Australian International Islamic College Ltd v Paramjit Brownson
[2025] FWCFB 187
•5 JUNE 2025
| [2025] FWC 1551 [Note: An appeal pursuant to s.604 (C2025/5559) was lodged against this decision - refer to Full Bench decision dated 25 August 2025 [[2025] FWCFB 187] for result of appeal.] |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
| DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal
Paramjit Brownson
v
Australian International Islamic College Ltd
(U2024/314)
| COMMISSIONER CRAWFORD | SYDNEY, 5 JUNE 2025 |
Unfair dismissal application – rehearing – teacher dismissed for yelling at misbehaving students – unreasonable to expect teachers to not use a raised voice at times when managing misbehaving students – contrived dismissal - false evidence from employer – dismissal unfair – reinstatement inappropriate – maximum compensation ordered.
Background
This decision concerns a high school teacher, Paramjit Brownson[1], who was summarily dismissed for allegedly raising her voice or yelling at students that were misbehaving. As I will explain further below, I consider it is absurd to suggest that a high school teacher can be found to have committed serious misconduct simply because they have raised their voice towards misbehaving students. There is already a well-documented shortage of schoolteachers in Australia,[2] that problem will only be exacerbated if schools rush to dismiss competent and experienced teachers simply because some students complain about being spoken to in a raised voice when they have been misbehaving. It is obviously not acceptable for a teacher to randomly yell at students for no reason or to unfairly target certain students. Ms Brownson was not yelling at students for no reason and was not unfairly targeting any students. Ms Brownson was trying to help the Australian International Islamic College Ltd (College) by imposing proportionate and appropriate punishments on students that were clearly misbehaving. The College leadership had been fully aware of Ms Brownson’s actions and was supporting her in repeated emails about the relevant students. Everything changed when Ms Brownson challenged the leadership of the College Director, Mohammed Azhari, on 7 November 2023. The College then embarked on a flawed and contrived process which led to Ms Brownson being summarily dismissed on 21 December 2023. This decision concerns whether Ms Brownson was unfairly dismissed and, if required, what remedy should be ordered.
I previously found Ms Brownson was unfairly dismissed and ordered the College to reinstate her.[3] My decision was quashed on appeal and Ms Brownson’s application was remitted to me for rehearing.[4] The rehearing was conducted on the basis that evidence in the first proceeding was taken as evidence in the rehearing, and the parties were given an opportunity to lead additional evidence and submissions. The parties were permitted to cross-examine at large on any of the evidence during the rehearing.
A schedule of the material relied upon by both parties is attached at the end of this decision. The initial hearings were held on 2 May 2024 and 31 May 2024. The rehearing was held on 14 April 2025, 15 April 2025, and 29 May 2025. All witnesses were cross-examined on their evidence. I have considered all the evidence and submissions.
The various allegations raised by the College against Ms Brownson are identified in a letter of allegations dated 28 November 2023. A copy of the letter is attached as a second schedule at the end of the decision.
The identity of the relevant College students has been protected with the agreement of the parties by referring to the students as Student A, B, C, D, E, and F.
Findings – allegations against Ms Brownson
Student A’s complaint – 13 June 2023
Student A sent an email to Dr Raihana Ferdous (Deputy Principal) and Andrew Taylor (Principal) at 9:21am on 13 June 2023.[5] Student A complained about Ms Brownson’s teaching techniques and about her yelling at the students in her mathematics class. Mr Taylor promptly directed Dr Ferdous to tell Student A the complaint would be taken seriously. Mr Taylor directed Dr Ferdous to arrange for Catherine Mellor (Former Head of Secondary at the College) to speak with Student A and Ms Brownson and to review curriculum and assessments. Mr Taylor did not specifically raise concerns about Ms Brownson allegedly yelling at students in his email to Dr Ferdous.[6]
Ms Mellor stated Dr Ferdous spoke with her and asked her to observe Ms Brownson’s behaviour in classes. Ms Mellor stated that she informed Dr Ferdous in August 2023 that the complaint could not be justified and that Ms Brownson “was and is firm with her expectations in a difficult and challenging classroom environment, but is fair at all stages.”[7] Ms Mellor stated Dr Ferdous was satisfied with her finding and stated she would let her know if further information was required. There is no evidence of any further steps being taken in response to Student A’s complaint, until Ms Brownson’s dismissal process.
Student A gave evidence during the hearing on 14 April 2025. Student A gave evidence that they consider that “yelling” and speaking with a “raised voice” are “pretty much the same” and confirmed Ms Brownson “raised her voice above her normal conversational tone.”[8]
Student A provided the following evidence during cross-examination by Mr Moorhead:
“Okay, with the page 90, you see that the senior leaders are being supportive of Ms Brownson’s recommendations? --- Yes, because that’s what their meant to do.
Even if they know that she’s the sort of teacher that yells or raises her voice at students? --- Um, they are those types of teachers. No offence to them but they’re kind of similar to each other.
What, all similar to Ms Brownson? --- Yes.
The way they treat students? --- Yes. Yes.
Yelling? --- Yes.
Okay. What other teachers are yelling at students? --- Renee Lazarus.
What about Ms Ferdous? --- Yes.”[9]
Mr Haddrick attempted to clarify Student A’s evidence in re-examination and suggested Ms Brownson’s yelling was worse than other teachers. Student A ultimately stated the following at the end of her re-examination:
“Okay. You said that there were other staff who yelled, and I think you might have identified one staff member’s name. Were they the same as Ms Brownson, or was there a difference between the way Ms Brownson did it and other staff members? --- I think it was – I’m pretty sure it’s different because the other staff members would do it more on the regular, like they were known for doing – they were known for yelling and raising their voices at students when doing the wrong thing, but it only occurred with Ms Brownson in maths lessons.”[10]
Student A was called as a witness by the College. Student A clearly still feels aggrieved about Ms Brownson’s teaching methods. Despite this, Student A gave clear evidence that two of Ms Brownson’s superiors, Ms Lazarus and Dr Ferdous, regularly yelled at students. Student A appeared to be indicating these teachers were known for yelling at students more often than Ms Brownson. Student A’s evidence completely undermines the College’s position that yelling at misbehaving students is serious misconduct justifying dismissal. I have no hesitation in accepting Student A’s evidence that superiors of Ms Brownson regularly yelled at students.
I am not surprised that Ms Lazarus and Dr Ferdous are known for yelling at students given their senior roles at the College. The reality is that Ms Brownson and her superiors have the difficult responsibility of having to deal with escalating levels of misbehaviour by students. It is inevitable that this will at times involve using a raised voice or yelling. There are few other levers at the disposal of schoolteachers to deal with escalating levels of misbehaviour.
I do not consider that Student A’s evidence discloses any misconduct on the part of Ms Brownson. I consider Student A had a view that Ms Brownson could teach the students better if she conducted herself differently. Student A’s view about Ms Brownson’s teaching does not establish misconduct by Ms Brownson, particularly in a context where it was common for Ms Brownson’s superior to yell at students. I also note Ms Brownson was permitted by the College to continue teaching Student A after being made aware of the complaint. That is completely inconsistent with the suggestion that College leadership considered Student A’s complaint raised potential serious misconduct by Ms Brownson. I find that Student A’s evidence about Ms Brownson’s behaviour does not disclose a valid reason for dismissal.
