Case manager's forced resignation claim fails jurisdictional test in FWC proceedings
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a general protections application from a case manager who claimed he was forced to resign due to employer conduct, finding that no dismissal occurred within the legal definition.
The case arose when the workers' compensation claims management company employee resigned after returning from extended mental health leave, arguing that management actions made his position untenable and constituted constructive dismissal.
The worker argued he was forced to resign due to the employer's unreasonable refusal to allow his return to work, inappropriate communications, engagement in without prejudice exit discussions, and payment disputes.
The employer contested the forced resignation claim, arguing the worker voluntarily resigned due to personal financial pressures rather than any workplace conduct.
Extended mental health absence creates return-to-work challenges
The employment relationship involved a case manager who became unfit for work in December 2023 due to adjustment disorder with anxiety symptoms, submitting a workers' compensation claim that was ultimately declined in October 2024.
Return-to-work discussions commenced in February 2025 when the worker's doctor provided medical clearance, though the certificate specifically mentioned wearing sunglasses at work, raising questions about whether it addressed mental health or eye conditions.
The employer sought additional medical information given the worker's extended absence for mental health reasons, ultimately arranging and paying for a case conference with the treating doctor in March 2025.
Following this consultation, management agreed to allow the worker's return to work on 25 March 2025, demonstrating active engagement in facilitating his return rather than preventing it.
Without prejudice discussions and communication disputes
During the return-to-work process, the employer initiated without prejudice discussions about potential agreed exit arrangements in late February 2025.
The worker voluntarily participated with representation, but no agreement was reached, after which the employer shifted focus to facilitating return to work rather than pursuing forced departure.
The worker characterised various management communications as inappropriate and concerning, claiming his ability to engage with HR was effectively compromised.
Review of email communications revealed no evidence of unreasonable or inappropriate conduct by management representatives addressing legitimate workplace issues and safety obligations.
Attendance issues and voluntary resignation
After returning to work in late March 2025, the worker immediately experienced attendance difficulties, repeatedly failing to attend the office during April 2025.
Management attempted to address these issues through scheduled meetings rather than immediate disciplinary action, demonstrating patience with the worker's transition back to workplace responsibilities.
The worker ultimately resigned via email on 6 May 2025, citing pressing financial and domestic necessity rather than workplace conduct.
His resignation communication was specifically designed to ensure receipt of pro rata long service leave payments, suggesting strategic rather than forced decision-making about employment termination.
Legal test for forced resignation not satisfied
The Commission applied established legal principles requiring either employer intention to force resignation or conduct making resignation the probable result under an objective assessment.
Evidence demonstrated that the employer took several steps to facilitate continued employment rather than force departure, including arranging medical consultations and attempting to resolve attendance issues through meetings rather than disciplinary action.
The FWC found no evidence that resignation was the probable result of employer conduct, noting that management actions appeared designed to support the worker's return and continued employment.
The worker's own statements about financial necessity driving his resignation contradicted claims that workplace conduct made his position untenable, resulting in dismissal of the jurisdictional objection.
