The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently reviewed a case involving an employee who alleged she was compelled to resign from her position at a health insurance company. This case sheds light on crucial aspects of employment law, particularly the distinctions between voluntary resignation and constructive dismissal, the importance of proper disciplinary procedures, and the handling of mental health issues in the workplace.
Case Overview
By September 2023, a customer service advisor hired in April 2023 to handle health insurance calls had attendance problems and didn't follow the rules for reporting absences. Despite meetings and a "zero tolerance for being late" policy set on October 10, the issues continued. A formal meeting on November 28 addressed these problems, and a warning letter was issued on December 4, stating that further issues could lead to termination. However, the employee was late on December 5, took too long of a break on December 6, and didn't show up or contact the company on December 7, leading to a critical meeting on December 8.
The Dispute
The worker claimed that her team leader gave her an ultimatum to resign immediately or face termination, which she saw as coercion. The team leader denied this, saying the worker was given the option to wait for the disciplinary process's outcome. The worker argued she resigned under duress, citing a hostile environment and inadequate consideration of her mental health issues. Key issues included whether the resignation was forced or voluntary, alleged coercion, the presence of another job offer, adherence to disciplinary procedures, and the handling of mental health concerns. The worker contended that the resignation was coerced due to duress and undue influence, with a hostile environment leaving her with no real choice but to resign, and that her mental health struggles were not properly communicated to HR. The employer, on the other hand, argued that the resignation was voluntary, proper procedures were followed, there was no intent to force resignation, and no diagnosable mental health condition required accommodation.
FWC's Decision
The Commission concluded that the worker had resigned voluntarily and was not dismissed within the meaning of the Fair Work Act. The team leader's evidence was deemed more credible, indicating no coercion was involved in the resignation process.
Key Take Aways For Employers
1️⃣ Make sure all disciplinary actions are well-documented and communicated clearly to the employee.
2️⃣ Maintain detailed records of all meetings and communications with employees.
3️⃣ Take mental health concerns seriously and ensure they are appropriately documented and addressed.
4️⃣ When discussing disciplinary outcomes, present all options without creating a coercive environment.
5️⃣ Have a witness with you in disciplinary meetings.
Prepare your business for these changes. Review your policies, educate your team, and update your practices to align with the Closing Loopholes Bill. For personalised guidance on navigating these reforms, feel free to reach out.
Stay tuned for more HR tips and subscribe
DISCLAIMER:
The content provided on this website serves as a general information resource on the subjects discussed, and should not be considered tailored to specific individual circumstances or a replacement for legal counsel. While we exert significant effort to ensure the accuracy of our information, HR Consulting TAS cannot ensure that all content on this website is consistently accurate, exhaustive, or current. Recommendations by HR Consulting TAS and any information acquired from this website should not be regarded as legal advice.
コメント