I note the witnesses in this case used the words “raised voice”, “yelling”, and “screaming” at various times to describe Ms Brownson’s behaviour. I consider there are likely only subjective differences between the different labels. It is arguable that screaming constitutes something more than speaking with a raised voice or yelling. Although, where a teacher is trying to communicate with students across a playground, the distinction is likely to become blurred. To the extent that screaming may constitute losing control of one’s emotions and communicating in an extreme voice, I do not think the evidence establishes Ms Brownson ever engaged in this conduct. Ms Brownson was asked whether she ever screamed at students on countless occasions during the hearing and rehearing. Ms Brownson never wavered from her evidence that she has never screamed at students. I accept Ms Brownson’s evidence.
Deteriorating behaviour of Student B and Student C – October 2023
The person that made the decision to terminate Ms Brownson’s employment on behalf of the College was Mr Khan.[11] Mr Khan confirmed in response to a question from me that the complaints made by Student A, Student B, and Student C were the primary issues amongst the allegations raised against Ms Brownson.[12] I have dealt with Student A’s complaint above. Student B submitted a written complaint against Ms Brownson dated 8 November 2023.[13] Student C submitted a written complaint against Ms Brownson dated 15 November 2023.[14]
The College’s TASS recording system identifies that the following behavioural issues were logged with Student B’s conduct in October 2023[15]:
· 3 October 2023: Late for class – logged by Patricia Semmens.
· 5 October 2023: Disruptive in class – logged by Win Nwe.
· 6 October 2023: Truancy – logged by Ms Nwe.
· 6 October 2023: Bullying and harassment – logged by Ms Brownson.
· 6 October 2023: Late for class – logged by Ms Semmens.
· 6 October 2023: Truancy – logged by Ms Brownson.
· 6 October 2023: Truancy – logged by Sara Shera.
· 16 October 2023: Defiance of College Policy – logged by Ms Brownson.
· 17 October 2023: Disruptive in class – logged by Ms Nwe.
· 17 October 2023: Late for class – logged by Ms Brownson.
· 17 October 2023: Defiance of College Policy – logged by Ms Brownson.
· 17 October 2023: Student Lacking Resources – logged by Ms Brownson.
· 18 October 2023: Out of bounds – logged by Ms Brownson.
· 20 October 2023: Defiance of College Policy – logged by Ms Nwe.
· 23 October 2023: Disrespectful behaviour – logged by Ms Brownson.
· 24 October 2023: Disruptive in class – logged by Ms Brownson.
· 24 October 2023: Disrespectful behaviour – logged by Ms Brownson.
· 24 October 2023: Defiance of College Policy – logged by Ms Brownson.
· 24 October 2023: Late for class – logged by Ms Brownson.
In addition to the TASS records, Ms Brownson had been advising Ms Lazarus, Mr Sipho, and Dr Ferdous about Student B’s escalating behaviour throughout October 2023. Student B was due to be internally suspended on 27 October 2023 but was absent from school. The emails confirm the College’s leadership was completely supportive of the disciplinary actions Ms Brownson had been taking against Student B.[16]
The College’s TASS recording system identifies that the following behavioural issues were logged with Student C’s conduct in October 2023[17]:
· 5 October 2023: Disruptive in class – logged by Ms Nwe.
· 6 October 2023: Disruptive in class – logged by Ms Brownson.
· 6 October 2023: Disruptive in class – logged by Michael Buckley.
· 10 October 2023: Disruptive in class – logged by Ms Brownson.
· 13 October 2023: Misuse of laptop – logged by Cameron Mcleod.
· 16 October 2023: Defiance of College Policy – logged by Ms Brownson.
· 19 October 2023: Disruptive in class – logged by Ms Nwe.
· 20 October 2023: Defiance of College Policy – logged by Ms Nwe.
· 24 October 2023: Disruptive in class – logged by Ms Brownson.
· 25 October 2023: Disrespectful behaviour – logged by Ms Brownson.
· 31 October 2023: Disrespectful behaviour – logged by Ms Brownson.
· 31 October 2023: Defiance of College Policy – logged by Sean Lans.
· 2 November 2023: Out of bounds – logged by Ms Brownson.
· 2 November 2023: Dangerous behaviour – logged by Mr Buckley.
In addition to the TASS records, Ms Brownson had been advising Ms Lazarus, Mr Sipho and Dr Ferdous about Student C’s escalating behaviour throughout October 2023. On 3 November 2023, Ms Lazarus confirmed that Student C had been sent home for the day and would be taken out of their regular class the following week. The emails confirm the College’s leadership was completely supportive of the disciplinary actions Ms Brownson had been taking against Student C.[18]
Incident involving Mr Azhari – 3 November 2023
Mr Azhari has admitted speaking in an inappropriate manner to Patricia Semmens (Teacher) at a College Jalsa event on 3 November 2023.[19] Ms Brownson stated that Mr Azhari spoke “in a very aggressive and inappropriate manner towards teacher [Ms Semmens] twice.”[20] The conversation occurred in front of parents, staff, and students.[21] Ms Semmens requested a meeting to discuss Mr Azhari’s behaviour on 6 November 2023. Mr Azhari apologised to Ms Semmens during a meeting on 6 November 2023. Ms Brownson was Ms Semmens’ support person at this meeting. Ms Brownson stated that she and Ms Semmens left the meeting when Mr Azhari started to blame his actions on staff not providing appropriate supervision.[22]
I find that Mr Azhari spoke aggressively to Ms Semmens twice on 3 November 2023 in front of parents, staff, and students. Having observed Mr Azhari give evidence in this case and having reviewed all the evidence about Mr Azhari’s authority within the College, I have no doubt that Mr Azhari would only have apologised if he knew he had done something seriously wrong.
On 7 November 2023, Ms Brownson sent a detailed email about what occurred at the Jalsa event to Mr Azhari, Ms Semmens, Mr Taylor, Dr Ferdous, and other staff members.[23] Ms Brownson was critical of Mr Azhari’s leadership during the Jalsa event and raised various suggestions for how situations like this could be handled better in the future.
I find that Ms Brownson’s email upset Mr Azhari and triggered the contrived and flawed subsequent sequence of events that led to Ms Brownson’s dismissal. I see no other explanation for why the College shifted so dramatically from supporting Ms Brownson in her disciplinary actions towards Student B and Student C to raising various allegations against her about historical issues that had not been raised contemporaneously and then moving to terminate her employment.
Student B and Student C’s evidence
I do not consider significant weight can be given to the handwritten notes provided by Student B and Student C in relation to Ms Brownson’s conduct.[24] The main reason is that the students were not called as witnesses by the College and could not be cross-examined on their evidence. I do not consider hearsay evidence from Mr Sipho about what he was told by the students can be relied upon to establish the truth of the allegations.[25] I prefer the evidence of Ms Brownson regarding her interactions with Student B and Student C. I accept Ms Brownson's evidence that she stated to Student B: “why are you making my life a miserable hell? Not just my life but the other teachers?”[26] I accept Ms Brownson’s evidence that she stated to Student C: “why are you making my life miserable?”[27] I think these comments were completely understandable given the array of misbehaviour from both students as recorded in the TASS entries from various teachers.
