Worker complained of 'toxic' workplace
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently examined a case where a dean at an educational institution claimed she was forced to resign after raising concerns about remuneration and workplace culture. She argued that subsequent changes to workplace arrangements made her position untenable.
The worker had progressed from choir director to dean through a successful trial period. However, she claimed that after questioning her remuneration and workplace issues, her employer engaged in conduct that she characterized as bullying, ultimately leading to her resignation.
The case centered on whether changes to workplace arrangements, particularly accommodation access that helped manage her long commute, constituted conduct that forced her resignation under the Fair Work Act 2009.
In 2016, the worker joined a Catholic co-educational residential college adjacent to the University of Melbourne's Parkville campus. Beginning as a choir director, she later stepped into an acting dean role in September 2022 after the previous dean and deputy principal's departure.
After two months in the acting role, she secured a permanent position starting in December 2022. The employment agreement outlined a three-year term, full-time hours of 38 per week, and an $88,000 salary plus superannuation.
Though not part of her contract, the college had allowed her occasional use of campus accommodation to help manage her 50-kilometer commute. This arrangement became contentious in early 2024 when the college needed the apartment for a returning academic staff member.
In May 2024, the worker sent a detailed letter to the college principal requesting reduced hours, citing commuting challenges and health issues.
She wrote: "It has been both the best job I've had and the worst job... but it's also very toxic at times, with not enough depth in the leadership team, little clarity around processes, and absolutely no appetite for introducing anything new."
The tone of this letter contrasted significantly with her later unfair dismissal application to the Fair Work Commission, where she alleged: "[The principal] was livid, and a campaign of surreptitious bullying commenced almost immediately. As part of this, he used my failing health as the lever to make the job unmanageable."
The Commission highlighted this discrepancy, noting: "The picture of [the worker's] tenure at the College presented by her letter of 16 May 2024 is very, very different to the 'toxic,' 'scheming' workplace she asserts in her evidence."
The Commission applied Section 386(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009, which requires evidence that the employer either intended to end employment or made resignation the only realistic choice for the worker.
The Commission determined: "There was no conduct engaged in by [the college] that in fact forced [the worker's] resignation... The reasons [she] resigned were those stated in her letter sent on 16 May 2024. In short, they were the fact that [the worker] was finding the commute too much of a burden in light of her personal circumstances, and which had been further exacerbated by her injuries."
The Commission dismissed the application, concluding that the worker "was not 'dismissed' within either limb of s 386(1) of the Act. It follows that [the worker] cannot meet the requirements of s 385, which provides that to be 'unfairly dismissed' she must have been 'dismissed'."