HR officer claims mental health struggles caused by work
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case involving allegations of employment abandonment and jurisdictional objections. The matter centered around a worker's extended absence from work and the employer's subsequent actions.
The worker claimed to be suffering from mental health issues that impaired his ability to communicate effectively during his absence. The worker also asserted that he believed he was on annual leave, despite the lack of formal documentation.
Furthermore, he argued that his employer should have been aware of his condition due to previous discussions about personal wellbeing. The worker even suggested that his recent conversion from permanent to casual employment may have been influenced by his mental state.
The case had been employed as a permanent administration officer - human resources since July 2022. In March 2024, the worker's role changed to administration officer - operations, and his employment status was converted from permanent to casual.
This change was reportedly mutually agreed upon to provide the worker with flexibility to attend job interviews for graduate positions.
The worker had been rostered to work 9:00am to 5:00pm between 25 March 2024 and 28 June 2024, with some flexibility in start time to accommodate potential graduate position interviews. Between 25 March 2024 and 18 April 2024, the worker attended work for his rostered shifts, subject to this flexibility.
However, complications arose when the worker stopped attending scheduled shifts without notice from 19 April 2024 onwards. The employer provided evidence that the worker attended a total of 27 days of work between 25 March 2024 and 21 June 2024, when he was rostered to work 65 of those days.
The employer argued that the worker had abandoned his employment by failing to show up for work or communicate his absences. They emphasised that the worker was aware of the company's leave policy and the expectation to notify managers of any absences.
The worker, on the other hand, claimed he was experiencing mental health issues and was unable to communicate effectively during his absence. He also asserted that he believed he was on annual leave, despite providing no evidence of a formal leave request or approval.
One of the key points of contention was the extent of communication between the parties during the worker's absence. The employer provided evidence of multiple attempts to contact the worker, including text messages and calls to his emergency contact.
On 23 April 2024, the operations manager contacted the worker about his absence. The worker apologised and informed the manager that he had been looking after his puppy who had been to the emergency vet. The manager requested that the worker let them know when he planned to return to work, but the worker did not reply to this request.
The worker acknowledged receiving some messages but maintained he was only able to respond to phone calls initiated by others due to his mental state. He expressed disappointment at receiving only one phone call from the employer during his absence.
On 16 May 2024, the human resources advisor spoke to the worker's emergency contact person, who confirmed that this was the first wellness check call they had received. Later that day, the human resources advisor spoke to the worker, who advised that he had received some bad news about his father.
The FWC's decision delved into the legal concept of employment abandonment. The employer relied on principles set out in previous cases, including:
"'Abandonment of employment' is an expression sometimes used to describe a situation where [an employee] ceases to attend his or her place of employment without proper excuse or explanation and thereby evinces an unwillingness or inability to substantially perform his or her obligations under the employment contract."
This definition emphasises the importance of proper communication and explanation when an employee is unable to attend work.
It also highlights that abandonment is not just about physical absence, but also about the employee's apparent willingness to fulfill their contractual obligations.
The worker in this case raised concerns about his mental health and argued that the employer should have been aware of his condition.
The worker alleged that he had a meeting with the senior human resources business partner in December 2023 or January 2024 about his personal wellbeing issues and mental health as an effect from the death of a close family member.
However, the FWC found that the evidence did not support a conclusion that the employer was aware of a specific mental health condition affecting the worker's ability to attend work or communicate.
The operations manager gave evidence that she had no awareness of the worker having a mental health condition or any medical health concerns during his casual period of employment.
In reaching its decision, the FWC considered all the evidence and concluded that the worker had indeed abandoned his employment. The Commission stated:
"Having considered the evidence I am satisfied that it demonstrates that [the worker] abandoned his employment when between the period of 9 May 2024 and 14 June 2024 he didn't attend for rostered shifts, didn't provide notice to [the employer] that he was not going to attend for work, and did not provide a proper explanation for his non-attendance."
This finding emphasises the importance of consistent attendance and communication in maintaining an employment relationship, even in casual employment arrangements.
The FWC also noted:
"[The worker] has not provided any medical evidence to support his claim that he was prevented from being able to attend for rostered shifts for the extended period. If it is the case that [the worker] was unfit for work for the entirety of that period, [the worker] has also not provided any evidence to support a conclusion that he was so incapacitated that he was not capable of communicating with [the employer] at all in order to inform it that he would not be attending for work, or even requesting that his partner [...] to do so on his behalf."
This observation highlights the importance of providing concrete evidence when claiming incapacity to work or communicate, especially over an extended period.
Finally, the FWC concluded:
"In the circumstances it was reasonable for [the employer] to conclude that [the worker] did not intend to return to work for it and that he had abandoned his employment. On that basis I have concluded the application should be dismissed as [the worker] was not dismissed from his employment in accordance with section 386 of the Act."
