FWC examines whether employer terminated worker experiencing psychological distress
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case involving a worker who claimed she was dismissed after experiencing mental health difficulties during her first week at a new workplace. The worker argued her termination breached anti-discrimination provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.
The worker maintained she was demoted and told to perform cleaning duties after suffering what she described as mental health breakdowns.
She claimed the employer's response to her psychological distress amounted to dismissal based on her temporary illness and disability. The employer, however, argued the worker and her husband had abandoned their employment by choosing to leave the workplace without notice.
The decision examined whether the worker was actually dismissed or had abandoned her employment, revealing important considerations around workplace mental health support.
Mental health dismissal case
The worker and her husband had been employed as park managers since July 2020, working at various caravan park locations under a single employment contract.
The couple worked 20 days on and 8 days off, with the husband receiving $60,000 per annum plus accommodation and bonuses. They initially worked at one caravan park until July 2024, when the lease expired and the employer ceased managing that location.
After nine weeks of annual leave, the workers started at a new tourist village in Queensland on 30 September 2024, reporting to an operations manager and general manager.
The existing 2020 employment contract continued to apply, though it was not updated to reflect the new work location. The transition proved challenging from the outset, with significant operational issues apparent on the first day.
The workers noticed that the accounts for emails, [payment] machines and booking agency accounts had not been set up by the employer.
They also found the former owner's operational methods complex and unfamiliar, creating additional stress as they attempted to learn new systems without proper infrastructure in place.
Mental health crisis during workplace transition
On 1 October 2024, the worker became increasingly distressed about the lack of structure and setup issues. That evening, she was very upset and cried for hours.
Her husband testified that he had never seen [the worker] like this during their 14-year relationship and that she had never experienced any psychological illness previously.
The following morning, the worker's husband approached the operations manager to discuss his wife's condition. He explained:
The office is not being set up, [payment machines], booking agency accounts, email account, the complex way [the former owner] runs the office. [The worker] kept saying, 'I hate it, I hate it, why does it have to be so complex, how can I learn stuff when nothing is set up right'.
The operations manager asked whether the worker should be given the day off, but the husband declined, believing he could provide reassurance.
The situation deteriorated further on 3 October 2024 when the worker became overwhelmed while preparing accommodation. When the operations manager encountered her collecting linen, she commented:
Gee you're red in the face, you need to go and have a couple of wines. That night, the worker experienced another severe episode, remaining extremely teary and anxious for hours and barely slept that night.
Mental health breakdown escalates workplace tensions
On 4 October 2024, when the worker's husband informed the operations manager that his wife had another breakdown overnight, the operations manager asked What are you going to do? followed by Well, I will have to find new managers.
According to the worker's evidence, the operations manager later said: Well, you are no longer a manager, you can go out and be a cleaner and [husband] can run the office with [the former owner].
However, the operations manager disputed this version, arguing she had suggested a role restructure rather than a demotion.
She explained that when couples work as park managers, usually one person works in the office and one person works outside and manages the cleaners. The operations manager denied demoting the worker, claiming she was proposing a temporary solution.
The general manager became involved after the operations manager called him saying they're out. During a crucial phone conversation, the general manager told the worker's husband:
I have managed to secure some managers so I need you and [the worker] to finish up at the close of business today and leave the park as soon as possible, I will need the residence for the new managers. The husband arranged flights for the following morning in response to this directive.
Is it job abandonment?
The employer argued the workers had abandoned their employment, claiming the husband had indicated he needed to take his wife away from the workplace.
However, the FWC found this argument unconvincing, noting that the operations manager herself testified: No. I never thought they were leaving. I knew when we got back on Tuesday we would sort it out.
The general manager's failure to return phone calls after the workers' departure suggested he was aware they would leave because he had directed them to do so.
The workers' belief that their employment continued was evidenced by their subsequent attempts to contact management and provide medical certificates.
The FWC examined whether the worker was dismissed under section 386 of the Fair Work Act, which says someone is dismissed when their employment ends because the employer decided to end it.
The Commission focused on whether the employer's actions were the main reason for the employment ending.
FWC's decision on mental health concerns
The FWC concluded: Having regard to all of the evidence, I find that [the general manager's] actions on 4 October 2024 in telling [the husband] that he and [the worker] needed to leave [the park] as soon as possible was the principal contributing factor which resulted, directly or consequentially, in the termination of [the worker's] employment.
The Commission ultimately determined: Taking into account the parties' submissions and the evidence before me, I find that [the worker] did not abandon her employment and that [the worker's] employment was terminated on the initiative of [the employer] on 4 October 2024.
This finding cleared the way for the main dispute about whether the dismissal breached discrimination laws to proceed to mediation under section 368 of the Fair Work Act.
The case demonstrates the importance of clear communication and proper procedures when managing employees experiencing mental health difficulties, particularly during challenging workplace transitions.
https://www.hcamag.com/au/specialisation/employment-law/mental-health-breakdown-at-new-job-worker-claims-dismissal-and-discrimination/537998
