He resigned an hour after the first message - and the timing sank his case
A casual worker quit over a policy form, then said he had no choice. The tribunal disagreed.
A casual gym worker who refused to sign off on a new staff handbook resigned, then argued he had been forced out. On May 29, 2026, the Fair Work Commission disagreed and dismissed his case.
It is a tidy lesson for any HR team that ties policy sign-off to getting rostered.
Luca Ferraivolo started at a health and fitness centre run by Leong & Chamma Pty Ltd on June 27, 2025. That November, the business issued an updated Staff Policy & Procedure Manual and asked all staff to sign a form confirming they had read it.
Ferraivolo, a casual, dug in. In a run of WhatsApp messages, he told managing director Paul Chamma that as a casual he was "not legally required to sign new policies or contracts after commencement," and warned that withholding shifts to force his hand could breach the general protections provisions of the Fair Work Act.
Chamma did not budge. He called the acknowledgment "a lawful and reasonable management instruction," said it was not a new contract, and explained the centre could not roster Ferraivolo until the form came back. That afternoon he confirmed the day's shift was cancelled and that "no further shifts will be offered until full compliance is achieved."
About an hour and 19 minutes after the first message, Ferraivolo resigned by email. He said the manual and the signature requirement had forced him out, and flagged items he believed clashed with the Act and the relevant modern award.
The Commission leaned on the Full Bench ruling in Bupa Aged Care. Under that test, a resignation counts as a dismissal only if the employer meant to end the job, or if ending it was the probable result of the employer's conduct - leaving the worker no real choice but to quit.
Commissioner Walkaden found neither applied. The messages showed the employer wanted a signature, not an exit; shifts would restart once Ferraivolo complied. And the timing worked against him. He quit one hour and 19 minutes after the first message. A longer freeze on shifts might have changed the picture, the Commissioner said, but that was not what happened here.
The application was dismissed.
The takeaways for HR are concrete. Asking staff to acknowledge a policy manual can hold up as a reasonable instruction, as long as it does not quietly change someone's terms of employment. How you frame it counts. The employer kept saying the door was open and tied the pause in shifts to compliance, not to ending the job - and that record carried the day. The case is also a reminder that forced-resignation claims hinge on the employer's conduct and on timing. Quit in the heat of the moment, and it is hard to argue later that you had no real choice.
Casuals, take note too. The decision restates the well-worn point that casual employees have no entitlement to guaranteed shifts - a point the employer relied on, and the Commission did not disturb.
