By The Fair Work Commission has rejected a University of Newcastle professor’s unfair dismissal claim over a research project that used cannabis to treat gynaecological cancer, finding the sacking was “not harsh,” according to the Newcastle Herald.
Dr Pradeep Tanwar, described as a prominent University of Newcastle professor, appealed his termination, which was linked to a research partnership between the university and cannabis company Ecofibre. The commission’s decision upholds the university’s action. No hearing dates or compensation figures were stated in the available reporting.
What the Fair Work Commission actually assesses
When an employee claims unfair dismissal, the commission does not simply ask whether the employer made the right call. It applies a statutory test under the Fair Work Act 2009. A dismissal may be unfair if it was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Those are three separate grounds, and a finding of “not harsh” addresses only one of them.
The commission weighs factors including whether there was a valid reason for dismissal related to capacity or conduct, whether the person was notified of the reason and given an opportunity to respond, and whether an unreasonable refusal of a support person occurred. The size of the employer’s enterprise and the absence of dedicated HR expertise can also be relevant.
In this case, the commission’s language matters. A finding that a sacking was “not harsh” suggests the decision focused on the proportionality of the outcome rather than a technical defect in process. For HR teams, that distinction is important. A procedurally fair process can still produce a harsh outcome, and vice versa.
Research partnerships and employment risk
University research roles often sit inside a web of external agreements. A professor may be employed by the university while working on a project funded by, or co-designed with, a commercial partner such as Ecofibre. When that partnership changes or collapses, the employment consequences can be complex.
The available reporting does not state whether Dr Tanwar’s dismissal flowed from the partnership ending, a conduct issue, or a restructure. That gap matters. If the role depended on external funding, the university may have argued redundancy or loss of funding as the reason. If the dismissal related to how the research was conducted, the commission would have examined the conduct against university policies and the researcher’s obligations.
HR teams managing grant-funded or partnership-based roles should document from the outset what happens if funding stops or a partner withdraws. An employment contract that is silent on that point leaves room for dispute.
What this means for Australian HR practice
The decision is a reminder that dismissal cases turn on facts and context, not headlines. Cannabis-related research is lawful in Australia under strict regulatory frameworks, but the subject matter alone does not determine whether a dismissal is fair.
For HR and payroll teams, the practical lessons are straightforward. First, keep clear records of the reason for any dismissal and the steps taken before it. Second, distinguish between the commercial decision to end a research partnership and the employment decision to end a role. Third, seek advice before terminating senior academic or research staff, because their contracts often contain additional procedural protections.
The Fair Work Commission publishes decisions, but the full reasoning in this matter was not available in the source material. Readers should not assume the decision creates a new precedent. It applies to the specific facts of this case.
Common questions after a dismissal decision
Australian employers often ask how much an unfair dismissal claim can cost. The maximum compensation is capped at the lesser of six months’ pay or a set amount adjusted annually. However, reinstatement is the primary remedy, and compensation is only considered if reinstatement is inappropriate.
Another common question is whether an employee can be dismissed during probation. The answer depends on the length of the probation period and whether the employee has completed the minimum employment period, which is six months for employers with 15 or more employees and 12 months for small business employers. Employees dismissed before that period generally cannot bring an unfair dismissal claim, though other claims such as general protections may still be available.
Serious misconduct is a separate concept. It can justify summary dismissal without notice, but the employer must be able to prove the conduct occurred and that it was serious enough to destroy the employment relationship. A positive drug test at work may or may not meet that threshold, depending on the workplace, the role and the relevant policies.
| Factor | What the commission considers |
|---|---|
| Valid reason | Was there a sound, defensible reason for dismissal? |
| Procedural fairness | Was the employee told the reason and given a chance to respond? |
| Harshness | Was the outcome disproportionate to the conduct or circumstances? |
| Remedy | Reinstatement first, then compensation capped by statute |
The Fair Work Commission’s decision in the Tanwar matter does not change the law. It does, however, show that a high-profile research role and a sensitive subject do not shield an employer from scrutiny, nor do they guarantee an employee will win.
Sources: inkl
Photo: Mullaways Medical Cannabis Research Crop by Mullaways, CC BY-SA 3.0
