WISE Workplace

03/06/2026

On 9 May 2026, the Australian National University confirmed that an independent review by Dr Vivienne Thom had made five adverse findings against former ANU Council members and identified maladministration in how the university handles complaints raised by or about Council members. The report was delivered to the Council the same day former Chancellor Julie Bishop announced her resignation.

The review followed a Senate hearing on 12 August 2025 at which former Council member and demographer Dr Liz Allen alleged she had been harassed, bullied and mistreated during her time on Council. Her testimony triggered the establishment of a Special Governance Committee, the appointment of Dr Thom — an experienced government investigator — and, in parallel, a TEQSA investigation into whether the Council had failed to exercise competent governance oversight.

The ANU's own statement is striking for what it acknowledges. The finding of maladministration related to the procedures for managing complaints raised by or about Council members. The five adverse findings against individual former Council members concerned their conduct in those roles. Notably, those findings did not reach the threshold of disclosable conduct under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (Cth); instead, the review recommended that the Council consider whether the conduct breached the ANU Code of Conduct Policy. Having considered that recommendation, the Council concluded that no further action was required given the members had already resigned.

That last point is the part HR practitioners should sit with. When the people whose conduct is found wanting are no longer in the organisation, the consequence calculus changes, and not always in ways that look like accountability.

A few broader lessons surface from the public record...

Governance bodies are not exempt from the rules they enforce. Boards and councils routinely set the cultural and procedural standards for the organisations they oversee. When those same bodies become the subject of complaints, the absence of a clear, independent pathway for handling those complaints is itself a governance failure.

Maladministration of complaints involving leaders is a specific risk pattern. Independence in investigation is not optional when leadership is implicated. The Senate hearing testimony included claims that an independent investigator was constrained from examining differential treatment of Council members. Whether or not that account is accepted in full, the perception of constrained independence is corrosive. Where governance figures are involved, external investigators must be empowered with terms of reference broad enough to follow the evidence.

Resignation does not equal resolution. The ANU Council's decision that no further action was required because former members had resigned reflects a defensible legal position, but it does not address the underlying systemic findings. Codes of conduct mean less where their enforcement turns on whether a respondent remains in their role.

Regulators are watching. TEQSA's parallel investigation into the Council's governance oversight signals that external regulators are increasingly prepared to scrutinise the conduct of governance bodies themselves, not just operational management. For organisations in regulated sectors (universities, NDIS providers, financial services, aged care, health) the assumption that boards sit above the line of regulatory attention no longer holds.

The ANU situation is a reminder that the systems we build for accountability must work in every direction — including upward. If your organisation is dealing with complex governance matters and allegations of leadership misconduct, get WISE!
https://loom.ly/N1d5L80

An independent review into 36 allegations concerning the Australian National University has made a series of adverse findings against former council members.

02/06/2026

When "Deemed Resignation" Becomes Dismissal: A Decision Every HR Team Should Read

A recent Fair Work Commission decision should prompt every HR function in Australia to review its abandonment of employment process — and, more specifically, the standard template letters that almost every HRIS produces by default.

On 11 May 2026, Commissioner Crawford handed down his decision in Haque v dnata Airport Services, finding that a cargo worker who had stopped attending work was dismissed at the employer's initiative, not by his own resignation.
Md Abdullah Haque commenced employment with dnata as a Cargo Service Delivery Agent in March 2025. During his employment he raised concerns about the conduct of co-workers, including serious concerns raised on 8 December 2025 about the alleged conduct of two employees toward a female staff member. The following day, Mr Haque was sent home early from a non-rostered shift after those two colleagues complained that he had been circulating rumours about them. The Commission found there was "a degree of confusion" between Mr Haque and his manager about what would happen next. He did not return for his subsequent rostered shift and did not respond to attempts to contact him.

On 22 December 2025, dnata's HR Business Partner emailed Mr Haque a letter giving him five working days to explain his absence, failing which the company would assume he had voluntarily resigned. Mr Haque said he did not read the email until after the deadline had passed. dnata processed his termination on 12 January 2026. He lodged a general protections dismissal application the following day.

dnata argued that Mr Haque had abandoned his employment; a renunciation of his contractual obligations amounting to resignation rather than dismissal. Commissioner Crawford disagreed, and the basis of his reasoning is the part HR practitioners should focus on.

The Commissioner examined the specific language used in the abandonment letter. It said dnata "considers your absence to be unauthorised," that dnata "will assume you have voluntarily resigned," and that "your employment will be terminated accordingly." That language, the Commissioner found, was "consistent with dnata being the party that was making decisions about whether Mr Haque's employment would continue." In other words: the letter intended to document the worker's resignation became the evidence that the employer had dismissed him.

