Office manager argues severe psychiatric conditions should excuse extended absence from work
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently examined an application for an extension of time to file a general protections claim, involving an office manager who was absent from work following a serious mental health crisis.
The case arose when the worker attempted suicide in November 2024, leading to hospitalisation and extended absence from work, before being terminated for "abandonment of employment" in February 2025.
The worker argued she should be granted extra time to file her dismissal claim due to exceptional circumstances, including her suicide attempt, self-inflicted injuries requiring surgery, involuntary hospital admissions, and placement in a secure mental health facility.
She maintained that her severe mental health conditions prevented her from filing her application within the standard 21-day timeframe after her employment ended.
The employer contested both the extension request and the underlying dismissal claim, arguing that the worker had abandoned her employment through unexplained absence from work.
The company maintained that despite multiple attempts to contact the worker and her family, they received insufficient communication about her medical condition or expected return to work, leading them to conclude she had renounced her employment relationship.
Office manager role ends after mental health crisis
The employment relationship began when the worker started as office manager at an accounting firm, where she had worked for at least twelve years. Her duties included corresponding with clients, dealing with the business trust fund, and performing administrative tasks.
On 8 November 2024, the worker sent a text message to her employer stating she would not be in that day due to a "bad migraine."
The following day, 9 November 2024, the worker experienced what she described as an "extreme medical episode" - an attempt to take her own life, including acts of self-harm that required surgical intervention.
This incident led to her absence from work and triggered a series of medical emergencies, hospital admissions, and mental health interventions that would continue for months.
The worker's daughter initially contacted the employer on 11 November 2024, informing them that her mother was in hospital and could not make it to work.
A medical certificate from a major hospital was provided, stating the worker was "suffering from a medical condition and will be absent from work from 10/11/2024 until 17/11/2024 inclusive."
Extended absence triggers employer concerns and inquiries
After the initial medical certificate expired on 17 November 2024, the worker's daughter continued to communicate with the employer on her behalf. On 18 November, the daughter informed the company that her mother was still in hospital with "serious health concerns" including "stress-related and mental health issues" requiring her to "temporarily step back from work responsibilities to focus on recovery."
The employer expressed concern about the vague nature of the health information and requested detailed medical reports specifying the worker's general health state and recovery period.
The daughter responded that she could not provide further details at the moment and suggested the company hire someone temporarily, stating she was "chasing up documentation" and would provide updates when possible.
Despite multiple attempts by the employer to obtain updates through text messages, emails, and even contact with the worker's sister, no further medical certificates or detailed information about the worker's condition was provided after 19 November 2024.
The employer sent formal letters requesting information about the length of absence and medical certificates, but received no response.
Termination letter triggers late dismissal application
On 15 January 2025, the bookkeeper sent the worker a letter headed "Termination of Employment," asserting she had abandoned her employment and providing five weeks' notice.
The letter stated: "[The employer] now considers you have abandoned your employment and your employment will end immediately. Based on your length of service, your notice period is 5 weeks from the date of this letter."
On 19 February 2025, at the expiration of the five-week notice period, the worker received an email confirming: "Your employment has now been terminated and your final payment has been processed." The separation certificate gave the reason for separation as "Abandonment of Employment."
The worker filed her general protections application on 2 April 2025, which was 21 days after the required filing deadline.
She sought an extension of time based on exceptional circumstances, arguing that her severe mental health conditions, including post-traumatic stress disorder, generalised anxiety disorder, and major depression, prevented her from filing within the standard timeframe.
Medical evidence supports exceptional circumstances claim
The worker provided extensive medical evidence to support her extension application, including letters from treating doctors confirming the severity of her conditions.
A doctor from a clinic stated that her "psychiatric condition requires intensive treatment and is preventing her returning to the workforce" and that she was unable to work, study, or participate in activities for a period of 24 months or more.
A clinical psychologist declared that the worker "presents with significant mental health issues" including "major depression, anxiety and post traumatic stress" requiring treatment over the course of two years with "multiple modalities to address the conditions and improve functioning."
The worker also provided photographic evidence of self-inflicted injuries to her arm and neck that required surgical repair.
The FWC noted that the worker's circumstances involved "a confluence of circumstances which can only be described as horrific," including the suicide attempt, self-inflicted injuries requiring surgery, involuntary hospital admission, and placement in a secure mental health facility following police involvement.
The Commission found these medical conditions were much more severe than typical depression cases and constituted exceptional circumstances.
Is it job abandonment?
The FWC granted the extension of time, finding that the worker's severe mental health conditions following her suicide attempt constituted exceptional circumstances. The Commission stated:
"The reasons for delay count strongly in favour of the extension being granted" and noted that the medical conditions were "extraordinary and into a factor that would support a finding of exceptional circumstances."
However, the Commission then examined whether the worker had actually been dismissed or had abandoned her employment.
The FWC applied an objective test based on whether the employee's conduct would convey to a reasonable person in the employer's position that the employee had abandoned their employment obligations.
The Commission found that while the employer knew the worker was hospitalised with "serious health concerns including mental health and stress related issues," they were never informed of the full extent of her trauma, including the suicide attempt, self-harm, or involuntary hospital admissions.
The FWC noted: "From 19 November no further contact was made to inform the employer of the medical conditions."
Application dismissed on abandonment of employment grounds
The FWC ultimately dismissed the worker's application, finding she had abandoned her employment rather than being dismissed. The Commission concluded:
"On an objective assessment of [the worker's] conduct in not explaining her absence from work after 19 November, based on the facts reasonably known to [the employer], [the employer] was entitled to conclude, in the absence of any detailed explanation of her medical conditions or the period for which she would be absent, that by 18 December she had repudiated her employment relationship."
The Commission emphasised that the test for abandonment is based on the employer's situation and what they knew, rather than the employee's actual circumstances.
The FWC found: "It could have been that, for most of the period [the worker] was absent from work, she was incapable of communicating with [the employer]. If that was the case this was never explained to [the employer]."
The FWC concluded: "It follows there was no termination at the initiative of the employer as defined by s 386 and required by s 365(a). By the absence of communication with [the employer] as to her medical condition or on her expected return from 19 November she had renounced her employment relationship."
The Commission noted that while the finding was a technical matter, they made no criticism of the worker's conduct and wished her well for her recovery.
