FWC decides whether it was an unfair dismissal or resignation
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case involving a worker who claimed he was forced to resign from employment as his employer did not support him after an injury.
In its defense, the employer contended that the worker voluntarily resigned without pressure or force from the company. It further argued that the company was supportive throughout his recovery.
‘Failure’ to support the worker
The employer operates electrical and maintenance services in the automatic door industry, and in January 2022, the worker started his employment as a technician for the company.
Months into his employment, the worker “sustained a calf injury while carrying out maintenance work in connection with his employment,” the Commission noted.
Consequently, the worker consulted a physiotherapist who advised him to rest for three days, to which the worker agreed.
The employer allowed the worker to work intermittently for months, given his sustained injury. However, in December 2022, when the worker was still working sporadically, he informed the employer that he was also suffering from anxiety.
As a result, the worker requested the employer make the necessary adjustments, such as limiting the number of phone calls the employer made to the worker and providing the worker with greater notice ahead of expected shift start times.
However, days later, the worker sent a letter of resignation to his employer: “I’ve thought some more over the last week, and although I do appreciate the effort being put forth, I am unfortunately not comfortable continuing forward in my role and am going to take some time to focus on my recovery and my mental health,” the letter read.
The worker sent another email to his employer stating that the latter’s attitude had become “bitter and hostile” and that the employer “pushed [the worker] out of the company.”
It was simply a resignation, employer says
Following the worker’s allegations, the employer maintained that it did not dismiss its employee, he simply resigned, through his own will, to focus on his mental health and recovery.
According to the employer, it also attempted to support the worker’s recovery, including giving the worker greater notice prior to his shift, as the worker requested in the first place. It denied that the worker was harassed or bullied.
Moreover, the employer argued that it did not engage in any conduct that could have led the worker to believe that the employment relationship had been terminated.
FWC’s decision
In its decision, the Commission said it was satisfied that the worker was not forced to resign for any course of conduct engaged in by the employer.
The FWC noted that it was clear from the worker’s letter of resignation that it was the latter’s informed and conscious decision to resign to prioritize his mental health and recovery.
“There is no evidence to support a finding that the [worker] resigned ‘in the heat of the moment,’” the Commission stated.
Lastly, the Commission did not accept the employer’s alleged failure to support the worker nor found any conduct that could objectively lead the worker to believe the employment relationship ended.
