Teacher Dismissed 3D-Printed Gun Loses Fair Work Bid

Teacher Dismissed for Bringing 3D-Printed Gun to Show Students

The Fair Work Commission has slammed the “astonishing lack of judgement” of a Canberra high school teacher who was dismissed for bringing a 3D-printed gun to school. The teacher had “proudly” shown it to the lead teacher and demonstrated how it could be cocked like a real gun. Police later searched her house and issued her a formal caution. The Commission rejected the teacher’s claim that she only wanted to seek a colleague’s permission before showing it to her class, throwing out her unfair dismissal claim.

In this article, we look at the events of this Fair Work unfair dismissal case: Chaohui (Jackie) MacDougall v Australian Capital Territory as represented by the ACT Education Directorate [2026]. Later, we look at the case of a Queensland teacher who was stood down after he placed a gun to the head of a child.

Case Summary: Chaohui MacDougall v Australian Capital Territory [2026]

• Jurisdiction: Fair Work Commission NSW.
• Key employer argument:The teacher was justifiably dismissed for bringing an illegal firearm to school. The serious misconduct posed a genuine safety and reputational risk.
• Key employee argument:She only intended to seek her supervisor’s permission before showing the firearm to students and complied immediately when told not to.
• Fair Work outcome:Justified dismissal. The teacher intended to show the gun to students and her conduct was unlawful.

Unfair dismissal ACT: Teacher printed replica gun after feedback about student engagement

Chaohui (Jackie) MacDougall began working as a teacher for the ACT Education Directorate in 2004. At the time of her termination of employment, she was employed as a digital technology and maths teacher at a public high school in the ACT. In early April 2025, Mrs MacDougall met with the school principal as well as the executive teacher Michelle Coleman to discuss improving student engagement in her maths classes. The trio also discussed introducing technology-related electives, including 3D printing, to boost enrolment in subjects she wanted to teach.

Over the weekend, Mrs MacDougall used a 3D printer at home to make a replica handgun. The Fair Work Commission found that she had used plans likely sourced from the internet. On the morning of Monday 7 April 2025, Mrs MacDougall arrived at school with the replica firearm and walked into the arts faculty staffroom. She “proudly” showed it to Ms Coleman, demonstrating how the top of the firearm could be pulled back to imitate the act of preparing to fire.

‘What have I done wrong?’: Teacher clueless as to why bringing a gun to school is bad

Ms Coleman, who thought it “looked quite realistic,” told Mrs MacDougall, “you can’t show that to students” and told her to put it away. Mrs MacDougall then placed the gun in her bag, however it was still visible from above. She then went to sit down at her desk to process what had just transpired, verbalising “what is the problem? What have I done wrong?”

The next day, the incident was reported to the principal, which triggered a notification to ACT Education’s School Operations unit and, in turn, the Australian Federal Police. On 9 April 2025, AFP officers attended the school, and Mrs MacDougall was stood down from duty with pay and escorted off the premises. Police later attended her home, taking the replica firearm and her 3D printing equipment, and gave her a formal caution. The incident subsequently received media coverage, with the Canberra Times reporting police believed it was “a misguided effort to demonstrate the capabilities of 3D printing technology.”

Unfair dismissal ACT: Investigation found she intended to show students the firearm

In response to a show cause notice issued by ACT Education, Mrs MacDougall “vehemently” denied any intention to show the item to students. She claimed that she brought it to school solely to show Ms Coleman. On 20 June 2025, her stand down order changed from paid to unpaid. The matter was referred to the ACT Public Sector Standards Commissioner for formal investigation.

In a written response through her lawyers on 29 September 2025, Mrs MacDougall’s position shifted. She now acknowledged that she intended to show the gun to students, “subject to approval from her supervisor.” She also said that she regretted her conduct. On 10 October 2025, the Professional Standards Unit found that Mrs MacDougall brought the gun to school to show it to students.

Read : Fair Work Backs Teacher Who Supported Baby Killer

Dismissed despite contrition and pleas for leniency

Mrs MacDougall was notified of a proposed serious misconduct finding and that she may face termination of employment. In her response on 13 December 2025, she apologised and described the effect of the ordeal on her family. She noted that her daughter had witnessed police search her home and she provided a medical certificate diagnosing anxiety and depression.

Mrs MacDougall requested an alternative to termination of employment, including a formal warning or transfer. However, on 6 January 2026, ACT Education confirmed its decision, and Mrs MacDougall’s employment was terminated effective the next day.

Why did the teacher argue her dismissal was unjustified?

In her Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Mrs MacDougall argued:

• She brought the replica firearm to school with the sole intention of showing it to Ms Coleman and seeking approval, not to show it to students without permission.
• She complied immediately when instructed to put the item away.
• Her nearly 22 years of otherwise unblemished service should have weighed heavily against termination of employment.
• She had continued teaching for two days after the incident before being stood down, demonstrating she posed no serious ongoing risk.
• Dismissal was a disproportionate and harsh response to a single lapse of judgement, given her long service and contribution to teaching.

In response to the Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, ACT Education argued that Mrs MacDougall’s conduct was a serious breach of her professional obligations. She had contravened the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT), posed a genuine safety and reputational risk, and irretrievably broke the trust required for her to continue in her role. The employer noted that had Ms Coleman not intervened, it was likely she would have gone on to show the replica firearm to her students.

Why did Fair Work rule the dismissal was justified?

