The employee filed two anti-bullying claims, two dismissal cases and one protections application
A Victorian health worker who resigned in 2024 pursued five Fair Work cases over 20 months before his second unfair dismissal claim was thrown out.
Majd Rustom's departure from Western Health on October 10, 2024, set off a cascade of legal actions that offers a stark lesson for employers navigating workplace injuries and contested resignations.
Between June 2024 and July 2025, Rustom filed two anti-bullying applications, one general protections claim, and two unfair dismissal applications with the Fair Work Commission. He simultaneously pursued WorkCover compensation, a WorkSafe investigation, and proceedings before the Workplace Injury Commission.
The Fair Work Commission dismissed his second unfair dismissal application on February 16, 2026, ruling he had no exceptional circumstances to excuse filing 288 days late, more than nine months after his employment ended.
At the heart of the dispute was whether Rustom genuinely chose to resign or felt forced out by Western Health's handling of his return to work after a February 2024 workplace injury. He maintained the employer created unsafe conditions that left him no alternative but to leave.
His first unfair dismissal application, lodged within the required 21 days, was rejected in March 2025. Commissioner Clarke found Rustom had resigned voluntarily and that no dismissal occurred under the Fair Work Act.
Four months later, Rustom tried again, banking on findings from the Workers Compensation Independent Review Service. In June 2025, the review service overturned earlier decisions rejecting his psychological injury claim, providing what he called "for the first time, with authoritative recognition that my injury was work-related and that Western Health's treatment of me caused that injury."
This, he argued, contradicted the Commission's earlier ruling and justified reopening his case.
Commissioner Clarke wasn't persuaded. The workers compensation findings addressed decisions from April 2024 about a February 2024 injury, while Rustom gave notice in late September. More critically, the review service assessed whether the insurer's rejection could withstand court scrutiny under compensation legislation, not whether Rustom was forced to quit.
"The findings in the WCIRS Report are simply not informative as to whether the Applicant was forced to resign at the time he did resign, given the unfair dismissal claim is put on the basis that the resignation was predominantly driven by the delays to and circumstances surrounding the Applicant's efforts to return to work following the February injury," the Commissioner wrote.
The Commissioner dismissed Rustom's other explanations too. Juggling multiple proceedings wasn't exceptional without proof of their burden. Thinking a claim couldn't succeed after losing once was hardly unusual. And while Rustom cited ongoing psychological treatment, this same condition hadn't stopped him filing his first application or pursuing numerous other cases.
Commissioner Clarke went further, noting that even if exceptional circumstances existed, he would have refused the extension to prevent Rustom from relitigating a settled matter.
Western Health had sought dismissal on grounds the application was misconceived and had no reasonable prospects, though the time extension decision made that unnecessary.
Those managing staff with active injury claims should note the value of airtight documentation when resignations occur. The case also shows that while workers can pursue multiple complaint avenues simultaneously, tribunals won't allow fishing expeditions to revisit concluded disputes, particularly when substantial time passes without genuinely fresh evidence.
Workers compensation outcomes, however favourable to an employee's injury claim, don't automatically create grounds to reopen settled questions about whether someone was pushed out or left voluntarily.
