Zhang v University of Canberra
Citation: [2015] FCA 21
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
Felicia Zhang was an employee of the University of Canberra. On 19 January 2015, the University sent notice that it had decided to terminate her employment based on alleged serious misconduct in breach of an enterprise agreement. A review panel had investigated but found no serious misconduct had occurred, although adverse findings were made. The University indicated final decision would be made on 23 January 2015.
What was decided
Justice Greenwood granted an interim injunction restraining the University from terminating Zhang's employment until 4.00 pm on 29 January 2015. The matter was relisted for further consideration of whether the injunction should be extended pending trial. The injunction was granted to preserve the status quo and because there was an arguable case that termination without valid serious misconduct would breach the Fair Work Act.
What it means for employers
Universities must follow proper procedures under enterprise agreements when investigating misconduct allegations. Before terminating employment, employers must establish genuine serious misconduct. Failure to follow procedural fairness requirements may result in court orders preventing termination.
What it means for employees
Employees have the right to procedural fairness when misconduct allegations are investigated. If an employer proceeds to dismiss without proper investigation or a finding of serious misconduct, the employee can seek court orders restraining the dismissal pending a full hearing.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2015/2015fca0021Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →