A University of Melbourne professor was rated “exceeding expectations” in her performance reviews.
Then 18 months later, she was dismissed for serious misconduct.
Fair Work’s response? Unfair dismissal. Reinstate her.
What went wrong? HR’s failure to have difficult conversations.
What Happened:
The professor was also the director of the faculty’s Williams Centre for Learning Advancement. In February 2025, she was dismissed after an 18-month investigation and disciplinary process found she’d engaged in serious misconduct.
The university claimed her behaviour was “rude and disrespectful, micromanaging and controlling, dishonest, divisive, insubordinate, and bullying.”
She challenged the dismissal at Fair Work.
Deputy President Ian Masson ordered her reinstatement.
The Critical HR Failure:
Here’s what Fair Work found:
“Despite the issues of [the director’s] alleged leadership deficiencies being known, there is little evidence of intervention by HR to address those issues in a meaningful way.”
And here’s the smoking gun:
Her superiors told the Commission they’d held “various concerns” about the director’s leadership for some time.
But they hadn’t raised these with her.
And they hadn’t recorded them in her performance review, which rated her as exceeding expectations.
Read that again: Performance review said “exceeding expectations” while they held “various concerns” about her leadership.
Why This Matters:
This is a textbook example of avoiding difficult conversations, and it cost the university spectacularly.
Fair Work found the dismissal was unfair because:
- HR didn’t intervene meaningfully to address known leadership issues
- Performance reviews lied – said “exceeding expectations” while holding concerns
- No documentation of the “various concerns” they allegedly held
- No opportunity to improve – she couldn’t address issues she didn’t know about
The result? 18 months of investigation, a costly dismissal process, and now she’s being reinstated.
The Lesson:
You cannot avoid difficult conversations for 18 months, tell someone they’re “exceeding expectations,” then suddenly dismiss them for issues you never raised.
Fair Work saw straight through it.
Performance management requires:
✅ Honest feedback in performance reviews – if you have concerns, document them
✅ Timely intervention – address issues when they arise, not 18 months later
✅ Clear communication – tell people what the problems are so they can respond
✅ Opportunity to improve – performance management is a process, not a surprise dismissal
✅ HR involvement – not to avoid conversations, but to support them happening properly
What Should Have Happened:
If the university genuinely had concerns about her leadership, here’s what the Partnership Not Punishment™ approach looks like:
Early intervention:
- First concern arises → address it directly and document the conversation
- “We’ve noticed [specific behaviour]. Can we discuss what’s happening?”
- Clear expectations set, support offered
Honest performance reviews:
- If concerns exist → they appear in the review
- Not “exceeding expectations” when you’re actually concerned
- Performance review = opportunity for honest dialogue
Progressive support:
- Ongoing conversations about leadership expectations
- Coaching or training offered if needed
- Clear documentation of discussions and agreed actions
If no improvement:
- Performance improvement plan with specific goals
- Regular check-ins with documented progress
- Either improvement happens OR fair dismissal process if not
Result: Either she improves (problem solved!) OR you have a documented, defensible process if dismissal is necessary.
Instead, the university:
- Avoided conversations for 18 months
- Lied in performance reviews
- Went straight to 18-month investigation → dismissal
- Lost at Fair Work
The Real Cost:
This wasn’t just an unfair dismissal finding. The university now faces:
- Reinstatement of the professor
- Back pay for the period since dismissal
- Legal costs for the Fair Work proceedings
- Reputational damage (it’s now public that they failed basic performance management)
- The disruption of reinstating someone after dismissing them
- The morale impact on other staff watching this unfold
All of which could have been avoided with early, honest conversations about performance concerns.
“But We Didn’t Want Conflict!”
I get it. Leadership concerns are uncomfortable to address, especially with senior people.
But avoiding the conversation doesn’t avoid the conflict – it just delays it and makes it worse.
The difficult 30-minute conversation about performance concerns?
Much easier than:
- 18 months of investigation
- Dismissal process
- Fair Work proceedings
- Reinstatement
- Damaged reputation
HR’s Role:
Deputy President Masson specifically noted that HR “should have been capable” of assisting the university to meet its consultation obligations.
This is a pointed comment. HR should have ensured:
- Performance reviews reflected actual concerns
- Managers were having difficult conversations
- Issues were being addressed in real-time, not ignored
- Documentation supported the organisation’s position
Instead, HR apparently let managers avoid difficult conversations for 18 months, then tried to fix it with an investigation and dismissal.
Too little, too late.
What This Means For You:
If you’re holding “various concerns” about an employee’s performance but haven’t raised them:
Stop.
Have the conversation. Document it. Provide support. Give them the opportunity to improve.
Don’t wait 18 months, tell them they’re “exceeding expectations,” then try to dismiss them.
Fair Work will see straight through it, just like they did here.
Need Help With Difficult Conversations?
If you’re avoiding performance conversations because you don’t know what to say or how to document them:
👉 Partnership Not Punishment™ System – $497
Complete framework for handling performance conversations that actually improve performance (not just build a dismissal case)
👉 Book a free 15-minute discovery call
Discuss your specific situation and get guidance on next steps
The Bottom Line:
Avoiding difficult conversations doesn’t make them go away.
It just makes them more expensive when they finally happen.
Reference: Fair Work Commission Paladino vs University of Melbourne