Student B complained about being prevented from eating during detention. Ms Brownson denied this. I prefer Ms Brownson’s evidence given it was not undermined in cross-examination.
I find there is no evidence that Ms Brownson engaged in misconduct in relation to Student B or Student C. I find there was not a valid reason for dismissal related to Ms Brownson’s treatment of Student B or Student C.
The College led evidence from Mr Mahouachi about the impact of Ms Brownson’s conduct on Student B and Student C.[28] I do not consider any significant weight can be given to Mr Mahouachi’s evidence. Mr Mahouachi relied purely on what he was told by Student B and Student C about what had occurred and how they felt. Mr Mahouachi has an ongoing relationship with the College and his evidence was clearly sought by the College to assist with this case.[29] Mr Mahouachi was not provided with the various TASS reports by the College which provide context as to why Student B and Student C were getting so frequently disciplined by Ms Brownson.[30]
In any event, I consider what must be assessed is Ms Brownson’s conduct, rather than the impact of her conduct on Student B and Student C. Given I have found Ms Brownson acted appropriately in disciplining Student B and Student C, the fact that they were upset about their treatment does not establish misconduct. Further, if Student B and Student C wanted to stop feeling upset about their treatment by Ms Brownson, there was an easy way to achieve this. Stop misbehaving.
Mr Khan’s evidence
I find that Mr Khan was not a credible witness and that no significant weight can be afforded to his evidence. I accept Mr Moorhead’s submission that Mr Khan created case file notes in early 2024 and falsely claimed that the notes were prepared in 2023.[31] I accept Mr Moorhead’s submission that it is inconceivable that Mr Khan would repeatedly erroneously record the year as 2024 when preparing file notes in late 2023. Mr Khan’s evidence about this being “human error” and “typos” in cross-examination was unconvincing.[32] Mr Khan’s attempt to blame the errors on the use of new computers also lacked credibility.[33] The College’s conduct in being deliberately evasive about providing original electronic versions of the documents to Mr Moorhead is also consistent with the College being aware that the documents were false.[34]
Mr Abderahman’s evidence
Mr Abderahman gave evidence Ms Brownson “could be an aggressive person” and that he witnessed her “scream at students during morning tea when she was on yard duty.” Mr Abderahman identified that this conduct occurred in Term 4 of 2023.[35]
Mr Abderahman’s evidence is general and vague. No dates are provided. No particulars of what Ms Brownson allegedly said are provided. There is no context concerning why Ms Brownson was screaming. This is all important because if there had been a serious threat to a child’s safety, parents would undoubtedly expect Ms Brownson to yell or scream urgently to address the situation. There is no evidence that Mr Abderahman reported his concerns contemporaneously. If Mr Abderahman had concerns about students being threatened by Ms Brownson’s behaviour, he was required to report these concerns to the principal.[36]
Mr Abderahman’s evidence is of very little probative value, regardless of the extent to which it was challenged in cross-examination. Mr Abderahman’s evidence does not establish there was a valid reason for Ms Brownson’s dismissal.
Mr Mahomed’s evidence
Mr Mahomed gave evidence that he witnessed Ms Brownson “scream and speak harshly to students in common areas.”[37] Mr Mahomed also gave evidence about a random bag search Ms Brownson undertook on Student C and D in “Term 3 at the end of the lunch break.”[38]
Mr Mahomed’s evidence is general and vague. No dates are provided. No particulars of what Ms Brownson allegedly said are provided. There is no context concerning why Ms Brownson was screaming. This is all important because if there had been a serious threat to a child’s safety, parents would undoubtedly expect Ms Brownson to yell or scream urgently to address the situation. There is no evidence that Mr Mahomed reported his concerns contemporaneously. If Mr Mahomed had concerns about students being threatened by Ms Brownson’s behaviour, he was required to report these concerns to the principal.[39]
Even if Mr Mahomed’s evidence about the bag search concerning Student C and Student D is accepted, I do not consider the evidence establishes Ms Brownson did anything wrong. Ms Brownson did the bag search in public as required and she was entitled to check what was in their bags. It would hardly be surprising that Ms Brownson may have had suspicions about misbehaviour by Student C and Student D around this time given the extent of their behavioural issues.
Mr Mahomed’s evidence is of very little probative value, regardless of the extent to which it was challenged in cross-examination. Mr Mahomed’s evidence does not establish there was a valid reason for Ms Brownson’s dismissal.
Ms Lazarus’ evidence
Ms Lazarus gave evidence that around the end of Term 3 or the start of Term 4 she often heard Ms Brownson “speak to students in a raised and forceful voice”. Ms Lazarus referred to Ms Brownson repeating the words “but you are late. You are late. But you are late.”[40] Ms Lazarus referred to Ms Brownson’s behaviour as intimidating and stated she could hear Ms Brownson from her classroom.
Ms Lazarus’ evidence is significantly undermined by Student A’s evidence that Ms Lazarus frequently yelled at students. Ms Lazarus made no reference to this in her evidence. Ms Lazarus’ own evidence is that the occasions she heard Ms Brownson were when she had been called to a classroom to speak with misbehaving students as part of her year 9 Pastoral Coordinator role. It is hardly surprising that Ms Brownson would speak in a raised and forceful voice if she had been called by another teacher to discipline misbehaving students. Ms Lazarus did not provide dates for the alleged conduct and did not report any concerns about Ms Brownson’s behaviour, despite being required to report these concerns to the principal.[41] This is significant because Ms Lazarus was being included in Ms Brownson’s various emails about Student B and Student C in October 2023. At no stage did Ms Lazarus suggest that it may have been Ms Brownson behaving inappropriately.
Ms Lazarus’ evidence is of very little probative value, regardless of the extent to which it was challenged in cross-examination. Ms Lazarus’ evidence does not establish there was a valid reason for Ms Brownson’s dismissal.
Mr Sipho’s evidence
Mr Sipho’s evidence is predominantly hearsay concerning what he was told by Student B and Student C.[42] I do not doubt that Student B and Student C were complaining to Mr Sipho about being disciplined by Ms Brownson. However, I consider Ms Brownson was acting appropriately in disciplining the students because of their substantial behavioural issues. Mr Sipho’s hearsay evidence does not establish Ms Brownson committed any misconduct.
Mr Sipho complained about Ms Brownson speaking to him in a loud and intimidating voice when stating “I have told you not to listen to the students. Why are you still listening to them.”[43] Ms Brownson explained that she was frustrated because Student B and Student C had blatantly lied to Mr Sipho about their movements.[44] Ms Brownson’s frustration was understandable and does not constitute misconduct. Ms Lazarus referred to Ms Brownson’s tone as impolite.[45] Using an impolite tone to a work colleague on one occasion does not constitute misconduct.
I consider Mr Sipho’s evidence about Ms Brownson and Ms Semmens asking Mr Sipho who he was more afraid of was taken out of context by Mr Sipho.[46] I accept Ms Brownson’s evidence that this was banter between colleagues and was not an attempt to make Mr Sipho feel uncomfortable.[47]
Mr Sipho’s evidence does not establish there was a valid reason for Ms Brownson’s dismissal.
Mr Azhari
Mr Azhari’s evidence was primarily about the process that was implemented to terminate Ms Brownson's employment. Mr Azhari did not provide direct evidence about any of Ms Brownson’s alleged misconduct. Mr Azhari’s evidence does not establish there was a valid reason for Ms Brownson’s dismissal.
