A senior professor who ran a teaching centre at a major university for a decade was sacked for serious misconduct after three staff members complained about her leadership style. The Fair Work Commission found that of 33 allegations pressed against her at hearing, only six were established, and none of them came close to justifying her dismissal.
What the Commission decided
Dr Angela Paladino had worked at the University of Melbourne for about 27 years, most recently as Director of a specialist teaching centre and a tenured Professor. She was dismissed in February 2025 after an external investigator found ten allegations substantiated and four partially substantiated, and the university formed the view her conduct amounted to serious misconduct.
By the time the matter reached hearing, the university was relying on 33 separate allegations, some new and never put to Dr Paladino before her sacking. The Commission worked through each one and found only six were made out, including that she told a colleague an unflattering reason for another staff member's departure, made an insensitive remark to a staff member about overseas travel, told a staff member she had lost trust in him, called another staff member during personal leave over a minor missing receipt, was slow to tell a departing staff member her university credit card had been cancelled, and pushed for a former staff member to finish unfinished work after her contract ended. to
Deputy President Masson found none of this conduct, whether looked at alone or together, was serious enough to amount to misconduct capable of justifying dismissal. The dismissal lacked a valid reason, was carried out unfairly because more than twenty of the allegations were never raised with Dr Paladino before she was sacked, and was harsh given her long, unblemished record.
What was actually in dispute
Much of the case turned on whose evidence to believe. Several witnesses who complained about Dr Paladino were found to hold negative or even vindictive views of her, which the Commission said made their evidence unreliable unless backed up by other proof. One witness was found to have made false statements during the investigation itself.
The university argued the allegations, taken together, showed a pattern of bullying, dishonest and controlling behaviour that justified treating the conduct as serious misconduct. The Commission rejected that argument once most of the individual allegations fell away for lack of proof, noting the far narrower set of established facts could not support the university's characterisation.
A striking feature of the case was the evidence of Dr Paladino's own manager, who admitted he held concerns about her leadership for years but never raised them with her directly, even giving her a positive performance rating shortly before the investigation began. The Commission was highly critical of this, finding the university had failed to use its own performance management processes before moving straight to a finding of serious misconduct.
What this means
The Commission ordered Dr Paladino reinstated to her role as Director of the centre and as a tenured Professor, with her continuity of employment preserved. It declined to order any payment for lost earnings, noting she had received a payment in lieu of notice and had not shown she tried to find other work.
The decision is a reminder that an employer relying on a large bundle of allegations to justify a dismissal needs each one to withstand scrutiny, not just the overall impression they create. It also illustrates how the Commission approaches remedy under the unfair dismissal framework, including when reinstatement rather than compensation is considered appropriate even where relationships at work have become strained.