Employer reversed a verbal childcare deal mid-holidays, the Commission weighs in
A worker resigned after her employer reversed a verbal school holiday childcare deal. Was she forced out?
Tameeka Ebsworth joined Great Community Transport Incorporated (GCT) on 1 July 2025 after transferring from Active Care Network/Peppercorn. She was a single parent on the intake and assessment team. Ebsworth said her previous employer allowed her to bring children to work in school holidays, and her GCT manager, Amanda Kant, approved the same for July 2025 without incident.
When the September-October holidays came around, they disagreed. Ebsworth said Kant approved the arrangement on 24 September 2025. Kant said no such request or approval occurred.
From 29 September 2025, Ebsworth brought her five-year-old son to work, including to meetings. Kant and at least one co-worker had concerns about disruptions but rather than raising them with Ebsworth, Kant called her manager, Glenn Robinson, who was offsite. They agreed "this needed to be clarified with Ms Ebsworth."
On 1 October 2025, Ebsworth emailed Kant and Robinson. She said she lacked training on NDIS and home care clients, felt communication was "quite harsh," was held to full-time expectations despite part-time hours, and that one colleague spoke to her in a discouraging way.
The next morning, Kant emailed Robinson separately, describing the child's presence as disruptive and noting team concerns about a child present during conversations involving welfare checks and client deaths.
Robinson responded on 2 October 2025, covering all three issues in one email. He said Kant had been "regularly checking in" and Ebsworth should take more initiative. On childcare, he said the practice was only allowed "for exceptional circumstances on a case by case basis" with prior approval and "needs to be avoided in the future." He relayed a report Ebsworth had been "abrupt and frustrated" with Kant. He proposed training but did not invite discussion on childcare.
Ebsworth commenced sick leave from 3 October 2025 and never returned.
On 8 October 2025, she resigned, citing "the unexpected change regarding my ability to bring my son into the office." She could not arrange alternative care mid-holidays and was resigning on medical advice.
Robinson asked her to reconsider. Ebsworth confirmed that afternoon, writing the change "left me with no reasonable alternative but to resign." Robinson accepted the next day as voluntary.
Ebsworth lodged a general protections application with the Fair Work Commission. GCT argued she was never dismissed.
Deputy President Easton, who found Ebsworth "an honest witness," handed down his decision on 9 March 2026. He found she was not dismissed but acknowledged Robinson's email was the "catalyst" for the resignation, his childcare comments were "open to be interpreted as a prohibition on bringing children to work," and Ebsworth "quite reasonably" understood the arrangement was over. He accepted that her complaint about timing was valid: the childcare issue was only raised by Kant after Ebsworth complained about support from Kant. Easton described Robinson's email as "unhelpfully defensive" and "less than professional."
Easton noted Ebsworth took sick leave and did not resign immediately. By 8 October 2025 only two days of holidays remained, and her employment "could have continued into the new school term unaffected."
On Robinson's correspondence: "I am quite confident that the email was sent with the intention of devaluing Ms Ebsworth's complaints and pushing back upon Ms Ebsworth the responsibility for the problems raised in Ms Ebsworth's complaint."
This did not meet the threshold. The application was dismissed.
Verbal approvals around children in the workplace become contested when undocumented. When a complaint and management correction land in one email, timing can suggest retaliation. Every word managers put in writing will be scrutinised before the Commission.