The Fair Work Commission handed down its decision on Mrs MacDougall’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim in August 2026. It rejected her claim for the following reasons:

• Mrs MacDougall intended to show the gun to students and she had not sought out Ms Coleman for the purpose of obtaining permission.
• While there was no malice involved, Mrs MacDougall showed an “astonishing lack of judgement for such an experienced teacher.”
• Replica firearms are prohibited because they “look real.” The conduct posed a risk to staff and students’ sense of safety, and the possibility of students attempting to replicate the item or search for similar content online. It also could have led to an emergency response.
• The conduct was unlawful, as the item was a prohibited firearm under ACT law. It also breached multiple provisions of the ACT Education Code of Conduct.
• ACT Education had considered mitigating factors, including her cooperation and the financial impact of dismissal on her family. However, a lesser sanction would not address the seriousness of the misconduct.
• Mrs MacDougall’s remorse was genuine in relation to the consequences for her career. However, the Commission was “not convinced” that she genuinely understood why her conduct was so inappropriate given her continued insistence that no harm was caused.

Read More: Agoreyo v London Borough of Lambeth [2019] EWCA Civ 322

Teacher stood down after placing gun to child’s head

In Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher KUF [2026], a teacher was stood down on suspension by the state’s education regulator after he faced criminal charges for allegedly holding a handgun to a child’s head. The teacher applied to have his suspension dismissed by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. It ruled that the ongoing suspension was necessary, finding that the educator failed to demonstrate he did not pose a risk of harm to children.

Case Summary: Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher KUF [2026]

• Jurisdiction: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal.
• Key regulator argument: The teacher’s suspension should continue. He had pushed a child and held a handgun directly to the child’s head to intimidate him.
• Key employee argument: The suspension should be dismissed as the criminal charges were unproven. The children suffered no physical harm and his release on bail showed he posed no threat.
• Tribunal outcome: Suspension continued. Preserving child safety overrides individual employment interests.

Educator stood down from teaching following serious firearm allegations

The educator, known during Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal proceedings as simply KUF, held registration as a teacher in the state since March 2015. On 1 December 2025, police charged the educator with going armed so as to cause fear and common assault. Police alleged that the teacher assaulted a child by pushing him and holding a handgun to his head to intimidate him. Another child, his daughter, was present at the time.

On 4 December 2025, the educator was stood down and had his registration suspended by the Queensland College of Teachers. The regulator viewed his continued presence in the classroom as an unacceptable risk to children. As required by law, the regulator referred the suspension to the Tribunal to review whether the stand down should remain in force.

Read: Teacher Dismissed for ‘Absurd’ Reason Wins $54K

Teacher claimed lack of evidence and cited bail status

The teacher filed submissions to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal seeking to have the proceedings dismissed. He argued:

• The proceedings were premature. It was unreasonable to impose punitive measures before the criminal court handed down its judgement.
• Police reports confirmed neither child suffered physical harm, and claims regarding firearm possession were unsubstantiated.
• His release on bail showed that authorities were satisfied he was not a threat to children.
• He had an unblemished record with no previous complaints or criminal history. The teacher described himself as a devoted father and active community member.

The Queensland College of Teachers argued that the stand down order served to protect child welfare over teacher interests. It noted that bail decisions involve separate legal considerations and do not confirm a teacher is fit to remain in a classroom.

Why did the tribunal order the suspension to continue?

The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal handed down its decision on the stand down order in January 2026. It ordered the suspension to continue for the following reasons:

• Under QLD education legislation, the Tribunal must continue a suspension unless satisfied the teacher does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm. The teacher failed to provide material to satisfy this standard.
• The teacher demonstrated a clear lack of insight by focusing solely on the lack of physical injuries. He ignored the severe fear and psychological harm the alleged conduct could cause.
• The granting of bail by a court does not resolve the question of child safety under educational regulation standards.

Workplace dispute FAQs

1. Does a long record of unblemished service protect an employee from dismissal over a single lapse of judgement?

While length of service and a clean disciplinary record are important mitigating factors, they do not guarantee protection against termination when conduct is severe or unlawful. When considering unfair dismissal claims, the Fair Work Commission will take such factors into account. However, when conduct is so serious as to irretrievably break trust or pose genuine safety risks, for example, even decades of good service may not prevent a dismissal from being upheld.

In Chaohui (Jackie) MacDougall v Australian Capital Territory [2026], a teacher brought a 3D-printed replica firearm to school. In her Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, she argued that termination of employment was harsh given it was a single mistake and that she had an otherwise 22-year unblemished employment record. The Fair Work Commission accepted the teacher’s “commitment to work” for her employer. However, it ruled her conduct was so serious that it warranted no less than termination of employment.

2. Can criminal charges outside of work affect my employment?

While an employer can’t automatically terminate you for facing criminal charges outside of work, they can impact your employment. This is generally the case if the conduct stops you from performing your role, causes reputational damage to your employer or poses a safety risk at work.

In Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher KUF [2026], a teacher had his registration suspended following criminal charges for an off-duty incident where he allegedly held a handgun to a child’s head. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal upheld the ongoing suspension, ruling that the need to protect child safety and mitigate risk superseded his personal employment interests.

Have you been dismissed following a workplace investigation?

Facing suspension or termination of employment without clear guidance often leaves employees feeling vulnerable against corporate processes. Professional workplace advocates help level the playing field by ensuring your rights are protected.

We at A Whole New Approach exclusively represent employees nationwide who have faced unfair dismissal, adverse action, sexual harassment and other rights violations. We evaluate the true merits of your case, challenge unjust disciplinary outcomes, and fight for the justice you deserve.

Contact our team seven days a week on 1300 766 700 for a free, confidential initial consultation.