In McLennan v Industrial Relations Secretary o/b NSW State Emergency Service [2025] NSWIRComm 1105, Commissioner Howell sitting as the Industrial Relations Commission confirmed the decision of the NSW to dismiss Mr McLennan, then Deputy Zone Commander, North-Eastern Zone, due to false claims that he submitted as part of his recruitment to the SES.  The headnote (a case summary provided by the Commission) explains what happened. It says:

In late 2019 the Appellant was convicted by the West Australian Magistrate’s Court (in absentia) of two offences of knowingly or recklessly claiming or holding himself out to be a registered nurse under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act 2010 (WA) and fined a total of $15,000 (the 2019 Convictions). The Appellant, by that time, had relocated to New South Wales. He was aware proceedings had been commenced against him in Western Australia but only became aware of the convictions after having seen a media article from West Australian media published in March 2020.

By March 2020 the Appellant was living in New South Wales and had become a volunteer member of the SES. He disclosed the 2019 Convictions to his local volunteer management structure at that time.

In mid-2022, the Appellant sought employment with the Respondent. He again disclosed the 2019 Convictions in the course of the recruitment process. The Respondent, having assessed the 2019 Convictions (noting they were not for a “serious offence” within the meaning of s 69(4) of the Government Sector Employment Act 2013), confirmed the 2019 Convictions were not inconsistent with continuing in the Respondent’s employ.

In late 2024, an article referring to the Appellant and the 2019 Convictions appeared in a national newspaper. By that time the Appellant had secured promotion and held a relatively senior position with the Respondent’s Zone management structure. Amongst other things, the article noted the Appellant, in an interview with the nation’s health regulator some years earlier, had admitted “he had studied nursing but did not complete a qualification”.

The article prompted an internal investigation by the SES. The internal investigation resulted in findings that the Appellant had been deliberately dishonest in:

  1. recording “Bachelor of Nursing University of Sydney, 1998” and “MBA (management) Monash University, 2005” under the heading “Education” in a curriculum vitae he had relied upon in securing employed positions with the Respondent; and
  2. had entered “Bachelor Degree”, “Bachelor of Nursing” from the “University of Sydney”, with a completed date of “DEC-1998” in an online application used to obtain each of those positions;

in circumstances where the Appellant did not hold a Bachelor of Nursing from the University of Sydney (albeit he had studied 1 year of that degree), and had not even enrolled in a Masters of Business Administration from Monash University (albeit he had undertaken a couple of undergraduate subjects from that University).

After following the process required by Part 8 of the Government Sector Employment (General) Rules 2014, the Appellant was directed to resign. When he did not resign he was dismissed.

The Appellant appealed the disciplinary action on the grounds that he had not been deliberately dishonest (but rather had been careless) in the preparation of his CV and the online application form, and that removal was a disproportionate disciplinary action.

The Commission found the Appellant had engaged in the misconduct found by the Respondent, that removal from the public service was the appropriate disciplinary action, and in those circumstances the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant’s position in the Commission

The appellant’s argument was that when he wrote, on his CV under the heading ‘Education’ ‘MONASH UNIVERSITY, MBA (MANAGEMENT) 2005’ and ‘UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY, BACHELOR OF NURSING 1998’ he intended to convey that he had undertaken some education in these courses, not that he had completed them.  When completing the online application for appointment he put December 1988 being the date he would have completed the course if indeed he had continued his studies.  The evidence was that he was enrolled in a nursing degree for one year only in 1986. 

He was never enrolled in an MBA, rather he ‘had enrolled in an undergraduate course in psychology and marketing’.  He completed and failed two units and did not appear to get any result in another two units ([69]).  He argued that the reference to the MBA was just a mistake as so many years after the event he forgot what he’d been enrolled in.   

The appellant argued (at [57]):

I acknowledge that my curriculum vitae listed two educational entries: a Bachelor of Nursing, University of Sydney (1998) and an MBA (Management), Monash University (2005) under the “Education” heading. I wish to reiterate:

•   These entries were never presented as completed degrees, and at no point did I use post-nominals or list them under a “Qualifications” heading.

•   These courses were genuinely commenced, and while not completed, the subjects studied contribute meaningfully to my educational background and capabilities.

•   Had I been asked to clarify my academic status during any of the three recruitment processes I was comparatively assessed and subsequently successful, I would have provided a full and accurate account of the units completed.

I maintain that the intent behind listing these courses was not deceptive. However, I acknowledge and now better understand how the format and date inclusion has retrospectively /subsequently been interpreted as implying conferral.

