Worker quits during 'mental confusion' and distress, FWC examines validity
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case involving a worker who sent a resignation email in the early hours of the morning and later attempted to retract it when he claimed he had been suffering from paranoid delusions.
The worker argued that his resignation should not have been accepted because he was experiencing a mental health crisis at the time. He contended that his employer was aware of his condition and should have questioned whether he truly intended to resign rather than promptly processing his termination.
Several colleagues and a union representative attempted to intervene on the worker's behalf, telling management that the worker was not in a proper mental state to make such a decision. Despite these efforts, the employer maintained that the resignation had been properly accepted and refused to allow the worker to withdraw it.
The worker was employed as a stevedore at Sydney International Container Terminals Pty Ltd (trading as Hutchison Ports) for nearly eight years. After returning from a 10-week absence, he was told that due to a downturn in work, all stevedores would have their hours reduced, which he interpreted as a reduction in income.
This news allegedly triggered a mental health episode. The worker testified that he suffered from stress, anxiety and paranoia that sometimes put him in a "manic" state. At 4:31am, he sent a brief email to Human Resources: "To whom may concern. I, [worker] resignation as of today."
The employer accepted this resignation by 11:02am. When the worker woke up, he claimed to have no recollection of sending the email and asked the employer to "disregard my previous email. I wasn't thinking straight due to stress."
A doctor's letter later stated the worker "suffers from stress anxiety and depression" and "made the wrong decision to resign because of the above medical condition." However, this document was dated after the resignation had been accepted and processed.
The FWC focused on what the employer knew when it accepted the resignation, not what it learned later that day through colleagues.
The Commission cited previous cases establishing that "where an employee uses unambiguous words of resignation, the employer is entitled to treat this as an effective resignation which operates to terminate the employment. However, an expression of resignation which cannot reasonably be regarded as voluntary may not operate as an effective resignation capable of acceptance by the employer."
The operations manager testified he only knew the worker took medication for depression. Medical certificates for previous absences used non-specific terms like "medical condition" or "unfit." The employer maintained it had no reason to question the resignation's validity when received.
Later that day, co-workers told the operations manager that the worker was experiencing a mental health crisis. The union representative, who was the Divisional Branch Secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia, "expressed the view that [the worker] could not voluntarily have resigned because he was not lucid enough to make such a decision."
The manager responded that the resignation had already been processed, noting the worker "had not been a reliable employee over the years" and that with current economic conditions, "he would not agree to reinstating him."
The FWC determined that these conversations happened hours after the resignation had been accepted: "Whatever information was provided to [the manager], and whatever the extent to which he accepted it, can have had no bearing on the company's action in accepting the resignation."
This timing distinction proved crucial to the outcome, separating the acceptance of resignation from the later refusal to allow its withdrawal.
The decision reinforced that Australia has no statutory "cooling off" period for resignations. The FWC stated: "The mere fact that a person resigns in circumstances of heightened tensions or strong emotions will not turn a rash or imprudent decision made by an employee into a dismissal at the initiative of the employer."
The worker argued that his resignation coming "out of the blue" should have prompted further inquiries. However, the operations manager testified that in their industry, resignation emails frequently "come out of the blue" and it was "not uncommon for that resignation to be accepted and processed on the day."
While satisfied the worker was in a state of "mental confusion" when he resigned, the FWC found the employer wasn't aware of this: "At the time [the employer] accepted his resignation, there were no circumstances of which it was, or ought to have been, aware that would have caused a reasonable person in its position to question whether the email conveyed a real intention to resign."
Regarding the manager's refusal to allow retraction, the FWC observed: "[The manager's] decision was a tough call, if not a harsh one... But the fairness or otherwise of [the manager's] decision is not the subject of these proceedings. By the time he made that decision, the employment had come to an end."
In dismissing the application, the Commission concluded: "I have a lot of sympathy for [the worker] and the position in which he finds himself. But... I consider that I must find that [the worker's] employment with [the employer] came to an end as a result of his resignation. The termination of the employment was not on the initiative of [the employer]. [The worker] was not dismissed."
The case highlights the importance of timing in resignation disputes. The FWC emphasised that while employers may choose to allow retraction of resignations, they are generally entitled to accept clear, unambiguous resignations unless there are obvious reasons to question the employee's intention or capacity at the time.
