Aisha Khurram v The University of Melbourne (UoM),Dr Khurram Kamran & Mrs Aisha Khurram v The University Of Melbourne
Citation: [2026] FWC 2831
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 2
What happened
the Applicant and Dr Khurram Kamran, teaching specialists at The University of Melbourne, challenged a departmental restructure that led to redundancies in their positions. They argued the roles were genuinely needed and the university hadn't properly consulted them. They also alleged unfair treatment and victimisation related to non-confirmation of their academic status and subsequent six months’ notice of termination. The University denied wrongdoing and stated the dispute was moot due to the non-confirmation process outlined in the Enterprise Agreement.
What was decided
The Fair Work Commission Deputy President Coleman dismissed the applications made by the Applicant and Dr Khurram Kamran against The University of Melbourne. The Commission found it lacked authority under the Enterprise Agreement to grant the orders sought, which included reversing the restructuring decision and maintaining their positions. The dispute was deemed outside the scope of the agreement's dispute resolution procedure and irrelevant to the non-confirmation process.
What it means for employers
Employers should ensure restructure processes are clearly communicated and involve genuine consultation with affected employees. Review enterprise agreements to confirm clarity around redundancy definitions and dispute resolution procedures, particularly concerning academic roles and notice periods.
What it means for employees
Employees disputing redundancies should carefully consider the scope of their Enterprise Agreement's dispute resolution process. If alleging adverse action or workplace rights breaches, a general protections claim may be more appropriate than seeking to overturn restructuring decisions directly through an enterprise agreement.
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.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwc2831.pdfWant 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 →