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 56 did not do so, which again raises doubts about the evidence he now gives. While this failure to address the statement is consistent with the observation I have made above about Professor’s Jensen’s apparent management failures, it also calls into question the reliability of his evidence, more so in circumstances where Yao Liu was present at the 5 September 2023 meeting but was not called to give evidence. [209] Thirdly, contrary to Professor Jensen’s claim in his 4 November 2023 email to Professor Gahan, there is no evidence before me that he sent emails to Dr Paladino over the previous two months regarding the Review. The statement he made in the 4 November 2023 email appears on the evidence to be factually incorrect. It is true there were emails exchanged between Professor Jensen and Dr Paladino about the Review and progression of the Report recommendations, but the emails in evidence pre-date the 5 September 2023 meeting at which Dr Paladino was stood aside from the WCLA Director role. The only email in evidence from Professor Jensen to Dr Paladino between 5 September and 1 November 2023 is the email dated 31 October 2023 in which he was ‘checking in’ with Dr Paladino regarding her welfare. Dr Paladino gave unchallenged evidence that in the two months following her standdown from the Director role, she did not receive any update on the WCLA or the Review. The fact that the emails from Professor Jensen regarding the Review pre-date the 5 September 2023 is significant: Dr Paladino being relieved of the Director role from that date might bear upon the Review process as she was a key stakeholder, if not a final decision maker. In those circumstances it would be unremarkable for the issue of the Review status to have been discussed in the 5 September 2023 meeting, as claimed by Dr Paladino. [210] Finally, while Professor Jensen and Dr Paladino may have a different recollection of the discussion about the status of the Review when Dr Paladino was stood aside from the WCLA Director role, that does not establish that Dr Paladino deliberately misrepresented the discussion in her email to Professor Gahan. Having regard to Professor Jensen’s predisposition of avoiding a difficult discussion with Dr Paladino, it is more than merely plausible that the issue was discussed and that Professor Jensen was unclear at best on the status of the Review while Dr Paladino was on a ‘leave of absence’ from the Director role. Allegation 24 - Firmly denying Professor Jensen raised a strategic review with her when she knew this was not true. [211] As earlier stated, Professor Jensen says he informed Dr Paladino that the FBE Executive had decided to conduct a review of the WCLA during a regular catch-up meeting in November 2022 at which Professor Gahan attended.275 He says he had a further catch-up meeting with Dr Paladino on 15 February 2023 during which Dr Paladino ‘furiously’ denied that he had told her about the Review which made him think she had a problem with the Review itself.276 Professor Jensen states he spoke with Professor Gahan in February 2023 when he (Professor Gahan) returned from leave to check whether he could recall the discussion about the Review in November 2022. He states Professor Gahan confirmed his recollection that the Review was raised in the November 2022 meeting with Dr Paladino.277 Professor Jensen states he sent an email to Dr Paladino on 31 March 2023 where he advised that Professor Gahan clearly remembered a discussion about the Review during the November 2022 meeting.278 [212] Dr Paladino gave evidence that she did not recall being informed of the Review during the above-referred November 2022 meeting. Her own recollection is that Professor Jensen first -- 58 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 57 told her about the Review during their meeting on 19 January 2023 and that when the issue was again discussed in a meeting on 13 March 2023. She says Professor Jensen had a ‘heated outburst’, in which he insisted he had advised her about the Review at an earlier time. Dr Paladino also relies on an email she sent to Professor Jensen on 1 March 2023279 and his response, as evidence of her not having been advised of the Review at the earlier time in November 2022; as claimed by Professor Jensen.280 [213] The allegation is again a serious one as it goes to whether Dr Paladino was being dishonest about when she was first advised of the Review. The evidence discloses that Professor Jensen and Dr Paladino hold a different recollection about when the Review was first raised with Dr Paladino. No documentary evidence was produced that indicates notification in November 2022. Nor was Professor Gahan called to give evidence in support of Professor Jensen’s claim that their recollections aligned. I accept that recollections may differ on matters such as when a matter was or was not discussed. That Professor Jensen and Dr Paladino may hold different recollections does not elevate the position to one of dishonesty on the part of Dr Paladino. I am consequently not satisfied that a requisite level of proof exists that would make good the allegation of dishonesty on the part of Dr Paladino. Allegation 25 - Failing to engage with the Review by not responding to requests for interviews or responding late in circumstances where she was required to participate. [214] Professor Jensen states that through the entirety of the Review, he observed Dr Paladino was resistant to participating, based on her refusal to engage with his Executive Assistant on occasions or failing to provide background information to Professor Clinton. He says he also received feedback from Professor Clinton about Dr Paladino’s hostility. He cites the example of Professor Clinton telling him that Dr Paladino often took a month to respond to a request, which should have been done straight away. This was said to relate to background information and documents regarding the WCLA required for the Review.281 [215] Professor Jensen also refers to an email he received from Professor Clinton on 4 May 2023 which was sent in response to a previous email in which Professor Jensen queried whether his attendance at Dr Paladino’s interview was required. Professor Clinton responded as follows; “……… I was going to ask you the same question. I think better without you there under the circumstances. I’ll respond to her today with some broad areas. I was going to ask her for one specific question to ask faculty members today anyway, so I’ll couch it in this email and be very general. Its reasonable for her to ask for a heads up on the questions however, her weird change in behaviour when in and outside of the faculty and constant barbs really don’t do her any favours. I assume she is very concerned about her own leadership and the team going forward so I’m trying to be kind. I hope you didn’t feel blindsided yesterday when I asked about your presence at the interviews, I meant to say something before yesterday’s meeting. ……….”282 -- 59 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 58 [216] Professor Jensen further states he received a phone call from Professor Clinton on 4 May 2023 during which she expressed outrage and deep concerns about Dr Paladino and said words to the effect that Dr Paladino had shown great reluctance and outright hostility towards the Review. He further states that Professor Clinton reported to him the behavior of Dr Paladino included; being recalcitrant and insubordinate, made everything difficult for her, failed to respond to calendar invites or emails about interviews, failed to answer phone calls from her, responded that she was very busy when a meeting was requested and was blocked and impeded at every stage of the process. Professor Jensen further states that Professor Clinton described Dr Paladino’s management style as chaotic, her leadership as dysfunctional, and that she could not believe Dr Paladino could behave in this way.283 Professor Jensen states that Professor Clinton’s experiences validated the concerns he held about Dr Paladino.284 Professor Clinton at Professor Jensen’s request set out her concerns in writing on 4 September 2023.285 The relevant feedback from Professor Clinton was summarised by Professor Jensen as follows; (a) “I have some fairly strong and somewhat negative views about the Williams Centre and concerns about its viability;” (b) “the centre leadership is very hierarchical and not aligned with Faculty or University strategic thinking;” (c) “the review team found it astonishing that the centre leadership could say no to the Dean;” and (d) “The review was difficult because of the lack of information collected over time, seemingly poor project management, financial management, evaluation and somewhat resistance to engaging in any form of collective strategic thinking. This in itself is an indicator of a dysfunctional group.”286 [217] When cross examined on his evidence Professor Jensen gave the following evidence; • accepted that he could not dispute that Dr Paladino replied to all emails she received from Professor Clinton;287 • he had no reason to dispute that all emails sent to Professor Clinton by Dr Paladino were civil and cooperative;288 • he had not seen the emails sent by Dr Paladino to Professor Clinton;289 • agreed his evidence was based on what he says Professor Clinton told him and that he was not aware Professor Clinton was not giving evidence in the proceedings;290 • did not agree that Professor Clinton’s description of Dr Paladino’s behaviour was unprofessional or extreme;291 • he accepted Professor Clinton’s views about Dr Paladino could not be taken as ‘gospel,’ but he had no reason to believe she would lie to him;292 -- 60 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 59 • agreed that serious matters referred to by Professor Clinton in relation to Dr Paladino’s behaviour were not referred to in the final Review report;293 and • agreed that the email sent by Professor Clinton to him on 4 September 2023 did not specifically mention Dr Paladino, although it did reference deficiencies in leadership of the WCLA.294 [218] Dr Paladino rejected that she had been resistant, uncooperative, or impeded the Review. She states that a significant volume of background material in relation to the WCLA was sourced by her and provided to Professor Clinton for which she says she was thanked. She further states Professor Clinton thanked her for her assistance at the final interview as did the Review panel. Dr Paladino claims that she responded to all emails sent to her and needed time to compile a document with attachments to make it easy for the Review panel members to follow the logic of the trajectory of the WCLA’s evolution. She states this was done as quickly as possible.295 [219] Dr Paladino goes on to state that to the best of her knowledge, Professor Clinton only engaged with her for one preliminary meeting to communicate what she wanted Dr Paladino to provide, followed by two interviews, and a feedback meeting primarily focused on how Dr Paladino could possibly manage her Academic Board Officer role whilst continuing to be WCLA Director. She observed this to be a strange focus of the Review and says she was not asked to respond to any of the concerns raised by the team about her leadership.296 She went on to deny showing any hostility, insubordination, or recalcitrance towards Professor Clinton or the Review at any point of the process.297 As to Professor Clinton’s expectation of an immediate response to an email, Dr Paladino states that was an unrealistic expectation of any Academic, let alone one who had Dr Paladino’s workload at the time.298 Dr Paladino also rejected Professor Clinton’s characterization of her management style as chaotic and her leadership as dysfunctional.299 [220] The evidence