Misconduct

The Commission was not impressed with Mr McLellan’s arguments.  Commissioner Howell said (at [69]):

The Appellant denies that he was deliberately dishonest in the way he completed his CV on each occasion, and in the way he completed the Taleo E-Recruitment system online application forms. He says the errors in those application processes were the product of faulty recollection, and miscommunication, rather than deliberate dishonesty…

At [74]-[90] he said:

Regrettably, I do not accept the Appellant’s explanations. The Appellant’s evidence as to the manner in which he completed the CVs and Taleo e-recruitment applications relied upon in the relevant recruitment exercises is not only inherently implausible, but is internally inconsistent and in at least one respect demonstrably false…

In my view, it is clear the Appellant entirely made up the date recorded in his CV (1998) and the “completed” date in the Taleo E-Recruitment record “Dec-1998”. The submission made to the employer in the course of the disciplinary process and to this Commission that the Taleo entry recorded “when he had finished studying for the Bachelor of Nursing degree at the University of Sydney” and “reflected the timeline of his studies in that course but was not intended to state that a degree had been awarded to him because it had not”, is just not true. The year 1998 bore no relationship to the actual study the Appellant had undertaken in connection with the Bachelor of Nursing. Whatever be the inflexibility of the “Date of Completion” field in the Taleo system, the evidence is he need not have recorded anything in it [48] (noting he need not have included the Bachelor of Nursing in that online application at all as it was not an essential qualification). As for the reference to a Bachelor’s Degree and 1998 in the CV, they were typed by him and entirely in the Appellant’s own terms….

The Appellants evidence was he “held the honest belief that I had completed some subjects in the MBA (Management) course at Monash University in 2003”. I do not accept that evidence. It is simply unbelievable …

The Appellant’s use of the word “Education” rather than “Qualifications” as the relevant heading in his CV is, in my view, of no significance. His emphasis on the use of that heading appears a disingenuous attempt to explain away what is otherwise obvious. What the Appellant describes in bold text under that heading in the CV, using the first CV as the illustration for this purpose, are in fact qualifications: a “Certificate IV” (which the Appellant did not hold at the time), an “MBA (Management)” (which the Appellant did not even commence), a “Certificate in Interior Design”, and a “Bachelor of Nursing” (which the Appellant never completed), are a list of qualifications. They are certainly not a list of “courses and subjects [he] studied” (as he said in his internal submissions to the Respondent), or “courses I could recall that I had done”, as he said in his statement in these proceedings.

The claim he never held himself out as having held certain qualifications made in his statement (at [36]), in his submissions, and repeatedly made in cross-examination, is disingenuous and plainly not true. That is precisely what the Appellant represented in his CV on each occasion. That is precisely what the Appellant did in referring to the Bachelor of Nursing in the Taleo e-recruitment system…

In my view, having regard to the various accounts given for what was recorded under the heading Education in his CV and in the Taleo e-recruitment system, in his internal submissions prior to dismissal, his written evidence in this Commission, and having observed the Appellant give his evidence, I am firmly of the view the relevant entries under the heading Education in each of the Appellant’s CVs was a deliberate attempt by the Appellant to communicate he held specific qualifications, namely a Bachelor of Nursing and an MBA (Management), secured in 1998 and 2005 respectively, so that he would stand out from his competition, knowing full well he did not hold those qualifications.

Penalty

At the time Mr McLennan was 52 years old and had faced no complaints about his job performance that is the way he performed his duties as Deputy Zone Commander ([103]).  Commissioner Howell said (at [106]):

If this were a case of an employee who overstated their position in a resume, was caught, confessed, owned their mistake and apologised, and otherwise shown themselves to be a good employee, I would have had little difficulty in accepting disciplinary action resulting in the termination of their employment would not have been the preferable outcome.

But this was not such a case. Commissioner Howell said (at [107]):

On my findings, not only was the Appellant repeatedly dishonest in the preparation of documents (his CV and the online Taleo e-recruitment applications), but when called to account by the Respondent the Appellant provided disingenuous and false responses to the Respondent’s initial inquiry (following the published article in the Australian), and then again when he was faced with specific allegations.

And (at [111]):

The Respondent emphasised the importance of honesty and integrity of its employees having regard to the nature of the SES’ statutory functions, and in particular in the position of Deputy Zone Commander. It was submitted the Respondent’s loss of trust and confidence was justified, and I should be satisfied the “disciplinary powers have been properly utilised by the SES to protect the NSW public from a man with a history of dishonesty from occupying a senior position within an important public organisation”. I agree.

The decision to terminate Mr McLennan’s employment was confirmed. 

Lessons learned

There are many lessons here. The most obvious are ‘don’t lie on your CV when applying for a job’ and when you are caught, don’t make the situation worse by making non-sensical and demonstrably false claims. There may also be a lesson for the SES (and other employers) to ask for copies of academic transcripts or qualifications to put on a successful candidates personnel file.  Certainly, that’s been my experience, but I’ve been working in academic institutions where holding relevant degrees (in my case, a law degree and a PhD) were an essential requirement for the job. 

The other lesson, as I’ve raised in other cases, is think carefully before seeking a review of a decision in a public forum. If Mr McLennan had resigned when he’d been offered that opportunity, he could have gone looking for other work. If he’d ‘fought on’ but been dismissed he may not have been able to list any senior officer in the SES as a referee but the circumstances of his dismissal would have been largely a confidential matter between him and relevant officers within the SES.  In public he might have still argued that it was all a matter of a misunderstanding.

As others, such as Ben Roberts-Smith and Bruce Lehrmann have found, by going to a public tribunal the applicant forces the respondent to prove their case – in defamations cases that the claims are true and in misconduct cases that the misconduct is established and as in this case, so egregious that dismissal is the correct outcome. By going to Court or the Industrial Relations Commission all the facts are exposed, published on publicly available websites (such as JADE and AustLII) and subject to publication and comment on blogs such as this. Many in the SES may have been aware that the Deputy Zone Commander had left, but now many more know exactly why. 

This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only.  It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.