Department of Defence mentions 'serious error' in email
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case involving a worker who argued a dismissal after she felt forced to resign from work to protect her reputation.
In its defence, the employer contended that the worker voluntarily resigned on her own. Hence, no dismissal occurred.
Around January 2022, the worker commenced employment with the company as a senior manager working remotely to provide services to the Australian Government Department of Defence.
Throughout her employment, the worker performed her role working remotely from her home in Melbourne.
On 19 April 2023, the employer contacted the worker to discuss possible changes that the Department of Defence requested from the company in considering the renewal of its contract.
The employer argued that during the discussion, he advised the worker about the possibility of personnel working on-site at an office location in Canberra, Melbourne, or other locations other than a work-from-home setup.
“The [worker] told me she did not want to move to Canberra, and I said that we can explore alternatives,” the employer stated.
However, according to the worker, she expected that the discussion on that day would focus on her security clearance which had been under consideration for some time, instead of discussing her work location.
That same day, the employer was provided with an email from a director in the Department of Defence seeking the worker to cease providing services under the contract between the employer and the client. Although the details were highly general, the email was about a “serious error.”
The following day, the employer spoke with the worker about the email and discussed the possible steps including the Department investigating the alleged activities and the possible outcomes.
The employer also discussed that if a disciplinary action will commence, the company may be required to report the action to the Australian Government Security Vetting Agency since the worker held a security clearance with the Australian Government.
Shortly after the phone call, the worker sent an email to the employer tendering her resignation “with immediate effect.”
The worker argued that she was forced to tender her resignation to protect her reputation and security clearance status.
She also said the employer advised her to either “resign or ring team recruitment colleagues” when they were discussing the possible change in her work location.
Ultimately, the Commission found that the worker resigned from her employment and was not forced to do so because of any conduct engaged in by her employer.
The FWC noted that while it was likely for the employer to discuss with the worker that one response to the situation would be to resign, it could not be reasonably viewed as a direction to the worker.
“[The worker’s] written documents do not go as far as to claim that she was told she must resign; her application form says that she ‘felt forced to resign in order to protect her reputation’ and her written witness statement/response document says only that [the employer] gave verbal advice to resign ‘in order to maintain a reputable security clearance,’” the Court stated.
