It’s Fair Work Friday and this one is a doozy not to be missed!
The case
The University of Melbourne recently dismissed Dr. Stephan Matthai, a Professor of Reservoir Engineering, for serious misconduct. In 2017, he engaged in a “highly personal and romantic” exchange with a PhD student he was supervising, including sending intimate photos. The student flagged this to HR in 2018 but, fearing the impact on her studies, didn’t want to lodge a formal complaint. Once she graduated in 2023, she finally felt safe enough to speak up. The University investigated and sacked him.
The ruling
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) ordered the University to reinstate him. Why? Because the incident happened seven years ago. The Commission labelled the dismissal “harsh,” arguing that the professor had been a “model employee” since then and that the University should have acted sooner so he could have found a new job while he was younger.
Why this matters (and why I’m appalled)
As the Founder & CEO of Bloom HR, I have to call this out: The FWC got this wrong.
To suggest that a 7-year gap erases the gravity of a power imbalance is a slap in the face to every victim of workplace harassment. In a legal proceeding, 7 years is nothing. In the world of a PhD student, those 7 years represent a period of extreme vulnerability where your entire career is held in the hands of your supervisor.
The FWC’s logic—that the Uni should have considered the professor’s “future job prospects”—prioritises the perpetrator’s career over the student’s safety. That is not justice; that is a systemic failure.
How can we do it better
This case leaves HR leaders in a tough spot. What do you do when an employee says, “I want you to know this happened, but I don’t want to make a formal complaint”?
Duty of Care vs. Confidentiality: When the allegation involves a serious power imbalance or potential “serious misconduct,” your duty of care to the entire organisation often overrides the individual’s desire for silence.
The “Informal” Trap: You cannot sit on a ticking time bomb for seven years. If the behaviour is predatory, “informal” isn’t an option. You must explain to the complainant that while you will support them, the organisation must investigate to ensure a safe environment for others.
Document & Risk Assess: If you truly cannot proceed without the victim’s participation, you must document the risk assessment. Why wasn’t a “no-contact” or “re-supervision” plan put in place immediately in 2018?
The Bloom takeaway
The Fair Work Commission needs to have a hard look at itself. We cannot claim to be “cleaning up” workplace culture while simultaneously protecting the “job prospects” of those who abuse their power.