Manager claims inadequate accommodation during high-risk pregnancy
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case where a store manager claimed she was forced to resign from Aldi Stores (A Limited Partnership) due to inadequate workplace support during her high-risk pregnancy.
The worker argued Aldi's conduct left her with no choice but to resign, citing staffing shortages that forced her to perform physically demanding tasks despite her pregnancy. She attempted to withdraw her resignation, but Aldi had already processed it.
The case examined whether the circumstances constituted constructive dismissal under section 386 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which addresses situations where an employee resigns but claims they were forced to do so because of their employer's conduct.
According to records, the worker started with Aldi in October 2017. In June 2024, she transferred from East Victoria Park to manage the Willetton store, which ranked as Aldi's second-highest performing location nationally.
She accepted the transfer believing it would offer less physically demanding work during her pregnancy.
Hospital records showed she sought treatment on July 6, 2024, for abdominal pain after lifting heavy items at work, with a second hospital visit on July 21. The medical documentation of her high-risk pregnancy was dated July 29, after her resignation.
The executive manager for store operations testified she had instructed the worker to avoid physically demanding tasks and requested information about any work limitations.
However, the worker maintained that staffing shortages made these verbal accommodations impractical.
The worker documented ongoing staffing issues, including an employee available only four weeks per year, another on indefinite apprenticeship leave, and a duty manager seeking transfer due to commute distance. WhatsApp messages showed her repeated attempts to secure staff coverage.
The executive manager acknowledged that while all five Aldi stores under her supervision experienced both planned and unplanned absences, there was "a process for store managers to contact each other to see if they have staff at other stores who can assist with the coverage of shifts."
In her resignation letter, which she submitted on July 15, the worker stated: "The current situation at [the store] and the lack of support throughout personal challenges over the last 12-months... The false promises throughout this experience has retained me previously but unfortunately nothing ever changes where I can trust to stay."
The Commission emphasized: "I am not satisfied that [the employer] engaged in conduct or a course of conduct, that left [the worker] with no alternative but to resign." This finding was central to dismissing the constructive dismissal claim.
The decision noted that the worker had time to consider her resignation: "I find that [Aldi] via the actions of [the area manager] on 15 and 16 July 2024, took adequate steps to ensure the [the worker] had not resigned in the heat of the moment, rather [the worker] was making a considered decision to end her employment."
The Commission concluded: "Having resigned and been informed that her resignation had been accepted and processed, the onus sat with [the worker] to act promptly prior to her employment ending if she truly wanted to stay in the employment of Aldi." The application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction under section 386 of the Fair Work Act.