He wanted hybrid work - the employer wanted an IME first
A safety advisor's claim that Powerlink forced him out of his job has been dismissed after the Fair Work Commission found he resigned voluntarily - while an independent medical report that might have helped his return was still being prepared.
The worker started with Queensland Electricity Transmission Corporation Limited, the government-owned operator of Queensland's high-voltage transmission network known as Powerlink, in April 2023. His role as a safety advisor required regular attendance at construction and operational sites across the state.
On January 30, 2026, he suffered a workplace medical episode linked to a chronic health condition. He was hospitalised until February 4 and remained unfit for work for weeks afterward, also experiencing stress and anxiety. A series of medical certificates kept him off work until April 6.
By late March, he wanted to come back. Updated medical information dated April 1 indicated he could potentially start suitable duties from April 8 - but only with restrictions, including hybrid work arrangements. A full return to normal duties was still roughly four to six weeks away.
Powerlink considered the proposal and declined. The company's position, set out in submissions to the Commission, was that the safety advisor role required regular site attendance, hands-on stakeholder engagement, and the kind of ongoing team interaction that could not be effectively performed from home on a sustained basis.
Instead of closing the door, Powerlink directed the worker to attend an independent medical examination on April 29 to help inform a safe return-to-work plan. He attended as directed.
Then, on May 8, he emailed his resignation.
Powerlink did not accept it immediately. The company gave him the chance to reconsider. On May 13, he confirmed he intended to resign, and his employment ended that day.
The IME report arrived on May 20 - a week after he had already gone.
The worker argued he had been forced out. In his submissions to the Commission, he said he had been subjected to repeated bullying and harassment during his employment, and that he suffered a heart attack after making a formal bullying complaint. He said Powerlink denied him a graduated return to work and gave him an ultimatum to come back five days a week or not at all.
He described it as a "no-win ultimatum" that put him in breach of his medical advice and forced him to resign in order to "gain some payout, find other work, and find another place of employment where there was no future threat of bullying."
The Commission was not persuaded.
On the bullying claims, the Commission found no evidence that the worker had ever raised a complaint of bullying or inappropriate conduct with Powerlink. The employer had not been placed on notice of any such concerns at the time.
On the question of hybrid work, the Commission noted that employees do not have an established right to work from home. Those decisions sit with employers, who must balance the requirements of the role, the impact on the business, and the wishes of the employee. The Commission was not convinced Powerlink had acted unreasonably in declining the request, and was satisfied the IME was a reasonable step toward getting the worker back safely.
The critical finding came down to alternatives. At the time he resigned, the worker had several reasonable options still open to him. He could have waited for the IME report. He could have continued discussions about a return-to-work plan. He could have used internal dispute resolution or grievance procedures. There was no evidence he tried any of them.
And when he did resign, Powerlink gave him a chance to change his mind. He chose not to take it.
The Commission found Powerlink had not engaged in conduct intended to end the employment, nor conduct that left the worker no real choice but to resign. He was not compelled or forced to resign - he did so voluntarily. The application was dismissed.
In its decision dated September 9, 2026, the Commission determined the matter on the papers, with both parties agreeing not to contest the facts or credibility of each other's submissions.
For HR teams navigating return-to-work disputes, the case is a practical reminder that keeping the process open - directing an independent medical examination, offering a chance to reconsider, maintaining dialogue - strengthens the employer's position if a forced resignation claim follows.
