His resignation was clear, unambiguous, and very hard to walk back
A project manager who walked out after a five-minute meeting, then sent a pre-litigation notice demanding $130,000, has lost his bid to argue he was forced to resign.
In a decision handed down on 28 April 2026, the Fair Work Commission dismissed Hamed Emtiaz's general protections application against loan provider Elevant Operations Pty Ltd, finding he had voluntarily resigned and was not dismissed within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009.
Emtiaz signed a 12-month maximum term contract dated 10 April 2025 as a Project Manager, with his first day at work on 16 April 2025. He reported directly to Product Manager Adarsh Chaubey, who in turn reported to General Manager Saurabh Sharma.
Concerns piled up quickly during his five-week tenure. Emtiaz was pulled up for repeatedly ignoring or by-passing the review procedure and sending incomplete and incorrect information directly to the executive team. He made repeated requests to arrive late and leave early, and failed to complete tasks by their deadlines. On 8 May 2025, after receiving an email from Chaubey raising concerns about a series of breaches of the review procedure, he approached Administrative Assistant Lily Trulove to demand an immediate meeting and became aggressive, later admitting he had "lost it" and swore in her presence. An urgent meeting was held the same day with Sharma and Chaubey, where Emtiaz received a verbal warning and apologised, then apologised to Trulove via Microsoft Teams chat the next day.
By 23 May 2025, Sharma had emailed Emtiaz alongside three other staff members raising serious concerns about their collective poor performance, and issued an official warning.
Things came to a head on 26 May 2025. After Trulove told Sharma that Emtiaz had approached her desk to demand a meeting with Chaubey in what she described as an aggressive manner, Sharma called both men into a meeting at approximately 10:35am for what turned out to be a conversation lasting no more than 5 minutes. Emtiaz claimed Sharma yelled, swore, and asked, warned, told or threatened him and Chaubey to resign or be fired. Sharma denied this and gave evidence that it was Emtiaz who was yelling, swearing and threatening, behaviours similar to his earlier outburst on 8 May 2025. Emtiaz also alleged in his later pre-litigation notice that Sharma said he had already fired someone that morning and would not hesitate to fire more, a claim Sharma denied and which the Commission rejected.
Less than half an hour after the meeting, at 10:58am, Emtiaz tendered his resignation by email addressed to Chaubey and copied to Sharma. He cited an "extremely toxic work environment" and "the frequent use of vulgar, offensive language by the CEO," and stated that despite severe pain that had taken him to the emergency room the previous Friday where he was told he needed appendix surgery, he had come to the office and experienced "more vulgar language and intimidation from the CEO, forcing me to resign." He physically left the office immediately after sending the email and never returned. Contrary to the terms of the employment contract, he did not provide any notice of his resignation.
Three days later, on 29 May 2025, he sent a "Pre-Litigation Notice, Settlement Offer" to Sharma characterising the circumstances as a "Constructive Dismissal" caused by a serious breach of contract. He requested a lump-sum payment of $130,000, representing what he asserted was the remaining value of his fixed-term contract. The respondent's lawyers rejected the offer, noting the contract was a maximum term contract, not a fixed term contract, and that under clause 3.2 either party was entitled to terminate on one week's notice during the initial probationary period of six months.
Deputy President Boyce was unimpressed with Emtiaz's evidence, finding it inconsistent and lacking credibility. The resignation email made no mention of Sharma allegedly telling Chaubey or Emtiaz to resign, a glaring omission given that was supposedly the trigger. The Deputy President found that Sharma did not swear at the meeting or tell anyone to resign; rather, he told Chaubey and Emtiaz that they needed to improve their performance and work collaboratively with one another.
The Commission also rejected the alternative argument that this was a heat-of-the-moment resignation. Emtiaz had a realistic alternative, namely to arrange another meeting with Sharma to discuss his grievances and continue in his employment. Nearly six hours passed between the resignation email and its acceptance, with no attempt to withdraw it, and Emtiaz then doubled down by sending the pre-litigation notice three days later.
The decision is a reminder that contemporaneous documentation matters enormously. The employer's paper trail of performance concerns, warnings, and behavioural incidents over just five weeks proved decisive. It also reinforces that resignations written in clear, unambiguous terms are difficult to recharacterise as forced after the fact, particularly when no retraction is attempted and the employee doubles down with a settlement demand. Probation clauses with short notice periods remain a quietly powerful tool when cultural fit goes wrong fast.
