Employer denies any fraudulent activity within the company
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case involving a worker who argued an unfair dismissal after he was allegedly forced to resign from a professional services entity.
In its defence, the employer argued that the worker voluntarily resigned from his employment by giving a notice of resignation to the company.
Alleged ‘Ponzi scheme’
From March to November 2022, the worker had the senior role of director of audit and assurance; then, the worker’s title was changed to divisional director.
On 31 October 2022, the worker gave four weeks’ notice of his resignation via email to the employer which read, “Hi both, Please accept this as my formal letter of resignation. Thank you for the opportunity. I believe my notice period is four weeks making my last day 26/11/22; I apologise if this is incorrect, and I will adjust accordingly.”
According to the employer, the worker cited several matters which he argued forced him to resign including:
The worker argued that to cover the wrongdoing of one of the employees, the company hired a compromise replacement of the worker to push him out of the company so that they could continue benefitting from the fraud scheme.
He further claimed that the company asked him to perform audits for two group entities which he referred to as unethical audits, because his concern was that he already discovered a Ponzi scheme in the group he was about to audit.
Moreover, he claimed that the actions and inactions of one of the company’s staff were indicative that he was no longer welcome in the company, as continuing his role would only pose a serious risk to his health and career. Hence, the worker said he was forced to resign.
Employer cites alternatives available to worker
Meanwhile, the employer argued that each of the worker’s allegations was vaguely articulated and lacked any detail and evidence.
As the divisional director and head of the corporate audit team, it was mandatory for the worker to recognize any concerns and raise them promptly according to the applicable policies and procedures, the employer noted.
It further argued that if the worker had genuine concerns regarding his employment with the company, there were clear avenues available for him to raise those concerns so that the company could address such appropriately.
“Ultimately, the [employer] submitted that the [worker] chose not to utilise those avenues,” the Commission stated.
“Instead, he raised many of his concerns with the [employer] for the first time on the morning of 31 October 2022, and then resigned later that afternoon,” it added.
Commission’s decision
After examining the case, the Commission found that the worker’s resignation was voluntary and had not been made through the employer’s initiative.
As no dismissal occurred, the Commission was without jurisdiction to determine an unfair dismissal application, consequently dismissing the worker’s application.
The FWC also noted that the serious allegations of the worker against the company were never particularized in any details and had no proper basis to support his claim including those allegations of fraud.
At the time of his resignation, the worker had multiple options he could have pursued as an alternative to resigning from his employment if those concerns were indeed real and serious, the Commission noted.
Ultimately, the FWC stated that while there was no clear reason why the worker made such allegations without a proper foundation, the worker’s mental health conditions may provide some explanation for why he held views that, at that time, appeared to be detached from the reality of the situation.
