Is it a resignation 'under false pretences'? Commission investigates
A teacher who recently resigned from his post has filed for an extension of a dismissal application before the Fair Work Commission (FWC), alleging that he only quit his job after the employer said it would help him secure alternative employment.
The worker held a teaching position with the employer until he voluntarily resigned on 12 May 2023 following an incident that occurred at the school.
The employer said that it accepted the worker's resignation, as it had the intention of terminating his employment after investigating the said incident.
The worker argued that he resigned based on the assurance of securing another teaching position at a different school, with the principal's endorsement. Without the worker’s knowledge, the employer filed a mandatory report regarding the incident with its state's Teacher Quality Institute (TQI).
Worker acknowledged resignation but said it was done ‘under false pretences’
According to records, the worker acknowledged his resignation on 12 May 2023 but argued that he did so "under false pretences" and the "threat of termination."
He said that he wouldn't have resigned if he had been aware of the TQI report, adding that his resignation was contingent upon the principal supporting him in finding an alternative teaching position.
The worker stated that he took time to consult with TQI about the report and inquire about his ability to continue teaching. Furthermore, he argued that the incident did not warrant his termination, as it was a direct result of the employer's failure to protect him from “inappropriate conduct” by certain students.
Additionally, the worker stated that he only realized he had been dismissed (as opposed to resigning) on 16 August, when TQI informed him that the employer had provided a 'termination letter' to TQI, which the worker had never seen.
Employer says no ‘exceptional circumstances’
The employer said the reasons cited by the worker do not constitute “exceptional circumstances.” It explained that the worker resigned during an ongoing investigation into alleged misconduct, and based on the investigation's findings, the employer had intended to terminate his employment.
However, at the said meeting where the worker was to be dismissed, he informed the principal of his resignation instead. Consequently, the employer didn't proceed with the dismissal or issue the termination letter.
Later, the worker submitted his application on 21 August 2023, or 80 days after the 21-day period under the FW Act.
HRD previously reported about a worker’s extension application for unfair dismissal after he put the wrong start date on his form.
In another case, the worker questioned her dismissal after she alleged her employer mistakenly issued a separation certificate even though she did not request it.
Would the worker’s request for an extension be granted?
The Fair Work Act says an unfair dismissal application must be made within 21 days after the dismissal took effect or within an allowable period, as determined by the FWC.
The Commission can extend the period under “exceptional circumstances,” defined as “out of the ordinary course, unusual, special, or uncommon.” However, it clarified the circumstances “do not need to be unique, unprecedented, or even very rare.”
In this case, the FWC found that there were no exceptional circumstances in the worker’s situation. Thus, it rejected his claim.
