No work-life balance? Executive assistant claims forced resignation

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a general protections application from an executive assistant who claimed she was forced to resign due to excessive work demands and inappropriate treatment.

The case arose when the hospitality worker resigned during her probationary period after experiencing workplace tensions over working hours, business expenses, and boundary issues with her employer in a small business environment.

The worker argued she was forced to resign due to unreasonable demands, including working excessive hours outside her contracted part-time schedule, using personal funds for business expenses, and being required to work until late evening with her child present.

The employer contested the forced resignation claim, arguing the worker voluntarily resigned to pursue her own business interests and that any workplace issues arose from misunderstandings about role expectations in a demanding startup environment.

Part-time role expands beyond original scope

The employment relationship commenced in January 2025 with a part-time executive assistant role offering 20 hours per week over 2.5 days at an annual salary of $40,000 plus superannuation.

The worker initially disclosed her intention to launch her own business while working at a reduced rate to use the opportunity as a portfolio client, with the employer expressing hope she would continue even after establishing her business.

Confusion arose regarding actual working hours, as the letter of offer stated Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday as workdays, while subsequent text messages indicated arrangements for Tuesday, Wednesday, and Friday.

The worker claimed she typically worked additional hours on Thursdays and provided weekend and evening support, arguing she was underpaid for this additional time beyond her contracted schedule.

The FWC found that certain practices had been permitted to develop in the working relationship, including unclear boundaries around working hours, availability expectations, and payment arrangements for additional work.

The evidence showed the worker had agreed to increase availability following another staff member's resignation, extending to weekends and evenings during busy periods.

Business expense arrangements create tensions

Significant disputes arose over the worker being asked to use personal funds for business expenses, including bathroom styling products, groceries, and other items required for venue operations.

The worker initially accepted responsibility for purchasing bathroom products within a $500 budget but argued this established a problematic precedent where the employer increasingly expected her to cover business costs.

The worker pointed out that a previous employee had access to a company credit card for such expenses, highlighting the inconsistent approach to business expense management.

She argued it was inappropriate and unethical to expect a part-time employee to advance business funds, particularly when the employer subsequently changed requirements, leading to additional personal expenses.

The Commission noted that while the worker initially accommodated these arrangements, the practice of requiring personal expense coverage had gradually expanded beyond reasonable bounds.

However, the evidence suggested these arrangements developed through mutual accommodation rather than deliberate exploitation by the employer.

Work-life balance challenges intensify

The worker, as a single parent, faced increasing challenges balancing her caring responsibilities with expanding work demands, particularly during intensive venue preparation periods.

Critical incidents included being required to work until 10:30 pm with her child present, then starting work at 7:00 am the following morning, creating unreasonable impacts on both worker and child well-being.

Evidence showed the employer made repeated requests for work outside scheduled hours, including weekend content creation, evening communications, and travel requirements that conflicted with childcare responsibilities.

The worker attempted to accommodate many requests but found the cumulative effect increasingly unsustainable given her personal circumstances.

The Commission found it particularly unreasonable for the employer to expect the worker to bring her child to work until late evening while anticipating early morning starts.

However, it also noted the worker had initially been transparent about her caring responsibilities and the employer had attempted to accommodate these constraints during the recruitment process.

Resignation communication demonstrates clear intention

The worker's resignation was communicated through a lengthy text message on 28 March 2025 outlining her concerns about excessive overtime, lack of appreciation, inadequate compensation, and work demands overtaking personal needs.

She specifically stated, "consider this one month's notice," while expressing willingness to complete select tasks during the transition period.

The employer's immediate response indicated surprise at the resignation and desire for a face-to-face discussion rather than text-based communication.

However, subsequent exchanges confirmed the worker's intention to conclude employment, with discussions focusing on handover arrangements and departure timing rather than withdrawal of resignation.

The Commission found the resignation communication was clear and unambiguous, with the worker later formalising her departure through email on 7 April 2025, which "serves to formally finalise my employment."

This correspondence detailed her reasons for leaving and outlined claimed entitlements, demonstrating deliberate and considered decision-making rather than emotional reaction.

Legal test for forced resignation not satisfied

Applying established legal principles for determining forced resignation, the Commission found no evidence that the employer engaged in conduct intended to bring employment to an end or that resignation was the probable result of employer behavior.

While acknowledging workplace challenges existed, these did not meet the threshold for constructive dismissal under employment law.

The Commission noted that certain problematic practices had developed through gradual accommodation rather than deliberate employer strategy to force departure.

The worker could have initiated discussions to establish clearer boundaries around working hours, expense arrangements, and role expectations before deciding to resign.

The decision emphasised that workplace difficulties alone do not constitute grounds for finding forced resignation, particularly where the employee retains genuine choice about continuing employment.

The worker's ability to articulate detailed reasons for leaving demonstrated voluntary decision-making rather than circumstances eliminating effective choice about remaining employed.