A NSW lecturer dismissed for flicking a student’s hair and allegedly calling her “cute” has won his job back at the Fair Work Commission. The university admitted that it took a “victim-centric” approach to its investigation into the student’s allegations. Meanwhile, the lecturer argued that the university had “reverse-engineered” the outcome to appease the student’s family. The Commission found that this approach biased the investigation.
The investigator originally recommended giving the lecturer a written warning. However, the student’s mother put pressure on the university and it told the investigator that their report “needed some work.” The investigator then recommended termination of employment.
In this article, we look at the events of this unfair dismissal NSW case Nigel Haslam v SAE Institute Pty Limited [2025]. We also look at the disciplinary action case of a Queensland teacher who was banned from the profession for over three years for chatting with a 16-year-old student on Grindr.
Newcastle-based Nigel Haslam began working as an associate lecturer with SAE Institute in May 2019. At the time of his termination of employment, he was working at SAE Institute’s Byron Bay campus. Over the course of six years, he maintained an “unblemished” record. He was described by the campus manager as a “very good” employee who was “very well respected” by staff and students. The Byron Bay campus where he worked was a small environment, with approximately 180 students and 40 staff.
The events leading to the termination of employment began on 24 June 2025. It involved one of Mr. Haslam’s students, referred to during Fair Work unfair dismissal proceedings as Student A. Mr. Haslam was teaching an animation class that only Student A attended. During this session, Mr. Haslam admitted he was in “close proximity” to the student because she was working on an iPad on her lap. Observing a piece of hair obscuring her eye, he “inadvertently reached forward to flick her hair” with his index finger. Student A subsequently made a formal complaint to SAE Institute.
While Mr. Haslam viewed the hair-touching incident as a “one-off, unplanned act”, the student’s perception was markedly different. She alleged he “tucked her fringe behind her ear” without consent and was so distressed that she later cut off her fringe where he had touched her. Following her complaint, SAE Institute uncovered a second allegation from earlier in the 2025 academic year.
Student A claimed that Mr. Haslam told her “you look cute” while reaching down to touch her stockings above her knee to comment on the pattern. SAE Institute initially stood Mr. Haslam down on pay while an internal investigator examined the claims. The investigator’s initial report on 10 July 2025 recommended only a written warning, finding the hair-touching admitted but the stocking allegation unsubstantiated.
However, Student A’s mother demanded to know if Mr. Haslam was being allowed to continue lecturing. SAE Institute’s executive general manager then told the investigator the report “needed some work.” He said that it should document that the student refused to be taught by Mr. Haslam. A third report was produced on 31 July 2025 recommending dismissal. Mr. Haslam faced termination of employment on 27 August 2025. He subsequently lodged a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim.
In his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Mr. Haslam argued that his termination of employment was a disproportionate response to a single, non-sexual incident. He admitted to touching Student A’s hair but maintained that he did not intend “anything sexual” by it. He said that he was “devastated” that this was how Student A had perceived the act. Mr. Haslam said that the classroom door was closed at the time of the incident to muffle noise. He argued that he sat close to the student only to view her work on an iPad.
Regarding the second allegation, Mr. Haslam argued it was factually incorrect. He said that he did not ever use the expression “you look cute” as it is an Americanism inconsistent with his English upbringing. Mr. Haslam admitted to a comment about the “cool pattern” of Student A’s stockings (as a design teacher) but did not admit to touching her stockings.
Furthermore, he argued that SAE Institute breached a clause of its enterprise agreement which requires those involved in disciplinary action to act fairly and impartially. He contended the investigation was biased and that the university had “reverse engineered” the outcome to satisfy the student’s family. Mr Haslam cited an email where the executive general manager said “we are taking a victim-centric approach.” Mr Haslam contended that a milder disciplinary action would have been appropriate given his long service.
In response to Mr Haslam’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, SAE Institute argued that the dismissal was a necessary response to a breach of its staff-student relationships policy. The employer contended that as a university college, it owed a high duty of care to its students. SAE Institute argued that Mr Haslam’s conduct was “unreasonable and unwelcome” and had created a situation where the student felt she could not return to campus if he remained. The institute’s executive general manager argued that a “victim-centric approach” was required, and the loss of trust in Mr Haslam was absolute.
Mr. Haslam’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in December 2025. It found that Allegation 1—the hair touching incident—was not substantiated. The Commission accepted that the classroom door was closed to muffle noise and that Mr. Haslam sat close to the student only to view her work on an iPad. Mr. Haslam was found to be a reliable and credible witness. He demonstrated genuine contrition and admitted the act was “unnecessarily familiar.”
The Commission found “no sexual element” to the conduct. It was determined that a reasonable bystander would view the act as a “spur of the moment” response to a visual distraction rather than an act of sexual harassment. It also noted that the student had not mentioned the incident to her mother or support staff at the time it allegedly occurred. It said that “reasonable satisfaction” that the incident had occurred should not be produced by “inexact proofs.” The Commission ultimately preferred Mr. Haslam’s consistent, live testimony over the student’s written statement.
Despite all these findings, the hair touching incident was deemed a valid reason for termination of employment by the Commission.
Regarding allegation 2—the ‘you look cute’ incident—the Commission also ruled that this was not substantiated. It cited the fact that Student A did not report this incident to her mother, SAE staff, or her support advisor when it allegedly occurred. It was also noted that other students in the class at the time did not recall the conduct. The Commission also found that Mr. Haslam’s argument that “cute” is an Americanism he does not use had a “ring of truth.” It also found that there was no evidence that he had touched Student A’s legs.
