Employee argues unresolved grievances left her no choice but to quit
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an unfair dismissal case where a worker claimed she was dismissed from her role at an organisation, while her employer argued she had resigned voluntarily.
The worker argued her resignation was forced due to her employer's mistreatment, misconduct, and mishandling of her workplace concerns.
She claimed the employer engaged in micromanagement, failed to properly support her grievance process against a colleague, and created such an intolerable work environment that she had no choice but to resign.
The worker had been employed at a multicultural arts organisation from October 2023 until her employment ended in April 2025. She worked under the supervision of the CEO, who managed the organisation's operations. The events that led to the end of the worker's employment started on 13 January 2025.
On that date, the worker had an exchange with another employee during an MS Teams meeting about organising an event called the "Block Party."
This was a major festival celebrating multicultural communities, involving live performances, workshops and exhibitions. The worker thought her colleague had been dismissive and condescending towards her during this interaction.
The worker was heavily involved in the Block Party project, handling infrastructure sourcing, building relationships for good turnout, curating a marketplace and organising food trucks.
When the CEO returned from holiday leave on 15 January 2025, she met with the worker two days later. During this meeting, the worker formed the view that she was being removed from the Block Party project.
However, the CEO's evidence showed she "did not 'remove' her from the project, but did ask her to focus on another project in relation to which she had a greater leadership than that which she had for the Block Party project."
The situation escalated on 19 January 2025 when the worker sent the CEO a cryptic text message stating: "when I go to work tomorrow, I need to wake up," followed by "I need you to wake up, I can't do this I've dropped enough hints."
When questioned about the text, the worker was still upset about the incident with her colleague.
The CEO investigated the matter and spoke to the colleague about her "tone" during meetings. However, this did not resolve the underlying issues.
From this point, the relationship between the worker and the CEO deteriorated significantly. The FWC found that "the frequency of managerial contact between [the CEO] and [the worker] increased from around this time, compared with what it may have been in the past."
The worker believed her colleague had lodged some kind of grievance against her, which the CEO denied.
The worker wanted to lodge a formal grievance against her colleague for what she described as "false and vexatious claims."
However, the FWC noted there was "no evidence before me that [the colleague] made claims against [the worker] to [the CEO] and [the CEO] said she did not."
The CEO provided the worker with grievance forms and the Employee Manual, but the Commission noted: "At any stage [the worker] had the ability and capacity to 'formalise' her complaint against [the colleague] by sending an email outlining her grievance, but did not do so."
In February 2025, the worker's agitation with what she considered "micromanagement" by the CEO intensified. As part of her role, the worker had access to the CEO's email inbox, which had been granted early in her employment when she performed personal assistant duties. This access continued as her role evolved.
During mid-February 2025, the organisation planned software upgrades for all team members' laptops. The plan was later cancelled when the CEO herself forgot to do so. Unfortunately, the worker thought this process was somehow targeted at her. On 26 February 2025, when the worker was unable to access the CEO's email, she thought her IT access had been deliberately "locked out."
In a meeting held later that day, the CEO described the worker as very agitated. The worker described what happened: "I tell her I'll give her what she wants and leave [the organisation]. I hand over my laptop and pass and leave around midday."
During the hearing, the worker described this as a "verbal resignation," which is how the CEO appeared to have taken it. This was the last day the worker was in the office.
The worker described her absence from work following the 26 February incident as sick leave. A medical certificate was provided dated 18 March 2025, stating unfitness for work from 24 February to 28 March 2025.
The next day, the CEO sent the worker a text asking if she was open to a "wellbeing call," though the parties disputed what was said during this conversation.
On 13 March 2025, while the worker was still on sick leave, the CEO sent her an email stating: "As you had left work early one day and have not returned to work since, we would like to know how you were wanting to proceed regarding your employment. Will you be returning to work?"
The email also mentioned that if they did not hear back, they may need to start an abandonment process.
The worker asked that annual leave be approved for her absence from 26 February to 25 March 2025. However, on 21 March 2025, the CEO rejected the leave request:
"The dates that you were absent from 26 February 2025 to 25 March 2025 are considered unauthorised and unapproved. Unfortunately, the appropriate notification and evidence at the time was not provided for annual or personal leave in line with the Company's Personal and Annual Leave policies."
The CEO also repeatedly advised that she wanted to meet with the worker on her return about some "concerns," but despite the worker's requests, never provided an agenda.
Based on her medical certificates, the worker was to return to work on 31 March 2025. On the preceding Thursday and Sunday, the CEO sent emails confirming that a meeting would be held at 9:00AM on the day the worker returned.
However, the worker continued to request an agenda for this meeting, which was never provided.
On Monday 31 March 2025, just after 9:00AM, the worker sent the CEO an email stating: "It's disappointing you are unable to provide an agenda for the meeting you are requesting. I am formally submitting my two weeks' notice of resignation, effective immediately. This decision is not voluntary but is a direct result of your mistreatment of me, your misconduct, and your mishandling of my concerns and grievances regarding a colleague."
Later that day, the CEO sent the worker an email offering her the opportunity to withdraw her resignation and address the concerns she had raised.
The worker never withdrew her resignation, and her employment ended on 11 April 2025. The worker had also discovered through her access to the CEO's email inbox a draft letter about a disciplinary meeting, but this letter was never sent.
The FWC applied section 386 of the Fair Work Act 2009, which sets out when someone has been dismissed. This includes situations where a person resigned but was forced to do so because of their employer's conduct.
The Commission referenced an earlier case that established the test: the employer must have engaged in conduct with the intention of ending the employment, or where resignation was the likely result and the employee had no real choice.
The FWC stated: "The effort to have [the worker] withdraw her resignation is inconsistent with the proposition that [the CEO] intended by her conduct that [the worker] resign. It is more consistent with the idea that [the CEO] did not want her to resign."
The Commission also noted that the draft disciplinary letter that was never sent "appeared to be an act of restraint – more consistent with an effort by [the CEO] not to pressure [the worker] to resign."
Regarding the management practices complained of, the Commission found: "Providing additional contact time and support to an employee who she thought may be struggling, attempting to assist [the worker] to stay on task, and managing the allocation of resources to various projects is entirely consistent with [the CEO's] role."
Ultimately, the FWC determined: "[the worker] resigned her employment and was not dismissed" and dismissed the application.
