Worker's forced resignation claim dismissed despite mental health struggles

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case where a long-term council employee's claim of forced resignation was dismissed after the Commission found he voluntarily resigned despite genuine mental health difficulties stemming from workplace issues.

The case arose when the environmental planner resigned "under protest" in February 2025, claiming constructive dismissal after a deteriorating relationship with his coordinator and subsequent workers' compensation claim for work-related stress.

The worker argued he was forced to resign due to cumulative workplace failures, including inadequate responses to bullying complaints, flawed investigation processes, and procedural unfairness in fitness-for-duty assessments.

The council contested the forced resignation claim, maintaining they had appropriately addressed his concerns through mediation, external investigation, and reasonable workplace adjustments throughout his extended absence.

The Commission found no dismissal occurred, determining that while the worker genuinely suffered mental health impacts, his resignation was voluntary and the council had responded appropriately to his complaints and concerns throughout the lengthy dispute resolution process.

Workplace relationship deteriorates over management style concerns

The environmental planner worked for the council from November 2002 until his resignation in February 2025, with workplace tensions escalating significantly from 2013 onward involving his coordinator's management approach.

Early incidents included comments about being "too slow" for consultancy work, denial of extended family leave requests, and criticism of personal phone calls during challenging family circumstances.

The worker's concerns remained largely unaddressed until 2022, when he indicated feeling unsafe due to workplace bullying in an anonymous staff satisfaction survey.

A significant escalation occurred following a February 2023 team meeting where the coordinator criticised him for taking a personal call before the meeting started, triggering what he described as traumatic memories of past treatment.

The worker's manager responded by arranging leadership training for the team and facilitating discussions about workplace concerns.

However, the worker's perception was that insufficient action was taken to address his specific complaints about the coordinator's behavior, leading to increasing frustration and formal escalation through organisational channels.

Formal complaints and investigation process unfold

The situation escalated when the worker sent detailed messages to his manager in February 2023, alleging bullying behavior and threatening to "call out" the coordinator's conduct going forward.

This led to meetings with senior management, including the executive director, though the worker felt these discussions were dismissive and inadequately addressed his concerns.

A mediation process was arranged between the worker and his coordinator, facilitated by an external third party, in August 2023. The worker initially found this process "cathartic," and both parties agreed to move forward positively, though his confidence was later undermined by a casual comment from a new colleague about the coordinator being "a closed book."

In February 2024, the worker made a formal 13-page complaint against the council and several employees, triggering an extensive external investigation.

The investigator spent considerable time working with the worker to refine his allegations, ultimately examining 36 specific claims but finding only one substantiated - the coordinator's inappropriate comment about the personal phone call.

Workers compensation claim leads to extended absence

Following a heated meeting with his manager in December 2023, the worker ceased attending work and lodged a workers' compensation claim for stress and depression related to alleged workplace bullying.

Medical assessments indicated he was unfit for his pre-injury duties with the council and unlikely to return to that specific workplace environment.

The worker remained on workers' compensation throughout 2024 while the formal investigation proceeded, with medical experts advising he had capacity for full-time work with a different employer.

Council's injury management consultant maintained regular contact regarding his capacity and return-to-work options, though the worker expressed reluctance to return to the same workplace.

Independent medical examinations conducted during the workers' compensation process consistently found the worker had current work capacity but was unlikely to successfully return to his previous role or management arrangements.

This medical advice ultimately informed the council's decision to initiate fitness-for-duty assessments in late 2024.

Fitness assessment triggers resignation under protest

In November 2024, the council directed the worker to attend an independent medical examination with a psychiatrist to assess his fitness for duty after 12 months of absence.

The worker strongly objected to this process, claiming the information provided to the medical examiner misrepresented his situation and denied him procedural fairness.

The medical assessment confirmed the worker was very unlikely to achieve capacity to return to council employment in the foreseeable future, with no reasonable adjustments available to enable him to perform his role requirements.

The council then initiated a show-cause process, providing an opportunity for the worker to respond before making final decisions about his employment.

Rather than respond to the show-cause letter, the worker submitted his resignation "under protest" in February 2025, claiming his position had become untenable due to procedural unfairness and systematic governance failures.

His resignation email detailed extensive grievances and characterised his departure as constructive dismissal caused by the council's inadequate responses to his workplace concerns.

Commission finds voluntary resignation despite genuine distress

The Commission acknowledged the worker's genuine mental health struggles and the significant impact workplace events had on his wellbeing, while finding his resignation was voluntary rather than forced by employer conduct.

The decision noted the worker's tendency toward "strong and disproportionate reactions to perceived slights," affecting the reliability of his account of events.

The Commission found the council had responded appropriately to his concerns through leadership training, mediation processes, external investigation, and proper workers' compensation management.

The anonymous staff survey response, investigation outcomes, and fitness assessment processes were all deemed reasonable and procedurally fair despite the worker's objections.

The dismissal of the application emphasised that resignation cannot be characterised as forced dismissal simply because workplace events cause genuine distress, where the employer has not engaged in conduct intended to end employment or create circumstances eliminating real choice about continuing work.