FWC looks into mental health claims during departure negotiations
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an unfair dismissal application from a health coordinator who claimed she was forced to resign following workplace pressure from management.
The case arose when the worker provided an indefinite resignation timeline but was subsequently pressed by the employer to nominate a specific departure date, leading to disputes over whether the employment ended through voluntary resignation or constructive dismissal.
The worker argued she was forced to resign after experiencing intimidating behaviour from the chief executive officer (CEO) and being pressured to provide a firm resignation date while on mental health leave.
She maintained that her initial communication was merely an intention to resign at some future point, not an actual resignation, and that subsequent employer conduct left her with no choice but to accept an earlier departure date.
Indefinite resignation timeline creates operational uncertainty
The employment relationship involved a health coordinator working on country planning projects for a native title corporation, where the worker had been employed since late 2022, with qualifications and permits essential for field expedition activities.
In mid-January 2025, the worker advised the CEO of her planned resignation, though the parties disputed whether this constituted an actual resignation or merely an expression of future intent.
The worker claimed she indicated a potential June departure timeline while needing to sell her house and complete important field expeditions scheduled for March and May.
She maintained that this communication was a courtesy notification of future plans rather than a formal resignation, arguing that her subsequent messages to colleagues used simplified language rather than precise legal terminology.
Management interpreted the January discussion as definite resignation with uncertain timing, understanding the worker would relocate to Tasmania within four to eight weeks based on her house sale and husband's planned move.
The organisation began making arrangements for operations after her departure, including discussions with universities about supporting research projects requiring her specific permits.
Email exchanges escalate tensions over departure date
Following disagreements about research student supervision arrangements, tensions increased when the CEO called a meeting on 10 February 2025 to discuss concerns and establish a resignation date.
The worker claimed this meeting became hostile with demands for specific examples of aggressive behaviour, leading her to walk out and take personal leave for mental health reasons.
The CEO sent an apologetic email acknowledging the meeting had not ended well and inviting further discussion about behavioural concerns, while requesting nomination of a preferred final employment date to assist operational planning.
The worker claimed shock at receiving work-related correspondence during personal leave, though management was initially unaware of the leave's mental health basis.
Subsequent email exchanges on 12 February 2025 involved the CEO proposing two resignation date options: immediate cessation or departure on 28 March 2025 with four weeks' pay in lieu of notice.
When management learned of the worker's mental health leave, a third option was offered, providing six weeks' paid leave without work attendance, which the worker ultimately accepted.
Mental health claims lack supporting evidence
Throughout the proceedings, the worker emphasised her mental health struggles and claimed she was emotionally vulnerable when pressed to accept resignation terms, arguing this constituted unfair pressure during a period of psychological distress.
She maintained that her coherent email responses were attempts to appear professional and de-escalate tensions rather than evidence of rational decision-making capacity.
The Commission noted the complete absence of medical evidence supporting mental health claims despite their centrality to the worker's case.
The FWC emphasised that while applicants have no obligation to provide medical evidence, those relying on mental health issues to compound alleged employer wrongdoing bear the burden of establishing medically diagnosed conditions.
The decision distinguished this case from precedents involving employees with documented severe mental health issues, noting that management had no medical evidence of incapacity when corresponding with the worker.
The Commission found the worker's email responses were coherent, well-written, and included proposals for future consultancy work, contradicting claims of emotional distress and inability to make rational decisions.
Employer communications deemed reasonable and professional
The Commission examined each email exchange to assess whether management conduct was objectively aggressive or intimidating, finding that communications were business-like, polite, and offered opportunities for discussion and alternative proposals.
The FWC rejected claims that correspondence demanding immediate responses constituted undue pressure, noting invitations for feedback and flexibility in communication methods.
Management's efforts to establish resignation timing were deemed reasonable for operational planning, particularly given the worker's unique qualifications and permits required for scheduled expeditions.
The Commission found nothing inappropriate in seeking certainty about departure dates following indefinite resignation notifications, especially for medium-sized organisations needing advance planning.
The FWC noted that even the firmest correspondence included invitations for the worker to propose alternative options and provided multiple communication channels for responses.
The decision emphasised that while not perfect in all respects, the employer's communications would give reasonable persons the impression of openness to discussion rather than coercive pressure to accept predetermined outcomes.
Jurisdictional objection upheld despite procedural compliance
The Commission distinguished this case from established precedents involving constructive dismissal, noting key differences including the absence of specific resignation dates in initial communications and lack of employer intent to terminate employment relationships.
The FWC found management was seeking date clarification for existing resignations rather than procuring new resignations through coercive conduct.
The decision emphasised that employers receiving indefinite resignation timelines are entitled to seek clarity about departure dates for legitimate business planning purposes.
The Commission rejected arguments that such inquiries constitute forced resignation, particularly where communications remain professional and offer genuine opportunities for discussion and alternative arrangements.
The jurisdictional objection was upheld because the Commission found no dismissal occurred within legislative definitions.
The FWC concluded that the worker's employment ended through voluntary resignation rather than employer-initiated termination, despite her claims of being forced into accepting specific departure terms during a period of alleged mental health difficulties.
https://www.hcamag.com/au/specialisation/employment-law/commission-examines-whether-indefinite-resignation-notice-constitutes-actual-departure/548521
