She proposed leaving on agreed terms. Her employer processed final pay before replying
She raised burnout. Then her employer fast-tracked her exit.
An operations manager's resignation turned into a dismissal finding after her employer processed final pay before the notice period had even been discussed.
The Fair Work Commission ruled on October 6, 2026 that EnhanceMed Pty Ltd - a small firm providing professional support to specialist health practices - had effectively terminated the worker's employment by acting on her departure before negotiations over her notice period had run their course.
The case turned on a deceptively simple question: who actually ended this employment relationship?
The burnout email
It started in February 2026. The worker managed three of the company's five staff and reported directly to the managing director. On February 10, she sent a candid email describing more than 12 months of mounting pressure. The team was struggling to reach leadership for guidance. Processes were falling through the cracks. She was filling gaps left by an absent managing director.
"I am starting to feel burnt out," she wrote. She asked for clearer direction, shared accountability and regular check-ins. "These aren't demands," she added, "they're what I need in order to continue contributing at the level I have been."
The managing director responded warmly and suggested a Zoom call. It took over a week to happen. A team meeting followed on February 20, where an action plan was drawn up. Some of the worker's responsibilities - including payroll - were reassigned.
Then the dynamic shifted.
On March 5, the worker mentioned to the managing director that she was thinking about starting her own business, though she hadn't decided. Two weeks later, at a team meeting on March 19, she raised concerns that the recent changes had materially shrunk her role. The managing director asked her to stay on after the other staff left to talk it through.
That conversation went badly. The Commission found it became "confrontational, if not acrimonious." During the exchange, the managing director suggested the worker had breached her confidentiality obligations by disclosing the company's financial position to another employee and telling them the business was not financially viable. The worker asked for details. The managing director declined. The worker hung up.
Later that day, the managing director emailed to say she understood the concerns and wanted to offer support. The worker thanked her.
"Not viable for me"
Six days later, on March 25, the worker sent a detailed email setting out her position. She said the burnout disclosure had been met with the removal of responsibilities, a fundamental change in how she was managed, and the "undermining of a position I have held with pride for a number of years." She described the confidentiality allegation as "serious," "not substantiated," and raised only in the context of her questioning how her role had been handled.
She said continuing the employment relationship was "not viable" and that she was "consciously choosing a path that avoids conflict and escalation." She proposed resigning on agreed terms - including a negotiated notice period, a professional reference and retention of home office equipment. Her contract required eight weeks' notice.
Straight after sending that email, the worker texted a contact at one of EnhanceMed's clients. "I just wanted to give you the courtesy of advising that I have just tendered my resignation from EnhanceMed." When asked how it went, she replied: "anxiety is through the roof."
The next day moves
The managing director did not accept the resignation. On the morning of March 26, she told the other employees the worker had resigned. She then learned from the client contact that the worker had already shared the news, and arranged access to the worker's email account.
Later that day, the managing director wrote to the worker offering to "pause and explore whether there is a workable path forward." She said EnhanceMed was "open to discussing how this notice period is managed, including whether some or all of it is worked or paid in lieu." After sending that email, the managing director also emailed the client to inform them of the resignation.
The worker responded on March 27 saying those actions had "removed that option entirely." Communication to a key client before she had even replied, she said, had "created an external perception that my departure was finalised" and made continuing "unworkable." She proceeded with her resignation and sought payment in lieu of the full eight-week notice period.
The pay that settled it
On March 30, the managing director emailed to say she was still seeking external advice and asked whether the worker was still working. That same day - while apparently still deliberating - she processed the worker's final pay on the basis that employment had ended on March 27.
The worker confirmed on March 31 that March 27 had been her last working day, and that she was "proceeding on that basis while we work through the separation arrangements."
On April 1, EnhanceMed wrote to the worker stating that because "notice was not provided or worked," it was not required to make any payment in lieu.
"Not forced" - but still dismissed
The Commission found the worker was not forced to resign. The changes to her role following her burnout email were "totally unsurprising" - it would have been "more concerning" had the managing director not lightened the load. The confrontation on March 19, while "unhelpful," did not leave the worker with no real choice. And the post-resignation steps - telling staff, contacting the client, accessing email - were reasonable for a small employer in the circumstances.
But the employer lost on the other limb.
The Commission found the decision to end the relationship on March 27 was made by EnhanceMed, not the worker. Final pay had been processed and paid on March 30 on that basis - before the worker had confirmed her last day, and while the managing director was simultaneously telling the worker she was still considering her position. The Commission described that conduct as "duplicitous." EnhanceMed's attempt to rely on the worker's March 31 email to justify a termination date it had already locked in was, in the Commission's words, "to be deprecated."
Had EnhanceMed simply insisted the worker serve her contractual notice, the Commission observed, there would have been little room to argue she had been dismissed at all.
The matter will proceed to conference on the underlying general protections dispute. The worker appeared on her own behalf. EnhanceMed was represented by a solicitor.
For HR teams, the practical lesson is sharp: when an employee resigns and wants to negotiate exit terms, the employer holds the notice period card. But it has to actually play it. Processing final pay before the notice question is resolved can turn a resignation into a dismissal.
This decision addressed a jurisdictional objection only and did not determine the merits of the worker's general protections claim. No findings have been made as to whether any contravention of Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 occurred.
