University's culture‑of‑fear case against senior academic crumbled under FWC scrutiny
On 23 February 2026, the Fair Work Commission ordered reinstatement for University of Melbourne Director and Professor Angela Paladino after finding no valid reason for her dismissal.
In Angela Paladino v The University of Melbourne [2026] FWC 559, Deputy President Masson determined an application under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and held that the dismissal was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable.
Dr Paladino commenced with the university in 1997 as a sessional casual employee. She later worked as senior tutor, lecturer, and senior lecturer in the Department of Management and Marketing, then as associate professor of marketing. From 1 July 2015 until 5 February 2025 she was director of the Williams Centre for Learning Advancement (WCLA) in the Faculty of Business and Economics (FBE) and a professor in the FBE. She served as deputy vice president of the Academic Board from 1 January 2023 to 31 December 2024 and as vice president from 1 January 2025 to 5 February 2025.
The WCLA, established in 2015, operates as an independent centre that provides support and professional development training for teachers and educators in the FBE. It does not teach or manage students, and functions as a repository for best practice in teaching and learning, both online and face to face.
At the time of dismissal, the university employed about 10,000 employees. Dr Paladino had about 27.5 years of service, an annual base remuneration of about $330,669, and coverage under the University of Melbourne Enterprise Agreement 2024.
In the first half of 2023, three employees made formal complaints about Dr Paladino. On 30 June 2023, the University appointed external investigator Diana Taylor AM of Diana Taylor Legal Consulting to investigate the allegations. Ms Taylor’s Summary of Investigation Findings recorded 10 substantiated allegations and four partially substantiated allegations, and the university formed the view that Dr Paladino’s behaviour constituted serious misconduct.
On 10 July 2024, the university notified Dr Paladino of the investigation outcome and provided the summary. She then sought an impartial review under the enterprise agreement. The University initially appointed Lander & Rogers partner Julian Riekert, but after she raised concerns about his appointment, it instead appointed Gadens partner Amanda Junkeer on 12 August 2024.
Ms Junkeer’s report 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 regard the conduct in totality as serious misconduct.
On 11 December 2024, Provost Professor Nicola Phillips wrote to Dr Paladino stating that the university considered her conduct to constitute serious misconduct and intended to terminate her employment for serious misconduct, with six months’ salary in lieu of notice.
Dr Paladino exercised dispute rights under the enterprise agreement. A Dispute Committee later found that the process was fair, that the intended action was supported by the evidence, and that the intended action was proportionate to the circumstances. On 5 February 2025, Professor Phillips confirmed that her employment was terminated with effect that day.
Before the Commission, the University contended that Dr Paladino engaged in a pattern of inappropriate behaviour which, when viewed in totality, established a valid reason for dismissal. It submitted that this 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, and described her conduct as rude and disrespectful, micromanaging and controlling, dishonest, divisive, insubordinate, and bullying.
Deputy President Masson examined the 33 allegations relied on by the university and made findings on witness credit. He ultimately found that Dr Paladino engaged in conduct in six of those allegations, including a comment to a subordinate that a former colleague left because another staff member was hard to work with; a remark to a subordinate that he would not get people asking whether he had a nice time overseas after every conference; a statement that she had lost trust in a subordinate because he did not update her on changed annual leave plans; contacting an administrator on leave to locate a non‑urgent receipt; failures in communication linked to the cancellation of a colleague’s credit card before a conference; and requesting a former employee to finish work for the centre while proposing that final pay be withheld until completion.
The Commission held that this conduct, whether considered separately or together, did not establish a valid reason for dismissal. It ordered an unfair dismissal remedy including reinstatement as a tenured professor to her substantive position of director of the WCLA, and maintenance of continuity of employment.
