Executive argues systematic undermining made position untenable despite voluntary letter
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently examined a general protections claim involving a chief executive officer who argued she was forced to resign from her position.
The case arose when the worker provided formal resignation notice after five months in the role, but claimed this departure was actually a dismissal caused by sustained workplace issues and governance failures.
The worker argued she had been forced to resign due to repeated undermining of her executive authority, exclusion from financial systems, interference in operational decisions, and failure to address a workplace injury.
She maintained that despite her resignation letter stating the departure was due to "cultural fit" issues, her resignation was actually the result of conduct that made her employment untenable.
The employer maintained that the worker's complaints consisted primarily of isolated grievances and disagreements over operational matters, and that her resignation came as a surprise to the organisation.
Professional organisation role creates governance tensions
The employment relationship began on 5 September 2024 when the worker started as CEO of a professional member-based organisation representing construction industry individuals.
The worker inherited what she described as a dysfunctional staffing structure, systemic governance issues, and unreliable financial systems during her five-month tenure.
The worker gave evidence that she uncovered extensive governance failures, including voting irregularities in professional awards, unaudited income and expenses, misuse of funds, unauthorised contract signatories, and manipulation of internal correspondence.
She also made protected disclosures under the Corporations Act regarding unreconciled revenue, conflicts of interest, and audit risks.
A significant issue was the finance committee structure, which the worker claimed created conflicts of interest and made independent oversight impossible.
She argued this impaired her ability to fulfil her role as CEO and secretary to the organisation's council.
Workplace injury and operational interference escalate concerns
During her employment, the worker sustained a workplace injury when she tripped on stairs while carrying a heavy box and rushing to a meeting. She hit her face and sustained injuries to her back and knees.
The worker claimed the organisation's leadership failed to initiate workplace health and safety reporting, instructed her to use sick leave rather than pursue workers' compensation, and provided no workplace support.
The worker also complained about direct interference in operational decision-making, particularly regarding an email she drafted about an employee relocating to another office.
She alleged that a finance committee member edited her email to suggest she agreed with the relocation decision when she actually objected to it, and that she had warned the directive could cause the employee to resign, which subsequently occurred.
Additionally, the worker claimed she was directed not to take minutes at finance committee meetings despite her responsibilities as CEO and secretary, and was never granted access to the organisation's managed funds as a signatory during her employment, despite formal committee approval for this access.
Financial reporting disputes trigger resignation decision
On 6 February 2025, the worker attended a finance committee meeting where she alleged the committee reversed its earlier agreement to adopt a new budget reporting structure for the following financial year.
Instead, she claimed they insisted on reverting to outdated reporting methods that she had advised were incapable of producing reliable financial information.
The worker gave evidence that when she objected to the changed financial reporting arrangements, the senior vice president abruptly left the meeting and called the national president.
She argued that her financial reporting reforms exposed mismanagement and provoked resistance from those who had benefited from lack of oversight.
Following this meeting, the worker submitted her resignation on 6 February 2025, providing two weeks' notice.
Her resignation letter stated the departure was due to cultural fit not being aligned with her expectations or leadership approach, though she later argued this was a forced resignation.
Organisation disputes forced resignation claims
The employer denied the worker was dismissed and argued that her resignation was initiated by her following the finance committee meeting and came as a surprise to the organisation.
They pointed to her resignation letter using the phrase "after careful consideration" and noted that her resignation was not withdrawn despite opportunities to do so.
Regarding the workplace injury, the employer noted that while they did not dispute the incident occurred, the worker did not invoke any formal workplace health and safety process, submit an injury report, or engage the organisation's injury management systems despite having full authority to do so as CEO.
The employer explained that her exclusion as a financial signatory resulted from bank delays rather than deliberate exclusion, and that she retained operational responsibility for managing cashflow.
They also denied allegations of financial irregularities, explaining that accounts were properly audited and any issues were already identified and being corrected.
FWC applies dismissal legal framework
The FWC applied section 386 of the Fair Work Act, which requires that for a forced resignation to constitute dismissal, the employer must have engaged in conduct "with the intention of bringing the employment to an end" or where termination was the probable result of the employer's conduct such that the employee had "no effective or real choice but to resign."
The Commission noted that considerable caution should be exercised in treating a resignation as other than voluntary, particularly where the employer's conduct is ambiguous.
The FWC examined each of the worker's complaints individually and collectively to determine whether they met the threshold of leaving her with no real choice but to resign.
The Commission accepted the employer's evidence regarding key events, including financial reporting disputes, email editing, alleged financial irregularities, exclusion from financial signatory status, and the workplace injury.
The FWC found these matters were adequately explained by the employer's witnesses and submissions.
Application dismissed on voluntary resignation grounds
The FWC concluded that the worker was not dismissed within the meaning of the Fair Work Act.
The Commission found: "I am not satisfied that any of [the worker's] complaints, individually or collectively, meet the threshold of leaving [the worker] with no real or effective choice but to resign."
The Commission noted that many of the worker's complaints related to events occurring after she submitted her resignation and therefore could not be relevant to her decision to resign.
However, the FWC observed that the post-resignation conduct showed the worker had various avenues available to make complaints, which she exercised after resigning.
The FWC determined: "[The worker] has not discharged her onus to demonstrate that she had no real, effective or meaningful option but to resign in these circumstances. As a result, I am not satisfied that she was dismissed within the meaning of the Act and this application is dismissed."
The decision demonstrates the high threshold required to establish forced resignation, particularly for senior executives who have access to multiple avenues for addressing workplace concerns.
