Workplace incident triggered breakdown but employer treated departure as misconduct
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case involving a worker who was dismissed after leaving work early during a mental health breakdown, raising important questions about how employers should handle employees experiencing psychological distress in the workplace.
The worker argued that her dismissal was unfair after she left work following allegations of workplace misconduct that she claimed were false. She maintained that she had properly notified her supervisor of her departure and that her actions were justified due to her deteriorating mental state and inability to work safely.
The employer defended the dismissal, arguing that the worker had abandoned her workstation without proper authorisation, left an unqualified trainee unsupervised, and failed to follow company procedures. The employer also pointed to a previous warning about workplace conduct and claimed the worker's actions constituted serious misconduct.
Mental health crisis triggers workplace departure
The worker had been employed at a sugar processing mill since May 2019, working as a panboiler. She had previously received a written warning in November 2023 for what the employer termed an Intolerable Breach relating to allegations of sleeping on the job, which included a notice that any further breach of discipline will almost certainly result in termination of employment.
In July 2024, the worker suffered a workplace injury when a finger was crushed at the mill. She was still experiencing daily pain by September 2024. On 10 September, the worker arrived at work to learn that colleagues had made fresh allegations about her sleeping during her previous shift.
The worker maintained these allegations were false, arguing that the complainants could not properly have formed the view that she had been sleeping on the job because from their vantage point they could not have seen anything but the back of her chair.
A senior colleague who witnessed the worker's reaction testified that when she was informed of the allegations, she could not stop crying and shaking and said she could not work because it affected her quite badly.
Workplace distress leads to supervisor intervention
The worker's distress was so evident that she telephoned her supervisor on his mobile phone around 7:15 pm. The operations coordinator later testified that the worker was in a distressed state and told him she could not deal with this place.
When the supervisor arrived at her workstation, he found her sobbing and describing how the bullying from the other operators was too much for her, and that she was exhausted from being on cover roster all season.
The supervisor and a colleague convinced the worker to take a 30-minute break in the break room instead of leaving immediately. The supervisor later documented: [The worker] said the bullying from other operators is too much and that she's exhausted from being on cover roster all season. She was planning on going home and submitting a resignation letter later.
However, after ten minutes in the break room, the worker decided she was still not fit for work. She left the premises and sent a text message to her supervisor from the car park stating I'm out for tonight. The FWC noted there was no evidence of anyone checking on her well-being until [the supervisor] saw her message at 8:15 pm.
Employee breakdown prompts hasty dismissal decision
Despite the supervisor's detailed reports about the worker's distressed state, management proceeded with dismissal proceedings without investigating or seeking the worker's account. A workplace relations business partner later acknowledged that at a meeting on 11 September 2024, the business had decided to terminate [the worker's] employment.
The FWC noted this was a frank admission, against [the employer's] interests in these proceedings given it demonstrates a failure to afford procedural fairness.
The worker provided a medical certificate on 11 September covering three days of sick leave for anxiety and depression, with a recommendation to seek assistance for anxiety/depression. She also informed the employer she would not be available on 14 September due to a doctor's appointment.
Despite being on certified sick leave, the employer insisted on a meeting at 7am on 14 September. When the worker explained she was unavailable for the morning meeting but would be in town at midday for her medical appointment, the workplace relations business partner responded:
Hi [worker], we still require you to attend a meeting tomorrow morning as per the above. The worker was dismissed when she failed to attend the 7am meeting.
Commission rejects employer's misconduct claims
The FWC examined whether the employer had valid reasons for dismissal. The Commission found significant flaws in the employer's case, stating: The termination letter was incorrect to say that [the worker] had not advised her supervisor she was leaving until after she was offsite. She had already advised him, at her workstation, that she planned to leave.
Regarding arguments about leaving an unqualified trainee alone, the FWC noted: This is also not a case where the worker concerned simply left without telling anyone, leaving a trainee alone to fend for themselves. The evidence shows that [the supervisor], [a senior colleague], and most likely given he was present, the trainee [were] aware that [the worker] would be away for at least half an hour but may go home.
The FWC found: The difficulty in relying on this as an incident of misconduct is that [the employer] is essentially arguing that taking unanticipated personal leave constitutes misconduct where the person taking the leave does so in circumstances where they are training someone else.
The Commission emphasised that the employer failed to properly consider the worker's mental state as a legitimate health concern rather than misconduct.
Unfair termination results in full reinstatement
The FWC concluded: I am satisfied that the dismissal of [the worker] was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable. There was no valid reason relating to capacity or conduct. The dismissal was procedurally unfair. The Commission found the worker properly managed her fitness-for-work concerns by notifying her supervisor and seeking medical attention.
The FWC stated: If an employee is sobbing and distressed to the point of saying they are considering resigning, and says they are planning to go home, then it should be obvious that they are proposing to take immediate personal leave. The worker was ordered to be reinstated to her former position with full continuity of service recognised.
The Commission ordered comprehensive remedies, including back pay reduced by any earnings from other employment and government benefits received since dismissal. The decision highlights the importance of employers properly assessing mental health situations and following fair procedures before making dismissal decisions, particularly when employees clearly communicate their inability to work due to psychological distress.
https://www.hcamag.com/au/specialisation/employment-law/panic-attacks-at-work-mental-health-meltdown-costs-worker-her-job-but-was-firing-fair/542032