of the University is limited to what Dr Jensen states was communicated to him by Professor Clinton during the period of the Review, which he acknowledged during cross-examination. Strikingly given the seriousness of the allegations said to have been made by Professor Clinton, she was not called to give evidence on her interactions with Dr Paladino. Consequently, the statements and opinions she is said to have expressed to Professor Jensen were unable to be tested in cross-examination. Nor were the claims made by Professor Jensen regarding Dr Paladino’s alleged failure to engage with Professor Clinton or the Review supported by any emails exchanged between Professor Clinton and Dr Paladino. I also note that Dr Paladino’s alleged conduct towards Professor Clinton and the Review do not appear to have been raised with her at the time by Professor Jensen. [221] The University’s failure to call Professor Clinton, the absence of any relevant documentary evidence of Dr Paladino’s delays or lack of cooperation with the Review and Dr Paladino’s detailed denials of the allegation leads me to find there is insufficient evidence to establish that the alleged conduct occurred. The allegation is not sustained. Allegation 26 - Screaming at staff. -- 61 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 60 [222] Dr Dixon-Deane states that after a few months of working in the WCLA, she regularly heard Dr Paladino screaming at staff, by which she means Dr Paladino’s voice was raised in a tone and with a pitch that was very loud. The staff subject to this behaviour included both Dr Corrin and Dr Calma neither of whom said anything about the behaviour. Dr Dixon-Deane states that while Dr Paladino only raised her voice once towards her, the general behaviour of Dr Paladino made her feel unsafe. The incident Dr Dixon-Deane refers to in relation to being screamed at was said to have occurred on 18 September 2017 following her conduct of a workshop with academic staff.300 [223] Under cross-examination, Dr Dixon-Deane denied her evidence was a fabrication and maintained that the conduct occurred; but agreed she had not raised the matter with HR at the time, despite Dr Paladino’s conduct being serious. She explained that her reluctance to report the matter at the time was because of her cultural background, in that she asks questions rather than report concerns. She also claimed in cross-examination to have spoken to Dr Paladino about the behaviour, asked Dr Paladino questions about the screaming but agreed she had not included that evidence in her witness statement. Despite not reporting the screaming to HR when it occurred, she accepted she had subsequently reported concerns over her 2018 annual work planning assessment to HR. She explained her willingness to raise her annual work planning assessment concern with HR because it happened at a later point in her employment by which stage she was more confident to raise a concern. Dr Dixon-Deane otherwise maintained her evidence that Dr Paladino screamed at staff including Dr Corrin and Dr Calma.301 [224] Dr Dixon-Deane then went on to agree that screaming at staff would constitute misconduct then stated many things were ‘reported’ in relation to Dr Paladino’s conduct. She agreed that those reports were not made directly to HR; but claimed that these matters were discussed with staff in other departments, although she couldn’t identify who had been spoken to.302 She further claimed that Dr Corrin had spoken with HR, but could not recall whether Dr Calma had.303 [225] Dr Paladino variously states in her evidence that she has never raised her voice or screamed at staff, denies Dr Corrin was on the receiving end ‘every other week’, notes that Dr Corrin was being performance managed which was an uncomfortable process for Dr Corrin, never raised her voice to Dr Calma, who remains one of the longest serving staff members in the WCLA; cannot identify from her records the workshop on 18 September 2017, and that the conversation described between she and Dr Dixon-Deane simply did not happen.304 During cross-examination, Dr Paladino confirmed her evidence in chief and agreed that Dr Dixon- Deane may have had an ‘axe to grind’ with Dr Paladino because her contract was not renewed.305 Dr Paladino also refers to positive comments made by Dr Calma about his working relationship with her during his interview by Ms Taylor.306 [226] I am not satisfied that the alleged conduct occurred as stated by Dr Dixon-Deane for the following reasons. Firstly, the time that has elapsed since the events leads me to place less weight on the allegation in circumstances where it was not raised by Dr Dixon-Deane or any other staff member at the time. Secondly, for the reasons that I have previously given, I treat Dr Dixon-Deane’s evidence with caution given the vindictiveness and negativity she displays towards Dr Paladino. Thirdly, Dixon-Deane’s memory is selective and unreliable for the reasons I have also previously discussed above when dealing with her credit. Fourthly, I found -- 62 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 61 unconvincing her rationale for not raising what is on its face a serious issue of ‘screaming’ at staff while willing to raise concern with HR about other matters. That is in circumstances where Dr Dixon-Deane introduced new evidence during cross-examination that issues relating to Dr Paladino were routinely raised, albeit not with HR. Finally, there was no corroborating evidence led from either Dr Corrin or Dr Calma. While Dr Calma’s interview by Ms Taylor and comments he made at that time were not able to be tested through cross-examination, no comments were made by him in that interview that would support Dr Dixon-Deane’s evidence on the alleged ‘screaming’ by Dr Paladino. Allegation 27 - Telling Dr Dickson-Deane she did not see value in her work. [227] Dr Dixon-Deane states that during a conversation with Dr Paladino about Dr Dixon- Deane publishing an article titled ‘Avoiding educational technology pitfalls for inclusion and equity,’ Dr Paladino said that the article would not count towards Dr Dixon-Deane’s workload and performance. During the conversation Dr Paladino is also alleged to have said that she did not see any value in Dr Dixon-Deane’s work to which Dr Dixon-Deane says she responded, “It was not for you, it is about the people who read my work.” Dr Dixon-Deane did not raise the matter with either Professors Jensen, Spear or Kofman at the time because of a fear induced response to keep her job at the time.307 [228] Dr Paladino states in her reply witness statement that she has no recollection of the above-referred conversation or saying words to the effect that she did not see value in Dixon- Deane’s work. She concedes however she may have said, and maintained that it was true, that journal publications are more valued by the Faculty than book chapters or books and that she may have advised Dr Dickson-Deane at some point to pursue research projects which would add value to research outputs in the Faculty. This is also the view she knew was held by FBE Leadership, as evidenced by the target Journal lists. She further states that the alleged comments date to a long time ago and she does not know particularly when Dr Dixon-Deane is referring to in her evidence. In cross-examination, Dr Paladino was more definitive in her evidence and denied having said the words attributed to her by Dr Dixon-Deane.308 [229] While I have previously noted my reservations about Dr Dixon-Deane’s evidence, Dr Paladino concedes in her reply witness statement that she may have had conversations with Dr Dixon-Deane about where she should focus her publishing and research efforts. At the very least this might have been perceived by Dr Dixon-Deane as a criticism of her work and may provide support for her evidence that Dr Paladino did not value her work more generally. I also note that Dr Paladino changed her evidence from having no recollection to denying the comments attributed to her. That she may not have recalled such a conversation would be understandable given the passage of time and lack of specificity as to the timing of the alleged discussion. [230] Given the inconsistency in Dr Paladino’s evidence and the concession she made about what she may have said to Dr Dixon-Deane, I find it more likely than not that there was a conversation between the two at an unspecified time about Dr Dixon-Deane’s work and that during that conversation Dr Paladino made comments that at the very least cast doubt on the value of Dr Dixon-Deane’s work. While it is claimed there were express statements made by Dr Paladino that she did not value Dr Dixon-Deane’s work, I find it more likely that Dr Paladino would have indirectly questioned the value of the Dr Dixon-Deane’s work by referring to the -- 63 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 62 FBE’s preference for journal publications and research work, that adds value to the Faculty. I accept that such comments would have been perceived as questioning the value of Dr Dixon- Deane’s work. That said, at worst it would have been insensitive on Dr Paladino’s part but would not constitute misconduct that would establish a valid reason for her dismissal particularly in circumstances where the comments were made some time between 7-8 years ago. I am not satisfied that the comment was made by Dr Paladino as alleged. Allegation 28 - Making a disrespectful comment about Dr Dickson-Deane’s work ethic and sensitivity. [231] Dr Dixon-Deane claims that on one occasion around 4.00pm; Dr Paladino, who was in the office, asked her a question to the effect of ‘what work have you been doing’ in response to which Dr Dixon-Deane gave an update. Dr Dixon-Deane states the question worried her, as the implication was that she was not doing any work. Because of that concern, she approached Dr Paladino and asked her whether she had any issues with Dr Dixon-Deane’s work to which Dr Paladino commented that she had just not seen Dr Dixon-Deane in the office and that she (Dr Dixon-Deane) was just being sensitive. This event worried Dr Dixon-Deane that she may not be achieving what was expected of her, particularly in circumstances where she was on a visa.309 [232] Dr Paladino denies that the conversation occurred as claimed and states she would not randomly ask a team member to report on what they are doing but rather would do so during scheduled catch-ups.310 [233] The allegation rises no higher that Dr Dixon-Deane having perceived a comment from Dr Paladino as implying Dr Dixon-Deane was not working. The comment if made, could have just as easily been an innocent inquiry from Dr Paladino after she had not seen Dr Dixon-Deane for a period of time. That would be a far from unusual question from a manager. As to Dr Dixon-Deane’s claim that she was then described by Dr Paladino as being ‘sensitive;’ on the basis of the material before me, I agree with that assessment if indeed the comment was made Dr Paladino as claimed. The allegation taken at its highest does not amount to inappropriate behaviour on Dr Paladino’s part let alone misconduct. It is therefore unnecessary for me to resolve the evidentiary conflict over whether the comments were made although I note Dr Paladino denies the allegation. The allegation that the conduct constitutes rude or disrespectful behaviour is not sustained. Allegation 29 - Subjecting Dr Dickson-Deane’s work to additional scrutiny not applied to other staff after Dr Dickson-Deane told her she did not want to be screamed at. [234] Dr Dixon-Deane claims that after she had told Dr Paladino that she did not want to be screamed at, Dr Paladino imposed a requirement that Dr Dixon-Deane demonstrate to her WCLA colleagues each new workshop for feedback before presenting them to academics. This she states was a requirement not imposed on anyone else in the WCLA.311 She says this meant her workshops were subject to a long and drawn-out feedback process which was sometimes unhelpful or added very little to her work. After a couple of workshops, she states she asked Dr Paladino why she was being made to go through this process when no other WCLA staff were, to which she says Dr Paladino responded with words to the effect of, ‘don’t worry about it. You need to keep doing it.’ Dr Dixon-Deane says she felt critiqued and held to a different standard to other WCLA staff.312 -- 64 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 63 [235] Dr Paladino denies that she ever imposed a requirement on Dr Dixon-Deane as claimed. She states it never occurred; there were no events scheduled in the calendar and Dr Dixon- Deane has provided no details nor any dates to support the assertion. Dr Paladino also states that she provided relevant feedback to all team members on presentations and workshops which was emailed and discussed with them. As to review prompts from Dr Dixon-Deane, Dr Paladino states she could only identify two in her calendar, on 11 January and 22 January 2018, and this was to provide feedback on her slides. She further denies that Dr Dixon-Deane asked her why she was being required to undergo the additional scrutiny of her presentations.313 Dr Paladino continued to deny the allegation in cross-examination.314 [236] The absence of any corroborating documentary evidence such as other witness evidence or calendar records of WCLA staff workshops and/or emails containing feedback from WCLA staff who reviewed Dr Dixon-Deane’s workshop, means there is a fragile evidentiary basis to support the allegation. It again relies entirely on Dr Dixon-Deane’s assertion that something occurred which is strenuously denied by Dr Paladino. As I have previously found, I treat the evidence of Dr Dixon-Deane with caution in these circumstances. A such I am not satisfied the conduct occurred as alleged. Even were I to have found the conduct occurred I would place little or no weight on it given the passage of time since the alleged incident occurred. Allegation 30 - Belittling Dr Dickson-Deane’s invitation to be an editor of two journals. [237] Dr Dixon-Deane states that in late 2018 she was invited by two ‘Q1’, (especially prestigious) journals, to be an editor or join an editorial board. The invitation coincided with one of her six-monthly work planning assessments. In completing that assessment, which was subject to review and comments by Dr Paladino, Dr Dixon-Deane included that she had been asked to join the two editorial boards in her work planning assessment. She states that at some later point in 2018 and on reading that comment, Dr Paladino commented that she did not know what Dr Dixon-Deane had done to become an editor and asked whether she had paid them. She says Dr Paladino went on to comment that it seemed odd that the journal would select Dr Dixon- Deane as she had never published with them. When challenged on her comments, Dr Paladino scoffed and changed the subject.315 [238] Dr Dixon Deane further states that after her one-on-one meeting for her annual work planning assessment in 2018, Dr Paladino made a comment on the document to the effect that ‘I don’t know what you did to become an editor’ and then locked the document which prevented Dr Dixon-Deane from responding to the comment. She states she called HR and asked why she was unable to respond to Dr Paladino’s comment, which drew the response from HR that Dr Paladino was the only person who could unlock the document. Dr Dixon-Dean goes on to state that Dr Paladino declined to unlock the document when requested by her.316 While denying that Dr Paladino encouraged her to engage with the work of being an editor, she agreed she was encouraged by Dr Paladino in relation to workshops and designing activities and was also encouraged to apply for the inaugural FBE Women in Leadership program.317 [239] Dr Paladino responded in her evidence that the work planning assessment document was not provided to her and was not a document she was familiar with. Although she indicated that it may be that the reference was intended to be in respect of the performance development review process, which is conducted on an annual basis. She further objects to the reconstructed -- 65 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 64 dialogue presented by Dr Dixon-Deane which she states is untrue. She further claims she would have wholeheartedly congratulated Dr Dixon-Deane for such recognition as she does for any academic. She says that her attitude to Dr Dixon-Deane was the complete opposite to that claimed and that she encouraged Dr Dixon-Deane to engage with this work, and also to apply for the inaugural FBE Women in Leadership program. She notes that at the time there were only three academics at Level B who gained entry to that program including Dr Dixon-Deane with the balance being Level C and above academics who were accepted into the program. She maintained that work planning assessments were not conducted and that any group planning occurred around team planning days.318 When cross-examined, Dr Paladino denied she questioned how Dr Dixon-Deane could have been invited to join the editorial board of two journals or that she had the competence to do fill such a role.319 [240] The case for the University in respect of this allegation again suffers from a lack of documentation that might have otherwise supported Dr Dioxon-Deane’s evidence. Reference to a work planning assessment document completed by Dr Dixon-Deane or a document that had been allegedly locked by Dr Paladino ought to have been recoverable from the University’s records but has not been produced. Moreover, Dr Paladino’s evidence that the work assessment plan document referred to by Dr Dixon-Deane was in fact not used in the WCLA, could have been easily rebutted by the production of such a document by the University. It consequently remains unclear exactly what document Dr Dixon-Deane was referring to. [241] I accept however that Dr Dixon-Deane was invited to join the editorial board of two journals. That is made clear by Dr Paladino’s claim to have encouraged Dr Dixon-Deane to engage with that work, albeit Dr Dixon-Deane denies that specific claim of encouragement by Dr Paladino. The difficulty with Dr Dixon-Deane’s evidence is that it suggests Dr Paladino had a negative view of her performance, which is at odds with Dr Paladino’s support for Dr Dixon- Deane, as evidenced by her acceptance into the FBE Women in Leadership Program. Dr Dixon- Deane agreed that Dr Paladino had been supportive, in that respect. That stands in stark contrast with alleged comments made by Dr Paladino that questioned Dr Dixon-Deane’s competence and selection for the journal editorial role. [242] The University also seeks to discredit Dr Paladino’s evidence that she was encouraging and supportive of Dr Dixon-Deane by relying on Dr Paladino’s evidence during cross- examination that she thought Dr Dixon-Deane’s work was of poor quality320 and that Dr Paladino was working with HR to manage Dr Dixon-Deane out321. Reliance on that evidence to make a general statement about Dr Paladino’s view of Dr Dixon-Deane’s work is misconceived. That is because Dr Paladino was giving evidence in relation to a specific event, that of Dr Dixon-Deane’s termination of employment and Dr Paladino’s belief that particular work had either not been completed by Dr Dixon-Deane or was of poor quality which Dr Paladino was unhappy about. I do not take that evidence as having been an expression by Dr Paladino of her view about Dr Dixon-Deane’s work more generally. See for example Dr Paladino’s earlier response to questioning on Dr Dixon-Deane’s performance when she said Dr Dixon-Deane had ‘elements of improvement’ like most people, but she was good at some aspects of her work.322 Consequently, I see no inconsistency in Dr Paladino’s evidence as claimed by the University. [243] Based on the above I find it inherently unlikely that Dr Paladino made the comments as alleged. I am consequently not satisfied that the alleged conduct occurred. -- 66 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 65 Allegation 31 - Controlling Dr Dickson-Deane’s research and journal publication. [244] Dr Dixon Deane gave evidence that an academic’s publishing record formed part of their performance assessment, with assessment based on how many articles were published and the rank of the journal. She says that before engaging in any research which might be turned into a publishable article, Dr Paladino’s approval of the research topic was required, and she would often veto research topics suggested by Dr Dixon-Deane.323 She further states that Dr Paladino did not allow staff to publish in certain Q1 journals that were relevant to the WCLA’s work because she had her preferred journals and she told Dr Dixon-Deane that articles must be published in business education related journals.324 [245] Dr Dixon-Deane went on to claim that she was directed in 2016/2017 by Dr Paladino to publish an article in a particular journal even though it was not a good fit in Dr Dixon-Deane’s opinion. When the article was rejected after considerable work on Dr Dixon-Deane’s part, Dr Paladino responded that Dr Dixon-Deane could do better and should make the article fit the publication. She further advised Dr Dixon-Deane that if she published the article elsewhere, it would not count towards her assessment. She states that this was reaffirmed by Dr Paladino when the article was finally published some two years later but did not give a clear reason and referred to the position of Professors Spear, Jensen and Kofman.325 [246] Dr Paladino gave the following evidence in response; • the WCLA was required to conduct research in areas that were of benefit to business academics which could be broadly interpreted and was clearly communicated to staff and noted in position descriptions (PDs);326 • staff could engage in other work but were expected to prioritise work relevant to the FBE which was clearly communicated to all staff and was noted in PDs;327 • denies vetoing research topics suggested by Dr Dixon-Deane;328 • denies she told Dr Dixon-Deane she had preferred journals or that staff were not allowed to publish in certain other journals;329 • denies she directed Dr Dixon-Deane to publish her thesis in a particular journal;330 and • denies saying to Dr Dixon-Deane that an article published in a particular journal would not count towards her workload and performance.331 [247] I accept that Dr Paladino was clear on the requirement for WCLA staff to focus and prioritise research that was relevant to the FBE, that being of benefit to business academics. That requirement would inevitably guide the subject matter of research undertaken by WCLA staff. Dr Paladino’s evidence that this was communicated to staff as well as being included in PDs was unchallenged. Dr Paladino also confirmed that staff would come and seek advice from her in relation to their work. This is unsurprising given her position of Director and the need to ensure that WCLA work was relevant to the FBE. It would be strange indeed if WCLA academic staff were at liberty to pursue research that had little relevance to the strategic remit -- 67 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 66 of the WCLA or the FBE without consequence. I am frankly surprised that any issue could be taken with the proposition that the performance of WCLA engaged academics would be assessed based on the relevance of their research and publications to the WCLA and FBE. [248] Having regard to the above, it is more than likely that Dr Paladino would have discussed these requirements with Dr Dixon-Deane, particularly in the context of the latter looking to