I do not accept Mr Azhari’s evidence that he first became aware of any issues with Ms Brownson’s conduct during a catch-up meeting with Mr Khan on 13 November 2023.[48] I find on the balance of probabilities that Mr Azhari directed Mr Khan to commence compiling evidence against Ms Brownson after he became upset about her email dated 7 November 2023 which was critical of his leadership. I did not find Mr Azhari to be a persuasive witness and am concerned about Ms Mellor’s evidence about Mr Azhari having a history of involvement in falsifying documents.[49] I consider Ms Mellor’s evidence on these matters was not undermined significantly during cross-examination. I also note Mr Azhari gave evidence in his second witness statement to the effect that Ms Brownson was in Sydney on around 13 December 2023 and that was why she did not want to attend an in-person meeting. That was clearly not correct based on bank account evidence Ms Brownson subsequently provided. I consider this evidence from Mr Azhari is indicative of someone who is searching for any possible angle to justify Ms Brownson’s dismissal. I do not consider it is appropriate to afford significant weight to Mr Azhari’s evidence because I have significant concerns about his credibility and motives.
Breach of policy – treatment of students
The College argued that Ms Brownson breached various provisions in its Staff Code of Conduct because of her conduct in relation to Students A, B, and C. The College referred, for example, to the duties to be a role model, to protect students from harm, to promote the safety of students, to avoid threatening language, and to take care to use appropriate language when speaking with students.
I consider teachers such as Ms Brownson are placed in a very difficult position in that they must balance compliance with these important duties with the need to take disciplinary action against misbehaving students. Students will generally not be pleased about being subjected to disciplinary action. That is the point of the disciplinary action. Teachers such as Ms Brownson must also protect the interests of the students that are being negatively impacted by misbehaving students. I have no doubt that parents expect teachers to take strong action when students are engaging in conduct such as bullying or repeatedly disrupting class to an extent where the learning outcomes for other students are affected. While it is obviously preferable to resolve misbehaviour in a calm and quiet manner, it is unrealistic to expect that will always be sufficient. I do not consider it is reasonable to conclude a teacher is compromising the safety or well-being of students merely by raising their voice at them because of their misbehaviour. There could be instances where the teacher oversteps the line and becomes aggressive and threatening to students by behaving in an unreasonable manner. I do not accept that Ms Brownson’s behaviour falls into that category.
There is no evidence that the College’s Code of Conduct is intended to operate in a way which completely prevents teachers from raising their voice to deal with misbehaving students. There is overwhelming evidence that this is not the understanding of the teachers. Mr Taylor, then the principal, did not appear overly concerned about the suggestion that Ms Brownson may have been yelling at students when Student A complained in June 2023. Student A gave evidence that Ms Lazarus and Dr Ferdous regularly yell at students. This evidence is completely inconsistent with the notion that a teacher breaches the Code of Conduct merely by raising their voice towards a misbehaving child.
I do not consider the College has established that Ms Brownson breached the Code of Conduct in relation to her behaviour towards students or colleagues. I consider Ms Brownson’s behaviour was reasonable in the circumstances and that the College has attempted to exaggerate Ms Brownson’s behaviour to justify her dismissal. I also do not accept Ms Brownson breached the College’s Child Protection Policy, for the same reasons.
I also note that if the conduct of Ms Brownson was as serious as various College witnesses suggested, the staff members breached the Code of Conduct by not reporting the conduct to the principal.[50] However, I do not think those breaches occurred. I consider Ms Brownson’s behaviour was not reported at the time because it did not warrant being reported. The College’s witnesses have attempted to retrospectively exaggerate the seriousness of her behaviour to assist the College in defending the unfair dismissal application.
I find that there was not a valid reason for Ms Brownson’s dismissal based on her alleged breach of the Code of Conduct or Child Protection Policy.
Breach of policy – disclosing confidential information about the investigation
One of the reasons identified by the College for Ms Brownson’s dismissal was that she had disclosed to other staff members on 23 November 2023 that she had been stood down, despite being told that the investigation was strictly confidential.[51] Ms Brownson would have understandably been upset and shocked about being stood down from her role. The College did not suffer any prejudice from Ms Brownson’s disclosure. I find that Ms Brownson disclosing that she had been stood down was an extremely minor breach of confidentiality, taken at its highest, and does not constitute a valid reason for dismissal.
Breach of policy – extracting confidential information
During the rehearing, it emerged that Ms Brownson had downloaded information about students’ grades and records of class chat conversations to a personal hard drive during her employment with the College.[52] This information came to the College’s attention because Ms Brownson filed some of the material as evidence in support of her case. Ms Brownson admitted during cross-examination that she had kept some of this information after her employment with the College ended because she thought it may assist with her case.[53]
Although Ms Brownson gave evidence that other staff members may also have been backing up grading information on personal devices[54], that conduct is clearly inconsistent with the Code of Conduct.[55]
I find Ms Brownson breached the Code of Conduct by removing the College’s confidential information from the College’s computer systems without approval. However, I accept Ms Brownson’s evidence about why she was backing up the grading information during her employment and do not consider it was being done for a sinister purpose. I do not consider this conduct provides a valid reason for dismissal.
I find that Ms Brownson’s conduct in deliberately deciding to keep the College’s confidential information after her employment ended is far more serious. Ms Brownson returned most of the College’s property after her employment ended and should have also returned all confidential information. However, I find this conduct occurred after Ms Brownson’s dismissal had been communicated to her. I do not consider this conduct can be considered in assessing whether Ms Brownson was unfairly dismissed, but it is clearly relevant to the issue of remedy.
Dishonesty during the investigation process
The College focused heavily during the rehearing on Ms Brownson’s conduct in attending a disciplinary meeting on 13 December 2023 online rather than in person as requested by the College. Ms Brownson initially said she was not comfortable to attend an in-person meeting at the College.[56] The College then pressed its request for an in-person meeting. Ms Brownson subsequently referred to having flu-like symptoms and potentially being contagious as the reason she could not attend an in-person meeting.[57]
During the rehearing Ms Brownson gave evidence that her husband provided her with a COVID-19 test after the online meeting had been confirmed and she returned a negative result.[58] Ms Brownson did not consider she needed to inform the College of the negative result and thought that the meeting could proceed online.[59] However, the College was able to prove through bank account information that Ms Brownson attended a shopping centre after the online meeting on 13 December 2023 and had dinner at a restaurant.[60] The College argued this established Ms Brownson had been dishonest when avoiding having to attend an in-person meeting to explain her actions.
I have some doubt about Ms Brownson’s evidence about the meeting on 13 December 2023. It is clear Ms Brownson was very eager to avoid attending an in-person meeting. However, I think that is somewhat understandable given what had occurred thus far with the investigation process. I do not consider the evidence is sufficient to establish on the balance of probabilities that Ms Brownson was dishonest about having flu-like symptoms.
In any event, Ms Brownson attended the meeting online on 13 December 2023. I reject the College’s submission that Ms Brownson benefitted in any way by attending the meeting on 13 December 2023 online. The College proceeded to terminate Ms Brownson’s employment shortly afterwards anyway. When viewed as a whole, I do not accept it can be said that Ms Brownson did not comply and cooperate with the College’s investigation process. Ms Brownson provided detailed evidence in response to the allegations raised against her. That evidence was ultimately not accepted by the College.
