The gap between genuine distress and legal grounds for constructive dismissal
A social media coordinator resigned after months of workplace tension and career discussions, then learned that feeling forced out isn't the same as being pushed out.
The Fair Work Commission ruled on January 20, 2026 that Jaidyn Bowden's resignation from Cull & Harding Pty Ltd was her own decision, not a forced dismissal. The decision highlights a critical distinction many HR professionals miss: the legal test for constructive dismissal focuses on what the employer did, not how the employee felt about it.
Bowden worked as Social Media Coordinator for ROC Boots Australia from November 2023 until she quit with immediate effect in September 2025. Her resignation letter cited coercion over working hours, a hostile environment, and hostile management practices.
The trouble had been building for months. In April 2024, she managed what she felt was an unreasonable workload during a US work trip. Then came an August 2025 photoshoot at Girraween National Park, where she was left alone for several hours while colleagues hiked to the shoot location.
She raised safety concerns with director Sally Cull and mentioned she wasn't entirely happy in her social media role. Days later, Marketing Manager Grace Laycock confronted her about those safety complaints despite what Bowden understood to be an agreement they'd stay confidential.
That same day, August 21, 2025, Bowden met with Cull and Laycock about career progression. She wanted to move into styling and creative direction. The company couldn't offer that work, but suggested a middle path: reduce to part-time hours and pursue freelance styling on the side. Bowden said she couldn't afford fewer hours.
Two weeks later came another meeting, this time with General Manager Shane McNeill joining Cull and Laycock. Bowden described the September 3, 2025 meeting as particularly hostile, saying McNeill insisted she wasn't committed and that any other company would let her go tomorrow.
A final meeting on September 9, 2025 ended with what seemed like resolution: Bowden would continue full-time and provide 12 weeks notice if she later wanted to cut hours. But after a warehouse sale weekend where she felt Laycock was hostile and McNeill made inappropriate age-related comments, she resigned on September 15, 2025.
Commissioner Crawford acknowledged the gap between Bowden's experience and the legal standard. He wrote: "If the required legal assessment was whether I consider Ms Bowden genuinely felt that she was being forced to resign by Cull & Harding, I would find that Ms Bowden was forced to resign."
But that's not the test. Forced resignation requires proof the employer intended to end the employment, or that resignation was the probable result of the employer's conduct based on objective assessment.
The evidence pointed the other way. Bowden held an important position the company couldn't easily replace. Losing her wasn't in the business's interest. The reduced hours suggestion came as an attempt to keep her, not push her out. The Commission found Cull & Harding was "trying to assist Ms Bowden to remain employed with the business" by accommodating her desire for a career change while protecting operational needs through a reasonable notice period.
Crawford also noted Bowden had other options beyond resigning, including seeking anti-bullying orders if she felt mistreated, or simply committing fully to her role to end the hours discussion.
The ruling exposes a tension HR teams increasingly face: employees experiencing genuine workplace distress may perceive themselves as constructively dismissed when the legal reality shows something different. Even poor management of work trips or photoshoots, combined with difficult career conversations, doesn't automatically meet the threshold for forced resignation.
For HR leaders, the case underscores that well-intentioned attempts to accommodate career changes can still trigger legal claims. The key is ensuring those conversations remain objectively reasonable, documented, and focused on mutual solutions rather than ultimatums.