On repudiation, the Commissioner found Mr Haque's conduct fell short. His silence "would have conveyed to a reasonable person that a substantial dispute had arisen between Mr Haque and dnata about his employment and that the dispute was some way from being resolved", not that he had walked away from the employment relationship. The Commissioner went further and expressed doubt about the abandonment doctrine itself, observing that treating these matters as employer-initiated dismissals under section 386 of the Fair Work Act would be "much simpler and more efficient" than applying the "complicated contractual concept of renunciation." That observation, while not binding, signals a direction of travel that HR functions should be alive to.

The practical implications are significant. The "deemed resignation" letter is one of the most widely used HR templates in Australia. After Haque v dnata, every word in those templates matters. Language that positions the employer as the decision-maker can be used to characterise the resulting separation as a dismissal regardless of the heading on the letter.

Context also matters. Where an unexplained absence follows a workplace incident, complaint, or unresolved dispute, the abandonment pathway carries meaningful risk. In those circumstances, multiple contact attempts across multiple channels, comprehensive documentation, and a more substantive process (a show-cause letter on unauthorised absence, for instance) may be more defensible than a deemed resignation. As the Commissioner noted, a worker's silence following an unresolved dispute communicates that the dispute persists, not that the worker has resigned.
The deeper lesson of Haque v dnata is one experienced HR practitioners will recognise: the form of a termination is often less important than its substance. The Commission has long looked through documents labelled as resignations, mutual separations, or abandonments to ask the more fundamental question; who actually ended this employment relationship, and how? Where the answer is "the employer," the protections of the Fair Work Act engage regardless of what the documentation says.

The five-day template letter has served Australian HR functions for decades. It is not redundant. But after Haque v dnata, it warrants a careful review. Navigating deemed resignation issues? Get WISE!

https://loom.ly/NpPbLD0

When 'we'll assume you've resigned' becomes proof that you dismissed them

31/05/2026

When Bad Process Doesn't Sink a Dismissal — Don't Get the Wrong Idea

Most HR practitioners know the script: rock-solid reason to dismiss, shaky process, Commission reaches for the compensation calculator. A recent Full Bench decision flips that expectation — and it's worth a closer look before anyone takes the wrong lesson from it.

An ABC Tissue Products process worker was sacked in July 2024 for serious misconduct after allegedly assaulting a coworker. His defence: self-defence. The coworker, he said, was trying to steal his money.

At first instance, Deputy President Wright didn't shy away from the employer's procedural deficiencies; she acknowledged them openly. But she found they didn't change the outcome. The Full Bench agreed. Permission to appeal: refused. Why this should make HR pay attention...

The Commission has spent years telling us that procedural fairness isn't optional. We've watched mine workers get reinstated. Workers who threw punches keep their jobs. "Harsh, unjust, unreasonable" findings rack up where employers cut corners.

This decision pushes back. It says: where the conduct is serious enough and the substantive case is strong enough, deficient process won't necessarily rescue the worker. That's a meaningful nuance. It's also a trap, if you read it wrong.

The Full Bench wasn't blessing sloppy process. It was saying that on these specific facts, a better process wouldn't have produced a different result. That's a hindsight conclusion, not something employers can build a strategy around.
ABC Tissue Products survived its procedural flaws because the underlying case was strong. Weak evidence with perfect process still loses; strong evidence with imperfect process might survive.

This case is useful, but narrow. The principle isn't new, as procedural flaws have always been weighed against likely outcomes, but it's an interesting example.

The lesson isn't "process matters less." The lesson is what it's always been:
- Document the conduct
- Particularise the allegations
- Give a real opportunity to respond
- Consider the response genuinely
- Don't have the affected person make the call

Get those right, and you don't need to hope the Full Bench is feeling generous. Dealing with complex disciplinary or dismissal matters? Get WISE!

Employee loses appeal against "self-defence" sacking

https://loom.ly/_HxI_-0

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

20/05/2026

The team from Wise Workplace is proud to be part of the Melbourne Health & Safety Show. Be sure to stop by the booth, meet the team and learn more about what Wise Workplace and Wise Workplace Training can do to support your business.

20/05/2026

Wise Workplace Training is pleased to present this upcoming professional development program.

18/05/2026

Don't forget to reserve your tickets, and be sure to visit the team! See you there.

14/05/2026

A situation involving proven sexual misconduct and the retention of a senior leader is drawing attention to a difficult but critical question for employers: what happens when misconduct is substantiated, but decisive action is not taken?
In cases that have reached bodies such as the Fair Work Commission, a recurring theme is emerging. Where inappropriate behaviour by senior staff is confirmed, but the individual remains in their role, the consequences often extend beyond the initial incident. Employees may lose trust in leadership, feel unsafe, or conclude that internal processes lack integrity. In some cases, this results in resignation, with claims that the employer has effectively forced the employee out.