The Fair Work Commission was highly critical of RAE Institute’s internal disciplinary process. It found that the executive general manager had “prioritised” Student A’s ongoing ability to study at the university over the employment of Mr. Haslam. The Commission ruled that the employer failed to act impartially, which was a breach of the university’s enterprise agreement. It was noted that the dismissal had “harsh” personal consequences for Mr. Haslam as he lived in a regional area with few alternative teaching prospects.
Despite ruling that the hair touching incident was a valid reason for his dismissal, the Fair Work Commission ultimately ruled that his termination of employment had been unfair. It therefore ordered that Mr. Haslam be reinstated to his position. The Commission was persuaded that Mr. Haslam showed “genuine, deep remorse” and that appropriate measures could be put in place to manage the campus environment.
These measures included ensuring Mr. Haslam did not teach Student A’s subjects and instructing him not to approach her. To reflect the “material breach” of policy, the Commission did not award back pay for the first two months following his dismissal. It however ordered remuneration from 27 October 2025 until the date of his reinstatement. This conclusion balanced the “gravity of the misconduct” with the lecturer’s “excellent record of service.”
A recent example of a far more inappropriate interaction between teacher and student is the disciplinary action case heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal: Queensland College of Teachers v Teacher AKW [2025]. The teacher, known during disciplinary action proceedings as Teacher AKW, had been in the profession for 18 years. At the time of the incident that led to his disciplinary action, Teacher AKW had been teaching full-time at a high school. In early October 2021, the educator was active on Grindr, which requires users to confirm they are at least eighteen years of age. Simultaneously, a sixteen year old student at the same school, identified as Student A, accessed the application after incorrectly stating his age as twenty-one. Student A later admitted to police that he had used the app with “mischievous” intentions to engage in ‘trolling’ persons he did not know.
During this period, the student noticed a messenger was “100 metres away” because he was using the application while on school grounds. While neither party was initially aware of the other’s identity, the interaction shifted after Teacher AKW sent photographs. At this point, Student A recognised Teacher AKW as a member of staff at his school. Despite this recognition, “sexualised messaging” between the two continued for a few days.
During the disciplinary case proceedings, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal noted that Teacher AKW made several attempts to meet Student A. During the dialogue, the educator initiated the names “Daddy” for himself and “Boy” for the student. The conversations included “explicit sexual preferences” and persistent efforts by the teacher to arrange a physical meeting.
The situation escalated when Student A told the teacher that he was only fifteen years old. During the disciplinary action proceedings, it was revealed that Teacher AKW replied, “Boy, why did you tell me that?… You didn’t need to tell me at all.” He then inquired about when the student would turn sixteen.
Even after becoming aware of the minor’s age, the teacher continued the conversation, asking “Got any more pics little boy?.” He also sent an explicit photograph of his own erect penis while sitting in a toilet cubicle. He further remarked, “Who knows it could be a month until we can play anyway… Contact me then. I’ll be here.”
The disciplinary action process got started when the student reported the conduct to his father, the school principal, and the Queensland Department of Education Ethical Standards Unit. This led to a police investigation where Teacher AKW was charged with a serious offence of using the internet to procure children under sixteen.
However, when his criminal case made it to court, the prosecution dropped the case. Despite this, the Queensland College of Teachers initiated a referral to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal to determine if his conduct met the standard of behaviour generally expected of a teacher. Teacher AKW was suspended from teaching in November 2021.
The Queensland College of Teachers argued to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal that the teacher’s actions represented a significant departure from professional standards. It highlighted the teacher’s willingness to engage in sexual innuendo with an underage child. It also pointed out that he had maintained contact, even sending explicit imagery, after being informed of the student’s age. The college argued that such behavior severely undermines public confidence in the teaching profession.
In response to the disciplinary action case against him, Teacher AKW accepted the facts of the Grindr communications he had with the student. However, he denied ever meeting the student in person. He admitted that his conduct failed to satisfy professional standards and accepted that grounds for disciplinary action were established. The teacher said that he accepted “full responsibility” for his actions” and expressed remorse. He pointed to his previously unblemished eighteen year teaching record and the brief nature of the interaction, which spanned only two days. He also noted that he did not initially know the student’s identity.
The disciplinary action case against Teach AKW was heard by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal in March 2025. It found that his conduct fell short of the standards teachers are held to by society. The Tribunal noted that having an “attraction towards persons of school age” is of “great concern.” It ruled that there were grounds for disciplinary action under the Education (Queensland College of Teachers) Act 2005.
The Tribunal emphasised that the protection of students remains the paramount objective. It noted that the teacher’s actions could have caused significant harm to the student, the school community and the reputation of the profession. The Tribunal ordered that Teacher AKW be prohibited from reapplying for teacher registration or permission to teach until 11 May 2025. This period represents a total prohibition of approximately three and a half years from his original suspension on 11 November 2021.
The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal further ordered that any future application for registration must be accompanied by an independent psychological report. This report had to address thirteen specific points to ensure the teacher’s understanding of such topics as professional and personal relationships, professional boundaries and inappropriate communications with students. The teacher was also required to complete the “Professional Practice and Professional Boundaries for Teachers” online learning program.
Read more: When Results Define Worth: What ATAR Season Teaches About Workplace Pressure
If you’re dealing with a workplace dispute, you don’t have to face it alone. Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives supports employees across Australia with unfair dismissal, general protections, sexual harassment and discrimination claims. Act quickly, as many Fair Work claims must be lodged within 21 days of dismissal. For a free and confidential discussion about your situation, contact us now on 1800 333 666.
