Reportable Conduct Gone Wrong: How Sloppy Allegation Drafting Overtuned a Termination

A recent Fair Work Commission decision shows how the Reportable Conduct Scheme and unfair dismissal law can pull in different directions, and why a finding that a teacher crossed professional boundaries does not automatically mean a dismissal will survive scrutiny.

The case, J.G. v Australian Capital Territory (represented by ACT Education Directorate) [2026] FWC 137, involved a teacher dismissed after admitting to a string of boundary breaches with students. The Commission found there was a valid reason for the dismissal, yet still ruled it unfair. On appeal, a Full Bench overturned that outcome. The result is a useful illustration for schools, employers and anyone involved in reportable conduct investigations of how these processes interact, and where they can go wrong.

Background

J.G. was employed as a teacher with the ACT Education Directorate from January 2023. While on unpaid leave and teaching overseas between August 2023 and March 2024, he was contacted by, and responded to, several current and former students of the college over Instagram. He also participated in a student group chat, appeared in a photo with students at a sports recovery centre, and drove students to sporting events and training in his own car, all without declaring these activities to the school.

Following a preliminary assessment, the matter was referred for investigation. J.G. provided a signed Admission Statement accepting that six of the seven allegations against him occurred and that his conduct amounted to misconduct. Based on that admission, the Directorate decided no further investigation was required and proceeded directly to a sanction decision. In August 2024, his employment was terminated.

The Reportable Conduct Scheme Classification

Because the allegations touched on interactions between a teacher and students, the matter was also notified to the ACT Ombudsman under the Reportable Conduct Scheme. The Directorate classified the conduct as misconduct of a sexual nature, specifically crossing professional boundaries, a defined category under the scheme.

Importantly, the Commission noted that no allegation of sexual behaviour or sexual misconduct was ever put to J.G., a point confirmed by the Directorate's own witness during the hearing. The conduct that was admitted, unauthorised social media contact, undeclared transport of students and an undeclared coaching program, was found to be inappropriate and a clear breach of professional boundaries. But the label attached to it under the reportable conduct classification became a live issue in the unfair dismissal proceedings.

Why the Commission Initially Found the Dismissal Unfair

Deputy President Dean accepted that a valid reason for dismissal existed. J.G. had admitted his conduct, and the Commission agreed his behaviour reflected a serious lack of judgment and a plain crossing of professional boundaries.

Despite this, the dismissal was found to be harsh. Several factors drove that conclusion:

●        The Directorate's Code of Conduct placed its only reference to maintaining professional boundaries within a section specifically headed sexual harassment or sexual misconduct. The Commission found this structure meant the boundary provisions applied narrowly to that context, not as a general standard.

●        No allegation of sexual misconduct was ever made, yet the reportable conduct classification used the sexual misconduct category.

●        Much of the contact with students occurred with parental knowledge or consent, through the Applicant's separate role as a sports coach.

●        J.G. undertook professional conduct training at his own cost and expressed remorse.

●        He continued teaching at another Directorate school for months after the allegations arose and was never suspended, which the Commission treated as inconsistent with a view that his conduct was serious enough to warrant summary termination.

●        Dismissal placed his teacher registration at risk, a consequence the Commission described as disproportionate given his record.

On that basis, the Commission ordered five months of base salary in compensation rather than reinstatement, reduced by one month to account for the misconduct.

The Appeal: Full Bench Overturns the Decision

The Directorate appealed, and on 20 May 2026 a Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission allowed the appeal in Australian Capital Territory (represented by ACT Education Directorate) v J.G. (C2026/802). The Full Bench found the original decision contained errors of law and fact, including that the Deputy President had relied on written evidence from a parent who was never called or tested as a witness at the hearing.

The Directorate's submissions on appeal made a broader point that will resonate with schools and other organisations covered by the scheme: an education institution should not need to wait for sexual harassment or sexual conduct to occur before it can rely on a serious breach of professional boundaries as grounds for dismissal. The Full Bench agreed the original decision failed to properly weigh the Directorate's evidence and submissions, and remitted the matter for redetermination by a single Commission member.

At the time of writing, the case is back before the Commission and the outcome under appeal has not been finalised. The original findings on remedy no longer stand.

What This Means for Schools and Investigators

A few practical points come out of this case for anyone managing conduct issues involving students, or drafting policy under the Reportable Conduct Scheme:

Code of Conduct drafting matters. If professional boundary obligations sit only inside a section dealing with sexual misconduct, a decision maker may read those obligations narrowly. Organisations should consider whether boundary standards need to stand as a general, freestanding obligation, separate from sexual harassment provisions.

Classification under the scheme carries weight beyond the Ombudsman notification. How conduct is categorised, whether as misconduct of a sexual nature or simply as crossing professional boundaries, can become central to an unfair dismissal contest. Getting that classification right, and being able to justify it on the facts, matters well beyond the initial report.

An admission of misconduct does not guarantee dismissal will be upheld. Even where an employee accepts the facts and accepts they behaved improperly, the Commission still separately assesses whether termination was a proportionate response, taking into account consent, context, remorse and consequences such as loss of professional registration.

Consistency in process supports the outcome. Decisions such as whether to suspend an employee during an investigation can later be used as evidence about how seriously the conduct was treated at the time.

This case remains unresolved pending redetermination, and Insight Investigations will continue to track it as part of our ongoing series on the NSW and ACT reportable conduct frameworks.

This article discusses a Fair Work Commission decision for general information purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Source: [2026] FWC 137, Fair Work Commission.