publish her thesis. As to whether Dr Paladino made the statements attributed to her by Dr Dixon-Deane, I am unable to make such a finding. Dr Dixon-Deane claims she was advised at least twice by Dr Paladino that her performance assessment would be compromised by her not publishing in a particular journal yet gave no evidence on whether her performance assessment was actually adversely affected in any year because of her research and publishing decisions. I also note that no other current or former academics employed in the WCLA, particularly those more recently engaged, gave evidence of the research and publishing ‘straitjacket’ complained of by Dr Dixon-Deane. The allegation is not sustained and even if it were, I would give it little weight given the significant passage of time since the alleged conduct. Allegation 32 - Requesting Dr Dickson-Deane to finish work for the Centre after Dr Dickson- Deane’s employment ended and proposing to withhold her pay until it was completed. [249] Dr Dixon-Deane notified her resignation in or around June 2019. In the lead up to her resignation, she had been working on a project that Dr Paladino wanted her to complete in a specific way that Dr Dixon-Deane was uncomfortable with. Following notification of her resignation, Dr Dixon-Deane says she did not do any further work on the Project because she says she was waiting on feedback from Dr Paladino.332 Following her departure from WCLA, she says she received a phone call from Dawn Quintal from the HR team advising her that she had not returned certain University’s property, to which Dr Dixon-Deane responded that she was not sure what she was talking about. According to Dr Dixon-Deane, Ms Quintal called her again and told her that Dr Paladino had advised that Dr Dixon-Deane needed to complete the project. Dr Dixon-Deane responded that she could not complete the project as she was no longer employed by the University.333 [250] In her Reply statement, Dr Paladino states that she did not recall asking for property back from Dr Dixon-Deane on her departure or involving Ms Quintal and denies asking for Dr Dixon-Deane to be followed up to complete work. She did say that it was possible that other persons may have contacted Dr Dixon-Deane without her knowledge. She recalled that the final online workshop that Dr Dixon-Deane had been working on needed to be ‘reconceptualised and redesigned’ by Dr Miriam Edwards.334 [251] When cross-examined on her evidence, Dr Paladino initially maintained that she had not asked for Dr Dixon-Deane to complete work after she had ceased her employment.335 She was then shown a chain of emails336 in the period of 29 June – 3 July 2019 that revealed emails exchanged between herself and Dr Dixon Deane as well as emails exchanged between herself and Ms Quintal. The emails reveal the following; • On 29 June 2019, Dr Paladino sent an email to Dr Dixon-Deane identifying concerns Dr Paladino held in relation to the outstanding project work which limited its value to the FBE. Dr Paladino requested Dr Dixon-Deane’s forwarding contact details so that the outstanding issues could continue to be addressed. -- 68 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 67 • On 1 July 2019, Dr Dixon-Deane responded to Ms Quintal who was copied in to Dr Paladino’s above-referred email. Dr Dixon-Deane maintained that the work was complete given that she had not received feedback on the new design. • On 1 July 2019, Dr Paladino sent an email to Ms Quintal identifying the only outstanding item from Dr Dixon-Deane as being the ‘PD” she had not addressed. She asked Ms Quintal, ‘could we please hold off final payment until that is turned over?’ • Dr Paladino then sent another email to Ms Quintal stating, ‘Genievieve did this for Linda, so there should be a provision.’ • On 1 July 2019, Ms Quintal then responded to Dr Paladino that ‘we can’t legally hold off on final payment’. Ms Quintal also advised that Dr Dixon-Deane’s leave provisions would be paid out on 12 July 2019. • On 1 July 2019, Ms Quintal sent a further email to Dr Paladino advising that she had checked with payroll and had been advised that that they could withhold but not easily and that there would have to be a really good reason. • Dr Paladino then responded shortly after and relevantly stating, ‘…..I think her not completing her on-line course, submitting something we can’t use is sufficient reason for us to withhold as she was paid through to June 30 to complete the work for the centre which she did not do.’ • Ms Quintal then suggested in a further email to Dr Paladino when she passed on Dr Dixon-Deane’s email of 1 July 2019, that she and Dr Paladino should discuss when Dr Paladino was back in the office the following week. [252] When taken to the above-referred chain of emails, Dr Paladino conceded that while she did not recall the emails, the emails disclosed that she had in fact, wanted work to be completed by Dr Dixon-Deane after her departure, and opined that withholding final payment to Dr Dixon- Deane was appropriate.337 [253] It is clear from the email exchanges referred to above that Dr Paladino was displeased with the quality and timeliness of Dixon-Deane’s outstanding project work at the time of her termination of employment. Dr Paladino was so displeased that she questioned whether Dr Dixon-Deane’s final pay could be withheld pending finalisation of the outstanding work. There was no legal basis to withhold pay, of which Ms Quintal correctly advised Dr Paladino. I note that the issue of withholding pay was raised as a question and/or an opinion by Dr Paladino, rather than as a direction. Nonetheless, I am satisfied that Dr Paladino requested Dr Dixon- Deane complete the outstanding project work after her departure from the WCLA and also internally raised the prospect of withholding Dr Dixon-Deane’s final pay. [254] The email exchange reveals that not only was Dr Paladino aggrieved at the outstanding work of Dr Dixon-Deane but also reveals she did not understand the rights and obligations of the University in relation to making final termination payments to departing employees. In the circumstances, Ms Quintal appears to have played the role HR plays in many organisations, -- 69 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 68 that of professionally correcting the ‘misguided’ views and understanding of line managers when it comes to workplace rights and obligations. There is no evidence that Dr Dixon-Deane had her final pay withheld or that Dr Paladino ignored or sought to override the advice she received from Ms Quintal. While the allegation is sustained, it does not rise to the level of misconduct. If it did, the University should have dealt with at the time as HR were clearly aware of Dr Paladino’s position, it having been directly communicated to Ms Quintal. Allegation 33 - Making snide remarks towards Dr Corrin to the effect that she was stupid or did not know what she was doing. [255] Dr Dixon-Deane gave evidence that Dr Paladino made dismissive and snide remarks about Dr Corrin’s ability in front of staff. While unable to recall specific comments, her impression was that the comments implied Dr Corrin was stupid or did not know what she was doing. She then goes on to state that in more than one meeting Dr Paladino said ‘Linda (Dr Corrin) doesn’t know’ when Dr Corrin was presenting, stating an opinion, contributing to a presentation or sharing her thoughts.338 She also states that she observed Dr Corrin crying approximately once per week, observed her appearing flustered and sad after performance management meetings and was often crying and saying things like ‘I can’t take this anymore’.339 The University also points to interviews of staff during her investigation including Ms Puglielli who expressed a ‘gut feeling’ that Dr Paladino made it hard for Dr Corrin to stay on. [256] Dr Paladino denies that she made dismissive remarks about Dr Corrin’s abilities and never spoke about staff in the manner asserted. She further claims that Dr Dixon-Deane and Dr Corrin were close and that Dr Dixon-Deane was disgruntled when her contract was not renewed. As to Dr Corrin being upset at times, Dr Paladino confirmed that she was performance managing Dr Corrin at the time and noted it was uncomfortable for all involved as is the case for anyone going through such a process.340 [257] I accept that Dr Corrin may have been upset at being performance managed by Dr Paladino and find that she confided in Dr Dixon-Deane about that, which supports Dr Paladino’s view of the closeness of the relationship between the two. The fact that Dr Corrin may have been upset about being performance managed is not remarkable or necessarily reflective that she was being subjected to an unreasonable process or poor behaviour on Dr Paladino’s part. There is simply no evidence that the performance management process being followed was inappropriate. [258] There is a particular irony in this allegation in the sense that Dr Dixon-Deane infers that Dr Paladino was conducting an unreasonable performance management process because it was upsetting Dr Corrin. The fact that Dr Paladino actually engaged in a performance management process, which is undoubtedly a difficult process for most managers and employees, may be distinguished from how Dr Paladino was herself dealt with by Professor Jensen, the latter showing an avoidance of dealing with performance concerns he claimed to hold about Dr Paladino. As to the staff interviewed by Ms Taylor during her investigation; their views could not be tested and as such I place little weight on their comments. As to Ms Puglielli’s ‘gut feeling,’ a performance management process is liable to be difficult for an employee. They either improve their performance or are liable to be moved on. That Ms Puglielli may have -- 70 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 69 gained an impression that Dr Corrin was under pressure, is in my view, entirely unremarkable in the circumstances. [259] Returning to the specific allegation, Dr Dixon-Deane acknowledges she could not recall specific words used by Dr Paladino but recalls the impression she gained. Noting my earlier comments about Dr Dixon-Deane’s selective and unreliable memory and given the long passage of time since the events which could have been anytime between 2016 and 2019, I am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the conduct occurred as alleged. The allegation is consequently dismissed. Conclusion on valid reason [260] In order to be a valid reason, the reason for the dismissal should be “sound, defensible or well founded”341 and should not be “capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced342.” However, the Commission will not stand in the shoes of the employer and determine what the Commission would do if it were in the position of the employer.343 [261] I have made findings in relation to the various matters that the University relies on in seeking to establish that a valid reason exists for Dr Paladino’s dismissal. I am satisfied that Dr Paladino engaged in the conduct alleged in six of the 33 allegations relied on and pressed in these proceedings. It is consequently necessary for me to consider whether the established conduct, when considered separately or together, establishes a valid reason for Dr Paladino’s dismissal. It is to that I now turn. [262] I am satisfied that the following conduct is established, specifically that Dr Paladino; • told Dr Wear that Dr Chia left the WCLA because Dr Johnston was hard to work with; • told Dr Wear he would not get people asking him whether he had a nice time overseas after every conference after he raised her failure to ask about the conference; • told Dr Wear she had lost trust in him because he did not update her on changes to his annual leave plans; • contacted Ms Brinley