What Does Forced Resignation Mean?

In Blair v Kim Bainbridge Legal Service Pty Ltd, Ms. Blair resigned. According to her, her employer was forcing her to accept a lower pay rate or leave her job. However, an investigation revealed that Ms. Blair had misunderstood the situation.

Her employer hadn’t made a final decision about Ms. Blair’s job conditions and was still discussing them with her. They concluded that the employer didn’t force Ms. Blair’s resignation. No definitive demands or threats of termination existed. Instead, her resignation stemmed from a misunderstanding about the ongoing discussions regarding her employment conditions.

This case shows how important it is for employers and employees to communicate clearly during job changes. Confusion about work conditions can lead to early job resignations, even if the employer disagrees with the employee’s perspective. It underscores the significance of clarifying and finalising terms before assuming the necessity of resignation.

In Davidson v Commonwealth, Mr. Ross Davidson, a DCCEE employee, claimed constructive dismissal after filing an unfair dismissal application. The employer objected to Fair Work Australia’s jurisdiction. They argued that Mr. Davidson voluntarily resigned rather than the employer terminating him.

Mr. Davidson quit because people thought he shared secret info and lied when getting security clearance. The DCCEE conducted an inquiry and suggested suspending Mr. Davidson until the investigation was complete.

However, Mr. Davidson was absent from work because of illness and was unable to access his work-related materials. He received a message stating his suspension, which led him to believe he was fired. Mr. Davidson refused to go back to work even though his employer wanted him to, saying he had already quit.

The ruling said the employer did nothing wrong and could investigate and suspend Mr. Davidson. The employer did not attempt to terminate his employment. The court said the employer gave Mr. Davidson enough chances to answer and go back to work. They decided that he quit because he didn’t understand the situation, not because the work environment was bad.

The employer didn’t fire Mr. Davidson, so they dropped the case. Additionally, he didn’t receive any help under section 394 of the Act.

In Pacific National (NSW) Limited v Bell, Mr. Bell quit before the company finished investigating his alleged timesheet falsification. Mr. Bell made this decision based on his own assessment of the situation and advice from his union representative.

Fair Work Australia found that Mr. Bell chose to resign, not because the employer made him. They emphasised that the employer’s actions did not coerce Mr. Bell into resigning. Instead, he based it on his own evaluation and the advice he received.

This case shows that resignations for fear of disciplinary interviews may not be considered forced resignations or constructive dismissals.

In Lyne v Commissioner of Police, Fiona Lyne, an officer in the NSW Police Force, quit her job. She decided to leave because her manager, Jacqueline Goulding, created an unfriendly work environment. Fiona highlighted instances of alleged bullying, harassment, and unfair treatment by her manager, ultimately leading to her resignation.

She detailed several incidents over a period. The incidents included continuous harassment for being absent because of illness. Moreover, unfair targeting occurred for using sick leave because of severe health problems.

A sudden removal from training occurred because of health issues causing lateness. Lastly, they put her on a Performance Improvement Plan without valid reasons.

Further, Fiona reported verbal abuse from a colleague. She felt unfairly targeted in an investigation by the Professional Standards Command, causing her considerable stress and anxiety. She also expressed dissatisfaction with how her manager and higher management handled incidents.

Fiona’s resignation letter outlined her distressing experience, emphasizing the hostile work environment as the primary reason for her resignation. The ruling found the incidents concerning, but they didn’t prove the employer caused the contract to end.

Fiona had to undergo a medical assessment because of her sick leave record, which everyone considered fair. She decided to quit her job instead of going to the assessment. She tried to take back her resignation two days later, showing she wanted to keep working.

The commission dismissed Fiona’s claim of unfair dismissal and did not uphold her constructive dismissal claim.

In Noble v Smiling Samoyed Pty Ltd, the employee quit because a colleague was bullying them. This bullying created an unsafe workplace environment. The worker lost trust in her boss and quit because he didn’t ensure her safety and health at work. However, the employer said that it had taken reasonable steps to address the conduct.

The Commission found that the employer did not engage in conduct intended to terminate the employment. The employer valued the employee and attempted to accommodate her health issues. Moreover, the employer clearly said they didn’t want the employee to quit in the morning when she resigned.

The Commission said that the employee had other options besides resigning. Someone suggested that the employee could have:

1. opted for conflict resolution processes,
2. attempted a temporary separation process recommended by the employer, or
3. taken leave during the conflict resolution process.

The psychologist’s report didn’t understand the workplace dynamics, so it couldn’t prove the employer made the person quit.

The Commission understood why the employee resigned, but couldn’t prove that the employer’s actions caused her to quit. The employee had alternative avenues available to address the issue. Therefore, the Commission rejected her claim of constructive dismissal.