I do not accept Ms Brownson’s conduct in relation to the 13 December 2023 meeting provides a valid reason for dismissal.
Consideration – unfair dismissal
I have previously determined Ms Brownson was a person protected from unfair dismissal and that she had completed the minimum employment period.[61] There are no other jurisdictional issues that need to be determined.
Section 387 of the FW Act provides that, in 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
(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.
I am required to consider each of these factors, to the extent they are relevant to the factual circumstances before me.[62]
Was there a valid reason for dismissal related to Ms Brownson’s capacity or conduct?
In order to be a valid reason, the reason for the dismissal should be “sound, defensible or well founded”[63] and should not be “capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced.”[64] However, the Commission will not stand in the shoes of the employer and determine what the Commission would do if it was in the position of the employer.[65]
Where a dismissal relates to an employee’s conduct, the Commission must be satisfied that the conduct occurred and justified termination.[66] The question of whether the alleged conduct took place and what it involved is to be determined by the Commission on the basis of the evidence in the proceedings before it. The test is not whether the employer believed, on reasonable grounds after sufficient enquiry, that the employee was guilty of the conduct which resulted in termination.[67]
I find there was not a valid reason for Ms Brownson’s dismissal related to her capacity or conduct.
As a Pastoral Coordinator, Ms Brownson was required to assist teachers with disciplinary matters for Year 9 students. Ms Brownson was at more risk of students making complaints about her because of that role. Despite this, I find Ms Brownson conducted herself appropriately in dealing with students. I do not consider the evidence of Student A, Student B, and Student C establishes otherwise. I do not accept there was valid reason for Ms Brownson’s dismissal concerning her alleged breach of the College’s Code of Conduct or other policies, or her conduct towards Mr Sipho.
Ms Brownson explained her approach to raising her voice with students during the hearing on 2 May 2024:
“Well, perhaps referring to the allegations that you've yelled at them and the allegations that you told them that you would make their life miserable, those type of comments?‑‑‑As I have said in my response, when – there are times when a teacher does have to raise her voice and usually it is because a student is either not following instructions or putting other students into danger or is doing something that is disrupting the entire class and/or if it's – I have had to get their attention as they're running across the oval or across the corridor. Yes, I've had to raise my voice, and yes I have yelled at students. But I have also had many talks with them about their behaviour before and after. Practically every day I see these students and I have to talk to them and I talk to them and I counsel them and I speak to them about what is appropriate and what is not appropriate behaviour.
What about your behaviour, raising your voice and yelling – is that appropriate?‑‑‑Probably not all the time but as I said I do not raise my voice and yell all the time otherwise I would not be able to teach.”[68]
Ms Brownson consistently provided evidence to this effect through an extensive amount of cross-examination. I consider Ms Brownson’s evidence shows she approaches the disciplining of students in a responsible, thoughtful, and appropriate manner.
I do not consider Ms Brownson’s conduct in removing the College’s confidential information from its computer system to a personal device was sufficiently serious to provide a valid reason for dismissal in the circumstances. Ms Brownson was trying to ensure she had a backup copy of the students’ grades in case they went missing. Losing the grades of a student would obviously be extremely problematic. I do not accept Ms Brownson was keeping a backup for any sinister purpose.
I consider Ms Brownson complied with the College’s investigation process and that her attendance at the meeting on 13 December 2023 online rather than in-person does not provide a valid reason for dismissal. I do not consider the evidence establishes Ms Brownson was dishonest about having flu-like symptoms.
The lack of a valid reason for dismissal weighs in favour of finding Ms Brownson’s dismissal was unjust and unreasonable.
Was Ms Brownson notified of the reason for dismissal?
Proper consideration of s.387(b) requires a finding to be made as to whether Ms Brownson “was notified of that reason”. Contextually, the reference to “that reason” is the valid reason found to exist under s.387(a).[69]
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,[70] and in explicit[71] and plain and clear terms.[72]
Although there was insufficient information provided to Ms Brownson about some of the allegations, I consider the College followed a reasonably thorough process and put Ms Brownson on notice of the reason for dismissal well ahead of when the decision was made.
This factor weighs in favour of finding that Ms Brownson was not unfairly dismissed.
Was Ms Brownson given an opportunity to respond to the valid reason?
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.[73]
The opportunity to respond does not require formality and this factor is to be applied in a common-sense way to ensure the employee is treated fairly.[74] 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 this concern, this is enough to satisfy the requirements.[75]
Although there was insufficient information provided to Ms Brownson about some of the allegations, I consider the College followed a reasonably thorough process and gave Ms Brownson an opportunity to respond to the reason for dismissal well ahead of when the final decision was made.
This factor weighs in favour of finding that Ms Brownson was not unfairly dismissed.
Did the College unreasonably refuse to allow Ms Brownson to have a support person present to assist at discussions relating to the dismissal?
I find the College did not refuse to allow Ms Brownson to have a support person present at discussions relating to the dismissal.
This factor weighs in favour of finding that Ms Brownson was not unfairly dismissed.
Was Ms Brownson warned about unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal?
Ms Brownson was dismissed due to alleged misconduct rather than unsatisfactory performance. This is a neutral factor.
To what degree would the size of the College’s enterprise be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal?
The College is a large business, and I have not found there were significant issues with the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal. I consider this is a neutral factor.
To what degree would the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the College’s enterprise be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal?
The College had dedicated human resource management specialists, and I have not found there were significant issues with the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal. I consider this is a neutral factor.
What other matters are relevant?
Section 387(h) requires the Commission to take into account any other matters that the Commission considers relevant.
I consider the contrived nature of Ms Brownson’s dismissal is a relevant matter that weighs in favour of finding her dismissal was unjust and unreasonable. I consider Mr Azhari drove the dismissal of Ms Brownson because he was upset about the email Ms Brownson sent to him and others on 7 November 2023. I consider that is the only explanation that explains the sudden shift from the College supporting Ms Brownson’s attempts to manage Student B and Student C towards investigating her conduct as a disciplinary matter. Mr Khan made a mess of arranging the evidence to justify Ms Brownson’s dismissal. I consider Mr Khan clearly created false case notes and diary entries to try and assist with the case. I strongly suspect Mr Azhari encouraged this behaviour, particularly given Ms Mellor’s evidence that Mr Azhari has a history of falsifying documents. I consider the other College witnesses felt compelled to try and provide retrospective evidence against Ms Brownson to assist with this case. I consider that explains the lack of specificity about the dates and nature of the alleged conduct and their failure to contemporaneously report Ms Brownson’s alleged conduct.
I also consider it is relevant that Ms Brownson was summarily dismissed in circumstances where I have found there was not a valid reason for her dismissal. This weighs in favour of finding the dismissal was unjust and unreasonable.
Conclusion
I have made findings in relation to each matter specified in s.387 of the FW Act. I must consider and give due weight to each as a fundamental element in determining whether the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.[76]
Having considered each of the matters specified in s.387 of the FW Act, I am satisfied that the dismissal of Ms Brownson was unjust and unreasonable. There was not a valid reason for Ms Brownson’s dismissal relating to her conduct or capacity. Ms Brownson was unfairly targeted by Mr Azhari for vindictive personal reasons. The fact that the College conducted a reasonably thorough investigation process is not sufficient to outweigh the other factors which support a finding that Ms Brownson was unfairly dismissed.
