Messages sent after worker 'frustrated' with manager, says FWC
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case that involves a resignation that was allegedly given in the heat of the moment.
A worker claimed he was unfairly dismissed after his employer accepted what he argued were impulsive resignation messages sent during a tense exchange.
The case raises important questions about how employers should handle resignations, especially when they occur in emotionally charged situations.
The worker had been employed by a steel manufacturing company for about seven months when a series of events led to a heated text message exchange with his manager.
During his employment, the worker had been involved in various initiatives, including cleaning up the site, reducing labour costs, and engaging with landlords to drive site repatriation works. However, he also faced challenges, such as delays in receiving work equipment and perceived lack of support from managers.
In January 2024, the worker injured his knee while painting the administration building overnight. This incident led to tensions with management, who expressed concerns about his judgment and leadership style.
On 15 January 2024, the worker's manager returned from leave and asked why the worker wasn't on site. The worker expressed frustration about unresolved issues and sent a series of text messages that appeared to indicate his resignation.
These messages included requests for payment until a specific date and mentioned arrangements for handover and exit communication.
The worker's text messages stated:
"[I] would not like to return, reward me first my hours of extended dedication, pay me till the 9/2 fortnightly as normal, so as not to upset my wife and I need some time for the knee to heal, prior to pre employment medicals"
The employer accepted the resignation the following morning. However, the worker quickly attempted to retract his resignation, stating it should "go on the back burner" and later explicitly saying he "did not resign."
The worker argued that his resignation was given in the heat of the moment and should not have been accepted by the employer. He said he was in a state of emotional stress and mental confusion when sending the resignation messages. The worker's submission stated:
"The Commission can be satisfied of a 'heat of the moment' text message exchange which saw [the worker] raise specific complaints and when it appeared the matter was heading down a similar path to complaints he raised previously, the manner of messaging changed significantly and shows [the worker] was in a state of 'emotional stress or mental confusion'."
On the other hand, the employer argued that the resignation was valid and had been carefully considered by the worker.
They said that the detail in the worker's messages, including references to handover arrangements and pre-employment medicals, showed that this was not a heat of the moment decision. The employer's submission noted:
"The content of [the worker's] messages demonstrate that [the worker] had carefully considered his resignation and the next steps that need to be followed once the employment relationship ended."
The FWC examined whether the worker's resignation was given in the heat of the moment and whether the employer should have allowed a cooling-off period before accepting it. The Commission considered the build-up of frustrations experienced by the worker and the context in which the resignation messages were sent.
The FWC found that the worker's resignation resulted from frustration and was indeed made in the heat of the moment. The decision stated:
"I accept that this was the case and that after becoming frustrated that [the manager] was not dealing with his concerns, he sent the Resignation Texts in the 'heat of the moment' in hope of forcing an outcome but did not actually intend to resign."
The Commission said the employer should have handled the situation differently:
"Rather than accepting the resignation on the morning of 16 January 2024 [the employer] should have allowed a reasonable period of time to elapse before discussing the text message exchange with [the worker] and seeking confirmation of his intention to resign."
The FWC concluded:
"I find that [the employer] unreasonably accepted and acted on [the worker's] ineffectual resignation on 16 January, thus terminating [the worker's] employment at the initiative of the employer. Accordingly, I find that [the worker] was dismissed for the purposes of s.386(1)(a) of the Act."
