A Brisbane teacher fired for yelling at misbehaving students has been handed a $54,000 unfair dismissal payout. Not only did the Fair Work Commission find it an ‘absurd’ reason to fire a teacher, but it also uncovered the real motive for her sacking.
In this article, we look at the events of this case – Paramjit Brownson v Australian International Islamic College Ltd [2025]. Later, we explore another unfair dismissal case involving an educator that slapped a student, who also claimed her employer had an ulterior motive to sack her.
Islamic college ‘contrives’ reason to dismiss teacher
Paramjit Brownson began working as a teacher at Australian International Islamic College in January 2021. She was dismissed in December 2023, following a series of allegations concerning her conduct towards students and staff. The allegations relayed in Fair Work Commission proceedings concerned three pupils known as Student A, Student B and Student C.
Among the most notable instances cited by the College were Ms. Brownson’s alleged verbal altercations with students. In October 2023, Student B claimed that Ms. Brownson screamed “I’ll make your life a living hell.” This incident reportedly led to the student seeking counselling, losing appetite and being absent from school for several days.
Ms. Brownson later admitted to saying, “why are you making my life a miserable hell? Not just my life but also your other teachers.” She argued it was in response to the student’s misbehaviour requiring consequences.
‘I’ll make your life miserable’: Shouted at another student
In November 2023, Student C alleged that Ms. Brownson shouted “I’ll make your life miserable.” Ms. Brownson conceded using the phrase “why are you making my life miserable” with misbehaving students but denied the exact wording.
The College also told the Fair Work Commission that Ms. Brownson had been involved in other incidents. It said that students in well-being sessions reported feeling targeted by her “unjust punishment for micro behaviours.”An earlier complaint from Student A in June 2023 described Ms. Brownson yelling and screaming at students for not completing homework. The College labelled her behaviour as “aggressive and disproportionate.”
‘Intimidating’ interactions with colleagues
Ms. Brownson’s interactions with staff were also highlighted to the Fair Work Commission by the College. One incident involving a middle school coordinator took place in November 2023. Ms. Brownson allegedly stated in an “intimidating” tone, “Why do you listen to these students? I’ve told you many times not to listen to them.”
The following day, she was accused of asking the coordinator, “Between me and Patricia who are you more scared of?” The coordinator said this left him feeling publicly humiliated and targeted. Ms. Brownson admitted to both statements. She said that the first was a result of her frustration with students providing false excuses and the second as “banter” with colleagues.
Reinstatement overturned by Fair Work
Following her sacking, Ms. Brownson lodged an unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission. At her first hearing in June 2024, the Commission found that she had been unfairly sacked and ordered the College to reinstate her. However, the College appealed the decision, and it was subsequently overturned by the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission.
The Full Bench ruled that her unfair dismissal claim would be reheard. This was because the Commission had not adequately considered evidence from three of Ms. Brownson’s colleagues. These colleagues claimed that Ms. Brownson had “screamed” at students during yard duty and had conducted “intimidating” bag searches.
The College argued that Ms. Brownson was dismissed for serious misconduct. It also raised the fact that Ms. Brownson’s had told colleagues that she had been stood down, despite confidentiality instructions.
Ms. Brownson, however, consistently denied engaging in serious misconduct. She maintained that raising her voice was sometimes necessary given the students’ misbehaviour. She clarified that she never “screamed” at students.
College ignored evidence vindicating teacher
At the rehearing, the Fair Work Commission found that the College’s evidence about Ms. Brownson’s behaviour was inconsistent. The Commission learned that an investigation into Student A’s complaint about her alleged yelling concluded that she had not abused the student. Rather, that she “was and is firm with her expectations” in a difficult and challenging classroom environment. The investigation noted that Ms. Brownson is “fair at all stages.”
Also of note, the Commission learned from Student A’s evidence that other senior staff members yelled at students often “more on the regular” than Ms. Brownson. The Commision concluded that this “completely undermines” the College’s position that yelling at misbehaving students is serious misconduct justifying dismissal.
‘Absurd’ to say yelling at troublesome students is misconduct
The Fair Work Commission also learned how Ms. Brownson’s interactions with Student B and Student C were initially fully supported by the College’s leadership. The Commission noted that the two students had exhibited an “array of misbehaviour.” It therefore deemed Ms. Brownson’s disciplinary actions as “completely understandable.”
The Commission said that it was “absurd” to say that a teacher committed serious misconduct because they have raised their voice at troublesome students.
‘Contrived and flawed’: Real reason for dismissal uncovered
The Fair Work Commission learned that Ms. Brownson’s complaint against a College director triggered the termination process. In November 2023, she had sent an email to the director and other staff. In the email, Ms. Brownson claimed that the director had admitted speaking in an “inappropriate manner” to a teacher at an event. She said that the director had twice spoken to the teacher in “a very aggressive” manner in front of parents, staff and students.
The Commission found that Ms. Brownson’s email “upset” the director and triggered the “contrived and flawed” sequence of events that led to Ms. Brownson’s dismissal. The Commission noted that this marked a dramatic shift from the College supporting her disciplinary efforts to initiating disciplinary action against her. It said that it had used “historical issues” that had not been raised with Ms. Brownson at the time to get her fired.
Employer accused of creating ‘false’ file notes
The Fair Work Commission scrutinised the evidence provided by the College’s head of operations, who was responsible for the dismissal decision. It accepted Ms. Brownson’s argument that the head of operations had created case file notes in early 2024 and “falsely claimed” they were prepared in 2023.
Explanations from the head of operations, such as human error and typos were deemed “unconvincing.” His attempt to attribute errors to “new computers” also lacked credibility. The Commission also slammed the College for being “deliberately evasive” in providing original electronic versions of the documents.
Teachers’ challenging role in student discipline acknowledged
The Fair Work Commission stated that educators like Ms. Brownson are placed in a “very difficult position” when it comes to disciplining misbehaving students. It said that not only is there the need to discipline students, but to also protect other students from the misbehaviour of their peers.
The Commission said that parents expect teachers to take “strong action” against bullying or disruptive behaviour that affects other students’ learning.
Reinstatement refused despite unfair dismissal
Despite finding no valid reason for Ms. Brownson’s sacking, the Fair Work Commission concluded that reinstatement would be inappropriate. This decision was partly influenced by new evidence that Ms. Brownson had not deleted confidential student records, such as marks, after her termination. Her reluctance to attend a disciplinary meeting in person on 13 December 2023, citing illness to justify attending remotely, also contributed to this decision.
The Commission acknowledged the breakdown in the relationship between the College and Ms. Brownson. It also said that it was unlikely the College would treat her fairly if she was reinstated. The Commission therefore ordered that Ms. Brownson was deserving of maximum financial compensation. This amounted to $55,786.90 plus superannuation.
Read More: Difference Between Unfair Dismissal and Wrongful Dismissal
Lab technician dismissed for slapping student’s hand
Another unfair dismissal case that involved an educator fired for allegedly abusing a student is Jillian McLoghlin v St Columba’s College Ltd [2025]. Jillian McLoghlin worked as a science lab technician for St Columba’s college in Melbourne. The incident that led to her sacking took place in August 2024, during a biology dissection lesson. Ms. McLoghlin admitted to slapping the hand of Student A, who was in the process of packing away a plastic board with a scalpel, scissors and forceps attached.
She claimed that the slap was a “reflex action” to prevent the student from injuring herself on the scalpel. She denied having argued with the student at the time. Following the incident, the College principal informed her of a report and a “damning” video recording of the event. Ms. McLoghlin was stood down with full pay.
In September, the principal told Ms. McLoghlin that Student A’s parents were displeased and that the matter was serious. She also said that the College was considering an additional allegation of verbal abuse against Student A.
College said technician was ‘aggressive’
The College’s investigation into the incident led to several allegations against Ms. McLoghlin. In a letter to her, the College outlined that during the biology lesson she had a “tense conversation” with students not following instructions. She then slapped Student A’s hand and argued with Student A in an “aggressive” manner.
An external investigator appointed by the College met with Ms. McLoghlin in November 2024, at which point she was first given the opportunity to respond to the allegations. In January 2025, the College told Ms. McLoghlin that it is was intending to dismiss her.
Technician said she lacked training
During a meeting with the principal in February 2025, Ms. McLoghlin raised several points in her defence. These included a lack of training on dealing with unruly behaviour. She argued that such training would have enabled her to “walk away” from the situation.
She also contended that the College had not considered her “poor” state of mind at the time or her 16 years of service. Ms. McLoghlin further argued that the College unfairly relied on a video taken without her permission. She claimed the College had “ulterior motives” for her sacking.
Dismissed for serious misconduct
The principal, however, stated that the College’s Child Safe Code of Conduct prohibits staff from using physical punishment to discipline students. She said that Ms. McLoghlin had received training on this in February 2024. The principal also defended the use of video evidence. She told Ms. McLoghlin that the College’s Student Digital Citizenship Policy allows video recordings in class.
The principal told the Fair Work Commission that she did not believe Ms. McLoghlin understood the seriousness of her conduct. She noted that Ms. McLoghlin referred to the matter as “one little incident” and “something trivial.”
Ms. McLoghlin was termination on 17 February 2025, and she received five weeks’ pay in lieu of notice. She subsequently lodged an unfair dismissal application with the Fair Work Commission.
‘Does not make sense’: Technician’s arguments fall flat at Fair Work
The Fair Work Commission found that the video clearly showed Ms. McLoghlin slapping Student A’s hand, describing it as a “forceful” slap. The Commission concluded that Ms. McLoghlin did not slap the student to protect her. It said that it “does not make sense” that slapping the student’s hand would prevent her from cutting herself on a scalpel.
The Commission concluded that the real reason for the slap was that Ms. McLoghlin was “cross” with the student due to her misbehaviour. It said that the action was entirely unwarranted and breached the College’s Child Safe Code of Conduct, on which Ms. McLoghlin.
While the video did not prove that Ms. McLoghlin acted aggressively, it did show that she had slapped the student in front of others. The Commission also rejected the idea that the College had an ulterior motive to dismiss her.
Unfair dismissal claim rejected
The Fair Work Commission noted Ms. McLoghlin’s unblemished 16 years of service to the College. However, it also accepted that she had not accepted full responsibility for her conduct. The Commission highlighted her continued assertion of a safety motive and her attempt to blame the incident on her lack of training. It said that a teacher does not need such training to know that slapping a student is wrong.
Ultimately, the Commission concluded that the College had a valid reason to fire Ms. McLoghlin and that her sacking was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Her unfair dismissal claim was therefore rejected.
Have you been unfairly dismissed?
Dismissed, bullied or forced to resign? A Whole New Approach is Australia’s leading employee advocacy service, dedicated to helping workers stand up to unfair treatment. We’ve represented thousands of employees nationwide, offering expert guidance on unfair dismissal, workplace bullying, harassment and discrimination.
With over 30 years’ experience, we’re fast, effective, and focused on getting you the best possible outcome. Call 1300 766 700 today for a free and confidential discussion.