If I had found that there were genuine issues with Ms Brownson’s conduct towards the relevant students, I would have found that the decision to dismiss Ms Brownson was harsh. There were various other options available to the College to deal with concerns about how Ms Brownson was interacting with misbehaving students. The College could have arranged for Ms Brownson to observe how other teachers deal with misbehaving students. The College could have arranged additional training or counselling for Ms Brownson. The College could have explored removing Ms Brownson from the Year 9 Pastoral Coordinator role. I consider all these steps would have been fairer and more appropriate than moving to summarily dismiss Ms Brownson.
I find Ms Brownson was unfairly dismissed.
Remedy
Is reinstatement of Ms Brownson inappropriate?
Ms Brownson seeks reinstatement. I find reinstatement is inappropriate.
I consider Ms Brownson’s conduct in deliberately keeping the College’s confidential information after her dismissal for use in this case means that reinstatement is not appropriate. It is clear Ms Brownson did not understand that she was doing the wrong thing because she voluntarily filed evidence showing she had kept confidential information in support of her case. However, I accept Mr Haddrick’s submission that ignorance is not a complete excuse, and that Ms Brownson should have been more aware of the importance of not keeping confidential information about students, given she is an experienced teacher.
I also consider Ms Brownson’s clear reluctance to attend an in-person meeting at the College on 13 December 2023 weighs against reinstatement. Although I consider it was conduct by the College that made Ms Brownson so reluctant to attend the College for the 13 December 2023 meeting, I still consider this demonstrates the extent of the breakdown in the relationship and the difficulties that would arise for both parties if Ms Brownson is reinstated.
Given the ongoing presence of Mr Azhari as College Director, I also have serious doubts that Ms Brownson would be treated fairly if she is reinstated. Although concerns about the conduct of the employer should not ordinarily weigh against reinstatement because it is effectively rewarding bad behaviour, I consider this is quite an extreme case. Mr Azhari has demonstrated he is prepared to act inappropriately to achieve his objectives.
For these reasons, I find reinstatement is inappropriate.
Is an order for payment of compensation appropriate in all the circumstances of the case?
Having found that reinstatement is inappropriate, it does not automatically follow that a payment for compensation is appropriate. As noted by the Full Bench, “[t]he question whether to order a remedy in a case where a dismissal has been found to be unfair remains a discretionary one…”[77]
Where an applicant has suffered financial loss as a result of the dismissal, this may be a relevant consideration in the exercise of this discretion.[78]
Ms Brownson has suffered financial loss in circumstances where I have found she was unfairly dismissed. In all the circumstances, I consider that an order for payment of compensation is appropriate.
Compensation – what must be taken into account in determining an amount?
Section 392(2) of the FW Act requires all of the circumstances of the case to be taken into account when determining an amount to be paid as compensation to Ms Brownson in lieu of reinstatement including:
(a) the effect of the order on the viability of the College’s enterprise;
(b) the length of Ms Brownson’s service;(c)the remuneration that Ms Brownson would have received, or would have been likely to receive, if Ms Brownson had not been dismissed;
(d)the efforts of Ms Brownson (if any) to mitigate the loss suffered by Ms Brownson because of the dismissal;
(e)the amount of any remuneration earned by Ms Brownson from employment or other work during the period between the dismissal and the making of the order for compensation;
(f)the amount of any income reasonably likely to be so earned by Ms Brownson during the period between the making of the order for compensation and the actual compensation; and
(g) any other matter that the Commission considers relevant.
Effect of the order on the viability of the College’s enterprise
I have no evidence about the viability of the College's enterprise. I do not consider a high compensation order would threaten the viability of the College. I consider this is a neutral factor.
Length of Ms Brownson’s service
Ms Brownson was employed by the College for close to three years. I consider this is a medium-term length of employment. I consider this is a neutral factor.
Remuneration that Ms Brownson would have received, or would have been likely to receive, if Ms Brownson had not been dismissed
As stated by a majority of the Full Court of the Federal Court, “[i]n determining the remuneration that the employee would have received, or would have been likely to receive… [the Commission must] address itself to the question whether, if the actual termination had not occurred, the employment would have been likely to continue, or would have been terminated at some time by another means. It is necessary for the Commission to make a finding of fact as to the likelihood of a further termination, in order to be able to assess the amount of remuneration the employee would have received, or would have been likely to receive, if there had not been the actual termination.”[79]
Taking all the evidence into account, I find Ms Brownson would likely have remained employed with the College for a further five years if she was not unfairly dismissed. It is clear Ms Brownson enjoyed her role, and she has fought hard to try and get reinstated to the role. I consider Ms Brownson is a competent and capable teacher and that there was no reason the College would have dismissed her in the foreseeable future if it was acting fairly. I also consider there was no genuine reason for Ms Brownson to be removed from the Year 9 Coordinator role and find that temporary position would have continued being renewed for a further five years.
Ms Brownson was paid a salary of $107,986.84 as a teacher and received an annual allowance of $3,586.96 for her Year 9 Coordinator role, making a total of $111,573.80. [80] Ms Brownson would have earned around $557,869.00 from 21 December 2023 to 21 December 2028, plus superannuation.
Efforts of Ms Brownson to mitigate the loss suffered by Ms Brownson because of the dismissal
Ms Brownson must provide evidence that she has taken reasonable steps to minimise the impact of the dismissal.[81] What is reasonable depends on the circumstances of the case.[82]
Ms Brownson’s situation is complicated because she was initially reinstated by me and was paid by the College while its appeal was being determined. The Full Bench decision was issued on 20 December 2024. Ms Brownson gave uncontested evidence that she has been seeking other employment since the start of 2025 and has been unable to secure a similar position. Ms Brownson said having to disclose the reason for her dismissal from the College is having an adverse effect on gaining employment.[83]
I consider Ms Brownson has taken reasonable steps to mitigate her loss and that no deduction should be made for a failure to mitigate loss.
Amount of remuneration earned by Ms Brownson from employment or other work during the period between the dismissal and the making of the order for compensation
The College agreed to pay Ms Brownson her normal salary while its appeal was being determined. That was a period of around six months. I calculate Ms Brownson would have earned $55,786.90 during that six-month period, plus superannuation.
Amount of income reasonably likely to be so earned by Ms Brownson during the period between the making of the order for compensation and the actual compensation
Ms Brownson gave uncontested evidence that she is finding it difficult to find work due to the reason she was dismissed by the College. I consider it is unlikely Ms Brownson will earn any income during the period between the making of the compensation order and the compensation being payable.
Other relevant matters
Neither party submitted that there were any other relevant matters.
Compensation – how is the amount to be calculated?
As noted by the Full Bench, “[t]he well-established approach to the assessment of compensation under s.392 of the FW Act… is to apply the “Sprigg formula” derived from the Australian Industrial Relations Commission Full Bench decision in Sprigg v Paul’s Licensed Festival Supermarket (Sprigg).[84] This approach was articulated in the context of the FW Act in Bowden v Ottrey Homes Cobram and District Retirement Villages[85].”[86]
The approach in Sprigg is as follows:
Step 1: Estimate the remuneration the employee would have received, or have been likely to have received, if the employer had not terminated the employment (remuneration lost).
