FWC cites 'tensions' in employment relationship in making decision
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case involving an employee who claimed she was forced to resign from her position due to alleged discrimination and poor treatment by her employer after notifying them of her pregnancy.
The decision sheds light on the factors considered by the FWC when determining whether a resignation was forced and if the employee was "dismissed" within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009.
Katrina Sayce worked as a Managing Director and later as a National Operations Manager at MAG Apprenticeships.
She alleged that after informing her employer of her pregnancy, she experienced a deteriorating working relationship with her supervisor, Shaun Jones, which resulted in her taking personal leave and ultimately resigning on August 31, 2023.
Sayce claimed that her resignation was forced due to the employer's conduct, including reassigning her duties, excluding her from a staff meeting, and refusing to accommodate a flexible working arrangement.
MAG Apprenticeships argued that no dismissal occurred and that Sayce had voluntarily resigned. The FWC examined the evidence and considered four main areas of complaint raised by Sayce:
The FWC found that while MAG Apprenticeships had handled some decisions poorly, such as the assignment of Sayce's maternity leave replacement and the lack of consultation, these actions were not sufficient to conclude that her resignation was forced.
The FWC also determined that Jones' treatment of Sayce, while different after she announced her pregnancy, did not constitute poor treatment overall.
Regarding Sayce's exclusion from the staff meeting, the FWC accepted Jones' explanation that it was a consultants' meeting and Sayce worked in an administrative role.
The FWC also found that MAG Apprenticeships' refusal to allow Sayce to work from home one day a week was not unreasonable, given the company's established policies and the nature of its operations.
The FWC said that while there were tensions in the employment relationship before August 21, 2023, and Sayce had the right to feel aggrieved by some of MAG Apprenticeships' decisions, her resignation was not forced.
The FWC emphasized that Sayce had other options, such as taking leave until her scheduled maternity leave commenced or applying to bring the leave forward.
It said that the fact that Sayce had requested and been granted 11 weeks of paid "garden leave" leading up to her maternity leave further demonstrated that she had choices other than resignation.
Consequently, the FWC found that Sayce was not "dismissed" within the meaning of the FW Act and issued an order dismissing her general protections application involving dismissal.