during a period of leave to find a non-urgent receipt; • only informed Dr Johnston that she had cancelled her credit card the night before Dr Johnston was due to travel to a conference; and • requested Dr Dickson-Deane finish work for the Centre after Dr Dickson-Deane’s employment ended and proposed to withhold her pay until the work was completed. [263] As earlier stated, the University contends that Dr Paladino engaged in a pattern of behaviour which considered in totality constitutes serious misconduct and establishes a valid reason for dismissal. The pattern of behaviour was said by the University to be rude and disrespectful, micromanaging and controlling, dishonest, divisive, insubordinate, and bullying. I reject the University’s contentions for the reasons that follow. -- 71 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 70 [264] While the University’s submission was based on the full suite of allegations pressed during proceedings, I have found only six of those allegations sustained with some only partially substantiated. The much narrower range of findings I have made necessarily weakens the contention that Dr Paladino engaged in an egregious pattern of conduct. Further, when the conduct I have found established, is considered against the pattern and types of behaviour alleged by the University, it falls well short of the severity the University contends. Dealing with each of the established conduct matters, the following may be said. [265] Dr Paladino’s comment to Dr Wear that Dr Chia left because of Dr Johnston was made during a private conversation between Dr Paladino and Dr Wear, during which Dr Wear was himself complaining about Dr Johnston. While the content of the private conversation should not have been disclosed, the comment was as I have already found, inappropriate and unnecessary. I am not satisfied that Dr Paladino’s ill-judgement in making the comment was so serious as to demonstrate a pattern of divisive behaviour, noting that I have made no other findings of divisive behaviour on Dr Paladino’s part. [266] Dr Paladino’s comment to Dr Wear that he would not get people asking him whether he had a nice time overseas after every conference he attended was perhaps blunt and insensitive at worst. Dr Wear sought acknowledgment from Dr Paladino in relation to his conference attendance that was not forthcoming. It does not however rise to the level of being rude, disrespectful or bullying in my view. [267] The frank statement by Dr Paladino during a facilitated discussion between her and Dr Wear that she had lost trust in him, was, as I have previously found, inappropriate and unprofessional, particularly because of the timing of the comment being made several months after the incident of concern arose. The University characterises the comment as rude, disrespectful and bullying. I do not accept that characterisation given the comment was made in a discussion mediated by a HR representative. By its very nature, such mediated discussions can produce frank and unwelcome opinions and comments which is one of the reasons the discussions are facilitated. It can be hardly surprising that a comment is sometimes made in such discussions that provokes a negative response from the other party. If the comment was deemed so offensive it should have been immediately addressed by the HR representative. It was not. [268] Dr Paladino’s phone call to Ms Brinley about a missing receipt while Ms Brinley was on annual leave was, as I have found, unnecessary and should not have occurred. That said, the phone call was prompted by an email earlier on the day of the phone call from Ms Brinley to Dr Paladino. That email, which included knowingly false information, prompted Dr Paladino to contact Ms Brinley to finalise the issue of the outstanding receipt prior to the close of the reporting period. While it reveals an unnecessarily pedantic approach of Dr Paladino in the management of expenses, I do not accept that the example in isolation establishes micromanaging or controlling behaviour. Even if it did, it would not when considered with other conduct I have found, rise to the level of severity that would establish a valid reason for dismissal. [269] Turning to Dr Paladino’s cancellation of Dr Johnston’s credit card immediately prior to her departure to the AARE Conference, I have made no adverse finding against Dr Paladino in relation to the cancellation of the card per se. The claim that the card’s cancellation in itself -- 72 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 71 constituted bullying behaviour by Dr Paladino towards Dr Johnston is wholly undermined by Mr Bezuidenhout’s concession that cancellation of the card was appropriate in the circumstances and also his subsequent advice to Dr Johnston that the FBE’s agreement to cover the conference costs was contrary to its normal approach and was by exception. [270] It is the subsequent communication by Dr Paladino to Dr Johnston, Professor Jensen and Mr Bezuidenhout following the credit card’s cancellation that I have found was problematic. Dr Paladino should have immediately notified Dr Johnston that her University credit card had been cancelled on or about 17/18 November 2022, rather than on 25 November 2022 which was just prior to Dr Johnston’s departure for the conference. That communication failure allowed Dr Johnston to develop a belief that she would be able to use the card at the conference based on Mr Bezuidenhout’s advice on 18 November 2022 that the FBE would cover her residual conference costs. This communication failure on the part of Dr Paladino along with her less than clear communication of the conference background to Professor Jensen and Mr Bezuidenhout was a clear failure on Dr Paladino’s part. The communication omissions reflect poorly on Dr Paladino, but do not as I have found above rise to the level of deliberate misrepresentation as contended by the University. [271] Finally, Dr Palaldino’s attempt to get Dr Dixon-Deane to complete work after she had left the WCLA and to withhold her final pay is characterised by the University as micromanaging and controlling. I do not agree with that characterisation. The better view is that Dr Paladino was frustrated with the poor quality and incomplete nature of the project work she expected Dr Dixon-Deane to complete during her notice period. As the work had not been completed to Dr Paladino’s satisfaction, she requested Dr Dixon-Deane to complete the work and also questioned internally whether Dr Dixon-Deane’s final pay could be withheld. As I have earlier found, Dr Palaldino’s misunderstanding of the rights of the University to withhold Dr Dixon-Deane’s final pay was corrected by HR, was not overruled by Dr Paladino, and HR did not regard Dr Paladino’s behaviour as warranting any counselling or follow-up at the time. I finally note that this allegation dates to 2019 which greatly diminishes its currency in my view. [272] It follows from the foregoing that when all of the substantiated allegations are considered whether separately or cumulatively, I am not satisfied that the University has established a ‘sound, defensible or well founded’ reason for Dr Palaldino’s dismissal. The dismissal lacked a valid reason, which weighs heavily in favour of a finding that the dismissal was unfair. Notification of the valid reason – s.387(b) [273] Notification of a valid reason for termination must be given to an employee protected from unfair dismissal before the decision is made to terminate their employment,344 and in explicit,345 plain and clear terms.346 I have found above that the dismissal lacked a valid reason. -- 73 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 72 As such, Dr Paladino could not have been notified of a valid reason prior to her dismissal. This weighs in favour of a finding that the dismissal was unfair. Opportunity to respond to any reason related to capacity or conduct – s 387(c) [274] An employee protected from unfair dismissal should be provided with an opportunity to respond to any reason for their dismissal relating to their conduct or capacity. An opportunity to respond is to be provided before a decision is taken to terminate the employee’s employment.347 [275] The opportunity to respond does not require formality and the factor is to be applied in a common-sense way to ensure the employee is treated fairly.348 Where the employee is aware of the precise nature of the employer’s concern about his or her conduct or performance and has a full opportunity to respond to the concern, this is enough to satisfy the requirements.349 [276] Dr Paladino had multiple opportunities to respond to certain allegations. This included the opportunity to respond to the initial allegations in the course of Ms Taylor’s investigation, an opportunity to respond in the course of Ms Junkeer’s review of the investigation findings and a further opportunity to make submissions to the Disputes Committee that was established on her application pursuant to clause 1.42.8 of the Enterprise Agreement. While these opportunities were provided to the Applicant through the course of the disciplinary process, a large number of the allegations initially made were not pressed in these proceedings. Significantly, over 24 fresh allegations were raised during the course of these proceedings that Dr Paladino was not given an opportunity to respond to prior to her dismissal. In these circumstances I am not satisfied that a reasonable opportunity was provided to Dr Paladino to respond to a large number of matters now relied upon. This weighs in favour of a finding that Dr Paladino’s dismissal was unfair. Support person – s 387(d) [277] Where an employee protected from unfair dismissal has requested a support person be present to assist in discussions relating to the dismissal, an employer should not unreasonably refuse that person being present. Dr Paladino was accompanied by a support person (Professor Farquason) in relevant meetings. I consequently regard this factor as a neutral consideration. Warnings regarding unsatisfactory performance – s 387(e) [278] Dr Paladino’s dismissal was based on serious misconduct and did not relate to unsatisfactory performance. This factor is therefore not relevant in the circumstances. Impact of the size of the University on procedures followed – s 387(f) [279] The University’s Form F3 indicates that at the time of Dr Paladino’s dismissal it employed approximately 10,000 employees. The University does not contend that its size adversely impacted on what it described as a fair and transparent process in managing Dr Paladino’s dismissal. This factor weighs neutrally in my consideration. -- 74 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 73 Impact of absence of dedicated human resources management specialist/expertise on procedures followed – s 387(g). [280] The evidence in this matter indicates that the University had access to the services of in- house human resources and workplace relations specialists. This factor weighs neutrally in my consideration. Other relevant matters – s 387(h) [281] Dr Paladino raised a number of matters which she contends speak to the dismissal being harsh, unjust or unreasonable. The matters are considered below. Whether dismissal was disproportionate to the substantiated conduct [282] Having found there was no valid reason, it clearly follows that the dismissal was disproportionate to the established conduct. That is not to say that Dr Paladino was a good leader. My findings in relation to her conduct establishes that she was not without her failings as a leader, although they were not so serious as to justify her dismissal. Should she have handled particular situations better. Of course. Should she have had issues of concern held by her managers raised with her in a timely manner. Certainly. Should