Step 2: Deduct monies earned since termination. Workers’ compensation payments are deducted but not social security payments. The failure to mitigate loss may lead to a reduction in the amount of compensation ordered.
Step 3: Discount the remaining amount for contingencies.
Step 4: Calculate the impact of taxation to ensure that the employee receives the actual amount he or she would have received if they had continued in their employment.
Step 1
I have estimated that Ms Brownson would have remained employed by the College for five years from 21 December 2023 to 21 December 2028.
The remuneration Ms Brownson would have received, or would have been likely to have received, from her dismissal on 21 December 2023 until 21 December 2028 is $557,869.00 gross plus superannuation.
Step 2
Only monies earned since termination for the anticipated period of employment are to be deducted.[87]
I have estimated that Ms Brownson received $55,786.90 plus superannuation from the College while its appeal was being determined.
For the reasons outlined above, I have not applied a deduction for failing to mitigate loss.
A figure of $502,082.10 plus superannuation remains after her earnings are deducted.
Step 3
I now need to consider the impact of contingencies on the amounts likely to be earned by Ms Brownson for the remainder of the anticipated period of employment.[88]
I consider it is likely that Ms Brownson will be able to secure alternative employment on comparable income by the start of the school year in 2026. I consider Ms Brownson should be able to use my findings in this decision to show potential employers that her conduct towards students at the College was appropriate and that she did not deserve to be dismissed. I consider that means Ms Brownson will only lose income for around two years of the five-year anticipated period of employment. I consider this warrants a deduction of 60% for contingencies.
An amount of $200,832.84 plus superannuation remains after the 60% deduction for contingencies.
Step 4
I have considered the impact of taxation but have elected to settle a gross amount of $200,82.84 plus superannuation and leave taxation for determination.
Compensation – is the amount to be reduced on account of misconduct?
If I am satisfied that misconduct of Ms Brownson contributed to the employer’s decision to dismiss, I am obliged by s.392(3) of the FW Act to reduce the amount I would otherwise order by an appropriate amount on account of the misconduct.
Although I do not consider it was a valid reason for dismissal, I am satisfied that Ms Brownson engaged in misconduct when she breached the Code of Conduct by saving the College’s confidential information onto a personal device. I consider a 5% deduction for this misconduct is appropriate. That leaves an amount of $190,791.20 plus superannuation.
Compensation – how does the compensation cap apply?
Given Ms Brownson’s rate of earnings a compensation cap of $55,786.90 plus superannuation applies in accordance with s.392(6) of the FW Act.
Is the level of compensation appropriate?
Having applied the formula in Sprigg, I am nevertheless required to ensure that “the level of compensation is an amount that is considered appropriate having regard to all the circumstances of the case.”[89]
The application of the Sprigg formula has resulted in an outcome where Ms Brownson would be awarded the maximum amount of compensation, which is $55,786.90 plus superannuation.
I am satisfied that the level of compensation is appropriate.
Compensation order
Given my findings above, I will make an order[90] that the College must pay Ms Brownson $55,786.90 less taxation, plus superannuation of $6,415.49 to be paid into Ms Brownson’s nominated fund, with both payments to be made within fourteen (14) days of the date of this decision.
COMMISSIONER
Appearances:
Mr Moorhead from the Independent Education Union representing Ms Brownson.
Mr Haddrick (counsel) and Ms Visedo from Citation Legal on behalf of the Islamic College.
Hearing details:
2024.
2 May.
31 May.
2025.
14 April.
15 April.
29 May.
Sydney (via video using Microsoft Teams).
SCHEDULE
Evidence
Ms Brownson
A1 Paramjit Brownson witness statement dated 2 April 2024 and attachments.
A2 Paramjit Brownson witness statement dated 26 April 2024 and attachments.
A3Catherine Mellor (Former Head of Secondary at the College) witness statement dated 26 April 2024 and attachments.
A4 Paramjit Brownson witness statement dated 11 February 2025 and attachments.
A5Paramjit Brownson witness statement dated 2 April 2025.
A6Excerpt of Student A’s grades for 2022 and 2023.
College
R1 Mohsin Khan (Head of Operations and Shared Services) witness statement dated 19 April 2024 and attachments.
R2Mohammed Azhari (Director of College) witness statement dated 19 April 2024 and attachments.
R3Mahamat Younous Abderahman (Teacher and Well-Being Officer) witness statement dated 19 April 2024 and attachments.
R4Hanif Sipho Ramautswa (Teacher and Acting Middle School Coordinator) witness statement dated 18 April 2024 and attachments.
R5Aboo Baker Mahomed (Secondary Teacher and Assistant Head of Secondary for Student Welfare) witness statement dated 19 April 2024 and attachments.
R6Renee Lazarus (Head of Secondary) witness statement dated 19 April 2024.
R7 Student A witness statement dated 11 March 2025 and attachment.
R8 Records from Ms Brownson’s ANZ bank account showing transactions from 11 to 15 December 2023.
R9Akrim Mahouachi (Psychologist) witness statement dated 19 March 2025 and attachments.
R10Mohammed Azhari witness statement dated 19 March 2023 and attachments.
Submissions
Ms Brownson
Outline of submissions dated 2 April 2024.
Reply submissions dated 26 April 2024.
Closing submissions dated 28 May 2024.
Mr Moorhead provided oral submissions during the hearing on 31 May 2024.
Outline of submissions dated 14 February 2025.
Closing submissions dated 14 May 2025.
Final reply submissions dated 27 May 2025.
Mr Moorhead provided oral submissions during the hearing on 29 May 2025.
College
Outline of submissions dated 19 April 2024.
Closing submissions dated 28 May 2024.
Ms Visedo provided oral submissions during the hearing on 31 May 2024.
Additional submissions dated 8 April 2025.
Closing submissions dated 15 May 2025.
Closing reply submissions dated 26 May 2025.
Mr Haddrick (counsel) provided oral submissions during the hearing on 29 May 2025.
SCHEDULE – ALLEGATIONS LETTER
[1] Ms Brownson commenced employment with the College as a teacher on 21 January 2021 and was appointed to the additional temporary role of Year 9 Pastoral Coordinator on 17 April 2023.
[2] National Teacher Workforce Action Plan - Department of Education, Australian Government.
[3] Paramjit Brownson v Australian International Islamic College Ltd [2024] FWC 1512.
[4] Australian International Islamic College Ltd T/A Australian International Islamic v Paramjit Brownson [2024] FWCFB 465.
[5] Exhibit R7, Attachment SI-1, DHB Vol 2 page 225.
[6] Exhibit A1, Attachment PB-9, DHB Vol 1 page 86.
[7] Exhibit A3 at [11], DHB Vol 1 page 189-190.
[8] Transcript at PN1025 and PN1026.
[9] Transcript of Hearing on 14 April 2025 at PN1093 to PN1099.
[10] Transcript of Hearing on 14 April 2025 at PN1231.
[11] Transcript of Hearing on 2 May 2024 at PN501.
[12] Transcript of Hearing on 2 May 2024 at PN502.
