FWC examines whether employee was forced to quit or left voluntarily
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a general protections case involving a service technician who claimed he was forced to resign from his position due to his employer's unreasonable conduct over several months.
The worker argued that repeated overtime demands despite his disclosed disabilities, inadequate responses to safety complaints, and inappropriate workplace activities created an untenable environment forcing his resignation.
The employer contended the worker voluntarily resigned, citing his resignation email and discussions about alternative employment.
The case examined whether the departure constituted voluntary resignation or forced dismissal under general protections legislation.
The worker had been employed as a service technician with a multinational equipment company since August 2023.
He had disclosed medical conditions including sleep apnoea and post-traumatic stress disorder during his pre-employment medical examination. The worker lived in Australia with his wife and two daughters, one with a disability requiring ongoing support.
Before accepting the position, the worker explicitly told the national service manager he wanted minimal overtime to balance work and life commitments. The manager agreed to this condition, though his written contract contained standard overtime requirements.
From January 2024, his direct supervisor began regularly requesting overtime, which the worker would sometimes accept but often refuse due to health and carer's appointments.
On 22 February 2024, the direct supervisor emailed concerns about the worker's overtime refusal to the national service manager, stating:
"As you are aware, [worker] has made it clear that he is only interested in doing 7.6 hours per day... There is no motivation to help our team beyond 3.06pm – this is becoming an issue."
However, before any performance discussion occurred, the worker's wife suffered a debilitating stroke on 23 February 2024, making him the primary family carer.
The worker returned to work on 13 March 2024 while continuing to care for his wife. Management continued requesting overtime, and he began working increased hours from April 2024.
On 29 May 2024, the worker complained to the national human resources manager about his supervisor's behaviour and its impact on his mental health and post-traumatic stress disorder.
A meeting on 7 June 2024 involved the worker, his direct supervisor, and floor supervisor discussing workplace improvements.
The worker raised his post-traumatic stress disorder and ongoing carer's duties, but his supervisor maintained expectations that he would perform overtime unless "absolutely not an option."
On 27 June 2024, the worker was late due to sleep apnoea symptoms. His supervisor texted "Do you plan on coming to work today?" and upon arrival commented "this is the behaviour I would expect from an apprentice, not a grown man."
The worker later emailed the human resources manager explaining how lateness caused him distress due to his military background, stating:
"After being in the Army for my whole adult life and performing a task at the exact right second timeliness has been ingrained so deeply that being late to anything actually causes me distress."
On 2 July 2024, the worker filed a complaint through the company's international reporting system claiming:
"My mental health has taken a very serious turn these past few months... I no longer suffer from extreme [post-traumatic stress disorder], but having a manager yell at me all the time, and having no power, is extremely triggering."
After working overtime on 9 July 2024, he almost had a car accident driving home exhausted, leading to another complaint about being "asked to work overtime" despite telling management he was "exhausted."
On 11 July 2024, the worker was sent home for rest and later stood down pending medical investigation. An independent medical examination concluded he could perform his role full-time but was not fit for overtime. He returned to work on 28 August 2024 with confirmation he would not perform overtime.
On 2 September 2024, management organised a team building activity at a shooting range. The worker attended but did not participate.
On 12 September 2024, during a workplace safety inspection, the worker was asked to attend an "impromptu catch up" meeting that became a performance review session where he was presented with a "work expectations" document and various performance issues were raised.
Later that day, the worker told the human resources manager he "despised" working for the employer. On 13 September 2024 at 10:34am, he sent his resignation email stating:
"All this coupled with the disgustingly inept management, and completely toxic working environment has made this job unbearable."
At 1pm, management accepted his resignation with immediate effect, paying out his notice period.
The worker wrote to his union representative explaining: "There was a big incident at work yesterday. I can't quite remember what happened as I was completely pushed to my limit and I had zero control of my reaction after everything happened."
He filed his general protections application two days later and has not worked since.
The FWC found the worker was dismissed under the Fair Work Act, determining he was forced to resign due to the employer's conduct.
The Commission concluded: "I have come to the conclusion that [the worker] was forced to resign because of [the employer's] repeated unreasonable conduct towards him. This conduct includes repeated unreasonable overtime requests, failure to adequately respond to safety complaints, holding a team building activity at a shooting range, and the performance management meeting on 12 September 2024."
The Commission found the employer repeatedly requested unreasonable overtime despite disclosed disabilities and circumstances:
"Given [the worker's] personal circumstances, overtime posed a real risk to [the worker's] health and safety. There appears to have been a complete lack of regard for [the worker's] personal circumstances both in relation to his sleep apnoea disability and in relation to his significant carer's duties following his wife's stroke."
Regarding the shooting range activity, the Commission stated: "Regardless of whether [the worker] was actually triggered, it is self-evident that holding a team building activity at a shooting range when a team member has [post-traumatic stress disorder] is not only highly insensitive but potentially puts that team member's safety at risk."
The Commission found that while individual conduct elements might not have warranted forced resignation, "when I consider the cumulative effect of this conduct, I am of the view [the worker's] employment had become untenable."
It concluded the employer "has repeatedly ignored [the worker's] personal circumstances including his carer's duties and disabilities and failed to take into account [the worker's] safety."
The matter will proceed to conference for potential resolution before possible federal court proceedings.
