Compensation for sacked Teacher who questioned colleague’s protest attendance

A “well-regarded” early childhood teacher (ECT) has been awarded tens of thousands in compensation following his “humiliating” and “extremely harsh” summary dismissal, which was actioned based on “misinformation” after he debated a colleague about her presence at a protest rally in which she elected to livestream a speech delivered by a neo-Nazi leader.

In October 2025, the Melbourne-based ECT, who had immigrated to Australia from the Maldives in 2015, became aware that a coworker had attended a ‘March for Australia’ rally in August. The rally occurred over a weekend, and the coworker attended in her own time (there was no suggestion she attended in connection to her employment). Whilst there was dispute over how the ECT became aware of his coworker’s participation in the rally, she did not deny that she had been present and had “taken up a position at the front of the protest and had filmed some of it for her social media account”. An “altercation” occurred when the ECT sought to challenge his coworker regarding her involvement and the “racist” connotations of the rally generally. The coworker immediately raised a complaint that the ECT had accused her of being a “racist and neo-Nazi” in front of colleagues, leaving her feeling “targeted, humiliated, deeply upset and overwhelmed”. Two members of the management team met with the ECT that afternoon, and despite maintaining his position that he merely attempted to educate his coworker as to “how her conduct might be perceived” in the interest of promoting the commitment to “inclusivity” the centre espoused, he was summarily dismissed the next working day. 

Wading through the conjecture over what was said during the incident, Commissioner Redford of the Fair Work Commission summarised that, “the nub of the disagreement is whether [the ECT] called [his coworker] a neo-Nazi and a racist because she attended the protest, or whether he said words to the effect that attending the protest made it look like she was a neo-Nazi or racist, thereby associating her with such people”. Noting that he only had the accounts of the ECT and his coworker to rely upon, because no other staff members who witnessed the incident gave evidence, Commissioner Redford preferred the recollection of the ECT, notwithstanding that he accepted the ECT’s coworker was “not a neo-Nazi” and repeatedly acknowledged her “stated refutation of neo-Nazi views”. He commented:

“I consider it is entirely possible [the coworker] heard or interpreted a more direct form of accusation than was actually expressed by [the ECT]. I consider it more likely [the ECT] told [his coworker] that by associating herself with neo-Nazi’s and racists at a protest such as the one she attended, she would look like or appear to be one of them, but that what [the coworker] heard or interpreted was that she was being told she was a neo-Nazi and a racist.” 

Commissioner Redford further explained that the incident consisted of a two-way conversation, “not a conversation where one was on offense and the other sat passively”. He assessed that the “tone of the conversation” failed to rise to a level of aggression or threat, but it “was unpleasant”. The Commissioner concluded the employer did not establish a valid reason for dismissal, because the decision to terminate was “based on misinformation”, which also “mischaracterised the nature of and effect of” the ECT’s conduct.

Commissioner Redford observed that the business owner, as the ultimate decision-maker, had failed to speak directly with the ECT or any other staff members who witnessed the altercation, and did not engage with the ECT’s coworker about her complaint. Instead, the employer had relied solely upon the report delivered by her “investigative team” – consisting of the two staff members who met with the ECT on the afternoon of the incident – which misrepresented the ECT’s response. Commissioner Redford identified that the ECT’s “unchallenged” evidence was that he refuted having called his coworker a racist or neo-Nazi, but the business owner was advised he had admitted to the behaviour. Furthermore, the employer erred in characterising the ECT’s conduct as causing “extreme distress” to his coworker, constituting a “serious and imminent risk to the health and safety of another person”, with the Commissioner saying it should have been obvious to the business owner that, had she spoken with the complainant personally, she was “offended, and to some extent upset, but not in ‘extreme distress’”.

Having found that the ECT had not engaged in the conduct as alleged, Commissioner Redford confirmed that his behaviour was “not of sufficient gravity to justify dismissal”. He added, “I consider that what [the ECT] said was unpleasant in the circumstances, probably unnecessary, but taking into account the context, and [his coworker’s] own conduct, not of a nature to justify dismissal”.

Compounding the harshness of the dismissal, were comments made to the ECT in the meeting conducted on the afternoon of the altercation – verified by unchallenged evidence – in which the employer’s representative advised the ECT he was required to be “inclusive of all opinions, including racist and Nazi opinions”. Commissioner Redford was scathing of this remark, labelling it “extraordinarily insensitive, humiliating and harsh – accentuated by [the ECT’s] heritage – which was known to [the employer]”. He also acknowledged the “particularly unfortunate” impact the dismissal had on the personal and economic situation of the ECT, who had failed to secure other employment in the early childhood education industry, in part due to the “current employment context for male early childhood educators in Australia” and the sudden manner in which his previous employment ended.

In finding there were “several” factors (“some particularly so”) that weighed in favour of a conclusion the ECT was unfairly dismissed and turning to consider remedy, Commissioner Redford commented that the ECT had conducted himself with “dignity” despite being subjected to “humiliating treatment” at the hands of his employer, “even (after having been told to [be] more tolerant to Nazi’s)”. Having quickly discounted reinstatement, which was not sought by the ECT and was opposed by the employer, Commissioner Redford settled on a compensation amount equivalent to the maximum award (i.e. 26 weeks’ wages), amounting to $41,061.28 (gross), plus superannuation.

Didi v The Grove Children’s Centre Pty Ltd ATF The Grove Children’s Centre Unit Trust [2026] FWC 1015 (29 April 2026)