Employment consultant says stress from workplace incidents left her no choice but to quit
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an unfair dismissal application where a worker claimed she was forced to resign due to her employer's unreasonable conduct.
The worker argued that a series of incidents in December 2024 created such an intolerable work environment that resignation became her only option.
The case centred on whether the worker had genuinely resigned or was constructively dismissed under the Fair Work Act 2009.
The worker pointed to three main areas of employer misconduct: mishandling of disciplinary proceedings involving other employees, receiving unreasonable instructions that put her wellbeing at risk, and being locked out of her workplace systems prior to her termination date.
Her resignation came after she was instructed to handle the face-to-face exit of her direct manager who had just been terminated for misconduct.
The worker claimed this instruction was well outside her responsibilities and caused her severe stress, including heart palpitations and anxiety that required medical treatment.
The employment consultant had worked for the training and employment services company from their regional office since June 2022.
She resigned on 9 December 2024, giving four weeks' notice and immediately submitting a medical certificate covering her entire notice period due to workplace stress.
The resignation followed months of workplace investigations involving several employees in the worker's team. Her direct manager was dismissed on 2 December 2024 as a result of these investigations for misconduct, and the worker was instructed by her state manager to take possession of company property from the terminated manager.
The employer accepted the worker's resignation by return email the same day. The company maintained that no action had been taken to end the employment relationship and that the worker had resigned voluntarily without using internal grievance procedures available to her.
The worker provided detailed evidence about the events leading to her resignation. The most significant incident occurred on 2 December 2024 when she received what she considered an unreasonable instruction from her state manager to handle the face-to-face exit of her direct manager, who had just been terminated.
The worker testified: "This direction was unreasonable as it was well outside my level of responsibility to be involved in the dismissal of my direct manager who had been unexpectedly terminated and was highly distraught."
The worker described how this instruction affected her wellbeing. She explained in her evidence: "I lost my temper at [the state manager] and swore at him. I advised him that I was furious at having to deal with this situation which I thought unreasonable, and that I was having heart palpitations."
She took the afternoon off work, feeling unable to continue working with clients in her distressed state.
On 3 December 2024, the worker held a 45-minute meeting with her national manager via video call.
During this meeting, she raised concerns about workplace culture, including power imbalances within her team and inappropriate management of relationships between staff members.
She also disclosed her distressed state from the previous day, telling him she "had never in my 35 year career experienced this level of workplace stress."
The employer provided context for the contested events, explaining that an investigation had been conducted into inappropriate conduct by several employees in the worker's team.
The HR director explained that the company was required to protect employee privacy during disciplinary processes, which limited what information could be shared with other staff members about the investigation's nature and outcomes.
The investigation resulted in the dismissal of the worker's direct manager on 2 December 2024. Company procedure required terminated employees to return company property to the office, and the worker was asked to take possession of these items.
The employer maintained this was standard administrative practice following terminations and that the worker had initially agreed to handle this task.
The national manager testified that during the 3 December meeting, he told the worker he would find out what support could be provided to help her feel more comfortable in the workplace.
However, the worker resigned just three days later without waiting for any follow-up response or using the company's formal grievance procedures.
The FWC examined what legally counts as dismissal under section 386(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009.
This law recognises two situations where dismissal occurs: when employment ends at the employer's initiative, or when a worker resigns but was forced to do so because of employer conduct.
The FWC referenced established case law which determined that for constructive dismissal to occur, the worker must show they had "no effective or real choice but to resign" due to the employer's conduct.
The legal test looks at whether the employer's behaviour was meant to end the employment or whether termination was the likely result of their actions.
The FWC noted that courts have established that "considerable caution should be exercised in treating a resignation as other than voluntary where the conduct of the employer is ambiguous."
This means workers need clear evidence that resignation was genuinely forced rather than a personal choice made in response to workplace circumstances.
The FWC found that the worker had not been dismissed within the meaning of the Fair Work Act.
The decision stated that the worker "was not dismissed at the initiative of [the employer], nor was she forced to resign because of conduct engaged in by [the employer]."
The FWC examined the timing of events, noting that much of the worker's complaint related to events occurring after her resignation.
Regarding the removal of her access to company systems, the decision explained that the employer "reasonably concluded that she would not be performing any work from then on" after receiving the medical certificate covering her entire notice period.
The FWC found the worker had not given management enough time to address her concerns.
The decision stated: "[The worker] could have given [the national manager] a reasonable opportunity to respond to her concerns, but he was not given that opportunity."
The three-day gap between raising concerns and resigning was considered too short for proper resolution.
The FWC concluded that the worker "has not discharged her onus to demonstrate that she had no real, effective or meaningful option but to resign in these circumstances."
The application was dismissed, with the FWC finding the resignation was voluntary rather than forced by employer conduct.
