Walking out or signing off? Case examines what makes a resignation effective
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an unfair dismissal application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009.
A worker claimed he was unfairly dismissed after taking sick leave, while his employer argued he had voluntarily resigned following a discussion about pay.
The case focused on events spanning three days in September 2024. After leaving work on 17 September, the worker received emails suggesting his employment had ended. When he attempted to return to work on 20 September, he was denied entry. He then filed an unfair dismissal claim.
The Commission had to determine whether the worker's departure constituted a resignation or an unfair dismissal.
The dispute arose at a glass manufacturing company where multiple witnesses provided conflicting accounts of events on 17 September 2024. The worker testified that he left work due to an infected hand after informing his supervisor and following what he believed were proper procedures.
A former colleague corroborated the worker's account, testifying they both felt unwell and left work together. The colleague described demonstrating his illness to a staff member by putting "a finger to one side of his nose and blew mucus onto the grass."
On the following two days, the worker sent brief text messages stating "not in" to his supervisor. Meanwhile, he received emails from the company accountant on 18 and 19 September about finalising his entitlements.
The company accountant testified that on the morning of 17 September 2024, at around 10:30, the worker came to his office demanding more money, stating he would no longer work at the company if this request wasn't met.
The accountant's evidence indicated that after being told no additional money would be provided, the worker "threw his hands up and walked out."
The supervisor's evidence directly contradicted the worker's account about sick leave procedures. According to the supervisor, the worker simply "put his head inside his office door and said 'I am out of here,' and then left the premises."
Another manager testified hearing the worker say "**** this place, I am leaving" and that he had "finished at [the employer]."
The Commission found the employer's witnesses provided clear, consistent, and credible evidence. Their accounts formed "complementary components of a case narrative that is entirely sensible."
The Commission's decision established that formal resignation procedures weren't necessary for employment to end. The ruling stated: "It is not necessary to use word 'resign' in order to end one's employment. It is also irrelevant that [the worker] did not provide any formal notice of termination."
The Commission rejected the worker's suggestion that he was forced to resign, noting: "[The employer] sought to confirm [the worker's] intentions in his email messages of 18 and 19 September 2024 and received no response. But I find that his intentions were clear."
In rejecting the unfair dismissal application, the Commission concluded: "[The worker] ended his own employment. It was not terminated on [the employer's] initiative, nor was he forced to resign because of the conduct, or a course of conduct, engaged in by the company."