she have been given direct and clear feedback about areas for improvement in her leadership. Undoubtedly. Unfortunately, the University singularly failed to promptly raise issues of concern or provide clear feedback that would have assisted Dr Paladino improve as a leader. [283] What was particularly telling was Professor Jensen’s persistent failure to raise matters of concern with Dr Paladino, those concerns dating back to at least mid-2022. Despite those concerns, Professor Jensen rated Dr Paladino as ‘exceeds expectations’ in her 2022 performance review. When pressed about his failure to raise matters of concern directly or in a timely manner, Professor Jensen could only respond that it was a matter of ‘regret’ he had not done so. For an institution that prides itself on a reputation of academic excellence, and where HR/IR expertise is available to support staff, such an ineffective approach to performance management is troubling to say the least. [284] My criticism of the University is not confined to Professor Jensen’s instinctive avoidance of difficult conversation with Dr Paladino. HR’s role in the performance review and management process is also worthy of scrutiny. Despite the issues of Dr Paladino’s alleged leadership deficiencies being known, there is little evidence of intervention by HR to address those issues in a meaningful way. The following extracts of an exchange between myself and the FBE’s HR Director, Ms Curtain during her cross-examination is particularly revealing in respect of the performance review and performance management process. “PN7069 Would it surprise you, or perhaps I will go to Dr Paladino’s – I think it’s at 204. Can you go to page 204 of court book 1. Sorry, 202 is where it starts. Are you at page 206? This is just the supervisor comments in relation to Dr Paladino. This is for the 2022 year? -Yeah. -- 75 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 74 ………….. PN7075 Does the rating that Dr Paladino received for that year surprise you? -It doesn’t surprise me, because it’s very common for an academic supervisor to write meeting/exceeding expectations, because it’s such a broad category that you would have to really be not performing in your role to rate anything else. So almost - - - ………………. PN7078 Where in this performance – and if you want to take some time to read it, but can you identify anywhere in this performance development review where any concerns were raised in relation to Dr Paladino’s leadership of the centre? -I mean I probably don’t need to read it, because it would be – it would be very common for these sorts of things not to be put on a performance review. I mean it’s just – it’s the performance culture at the university that a lot of the time these things are not documented on a performance review. PN7079 Is it normal culture for the university not to provide candid feedback to underperforming leaders about their performance; is that what you’re saying? -I mean feedback would be given verbally, and feedback would be addressed, but in terms of documenting it on something like an annual – a performance review. Is this a triannual? In terms of actually documenting it on a review like this it would be very common. PN7080 (Audio malfunction) how ridiculous that sounds to me sitting here? -Yeah. No, and I completely agree. ……………. PN7083 Well, perhaps this question might help. Are you able to identify from your role as the director of Human Resources in the FBE faculty where at any time Dr Paladino received direct feedback that her performance as a leader was not up to scratch prior to being notified on the initiation of this investigation? -Yeah. I wasn’t aware of any concerns that were raised by staff members prior to the investigation. PN7084 Were you aware of Dr Wear’s concerns in late 22? -No, I wasn’t. Not prior to the investigation, no. PN7085 -- 76 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 75 So you’re unaware whether there was any formal process by which those concerns were ventilated with Dr Paladino prior to the commencement of the investigation? -Yeah, that’s right, I wasn’t aware. PN7086 So you don’t know if there was any? I don’t know. PN7087 Does it surprise you that Professor Jensen, as I recall his evidence, confirmed that he didn’t directly confront Dr Paladino with any concerns he had regarding their leadership of the centre; does that surprise you? It does a little bit, because generally - - - PN7088 A little bit? Yeah, generally he’s very good with providing feedback, and he’s a good leader. So, yeah, it does surprise me. PN7089 I have to be honest here, that admission having been made by Dr Jensen I didn’t form that view that he was a good leader. You and I might have a different standard of leadership? Yeah.” [285] The above series of questions drew candid responses from Ms Curtain that reveal the inadequacy of the University’s performance review and management process. The fact that the University might have held concerns about Dr Paladino as a leader, yet it did not warrant a direct discussion with her or any mention of concerns in her performance review, is extraordinary. More so in circumstances where only months later, a formal investigation alleging serious misconduct involving multiple matters, some stretching back to 2022, was initiated. I also note that the Enterprise Agreement includes detailed steps and processes for managing work performance and misconduct issues that stretch over several pages. [286] While concerns were held by Professor Jensen, he consistently failed to raise those concerns with Dr Paladino. Had he done so, the outcome for Dr Paladino and the University might have been very different. It might have led to clear feedback that Dr Paladino needed to improve areas of her leadership if she wanted to remain in her role as Director of the WCLA. It might have led to the mandated participation of Dr Paladino in leadership development programs. It might have led to a performance improvement plan for Dr Paladino being implemented. It might have led to a change in the behaviours of Dr Paladino that the University says it is now so concerned about. It might have averted the disciplinary process that led to the termination of Dr Paladino’s employment. None of these things occurred. Consequently, the disciplinary action taken was disproportionate to the conduct I have found occurred. In the circumstances, I regard this as harsh due to the lack of any semblance of a performance management process as well as the outcome, which weighs in favour of a finding of unfairness. -- 77 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 76 Whether dismissal complied with the Enterprise Agreement [287] Self-evidently, the dismissal was not consistent with the Enterprise Agreement on the basis of my findings that the conduct did not constitute serious misconduct or establish a valid reason for dismissal. That is because clause 1.39.7.8 of the Enterprise Agreement only permits termination of employment in circumstances of ‘serious misconduct’ as defined (clause 1.39.2) or where an employee has received prior formal warnings in relation to their performance (clause 1.38.9.8). Neither of these circumstances were present. The fact that the dismissal was not consistent with the Enterprise Agreement is not however a matter that weighs heavily in my assessment of the dismissal because of my earlier findings on valid reason and procedural fairness. Whether the investigation and dismissal process was procedurally fair [288] Dr Paladino raises a number of concerns going to the investigation process, including the length of time that it took, her prolonged standdown from the role of Director of the WCLA for approximately 18 months and the unfairness of the external investigation. I have already found above that the disciplinary process was procedurally unfair for the reasons that the dismissal lacked a valid reason and that over 20 new allegations now relied upon were not put to the Applicant prior to her dismissal. In these circumstances it is unnecessary for me to further consider the claimed unfairness of the process, save for the following comments. The duration of the investigation and disciplinary outcome delivery of some 18 months is unacceptably long by any standard. That said, the number of allegations requiring investigation, the volume of material relied on by Dr Paladino in defending herself and Dr Paladino’s challenges to aspects of the process, along with the appeal steps taken by her, all contributed to the delays. [289] In circumstances where a significant component of the delay was contributed to by Dr Paladino, I am unwilling to cast the blame only at the feet of the University. As such, the length of time taken to complete the investigation and disciplinary process while regrettable is not a matter that weighs for or against a finding of unfairness. Similarly, Dr Paladino having been stood aside from the WCLA Director role was an appropriate step in circumstances where serious allegations had been made against her. Whether Dr Paladino’s length of service, employment record, personal circumstances and future employment prospects render the dismissal unfair [290] The University rightly acknowledges that Dr Paladino’s long employment history, senior position, unblemished record, Committee memberships at the University and her reputation are relevant considerations in assessing whether her dismissal was unfair. [291] It is worth noting the following. Dr Paladino was employed by the University for approximately 27 years, was a senior academic in the FBE, was made a tenured Professor in 2015 and at the same time was appointed the Foundational Director of the WCLA. She was elected by her peers and professional colleagues to the Academic Board, initially to the position of Deputy Vice-President commencing January 2023, and ascended to the position of Vice- President of the Academic Board immediately prior to her dismissal. She submits she would have moved to the position of President of the Academic Board in due course, as she says such advancement is traditionally uncontested. Her employment record over 27 years was -- 78 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 77 unblemished. She is 50 years of age and has spent most of her adult life working for the University. She also contends that but for her dismissal, she would have continued to work until retirement or at least until the age of 67 and that her professional reputation and career prospects have been damaged such that she is unlikely to be offered comparable or any employment at another university. [292] The University argues that Dr Paladino has not filed any evidence going to the submission that her reputation has been damaged by the misconduct process and dismissal. That submission, in my view, defies common sense. It is hard to imagine how the reputation and career prospects of a senior academic would not be adversely impacted when dismissed after 27 years of service to the University. Even if I were to accept the University’s submission on this point, the balance of the matters of Dr Paladino’s seniority, length of service and an unblemished employment record leads me to find that the dismissal was harsh. This weighs in favour of a finding that the dismissal was unfair. Whether Dr Paladino’s loss of accrued entitlements renders the dismissal unfair [293] Dr Paladino contends that her dismissal was rendered harsh by the loss of accrued entitlements including her remuneration package, staff research allowance account, defined benefit superannuation benefit and personal leave accrual. She also contends that her termination entitlements were calculated incorrectly. I do not accept that these matters in themselves render the dismissal harsh for the following reasons. Termination of employment inevitably leads to