The FWC has drawn a clear line between hard work and a forced resignation
A burnt-out Westfield employee resigned citing chronic stress and an impossible workload. The Fair Work Commission said it was not a forced resignation.
On 17 March 2026, Commissioner Crawford dismissed Emily Martin's general protections application against Scentre Pty Limited, part of the Scentre Group which designs, builds, manages, and operates Westfield shopping centres in Australia and New Zealand. The decision turned on a question HR professionals encounter regularly: when does a demanding workload become a forced resignation?
Martin had worked for Scentre since 28 March 2022, starting as a casual Brand Experience Assistant at Westfield Penrith. She commenced a secondment to the position of Community Engagement Assistant on 15 January 2024 and was permanently appointed to the full-time role on around 22 April 2024. She resigned effective 30 September 2025, communicating that resignation on 31 August 2025.
Her claims painted a demanding picture. From around April 2024, Martin alleged her workload grew sharply due to staff shortages, new projects, and duties added by management. Between August 2024 and September 2025, she repeatedly raised her concerns in weekly one-on-one meetings with Senior Community Manager Michele Lok, but said no structural changes followed. When Lok was later assigned a national community partnerships project, Martin alleged she absorbed Lok's prior duties on top of her own. She also alleged she was required to perform excessive work in a short timeframe on the Westfield Local Heroes program, and at times had to ask for work to be redistributed to colleagues or for extended deadlines just to keep up. Throughout this period, she received no increase in remuneration in recognition of the additional duties.
Martin described health consequences she attributed to the pressure, including chronic stress and migraines. She said she often felt unable to take leave and was inundated with work on her return. She also alleged Scentre repeatedly declined to bring on additional staff. She then offered to withdraw her resignation if Scentre agreed to increase her pay or reduce her workload. Scentre accepted neither proposal and made no counter-offer.
The Commission acknowledged all of this, but stressed that the legal question was focused on Scentre's conduct specifically, not the subjective impact of that conduct on Martin.
On that test, the Commission found in Scentre's favour. Crawford found that Scentre had acted on some of Martin's suggestions at a September 2024 meeting, allowed her a 15-minute afternoon walk to manage stress, and accommodated requests for time off and extended deadlines where possible. Crucially, Martin was never reprimanded for incomplete work.
Crawford also noted that Martin was generally able to start and finish at her scheduled times and take a lunch break of around 30 minutes to one hour. "Ms Martin's complaint appears to be that she had to work excessively hard during her normal working hours," Crawford wrote, finding this fell short of the threshold required.
The decision drew on an established principle about the narrow line between a forced and voluntary resignation. Quoting the Full Bench of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in ABB Engineering Construction Pty Limited: "Often it will only be a narrow line that distinguishes conduct that leaves an employee no real choice but to resign employment, from conduct that cannot be held to cause a resultant resignation to be a termination at the initiative of the employer."
Martin's offer to stay for a salary increase of around 30% also weighed against her. Crawford found this suggested she felt undervalued and underappreciated, not that the workload was so excessive she had no option other than resigning.
The Commission also noted that Martin had other options before resigning, including lodging a formal grievance with Scentre, approaching the workplace safety regulator, or applying for anti-bullying orders against Lok and National Community Manager Pamela Wilson if she considered their allocation of work to be unreasonable and creating a safety risk. Crawford's findings make clear that documented responses to workload complaints can prove decisive in defending a forced resignation claim.
