FWC: Resignation email seemed final, but text messages tell another story
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently reviewed a dispute involving a worker who claimed to have been forced to resign under pressure. He argued that he had no real choice in the matter and that his resignation was a result of the employer’s actions. The employer, on the other hand, maintained that the worker had voluntarily resigned and that his departure was not a dismissal.
The worker claimed that he had raised serious concerns about safety in the workplace, which led to tension between him and management.
He stated that after reporting the issue, he was asked to sign resignation documents under the condition that he would receive his unpaid wages. The employer refuted this, contending that the worker had resigned of his own accord and that there was no coercion involved.
The worker was employed by a company that was a subsidiary of the larger employer. He had been working at a construction site as an advanced rigger. On 5 June 2024, he said he witnessed a crane operator watching a video on a tablet while operating heavy machinery.
Concerned about safety, the worker said he stepped away from the site and later raised the issue with management.
In an email to a senior project administrator that afternoon, the worker wrote:
“I’ve resigned today. I won’t be in an EWP with loads around me and crane ops watching iPads with loads on the hook. All you need to do is look at his iPad screen time or Netflix screen time to prove I’m 100% correct. It’s so far past dangerous I can’t even believe [the supervisor] let him stay in the crane even after knowing there is an iPad in his cab.”
The worker later claimed that his resignation was not voluntary. He said he had been pressured into resigning and was told by human resources that he needed to sign resignation papers in order to receive his owed wages. He also stated that he had sent follow-up messages indicating that he wanted to remain employed.
The employer argued that the worker resigned on his own. They stated that after a verbal altercation with the crane operator, the worker left the job site and later informed a supervisor that he was resigning at the end of the work rotation.
According to the employer, there was no dismissal, as the worker himself had communicated his intention to leave.
A manager at the site said: “[The worker] was very argumentative during the conversation and would not let me talk. He was saying that [the crane operator] was on his iPad with loads on the hook, setting up screens so no one could see him doing so and that he was smarter than everyone else. [The worker] told me this had been happening for a week. I asked [the worker] why he did not report this when he first observed [the crane operator] watching his iPad. [The worker] had no response to this.”
The employer said the worker’s written and verbal communications clearly indicated a resignation, and they proceeded to book his flight from the work site.
The FWC considered whether the employer had taken reasonable steps to confirm that the worker genuinely intended to resign. The worker argued that his email was sent in frustration and that he later indicated he wanted to stay.
Text messages between the worker and a manager showed he had attempted to resolve the situation and expressed a desire to continue working. In one message, he wrote:
“What’s the verdict mate? I don’t want to leave. [Another worker] has even verified that he saw the iPad and even said himself that there were times it was taking too long for [the crane operator] to make crane movements.”
The employer, however, treated the initial resignation email as final and arranged for the worker’s departure.
The FWC found that the worker had been dismissed rather than having resigned voluntarily. The Commission determined that the resignation was given in the heat of the moment and that the employer did not take reasonable steps to confirm whether the worker truly intended to resign before processing it as final.
The decision stated: “Treating what was an ostensible resignation as terminating the employment, rather than clarifying or confirming with [the worker] after a reasonable time that [he] genuinely intended to resign, resulted in [the worker] having been dismissed.”
The FWC also noted that an employer has an obligation to ensure that a resignation is genuine, particularly when given under stressful circumstances. In this case, text messages suggested that the worker later sought to remain employed, but the employer did not follow up on this before treating his resignation as final.
“[The employer] was given ample opportunity to clarify whether [the worker] intended to resign. [The manager] received several text messages from [the worker] that indicated contrary intent—that [the worker] had not intended to resign and wanted to remain employed,” the decision added.
The FWC dismissed the employer’s jurisdictional objection, allowing the case to proceed further.