a loss of accrued entitlements including the matters raised by Dr Paladino. As to her claim that her termination entitlement was calculated incorrectly, or that she was entitled to receive her accrued staff research allowance, I am unable to resolve those matters on the material before me. Nor is it appropriate for me to do so as Dr Paladino is entitled to pursue her Enterprise Agreement and/or contractual entitlements in an appropriate jurisdiction. Is the Commission satisfied that the dismissal of Dr Paladino was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable? [294] I have made findings in relation to each matter specified in s 387 of the Act as relevant. I must consider and give due weight to each as a fundamental element in determining whether the termination was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.350 [295] I have found that Dr Paladino’s dismissal was not supported by a valid reason. This weighs in favour of a finding that the dismissal was unfair. There were also significant procedural failures of the University in carrying out the dismissal. Also weighing in favour of a finding of harshness of the dismissal was Dr Paladino’s seniority, her length of employment of 27 years with the University, her unblemished employment record and the failure of the University to effectively manage what it regarded as Dr Paladino’s leadership deficiencies. [296] Having considered each of the matters specified in s 387 of the Act, I have weighed the absence of a valid reason for dismissal, the procedural failures and harshness elements described above in the context of the size of the University’s business. I am satisfied that the dismissal was unreasonable because it was not supported by a valid reason. It was unjust because of the procedural failures. Finally, it was harsh because of Dr Paladino’s long and unblemished employment record and the University’s failure to apply well documented -- 79 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 78 performance management processes to address perceived shortcomings in Dr Paladino’s leadership behaviour. The dismissal was consequently unfair. Remedy [297] Section 390(1) of the Act permits but does not compel the Commission to order reinstatement of a dismissed person if it is satisfied that the person was protected from unfair dismissal and the person was unfairly dismissed. I have made findings above and am satisfied that both of these conditions are met. [298] The Applicant seeks reinstatement while the University opposes it on grounds including Dr Paladino’s credibility, her conduct was destructive of trust and confidence, she has shown no insight into her own behaviour and its effects on others and the impact on other staff who remain employed by the University. [299] Dealing firstly with the evidence of witnesses, that had or were currently working in the FBE, on the impact of reinstatement of Dr Paladino. Ms Brinley has not worked in the WCLA since July 2023 so would have no ongoing direct involvement with Dr Palladino were she reinstated. The prospect of some future casual or work-related interaction on a campus with over 10,000 staff seems a limited possibility and does not tell against reinstatement. As to Dr Dixon-Deane’s views on reinstatement, I regard those views as irrelevant in circumstances where she left her employment with the University in 2019. [300] As for Professor Jensen, he opined that reinstatement of Dr Paladino to the WCLA Director role, or to employment by the University in any capacity would be completely untenable351. He then suggested that ‘guardrails’352 could be put in place if reinstatement to the WCLA Director role were the outcome, while expressing concern at the impact reinstatement would have on Dr Wear.353 During cross-examination, Professor Jensen conceded that it was possible and practical for Dr Paladino to be reinstated, and to work with Dr Wear.354 He also accepted that if the Commission formed the view that Dr Paladino did not engage in ‘bad behaviour’, then his negative view on the impact of reinstatement as set out in his evidence355 could not be maintained.356 I note for the sake of completeness that following conclusion of the hearing, Professor Jensen stepped down from his role as Deputy Dean in the FBE. Professor Jensen’s evidence does not tell against reinstatement. [301] Turning to Dr Wear’s evidence on reinstatement of Dr Paladino, he states without elaboration that reinstatement would be extremely disruptive to the University community, that he could not work with her again, he would seriously consider leaving the University and would fear victimisation or retaliation for having raised complaints about her conduct.357 He conceded during cross-examination that if Dr Paladino were reinstated to the position of Director of the WCLA, it was possible that he would continue working for the University in his role in the WCLA unless a better role became available elsewhere.358 While I accept that Dr Wear would be concerned at the prospect of Dr Paladino’s reinstatement to the role of Director of the WCLA; the feelings of one individual do not on its own persuade me that reinstatement would be inappropriate. [302] As to the contention that Dr Paladino’s conduct was destructive of trust and confidence, I do not accept that contention, in circumstances where I have found most of the allegations are -- 80 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 79 not sustained. I draw particular attention to the allegations of dishonesty which if sustained would not only have constituted serious misconduct but would have been destructive of trust and confidence. As dealt with at length above, the allegations of dishonesty on the part of Dr Paladino were not sustained, seriously undermining the claimed loss of trust and confidence. Professor Jensen conceded as much. The residual conduct that I have found did occur, does not rise to the level of either establishing a valid reason for dismissal or being fatal to trust and confidence between the parties. [303] Turning finally to the submissions on Dr Paladino’s credibility, and lack of insight, contrition or remorse for her behaviour, none of those matters weigh against an order of reinstatement. I have found Dr Paladino to be generally credible in her evidence and denial of the allegations made against her. She has defended herself vigorously, both before and following her dismissal. The claimed lack of credibility is rejected. As regards the alleged lack of contrition or remorse, that submission appears to proceed on a premise of Dr Paladino’s guilt in relation to the alleged conduct. Putting to one side my finding that Dr Paladino did not engage in serious misconduct, she in any event acknowledged that there was room for improvement as a leader. That admission was appropriate having regard to the findings I have made against her. Had I found she had engaged in conduct that established a valid reason, a lack of contrition or remorse for the established misconduct would be relevant. No such misconduct has been established, substantially weakening the relevance of the University’s argument. [304] It follows from the foregoing that I am not persuaded that any of the matters raised by the University tell against reinstatement of Dr Paladino. In these circumstances I find that reinstatement would not be inappropriate and I will accordingly exercise my discretion to order Dr Paladino’s reinstatement, which is to take effect within 28 days of the date of this decision. [305] In reinstating Dr Paladino, she is to be reinstated as a tenured Professor and to her substantive position of Director of the WCLA which she held immediately prior to her dismissal. While Dr Paladino also held a Vice-Presidential position on the University’s Academic Board at the time of her dismissal, the casual vacancy created by her dismissal has been filled, making reinstatement to that role impractical. It was in any case a position to which she was appointed for a 2-year period based on election by her academic peers. No assumptions can be reasonably made that Dr Paladino would have ascended to the Presidential role in the future. In these circumstances I decline to order her reinstatement to the Academic Board role. [306] Further to the above, I also believe it is appropriate to make an order pursuant to s 391(2) of the Act that Dr Paladino’s continuity of employment be maintained. [307] Finally, it is appropriate to consider whether to issue an order under s 391(3) for the payment to Dr Paladino by the University of an amount of remuneration lost or likely to have been lost by Dr Paladino because of her dismissal. Section 391(4) specifies matters the Commission ‘must’ take into account, being; (a) the amount of any remuneration earned by the person from employment or other work during the period between the dismissal and the making of the order for reinstatement; and -- 81 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 80 (b) the amount of any remuneration reasonably likely to be so earned by the person during the period between the making of the order for reinstatement and the actual reinstatement. [308] Sections 391(4)(a)&(b) are expressed as mandatory considerations. As the making of an order for lost income is a discretionary decision, other matters may be taken into account as well as the above-referred mandatory considerations. In doing so I note that at the date of hearing, Dr Paladino had not obtained alternate employment or earned any income from other sources. Nor is there evidence before me that Dr Paladino is likely to earn any income during the period between the date of the order for reinstatement and the actual reinstatement. Significantly, she was unable to demonstrate any efforts to secure alternate employment since her dismissal, justifying that inaction on the basis of the time she had invested in preparing her unfair dismissal case. I believe a failure to demonstrate any loss mitigation effort is a relevant matter to be taken into account and tells against an award for income lost or likely to be lost. Also to be considered is that Dr Paladino received 6 months’ pay in lieu of notice on termination. While the accuracy of the calculation of her final payment was disputed by Dr Paladino, avenues to pursue that complaint in a different jurisdiction are available to her. [309] Having regard to the 6-months payment in lieu of notice Dr Paladino received on termination and the absence of evidence of loss mitigation efforts on her part, I decline to make an order for income lost or likely to have been lost pursuant to s 391(4) of the Act. Conclusion [310] I am satisfied that Dr Paladino was dismissed at the initiative of the University. Having been satisfied in respect of the other initial matters, I have considered and determined that the Applicant’s dismissal was harsh, unjust, unreasonable and thereby unfair. I am further satisfied that reinstatement would not be inappropriate, that she must be reinstated as a tenured Professor and to her substantive position of Director of the WCLA within 28 days of this decision with continuity of her employment maintained. An order giving effect to this decision will be issued separately in conjunction with this decision. DEPUTY PRESIDENT Appearances: J Tracey, for the Applicant. M Felman, for the Respondent. M Lange, for the Respondent -- 82 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 81 Hearing details: 2025. Melbourne: July 1,2,3, 8, 9 & 26 August 2025. Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer <PR796990> 1 Exhibit A2, First Witness Statement of Angela Paladino, dated 24 April 2025, Annexure AP-3 2 AE524065 3 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-11 4 Statement of Agreed Facts, at [6]-[7] 5 Statement of Agreed Facts, at [10]-[11] 6 Exhibit R22, Witness Statement of Jessica Kerr, at [21] 7 Statement of Agreed Facts, at [31] 8 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-13 9 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-14 10 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-17 11 Ibid 12 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-19 13 Ibid 14 Ibid 15 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-22 16 Ibid, Annexures AP-24 and AP-26 17 Ibid, Annexure AP-27 18 Ibid, Annexure AP-28 19 Exhibit R22, Annexure JK-5 20 Ibid, Annexure JK-6 21 Ibid, Annexure JK-7 22 Ibid, Annexure JK-8 23 Ibid 24 Ibid 25 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-29 26 Ibid 27 Exhibit R15, Witness Statement of Genevieve Curtain, dated 30 May 2025, Annexure GC-3 28 Ibid 29 Statement of Agreed Facts, at [55] 30 Exhibit R22, Annexure JK-9 31 Exhibit R15, Annexure GC-4 32 Exhibit R15, Annexure GC-5 33 Statement of Agreed Facts, at [61] 34 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-30 -- 83 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 82 35 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-31 36 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-37 37 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-32 38 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-37 39 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-33 40 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-34 41 Ibid 42 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-37 43 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-38 44 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-39 45 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-40 46 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-40 47 Ibid, at para 3(f) & (g) 48 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-42 49 Statement of Agreed Facts, at [75] 50 Exhibit R2, Witness Statement of Nicola Phillips, dated 29 May 2025, Annexure NP-2 51 Ibid 52 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-45 53 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-46 54 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-47 55 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-48 56 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-49 57 Ibid 58 Exhibit R19, Witness Statement of Jamie Evans, dated 29 May 2025, Annexure JE-2 59 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-50 60 Agreed Statement of Facts, at [85]-[87] 61 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-51 62 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-52 63 Exhibit R1, Annexure AW-7, at Court Book pp. 1810-1811 64 Transcript at PN423-432 65 Transcript at PN319- 66 Exhibit R1, at [107], Transcript at PN250 67 Exhibit R1, at [30] 68 Transcript at PN311-313 69 Exhibit R1, at [11]-[14] 70 Transcript at PNPN310 71 Transcript at PN4501-4507, PN4513 72 Ibid at PN4886-4887 73 Ibid at PN4516 74 Ibid at PN4523-4528 75 Ibid at PN4529 76 Ibid at PN4537-4539 77 Ibid at PN440-4544 78 Ibid at PN4481-4487 -- 84 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 83 79 Ibid at PN4940 80 Ibid at PN4709 81 Ibid at PN4292-4297 82 Ibid at PN4278-4279, PN4304-4312 83 Ibid at PN4176 84 Ibid at PN4178- 85 Ibid at PN4185-4186 86 Exhibit R1, at [40] 87 Exhibit R23, at pp. 17 & 20, Exhibit R24, at p. 20-21 88 Exhibit A3, at [121] & [123], Transcript at PN1769-1773 89 Exhibit A3, at [128], Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-28 90 Exhibit R25 91 Exhibit R1, Witness Statement of Andrew Wear, darted 29 May 2025, Annexure AW-6 92 Ibid 93 Exhibit A2, at [98]-[100] 94 Transcript at PN2247-2250 95 Exhibit A3, Second Witness Statement of Angela Paladino, at [171] 96 Exhibit A3, at [172]-[173] 97 Exhibit R1, at [37] 98 Ibid at [38]-[42] 99 Ibid at [43]-[47] 100 Ibid at [47] 101 Transcript at PN1752-1792 102 Exhibit A3, at [127]-[128] 103 Exhibit A3, at [116] 104 Exhibit R1, at [56] 105 Ibid at [57]-[58], [60] 106 Exhibit A3, at [138] 107 Exhibit A3, Annexure AP-61, at Court Book p. 2878 108 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-28, Court Book at p.495 109 Exhibit R1, at [64] 110 Transcript at PN1948-1950 111 Exhibit A3, at [143] 112 Exhibit R1, at [49]-[50] 113 Transcript at PN369-370 114 Ibid at PN512-514 115 Exhibit A3, at [103]-[105] 116 Transcript at PN1904-1905 117 Exhibit A3, at [599] 118 Exhibit R1, at [53]-[54] 119 Exhibit A1, at [61]-[62] 120 Transcript at PN371-380, PN516-517 121 Transcript at PN1909-1910 122 Exhibit A3, Annexure AP-61, at Court Book p.2878 -- 85 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 84 123 Exhibit R1, at [74]-[76] 124 Exhibit R1, at [73] 125 Transcript at PN398-408 126 Exhibit A3, at [149] 127 Ibid at [150], Annexure AP-63 128 Exhibit A3, at [153] 129 Transcript at PN2014-2015 130 Ibid at PN2017-2020 131 Ibid at PN2050-2051 132 Ibid at PN2025-2030 133 Ibid at PN2073-2078 134 Exhibit R1, at [94]-[95] 135 Exhibit A3, at [169]-[170] 136 Transcript at PN2122-2128 137 Exhibit R1, at [31]-[32] 138 Exhibit A3, at [113]-[114] 139 Exhibit R3, Witness Statement of Tess Brinley, dated 29 May 2025, at [50]-[53] 140 Exhibit A3, at [550] 141 Ibid 142 Transcript at PN2491 143 Exhibit R3, at [69]-[74] 144 Exhibit R3, at [75]-[77] 145 Exhibit R3, at [8]-[82] 146 Exhibit A3, at [564] 147 Transcript at PN4292-4297 148 Ibid at PN2705, PN2726 149 Ibid at PN2710 150 Ibid at PN2711 151 Ibid at PN2728 152 Exhibit R3, at [23]-[29] 153 Exhibit R3, at [30] 154 Transcript at PN3804-3810 155 Ibid at PN3832-3834 156 Exhibit A3, at [536] 157 Ibid, at [539]-[540] 158 Ibid at [537], Transcript at PN2319-2320 159 Transcript at PN2321 160 Exhibit R3, at [37] 161 Ibid at [38] 162 Ibid at [39]-41] 163 Exhibit A3, at [544]-[545], Transcript at PN2387-2398 164 Exhibit R3, at [57], [58] 165 Exhibit A3, at [554]-[555] 166 Exhibit R3, at [58] -- 86 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 85 167 Ibid at [54]-[56] 168 Exhibit A3, at [551]-[553] 169 Exhibit A3, at [556] 170 Transcript at PN2576-2578 171 Exhibit R3, at [42]-[43] 172 Ibid at [45] 173 Ibid at [46]-[47] 174 Exhibit A3, at [546]-[547] 175 Exhibit R20, Witness Statement of Wynand Bezuidenhout, dated 29 May 2025, Annexure WB-1 176 Ibid. at Court Book p.1703 177 Ibid at Court Book p.1702 178 Ibid at Court Book p.1708 179 Ibid at Court Book p.1707 180 Ibid at Court Book p.1706 181 Exhibit R20, Annexure WB-3, at Court Book p.1723 182 Exhibit R20, Annexure WB-1, at Court Book p.1706 183 Ibid at Court Book p.1706 184 Ibid at Court Book p. 1711 185 Exhibit R20, at [27] 186 Exhibit R20, Annexure WB-2, at Court Book p.1716 187 Exhibit R1, Annexure WB-3, at p. 1721 188 Ibid at p.1734 189 Ibid at Court Book p.1736 190 Ibid at Court Book p.1729 191 Exhibit R20, at [37] 192 Exhibit R20, Annexure WB-3, at Court Book at p.1721 193 Transcript at PN6428-6429 194 Transcript at PN6458 195 Transcript at PN6466-6474 196 Transcript at PN7723-7726 197 Transcript at PN7734-7740 198 Transcript at PNPN7745 199 Transcript at PN7750 200 Transcript at PN1408 201 Transcript at PN1410-1413 202 Transcript at PN1454-1456 203 Transcript at PN1463-1468 204 Transcript at PN1513 205 Transcript at PN1520-1523 206 Transcript at PN1528 207 Transcript at PN1541-1544 208 Transcript at PN1577-1580 209 Transcript at PN1582 210 Transcript at PN1653-1654 -- 87 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 86 211 Transcript at PN1680 212 Exhibit R1, at [48] 213 Transcript at PN366-367 214 Exhibit A3, at [130], Transcript at PN1846-1847 215 Exhibit R25 216 Exhibit R8, Witness Statement of Professor Paul Jensen, dated 2 June 2025, at [48]-[51] 217 Ibid at [52]-[54] 218 Ibid at [55]-[56] 219 Exhibit R8, Annexure PJ-3 220 Ibid 221 Exhibit R8, at [60]- [63] 222 Ibid at [64]-[65] 223 Transcript at PN6039-6044 224 Ibid at PN6051-6052 225 Ibid at PN606406066 226 Ibid at PN6077 227 Ibid at PN6080-6083 228 Ibid at PN6086 229 Ibid at PN6095 230 Ibid at PN6100-6103 231 Ibid at PN6107 232 Ibid at PN6115-6125 233 Exhibit A3, at [709] 234 Exhibit A3, at [710], Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-38, at Court Book p.1146 235 Exhibit A3, at [712] 236 Exhibit A2, Annexure AP-38, at Court Book p.1150 237 Exhibit A3, at [712]-[714] 238 Transcript at PN1123-1124 239 Ibid at PN11251127 240 Ibid at PN1141-11444 241 Transcript at PN1164 242 Ibid at PN1204 243 Ibid at PN1297 244 Ibid at PN1303-1313 245 Ibid at PN1331 246 Ibid at PN1347 247 Ibid at 1356-1357 248 Exhibit R8, at [115], [118], [122] 249 Exhibit R8, Annexure PJ-11 250 Exhibit R8, at [149] 251 Exhibit R12 252 Ibid at [160] 253 Ibid at [161] 254 Exhibit R12 -- 88 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 87 255 Ibid 256 Ibid 257 Exhibit R14 258 Ibid 259 Ibid 260 Exhibit R13 261 Ibid 262 Ibid 263 Exhibit R8, at [167] 264 Transcript at PN 6795-6797 265 Exhibit A3, at [844] 266 Ibid at [845] 267 Ibid 268 Ibid at [846] 269 Ibid at [852] 270 Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34 (30 June 1938), [(1938) 60 CLR 336] 271 Transcript at PN6269-6270 272 Ibid at 6473 273 Ibid at PN6545 274 Ibid at PN6539 275 Exhibit R8, at [115] 276 Ibid at [119] 277 Ibid at [120] 278 Ibid at [121] 279 Exhibit A3, Annexure AP-72 280 Exhibit A3, at [787]-[791] 281 Exhibit R8, at [141] 282 Exhibit R8, Annexure PJ-8 283 Exhibit R8, at [143]-[144] 284 Ibid at [146] 285 Exhibit R8, Annexure PJ-13 286 Exhibit R8, at [164] 287 Transcript at PN6648 288 Ibid at PN6649 289 Ibid at PN6650 290 Ibid at PN6651-6652 291 Ibid at PN6654-6655 292 Ibid at PN6664 293 Ibid at PN 294 Ibid at PN6783-6784 295 Exhibit A3, at [816] 296 Ibid at [817] 297 Ibid at [821]-[822] 298 Ibid at [823] -- 89 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 88 299 Ibid at [826]-[827] 300 Exhibit R5, Witness Statement of Camille Dixon-Deane, dated 29 May 2025, at [17]-[28] 301 Transcript at PN4581-4618 302 Transcript at PN4629-4636 303 Ibid at PN4657-4658 304 Exhibit A3, at [200]-[209] 305 Transcript at PN2883-2905 306 Exhibit A13, p 10 307 Exhibit R5, at [61]-[62] 308 Transcript at PN2940-2945 309 Exhibit R5, at [37]-[38] 310 Exhibit A3, at [219] 311 Exhibit R5, at [29]-31] 312 Ibid at [32]-[34] 313 Exhibit A3, at [214]-[217] 314 Transcript at PN2907-2915 315 Exhibit R5, at [40]-[44] 316 Ibid at [45]-[47] 317 Transcript at PN4719-4723 318 Exhibit A3, at [220]-[221] 319 Transcript at PN2917-2920 320 Ibid at PN3085-3086 321 Ibid at PN3088 322 Ibid at 3080 323 Exhibit R5, at [55], Transcript at PN4751-4756 324 Ibid at [56], Transcript at PN4761-4783 325 Ibid at [57]-[61] 326 Exhibit A3, at 226 327 Ibid 328 Transcript at PN2932 329 Ibid at [227], Transcript at PN2933-2934 330 Ibid at [228] 331 Ibid at [231], Transcript at PN2943 332 Exhibit R5, at [66]-[69] 333 Ibid at [7]-[71] 334 Exhibit A3, at [242] 335 Transcript at PN2988-2990 336 Exhibit R4 337 Transcript at PN3042-3066 338 Exhibit R5, at [18] 339 Ibid at [19] 340 Exhibit A3, at [201]-[202] 341 Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 371, 373. 342 Ibid. -- 90 of 91 -- [2026] FWC 559 89 343 Walton v Mermaid Dry Cleaners Pty Ltd (1996) 142 ALR 681, 685. 344 Crozier v Palazzo Corporation Pty Ltd (2000) 98 IR 137, 151. 345 Previsic v Australian Quarantine Inspection Services Print Q3730 (AIRC, Holmes C, 6 October 1998). 346 Ibid. 347 Crozier v Palazzo Corporation Pty Ltd t/a Noble Park Storage and Transport Print S5897 (AIRCFB, Ross VP, Acton SDP, Cribb C, 11 May 2000), [75]. 348 RMIT v Asher (2010) 194 IR 1, 14-15. 349 Gibson v Bosmac Pty Ltd (1995) 60 IR 1, 7. 350 ALH Group Pty Ltd t/a The Royal Exchange Hotel v Mulhall (2002) 117 IR 357, [51]. See also Smith v Moore Paragon Australia Ltd PR915674 (AIRCFB, Ross VP, Lacy SDP, Simmonds C, 21 March 2002), [92]; Edwards v Justice Giudice [1999] FCA 1836, [6]– [7]. 351 Exhibit R8, at [173] 352 Ibid at [174] 353 Ibid 354 Transcript at PN6838-6841 355 Exhibit R8, at [175] 356 Ibid at PN6848 357 Exhibit R1, at [119]-[120] 358 Transcript at PN483-492 -- 91 of 91 --