[13] Exhibit R1, Attachment MK-4, DHB Vol 1 page 247.
[14] Exhibit R1, Attachment MK-4, DHB Vol 1 page 248.
[15] Exhibit A1, Attachment PB-13, DHB Vol 1 page 103 to 107.
[16] Exhibit A1, Attachment PB-11, DHB Vol 1 page 93 to 102.
[17] Exhibit A1, Attachment PB-13, DHB Vol 1 page 108 to 110.
[18] Exhibit A1, Attachment PB-11, DHB Vol 1 page 93 to 102.
[19] Exhibit R2 at [25], DHB Vol 1 page 339.
[20] Exhibit A1 at [28], DHB Vol 1 page 62.
[21] Exhibit A1 at [29], DHB Vol 1 page 62.
[22] Exhibit A1 at [29], DHB Vol 1 page 63.
[23] Exhibit A1, Attachment PB-19, DHB Vol 1 page 146 to 147.
[24] Exhibit R1, Attachment MK-4 and MK-5, DHB Vol page 247 to 248.
[25] Exhibit R4 at [10] to [17], DHB Vol 1 page 369 to 371.
[26] Exhibit A1, Attachment PB-3, DHB Vol 1 page 71.
[27] Exhibit A1, Attachment PB-3, DHB Vol 1 page 71.
[28] Exhibit R9, DHB Vol 2 page 267 to 280.
[29] Exhibit R9 at [7], DHB Vol 2 page 267.
[30] Transcript of Hearing on 15 April 2025 at PN1405 to PN1407.
[31] Exhibit R1, Attachment MK-3, MK-6, MK-11, MK-14, MK-15, and MK-31, DHB Vol 1 pages 246, 249, 261, 265, 266, and 334.
[32] Transcript of Hearing on 2 May 2024 at PN400 and PN401.
[33] Transcript of Hearing on 2 May 2024 at PN413.
[34] Exhibit A1, Attachment PB-22, DHB Vol 1 page 160 to 166.
[35] Exhibit R3 at [14], DHB Vol 1 page 379.
[36] Code of Conduct, clause 9.4 - Exhibit R1, Attachment MK-19, DHB Vol 1 page 295.
[37] Exhibit R5 at [12], DHB Vol 1 page 383.
[38] Exhibit R5 at [14], DHB Vol 1 page 383.
[39] Code of Conduct, clause 9.4 - Exhibit R1, Attachment MK-19, DHB Vol 1 page 295.
[40] Exhibit R6 at [11], DHB Vol 1 page 387 and 388.
[41] Code of Conduct, clause 9.4 - Exhibit R1, Attachment MK-19, DHB Vol 1 page 295.
[42] Exhibit R4 at [10] to [15], DHB Vol 1 page 369 to 371.
[43] Exhibit R4 at [18], DHB Vol 1 page 371 and 372.
[44] Exhibit A1, Attachment PB-3, DHB Vol 1 page 72.
[45] Exhibit R6 at [12], DHB Vol 1 page 388.
[46] Exhibit R4 at [19], DHB Vol 1 page 372.
[47] Exhibit A1, Attachment PB-3, DHB Vol 1 page 72 and 73.
[48] Exhibit R2 at [14], DHB Vol 1 page 337.
[49] Transcript of Hearing on 15 April 2025 at PN1780 to PN1792.
[50] Code of Conduct, clause 9.4 - Exhibit R1, Attachment MK-19, DHB Vol 1 page 295.
[51] Exhibit R1, Attachment MK-16, DHB Vol 1 page 268.
[52] Transcript of Hearing on 14 April 2025 at PN778.
[53] Transcript of Hearing on 14 April 2025 at PN770.
[54] Transcript of Hearing on 14 April 2025 at PN749.
[55] Code of Conduct, clause 18.2 and others, Exhibit R1, Attachment MK-19, DHB Vol 1 page 301.
[56] Exhibit R10, Attachment MA-2, DHB Vol 2 page 242.
[57] Exhibit R10, Attachment MA-2, DHB Vol 2 page 240.
[58] Transcript of Hearing on 14 April 2025 at PN919.
[59] Transcript of Hearing on 14 April 2025 at PN927.
[60] Exhibit R8.
[61] [2024] FWC 1512 at [40] to [46].
[62] Sayer v Melsteel Pty Ltd[2011] FWAFB 7498, [14]; Smith v Moore Paragon Australia Ltd PR915674 (AIRCFB, Ross VP, Lacy SDP, Simmonds C, 21 March 2002), [69].
[63] Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 371, 373.
[64] See ibid.
[65] Walton v Mermaid Dry Cleaners Pty Ltd (1996) 142 ALR 681, 685.
[66] Edwards v Justice Giudice [1999] FCA 1836, [7].
[67] King v Freshmore (Vic) Pty Ltd Print S4213 (AIRCFB, Ross VP, Williams SDP, Hingley C, 17 March 2000), [23]-[24].
[68] Transcript of Hearing on 2 May 2024 at PN73 and PN74.
[69] Bartlett v Ingleburn Bus Services Pty Ltd [2020] FWCFB 6429, [19]; Reseigh v Stegbar Pty Ltd [2020] FWCFB 533, [55].
[70] Crozier v Palazzo Corporation Pty Ltd (2000) 98 IR 137, 151.
[71] Previsic v Australian Quarantine Inspection Services Print Q3730 (AIRC, Holmes C, 6 October 1998).
[72] See ibid.
[73] 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].
[74] RMIT v Asher (2010) 194 IR 1, 14-15.
[75] Gibson v Bosmac Pty Ltd (1995) 60 IR 1, 7.
[76] 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].
[77] Nguyen v Vietnamese Community in Australia t/a Vietnamese Community Ethnic School South Australia Chapter[2014] FWCFB 7198, [9].
[78] Vennix v Mayfield Childcare Ltd [2020] FWCFB 550, [20]; Jeffrey v IBM Australia Ltd [2015] FWCFB 4171, [5]-[7].
[79] He v Lewin [2004] FCAFC 161, [58].
[80] Form F3, DHB Vol 1 page 195.
[81] Biviano v Suji Kim Collection PR915963 (AIRCFB, Ross VP, O’Callaghan SDP, Foggo C, 28 March 2002), [34] citing Lockwood Security Products Pty Ltd v Sulocki and Ors PR908053 (AIRCFB, Giudice J, Lacy SDP, Blair C, 23 August 2001), [45].
[82] Biviano v Suji Kim Collection PR915963 (AIRCFB, Ross VP, O’Callaghan SDP, Foggo C, 28 March 2002), [34] citing Payzu Ltd v Saunders [1919] 2 KB 581.
[83] Exhibit A4 at [11], DHB Vol 2 page 50.
[84] (1998) 88 IR 21.
[85] [2013] FWCFB 431.
[86] Double N Equipment Hire Pty Ltd t/a A1 Distributions v Humphries[2016] FWCFB 7206, [16].
[87] See ibid.
[88] Enhance Systems Pty Ltd v Cox PR910779 (AIRCFB, Williams SDP, Acton SDP, Gay C, 31 October 2001), [39].
[89] Double N Equipment Hire Pty Ltd t/a A1 Distributions v Humphries[2016] FWCFB 7206, [17].
[90] PR787941.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR787940>
0
18
0