A long-serving school teacher whose job performance and conduct were unsatisfactory was validly dismissed, but there was some unfairness in the way the employer handled it. As a result, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) awarded him compensation of $14,121, while observing that his employment would not have lasted much longer, due to his deteriorating job performance and conduct. 

 

Facts of case 

The teacher had been employed at a school for 21 years. He received warnings in 2016 and 2022. The first one referred to failure to comply with directives by the employer. The second and final one included placing him on a 12-month Performance Improvement Plan that included provision of mentoring.  

During that time, he had surgery for a hand injury that affected his ability to write and type. That, plus the leave required by it and leave due to jury service, interrupted and delayed the mentoring process.  

The following performance and conduct issues also arose: 

He failed to provide students with their assessment results in a timely manner, despite being required to do so. He also failed to communicate the delays and reasons for them to others. 

He did not notify the school about being called up for jury duty. 

He failed to comply with a directive to tidy up his work desk and work area. 

The school received complaints about his failure to provide timely feedback to students and work constructively with work colleagues. 

The school then issued him with a notice of concerns, followed by a “show cause” (why he should not be dismissed) letter, to which he responded. A week after the letter, he was dismissed with pay in lieu of notice. 

 

Decision 

The FWC found there was sufficient proof that the incidents above had occurred, and therefore there was a valid reason for dismissal. The employee had not taken the employer’s concerns and efforts to address them seriously enough, particularly given his teaching experience and length of service. 

However, it also found that the employer had mishandled the process in the following ways: 

It did not clearly distinguish between performance improvement and conduct improvement, often using the terms interchangeably. This made it harder for the employee to understand what he had to improve.  

It did not provide enough interim feedback during the performance management process. 

It failed to provide clarity around discontinuing the performance improvement program. 

It did not conduct an independent investigation into the matters (which the employee had requested). 

It did not give the employee a proper opportunity to respond to the allegations against him. 

Accordingly it awarded him compensation of $14,121 plus superannuation. Calculation of that amount reflected a discount of 25% for the employee’s misconduct and a prediction that his employment would only have lasted a few months longer if the employer had followed a fair process in all respects. 

 

What this means for employers 

This case involved a long-serving employee whose performance deteriorated over time, partly due to factors unrelated to work (eg injury) but mostly due to his own attitide. Employers need to handle such situations carefully, as the FWC takes length of service and personal circumstances of an employee into account when determining whether the dismissal process was unfair. 

In this case, inadequate communication by the employer was a major contributor to its handling the process unfairly. 

 

Read the judgment 

Andrew Murphy v Xavier College Limited - [2025] FWC 1284 | Fair Work Commission