Recent return from 18-month leave influences denial of further development opportunities
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case where a federal government employee's claim of forced resignation was dismissed after the Commission found she voluntarily resigned despite workplace grievances about work attribution and denied study leave requests.
The case arose when the worker resigned in June 2025 following disputes over recognition for her project work and refusal of her applications for extended study leave, voluntary redundancy, or part-time arrangements.
The worker argued she was constructively dismissed due to cumulative workplace conduct, including misattribution of her work to a colleague, dismissive handling of her complaints, and refusal to support her professional development aspirations.
The employer, the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, contested the forced resignation claim, maintaining that the worker had voluntarily resigned to pursue study opportunities after reasonable management decisions were made regarding her requests.
Study leave requests create workplace tension
The worker had recently returned from 18 months of study leave in November 2024 after completing a Diploma of Project Management, during which she was placed in a three-person Strategic Project Management Team alongside her direct manager and a more senior colleague.
In January 2025, she accepted a temporary six-month transfer to the Compliance Team but found the role misaligned with her expectations and returned to her original team in April 2025.
In March 2025, the worker submitted requests for extended professional development options, including two to two-to-three years of unpaid study leave for a full-time Bachelor of Emergency Management degree, voluntary redundancy, or part-time work arrangements to complete the degree over six years.
These requests represented her desire to advance her qualifications in line with emerging national priorities and career development goals.
The department denied all requests in April 2025, explaining the rationale for each decision, including that the worker had only recently returned from extensive study leave, her position was not genuinely redundant, and part-time arrangements were not suitable for her role requirements.
The decision letter noted the part-time refusal was reviewable under departmental policy, though the worker did not pursue this option.
Work attribution dispute triggers broader concerns
In late April 2025, the worker was assigned to draft Post Implementation Reviews for two projects, submitting a completed draft in early May that received minor editorial changes from her manager before being forwarded to the senior colleague for comments.
The situation escalated when the department's internal newsletter published a "shout out" on 15 May 2025, crediting the senior colleague with drafting both reviews.
The worker searched departmental systems for evidence of the colleague's authorship but found none, leading her to conclude her contributions had been misappropriated and her work misattributed.
She viewed this incident as indicative of broader transparency and recognition issues within the team, eroding her trust in both her manager and senior colleague.
On 18 May 2025, the worker escalated her concerns to the assistant secretary, raising both the work attribution issue and reiterating disappointment about the denied study leave requests.
Her email expressed significant concerns about the lack of acknowledgment for her contributions and the difficulty she had in understanding the rationale for refusing unpaid study opportunities.
Management response fails to address worker concerns
The assistant secretary responded the following day with an apology that the worker felt unrecognised, explaining there may have been confusion about the work status and clarifying that neither the worker's nor the colleague's contributions had been finalised or formally progressed through departmental processes.
The response characterised the attribution as premature rather than deliberately misleading.
The worker interpreted this response as undermining her credibility and invalidating her legitimate workplace concerns, feeling that management dismissed rather than meaningfully addressed her grievances.
The perceived lack of acknowledgment and explanation left her feeling isolated and disregarded, contributing to anxiety that prevented her from functioning effectively in the workplace.
These workplace stresses led the worker to take personal leave from 19 May 2025, during which she reflected on her employment situation and options for addressing her professional development goals outside the departmental structure.
The leave period provided time to consider whether continuing employment remained viable, given her career aspirations and concerns about her workplace relationship.
Resignation email cites cumulative workplace issues
On 6 June 2025, the worker submitted her resignation via email to the assistant secretary, explaining that her concerns had not been adequately addressed or acknowledged despite previous communications.
She reiterated disappointment about the denied study leave requests and characterised the work attribution issue as reflecting broader problems with transparency and recognition within the department.
The resignation email emphasised that her decision was reluctant and followed her inability to secure support for professional development aligned with her career goals and national priorities.
She expressed appreciation for the opportunities she had during her employment, while explaining that unresolved concerns about workplace culture and development support left her feeling that she had no other viable option.
The assistant secretary accepted the resignation the same day, with another apology that the worker felt her concerns were inadequately addressed, viewing the resignation as a considered decision enabling the pursuit of study opportunities the worker had repeatedly expressed interest in pursuing.
The worker's resignation took effect on July 15, 2025, with personal and miscellaneous leave covering her notice period.
Commission rejects constructive dismissal arguments
The Commission found the worker failed to establish that departmental conduct forced her resignation or eliminated meaningful choice about continuing employment.
Analysis of the work attribution issue determined that even if misattribution occurred, this represented insufficient seriousness to support findings of constructive dismissal requiring resignation as the only reasonable response.
The department's refusal of study leave, redundancy, and part-time work requests was characterised as a reasonable management decision, particularly given the worker's recent return from 18 months of study leave and the need to maintain operational requirements.
The Commission noted the department could not create redundancy where none genuinely existed and had explained the basis for refusing part-time arrangements.
The worker's lengthy notice period and continued correspondence during that time, including successful requests for additional paid leave, demonstrated voluntary resignation rather than forced departure under intolerable conditions.
The Commission emphasised that workplace disappointments and denied requests, whether individual or cumulative, do not automatically constitute conduct forcing resignation without genuine alternatives.
