Unwarranted workplace changes effectively ended employment, argues worker
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case where a worker claimed she was forced to resign after her employer made assumptions about her disability and subsequently restricted her work duties.
The worker argued these changes effectively ended her employment, while the employer maintained she chose to resign.
The case raised questions about what makes a resignation truly voluntary, and when workplace changes cross the line into constructive dismissal.
It also touched on important issues about disability assumptions in the workplace and how changes to work arrangements can affect employment relationships.
The worker was employed as a learning and development specialist when disputes arose about her work arrangements.
She filed an application under section 365 of the Fair Work Act 2009, claiming she was forced to resign after the employer stopped her from leading projects and travelling for work.
According to the worker, these changes happened because the employer incorrectly assumed she had a spatial disability.
While she acknowledged having a disability, she emphasised it wasn't spatial in nature and said she had never disclosed its specific nature to the employer.
The situation escalated when, according to the worker, the people manager told her that the general manager and another staff member no longer wanted to work with her.
She also said the employer cut off her access to company systems. She argued these actions collectively left her with no choice but to resign.
The employer presented a different version of events. Both managers denied making or passing on statements about not wanting to work with the worker.
Regarding the system access issue, they explained that if it had occurred, it was unintentional, as they needed the worker to maintain access for her ongoing projects.
The Commission noted an important point about the employment terms: "[The worker] remained at all times a learning and development specialist and was paid the daily rate to which she was entitled under her contract."
The employer pointed to the specific terms in the worker's contract, which the Commission referenced:
"[The worker's] contract of employment... did not state that [the worker] would lead projects. It stated that [the worker's] role was that of a learning and development specialist, that her employment location was in Scoresby, and that visits to client sites would be 'as directed'."
Before the employment ended, there were several disagreements about travel expense reimbursements and other work-related matters.
The Commission observed that these disputes, while significant to the worker, didn't prevent her from staying employed: "there is no reason why [the worker] could not have pursued any claims or grievances about these matters while remaining in her employment."
The evidence showed the worker was particularly upset about losing her ability to travel for work. As the Commission noted:
"I find that [the worker] was incensed that [the employer] had decided that she would no longer travel. This is clear from her resignation message, where she stated that she was saddened that [the employer] had refused to make a minor internal procedural adjustment so that she could continue to lead interviews onsite interstate."
The Commission ultimately found against the worker's claims. In its decision, it stated: "I find that there were no circumstances of compulsion associated with the conduct of [the employer] that forced [the worker] to resign, nor was she dismissed on [the employer's] initiative."
The decision highlighted the distinction between being unhappy with workplace changes and being constructively dismissed. It showed that changes to work arrangements, even when they reduce job satisfaction, don't automatically amount to constructive dismissal when they align with the employment contract terms.
