Worker argues he 'misunderstood' statutory period
The Fair Work Commission recently dealt with a case involving a worker who alleged he was unfairly dismissed from work notwithstanding his resignation from his position.
However, the Commission first decided whether the application had been validly made as the worker lodged an unfair dismissal complaint a day after the statutory period.
Prior to his dismissal, the worker held the position of Projects Estimation and Design Manager for the company.
Around March 2023, the worker emailed a resignation letter to the managing director of the company stating, “the significant discrimination, ongoing systematic bullying, and veiled threats of dismissal have taken a psychological and physical toll on my wellbeing.”
Consequently, the employer emailed the worker with an invitation to attend a meeting to resolve his concerns and find a way forward. However, the worker remained adamant and said, “I stand by my resignation.”
The employer noted that it was the worker’s request for his notice period to end on 7 April 2023. However, since such a date fell on a Good Friday, the employer noted that the worker’s final day at work was 6 April 2023, but he was paid until the following day.
On 29 April 2023, the worker filed his unfair dismissal application which was 22 days after the dismissal took effect.
In respect of the delay, the worker argued that due to his medical condition, it was “very difficult for him to lodge an application with Fair Work and to process the volume of information.”
He further explained that he thought he had submitted his application on time and misunderstood how the statutory period was calculated.
After examining the case, the Commission was not convinced that there were exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time for the worker. Hence, the FWC dismissed the worker’s unfair dismissal application.
With regard to the worker’s contention that his delay was largely caused by his medical condition, the FWC noted that such a reason was unconvincing.
“The evidence before me shows that while the [worker] was afflicted with a medical condition that precluded him from filing his unfair dismissal application in accordance with the statutory timeframe, he retained competency to liaise with his former employer to coordinate the retrieval of electronic files,” the Commission stated.
Further, the worker’s argument that he misunderstood the 21-day statutory period was not enough for the Commission to consider it as an exceptional circumstance since the worker was well-aware that his employment would come to an end on 7 April 2023.
