Does moving away mean quitting your job?

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case where a worker argued his employer violated his workplace rights after he relocated to a different city.

The worker claimed the employer failed to accommodate his changed circumstances and help him maintain his employment.

The case raised questions about workplace obligations when personal circumstances force relocation, and what constitutes reasonable efforts to maintain employment.

It also examined the line between an employer ending employment versus a worker abandoning their job through their actions.

Workplace rights case tests dismissal

The worker started as an operator at Mount Isa Mines Limited in August 2023. During his initial employment period, he lived in accommodation provided through his partner's work. In March 2024, his partner was relocated to Cairns, and the worker moved there as well.

To manage this change, the worker asked for leave from 15-26 April 2024, saying he needed time to arrange new accommodation in Mount Isa. The mining company granted this request, but the worker did not return to work on 1 May 2024 as scheduled.

After missing multiple shifts, the worker participated in a phone meeting on 27 May 2024 with company representatives, where he stated he would not return to work because he had not found accommodation in Mount Isa.

Workplace accommodation rights

The dispute centred largely on different understandings about employee accommodation. The worker said he believed the company offered accommodation to employees. He referred to conversations with human resources staff who allegedly mentioned accommodation at $50 per night.

During the hearing, when asked about his efforts to find accommodation, the worker said he checked caravan parks and hotels but found them too expensive at around $700, though he was unclear whether this was a weekly or monthly rate. The Commission noted that the worker had not attempted to apply for rental properties.

The employer's evidence showed they consistently told the worker that accommodation was not included with his Mount Isa-based role. They explained that while they might provide temporary accommodation in emergency situations like unexpected homelessness, this was extremely rare and still required payment from the employee.

Did the worker abandon his job?

The Fair Work Act 2009 required the Commission to determine whether a dismissal had occurred before it could address other aspects of the case. The Commission referred to previous decisions about employment abandonment, stating:

"[The worker's] conduct, in abandoning his employment consequently caused a repudiation of the employment contract, which has brought the employment to an end so that there has been no termination at the initiative of [the employer]."

The legal concept of abandonment was explained further in another key quote from the decision:

"'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."

The Commission found that by missing 28 shifts between 1 May and 20 June 2024 without proper explanation, the worker had effectively ended his own employment.

The Commission emphasised in its decision:

"Whether a person has abandoned their employment is to be considered objectively, in light of all the circumstances."

The Commission concluded that while accommodation costs in Mount Isa might have been high, this did not change the worker's obligations. The decision noted:

"[The worker's] failure to make any real effort to apply for rentals or make real attempts to return to Mount Isa infers an unwillingness or inability to substantially perform his obligations under the employment contract."

The Commission dismissed the worker's application, finding that no dismissal had occurred within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009, as the employment ended through the worker's conduct rather than employer action.