FWC examines whether resignation was voluntary or employer forced the exit
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a general protections dispute where a worker claimed she was forced to resign from her position due to her employer's conduct.
The worker maintained that workplace safety concerns, delayed leave approvals, and misconduct allegations created an intolerable work environment that left her no choice but to leave.
The case required the FWC to determine whether the worker's resignation constituted a dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009.
She argued that her employer's actions, particularly the handling of her leave requests and the raising of misconduct allegations, effectively forced her resignation.
The employer disputed this, maintaining she resigned voluntarily and that all workplace procedures had been properly followed.
The connection coach began employment with a not-for-profit housing organisation in July 2024. Her role within the housing support division involved connecting vulnerable people to housing assistance and community support services.
The position description specifically required understanding of "Tasmania's current housing market and the difficulties facing people on a low-income trying to secure housing including family violence, mental health and alcohol and other drug issues."
During her employment application, the worker answered "no" when asked about any former or current psychological conditions. She did not disclose her Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) diagnosis or ongoing treatment.
Despite the clear position requirements, she later claimed she was unaware she would regularly work with domestic violence victims. She had worked in the role for approximately seven months when the employment relationship ended.
On 14 February 2025, the worker received a letter from management outlining two allegations. The first involved statements she allegedly made about a colleague that could constitute harassment.
The second concerned 11 workplace absences without proper leave documentation. The letter invited her to provide a written response and attend a meeting on 18 February, clearly stating "no findings or decisions had been made about the allegations at that point in time."
To attend regular fortnightly psychologist appointments, the worker sought to use family violence leave available under the enterprise agreement. In her request, she wrote: "...was more than happy to organise this through personal leave. Having now read through the EBA [she] wanted to request if it could possibly fall under the 'Family Violence Leave' (52.) and [her] leave be covered?"
The leave approval process faced significant delays from both parties. The worker was slow to provide supporting evidence required by her employer, while the employer's administrative processes also contributed to the delay.
This created ongoing tension about attendance and leave arrangements between the worker and management.
On 11 February 2025, three days before the worker resigned, her direct line manager informed her that her leave had "finally" been approved.
Despite receiving approval, the extended delay had already strained the employment relationship and formed part of her later complaints about inadequate management support.
At the meeting on 18 February 2025, the worker presented both her written response to the allegations and a resignation letter with immediate effect.
This simultaneous submission meant the employer could not respond to her explanations about the alleged misconduct, as the employment relationship ended instantly.
Her resignation letter stated: "I am writing to formally resign from my position as Connection Coach at Anglicare, effective immediately. I have made this decision due to the continuous and unjustified false allegations made against me, along with the repeated lack of support and proper follow-up when I sought assistance on other matters."
The letter continued: "It has become evident that the environment at Anglicare has fostered an atmosphere of bullying and harassment, which I believe has been deliberately used to pressure me into resigning. The ongoing stress caused by these circumstances has severely impacted my mental health, and as a result, I can no longer continue in this toxic environment."
The worker submitted witness statements from her domestic partner and a former employee alleging unsafe working conditions.
These statements described "unsafe or highly distressing situations" and claimed the workplace lacked essential safety infrastructure, suffered from understaffing, and failed to properly handle critical safety incidents.
Neither witness attended the hearing to support their statements. Without the opportunity for cross-examination, the Commissioner afforded their written statements minimal weight. The employer's representative provided sworn testimony contradicting these safety allegations, detailing the organisation's incident management systems and safety procedures.
During the hearing, the worker acknowledged that management had followed up on two client abuse incidents she had reported. This admission undermined her broader claims about systematic safety failures and management's alleged lack of response to workplace concerns. The Commissioner noted this concession when evaluating the credibility of her safety complaints.
The FWC examined whether the situation met the legal definition of dismissal. Under workplace law, dismissal includes situations where someone resigns but was forced to do so by their employer's conduct. The key question was whether the employer's actions left the worker with no real choice but to resign.
The Commissioner referenced established principles for distinguishing voluntary resignations from forced ones. The test requires a clear connection between the employer's behaviour and the resignation. The employer's actions must either be intended to end the employment or be so unreasonable that resignation becomes the likely outcome.
The Commission emphasised that careful consideration is needed when determining if a resignation was truly voluntary, especially when the employer's conduct could be interpreted different ways. The worker needed to prove that she was effectively dismissed rather than choosing to leave.
After examining all evidence, the Commissioner stated: "I prefer the sworn evidence of [the employer's representative] over the claims made in the witness statements of [the former employee] and [the domestic partner]."
The Commissioner found the employer maintained appropriate incident management systems and had responded to the worker's reported safety concerns.
Regarding the bullying allegations, the Commissioner observed: "[The worker] made no complaints about bullying and harassment while she was employed."
The Commission noted: "[The employer] had an obligation to raise the allegations of improper conduct with [the worker] and [the worker] should have, as was the case here, been given an opportunity to respond to the claims."
The Commissioner concluded: "What has occurred is that allegations as to the conduct of [the worker] have been made and [the worker] was given a chance to respond to those allegations. [The worker] did respond but at the same time resigned from her employment. [The employer] at no stage indicated that it had reached a decision that they were going to terminate her employment."
The Commission found: "There is no evidence that [the employer] has taken action with an intent to bring the employment relationship to an end or that has that probable result."
The Commissioner determined: "Rather than having no real choice but resign, [the worker] could have waited for [the employer] to respond to the responses she had provided to the allegations."
The FWC dismissed the application, finding the worker had not been dismissed within the meaning of workplace law.
