Did the worker communicate a legally effective resignation? Commission decides
A professor employed part-time by an educational institution filed an unfair dismissal application alleging that he was dismissed by the employer.
The worker had sent an email on 29 March 2025 stating he had decided to leave the institution on 7 April 2025 or one week later on 14 April 2025.
The employer accepted the resignation, but the worker then sent a same-day email on 7 April 2025 requesting to continue teaching until the end of the semester. The employer raised a jurisdictional objection alleging the worker resigned from his employment and was not dismissed.
The worker disputed this, arguing he was being forced to resign or was being dismissed after attempting to retract his resignation in late May 2025.
Initial resignation and employer acceptance
On 29 March 2025, the worker sent an email to the chief executive officer (CEO) and dean stating that, after considerable thinking, he had decided to leave the institution on 7 April 2025, or he could leave one week later on 14 April 2025 if that date was not suitable.
He stated he had taken this decision considering his own welfare and had no other avenue to contribute to good academic governance. On 7 April 2025, the CEO sent an email response stating the institution respected the worker's resignation dated 29 March 2025 and understood his decision.
The institution accepted the worker's resignation and agreed to his last day as 14 April 2025 to maintain a smooth transition.
The institution wanted to take this opportunity to wish him all the very best for the future. Later on 7 April 2025, the worker replied to the CEO's email stating he hoped arrangements had already been made to replace him.
The worker stated that it takes time for students to settle with a staff member, and all students have both trust and respect for him.
Considering the welfare of students as well as upholding the reputation of the institution, the worker stated he shall continue to teach until the end of the semester and finalise all assessment tasks.
The worker stated he was flexible and even if the CEO thought his last day would be next Monday, he would accept it without hesitation.
Continuation past the proposed end date
The evidence suggested the CEO did not respond to the worker's email and that the worker continued working past the previously proposed end date of 14 April 2025.
The Commissioner accepted this meant the worker's initial resignation email was superseded by the email dated 7 April 2025, which indicated he would work until the end of the semester.
The next significant event appeared to be a meeting between the worker, the CEO, and the human resources manager on 8 May 2025.
The evidence about what was said at this meeting differed. The worker suggested he indicated he did not want to resign, but this was denied by the CEO and the HR manager. The worker was also aggrieved that the dean was not present at the meeting.
Following the meeting on 8 May 2025, the CEO sent an email to the worker on 9 May 2025 with a letter attached. The letter stated the institution referred to the worker's email of resignation dated 29 March 2025 and their acknowledgement and acceptance on 7 April 2025, in which they agreed to the worker's final day as 14 April 2025.
At the worker's request, they agreed to extend the notice period until the end of the semester to enable him to finish teaching and complete marking.
Employer confirms final employment date
As the semester ended on 25 May 2025, to enable time for marking, the institution acknowledged that the worker's final day of employment would be 2 June 2025.
The letter stated that the worker should ensure that he returned all company property before he finished work on that date. The letter noted the issues raised in their meeting on 8 May 2025 and stated the institution would like to offer the worker the opportunity to discuss these matters further.
The worker did not respond to the CEO's letter until 27 May 2025. The worker sent an email on 27 May 2025 raising concerns about the CEO drafting a purported resignation letter for him on 9 May 2025 and suggested he was being forced to resign or was being dismissed by the institution.
The relationship between the worker and the CEO deteriorated from that point in various email exchanges.
The HR manager ultimately sent the worker an email on 2 June 2025, confirming this was the last day of his employment and seeking to arrange an exit interview.
The HR manager also referred to wanting to organise a small farewell for the worker so the institution could express its gratitude for his contributions.
The worker's access to the institution's systems was subsequently removed, and the worker sent several emails in which he disputed his treatment and the steps taken by the institution.
Commissioner finds legally effective resignation
After considering all the evidence, the Commissioner considered it was clear that the worker communicated a legally effective resignation from his employment with the institution.
The resignation was initially intended to take effect on 7 or 14 April 2025. The institution then agreed to the worker's request to work until the end of the semester.
The worker's email dated 7 April 2025 communicated a legally effective resignation to take effect at the end of the semester and superseded his prior resignation notice.
On 9 May 2025, the institution confirmed that the relevant date for the end of the semester would be 2 June 2025 and that the worker's employment would end by way of resignation on that date. The worker appeared to have taken no action to dispute that position until late May 2025.
The Commissioner did not accept the worker's evidence that he was so busy teaching that he could not even send an email disputing the CEO's letter until late May 2025.
Having communicated a legally effective resignation, the worker was not able to unilaterally withdraw the resignation. The institution was entitled to rely upon the resignation notice and to take steps to replace the worker.
Application dismissed
The institution could have agreed to allow the worker to retract his resignation. However, it was clear the institution did not agree to the worker retracting his resignation when the issue became contentious in late May 2025. The Commissioner found that the worker resigned from his employment with the institution effective 2 June 2025.
The worker accepted during the hearing that he voluntarily decided to communicate his decision to resign. The Commissioner accepted that it was the case. The worker was not eligible to make an unfair dismissal application because he was not dismissed within the meaning of the Act.
The institution's jurisdictional objection was upheld, and the worker's application was dismissed. The Commissioner noted it was unfortunate that the worker was unhappy about how his time with the institution ended, but based on what occurred at the hearing, the Commissioner considered it was for the best that the worker and the CEO were no longer working together.
