Case explores employer's actions after worker's unclear email
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a worker’s application alleging that he was fired from his job after he sent an email saying he had an “intent to resign.”
He argued that it wasn’t a direct and unconditional notice of resignation, but the employer misinterpreted him.
The worker, Michael Hughes, filed an application before the Fair Work Commission (FWC) to seek a remedy for what he believed was an unfair dismissal from his job at Firequip Pty Ltd, the employer.
Initially, the worker's application included a request for reinstatement and/or compensation. However, during the subsequent hearing, the worker withdrew his request for reinstatement. In response, the employer contested the application.
It argued that the worker had not been dismissed but had voluntarily resigned from his position. Additionally, the employer argued that even if the Commission determined that a dismissal had occurred, it should not be considered an unfair dismissal, and that no remedy should be granted.
The worker’s email
The worker began his employment with the employer in August 2022. He worked as a business development manager. Initially, he was placed on a six-month probationary period, which concluded in February 2023. At this point, the employer confirmed his status as a full-time employee.
The employer specialises in supplying niche products to the fire protection and building sectors. Their operations encompass the manufacturing of sprinkler systems for both commercial and residential buildings, as well as car parks.
Robert O'Shea, the founder and managing director, had entrusted the day-to-day management of the business, including staff recruitment and termination, to Wayne Collins, the general manager.
On 9 June 2023, the worker sent an email to O’Shea. The email title was ‘Intent to Resign’ and said:
“Good morning, Bob, I hope you are well! I tried giving you a call earlier. I just wanted to make contact and in the very least advise you in advance of my intent to resign at the end of the month. When Wayne returns next week, I will discuss with him further. Kind regards.”
After the email was sent, the worker and O’Shea spoke briefly by telephone on the same day. O’Shea forwarded the worker’s email to Collins later that day.
On the morning of 13 June 2023, a meeting took place between the worker and Collins. This meeting unfolded at a café near the employer's premises.
While there were differing accounts of what transpired during the meeting, the ultimate outcome was undisputed. By the end of it, the worker's employment had been terminated.
Did the worker resign or not?
According to records, the worker described the conversation with Collins as “repetitive.” He said Collins repeatedly asserted that he accepted the worker's resignation, while the worker continuously insisted that he hadn't resigned at all.
Their back-and-forth continued until Collins mentioned that only one week's notice was required, to which the worker reiterated that he hadn't resigned.
Following this, he said Collins demanded the return of the worker's mobile phone, laptop computer, and company vehicle.
On the other hand, Collins stated that the conversation on 13 June began with him inquiring about the worker's email to O'Shea on 9 June.
They went on to discuss the worker's complaint about others interfering in his role and questioning the quotes he provided to customers. He said that the worker then began criticising the employer, saying that “it was not the company it used to be.”
Collins said he took the worker’s comments to mean “he was not happy in the role.” The following conversation happened:
Collins: “From what you are saying, it is obvious you are not liking the role and you mention how you are finding it frustrating. Taking this all into consideration, your resignation is a logical decision.”
Worker: “It’s only my intent.”
Collins: “Well ‘intent’. That means you are intending to do something and you have resigned.”
Collins also said that he did not use the words “dismissed” or “you are terminated” with the worker. Before the FWC, he also stated that: “Had the [worker] told me he was withdrawing his resignation or that he was not resigning, then I would not have accepted the resignation.”
The Commission’s consideration
In its decision, the FWC noted that the worker “did not voluntarily leave his employment on 13 June 2023.”
“He wanted to remain there until at least the end of the month. The actions of Collins on 13 June 2023 were the principal contributing factor which resulted in the termination of [his] employment,” the decision said.
“Those actions were the conversation that took place on 13 June and letter sent to the Applicant on the same date,” it said.
“The point is that the action on the part of the [employer] intended to bring the employment relationship to an end and it did so,” it added. The Commission also ruled that the dismissal was harsh and unreasonable, and ordered compensation for the worker.
