Publications

Crossing professional boundaries can justify dismissal

Mr Gibson was employed as a teacher in an ACT high school from January 2023 until his dismissal on 30 August 2024. It was alleged that he initiated and engaged in extensive ongoing electronic communications with female students on social media, drove students to and from non-school related sporting events, and took a photo of students (who were clothed) in an ice bath.

The Original Decision and the Appeal

In January 2026, the Fair Work Commission found there was a valid reason for Mr Gibson’s dismissal because he had failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students. However, after considering relevant factors including Mr Gibson’s acknowledgment of wrongdoing, there being no allegation or finding of sexual misconduct, the dismissal could jeopardise his teaching registration and career, some interactions occurred with parental knowledge or consent and in the context of sporting activities, his remorse and his undertaking professional boundaries training at his own expense, the Deputy President ordered the ACT to pay five months’ salary as compensation due to the harshness of the dismissal.

In May 2026, the ACT successfully appealed. The Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission found that the Deputy President had failed to provide procedural fairness by relying upon evidence that was not before the Commission and to which Mr Gibson had no opportunity to respond. Even though the Fair Work Commission is not strictly bound by the rules of evidence and may inform itself as it considers appropriate, it must nevertheless afford the parties procedural fairness.

Significantly, the Full Bench said, “it is fundamental to procedural fairness that the parties know what material is being considered by a member of the Commission and have an opportunity to comment on it.”

The Full Bench also said that the Deputy President had misconstrued the ACT’s Code of Conduct by concluding that the requirement to “maintain professional boundaries” applied only in circumstances involving sexual harassment or sexual misconduct. The Full Bench rejected this interpretation holding that the professional boundary provisions were broader and not confined. They emphasised that Mr Gibson’s conduct clearly contravened these professional boundary provisions and that such a breach was relevant when assessing the seriousness of the misconduct and the proportionality of dismissal as a disciplinary response.

Lessons to be learnt

For those working in education, Mr Gibson’s case illustrates that:

1. maintaining professional boundaries is a fundamental professional obligation and is not limited to avoiding misconduct;
2. schools ought to take behaviour which crosses professional boundaries seriously to protect students and preserve trust in the profession;
3. investigative and disciplinary procedures and processes must be conducted fairly not only by the Fair Work Commission but also by schools themselves;
4. procedural fairness requires the parties involved to be provided with any information that may affect the outcome and be given a genuine opportunity to respond to it.

This article was published on 26 October 2026 by Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers and is based on the relevant state of the law (legislation, regulations and case law) at that date for the jurisdiction in which it is published. Please note this article does not constitute legal advice. If you ever need legal advice or want to discuss a legal problem, please contact us to see if we can help. You can reach us on 1800 059 278 or via the Contact us page on our website.