From a legal perspective, this creates real exposure. Employers have a duty to provide a safe working environment, including psychological safety. Failure to take proportionate action after substantiated misconduct can be interpreted as a failure to manage that risk. This can underpin claims such as constructive dismissal, adverse action, or breaches of work health and safety obligations.

The reputational risk is equally significant. Decisions to retain individuals in positions of authority, despite proven misconduct, are increasingly scrutinised by regulators, employees, and the broader public.

For organisations, the lesson is not simply about responding to individual complaints. It is about governance. Investigations must be independent, findings must lead to proportionate outcomes, and leadership decisions must be defensible.

Engaging independent specialists such as Wise Workplace can help ensure that both the investigation process and resulting actions align with legal obligations and community expectations.

In this environment, how an organisation responds matters just as much as what occurred in the first place. Dealing with director conduct matters? Get WISE!

https://loom.ly/sjjU3z8

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

12/05/2026

The boundaries of how workplace sexual harassment disputes can be pursued in Australia are tightening, and employers can no longer afford to take a broad or informal approach to handling these matters. A decision from the Fair Work Commission has made it clear that jurisdiction is not just a legal detail. It can determine whether a claim proceeds at all.

The case centred on an application for “stop sexual harassment” orders under the Fair Work Act. The applicant alleged inappropriate workplace conduct and sought intervention from the Commission. However, the key issue was not simply whether the behaviour occurred. It was whether the Commission had the power to act. The Commission ultimately reinforced that its role is preventative, not punitive. It does not determine liability in the same way a court would, nor does it award compensation. Its function is to make orders to prevent future harm, and only where there is a real and ongoing risk.

This distinction proved critical. Where conduct is historical, where the individuals are no longer working together, or where there is insufficient evidence of future risk, the Commission may decline to intervene. In these circumstances, employees must consider alternative pathways such as litigation or complaints through human rights bodies. The result is a more fragmented landscape, where multiple avenues may exist but each comes with its own threshold and limitations.

For employers, the implications are practical and immediate. The initial handling of a complaint now carries even greater weight. Failing to assess jurisdiction early, or relying on a one-size-fits-all response, can expose organisations to procedural challenges and duplicated processes across forums.

It also reinforces a broader regulatory shift. Sexual harassment is increasingly being treated as a work health and safety issue, with positive obligations on employers to proactively eliminate or minimise risk. This means prevention, training, leadership capability, and workplace culture are no longer optional considerations.

Engaging independent expertise can be critical in navigating this complexity. Wise Workplace assist employers to manage complaints in a way that is structured, defensible, and aligned with current legal expectations.

The message is clear. It is no longer enough to respond to complaints. Employers must understand the system they are operating within, or risk finding themselves in the wrong forum with the wrong approach. Dealing with complex sexual harassment matters in the workplace? Get WISE!

https://loom.ly/gaFDmwo

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

12/05/2026

Wise Workplace is excited to attend the 2026 Workplace Health & Safety Show in Melbourne, bringing together industry leaders, HR professionals, and safety champions from across Australia. Save the date, click the link, and we'll see you there!

05/05/2026

Psychosocial injury is becoming one of the most serious and underestimated risks in professional services. It rarely presents suddenly. Instead, it builds over time through sustained pressure, poor role clarity, ineffective leadership, and workplace behaviours that go unaddressed.

Recent industry commentary is pointing to a pattern many organisations will recognise. High expectations, long hours, and constant client demands are often accepted as part of the job. However, when these conditions are not actively managed, they can create environments where stress becomes chronic and psychological safety deteriorates. The result is not just fatigue, but real harm. Anxiety, burnout, conflict, and formal claims are increasingly common outcomes.

The risk is no longer theoretical. Regulators in Australia are sharpening their focus on psychosocial hazards under work health and safety frameworks. Organisations that fail to identify and control these risks may face legal exposure alongside rising costs from absenteeism, turnover, and reputational damage.

What makes this particularly challenging is that many of these issues sit beneath the surface. Leadership teams may not have clear visibility of cultural dynamics, emerging risks, or the true employee experience.

This is where an independent cultural lens becomes critical. A structured workplace cultural review conducted by organisations such as Wise Workplace can uncover underlying risk factors before they escalate. By examining behaviours, systems, and decision-making environments, these reviews provide clear, evidence-based insights and practical steps to reduce harm.

For professional services firms, the message is simple. Ignoring psychosocial risk does not make it disappear. It allows it to grow quietly until the consequences are far more difficult and costly to manage. Need to get ahead of psychosocial risks? Get WISE!

https://loom.ly/ql0zeB4

This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.