Resources: Blogs

Full force denied


Commission rejects constructive dismissal claim after finding performance review process did not force employee to resign

For an employee to access the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, they must be “dismissed” from their employment by the employer. In some instances, a resignation can be a “dismissal”, when an employee is forced to resign due to the employer’s conduct. This is referred to as a “constructive dismissal”.

For an employee to access the unfair dismissal jurisdiction, they must be “dismissed” from their employment by the employer. In some instances, a resignation can be a “dismissal”, when an employee is forced to resign due to the employer’s conduct. This is referred to as a “constructive dismissal”.  

In the recent decision of Burgess v Optus Administration Pty Ltd T/A Optus [2021] FWC 4459, the Fair Work Commission (FWC) was tasked with considering whether an employee was constructively dismissed following a performance review process which he claimed left him no choice but resign.  

The employee was employed as a Strategy and Reporting Analyst for Optus Administration Pty Ltd (the Employer).

In June 2020, the Manager commenced a formal performance improvement plan (PIP) with the employee in relation to his poor performance. The outcome of this PIP resulted in the Employer issuing the employee a formal warning on the basis that he had not met the Employer’s expectations in relation to tasks outlined in the PIP.

The warning stated that failure to complete future PIP requirements would result in further disciplinary action and potentially the termination of the employee’s employment.

In July 2020, a second PIP was initiated and resulted in the Employer issuing the employee a second and final warning for again not completing the tasks outlined in the PIP to a satisfactory standard.

In October 2020, the Manager informed the employee that she would be conducting a third PIP. It was following the introduction of this PIP that the employee raised a bullying complaint against the Manager claiming that the PIPs were not developed for the purpose of improving his performance, but rather to set him up to fail.

The Employer investigated the bullying complaint and found that the employee was subject to reasonable management action. During the investigation process, the employee reported to an Acting Manager.

In November 2020, the Acting Manager invited the employee into a performance discussion as he had again not met the requirements set out for him under the third PIP. The employee was told that the purpose of the meeting was to formally discuss further disciplinary action and that his employment was at risk of termination.

The meeting did not occur as the employee called in sick and took extended sick leave. During this time, the employee sought a review of his bullying complaint.

Over two months later, in February 2021, the employee tendered his resignation by email stating that he was unable to accept the workplace bullying conditions and it was easier to remove himself from the workplace to minimise further harm to his health.

The Acting Manager invited the employee to withdraw his resignation and informed him that his bullying complaint was still under review. The employee responded to the email stating he had no intention of withdrawing his resignation. On this basis, the Employer processed the resignation with immediate effect and with the notice period paid in lieu.

The employee subsequently made an unfair dismissal application claiming that he was constructively dismissed. The employee submitted that he was forced to resign because the outcome of his workplace bullying complaint and the performance improvement process had an adverse effect on his health.  

The Employer opposed the application, submitting that the FWC had no jurisdiction to hear the unfair dismissal application as the employee was not dismissed from his employment and therefore was not protected from unfair dismissal.

The FWC was required to determine whether the employee was dismissed or not.  

The FWC held that the PIPs implemented by the Employer were clearly set out to assist his performance and denied the employee’s submission that the Employer had any ulterior motive.

In coming to this position, the FWC considered the PIPs to have clearly identified performance outcomes, actions to be taken by the employee, the support available to achieve tasks and the measure of results contained in the PIP.

Accordingly, the FWC held that the actions taken by the Employer were reasonable performance management, were not bullying and that this was not a scenario in which the employee had no other choice but to resign.

The FWC therefore concluded that the employee had failed to establish that he was constructively dismissed and consequently he was not protected from unfair dismissal. Therefore, the application was dismissed.

Lessons for employers

Where an employee has claimed that they have been constructively dismissed, they will need to demonstrate that the employer’s conduct or course of conduct left them no other option but to resign.

As seen in this decision, the FWC objectively assessed the circumstances of the employee’s resignation and the action of the employer. In doing so, it found that the situation was not one that left the employee no other choice but to resign.

Information provided in this blog is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. Workplace Law does not accept liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the content of this blog, or from links on this website to any external website. Where applicable, liability is limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

Similar articles

Failure to warn employee renders dismissal unfair

Template lesson

Many businesses, and in particular small businesses employers subscribe to human resources information systems which offer access to template letters and policies to provide a ready-made solution or to manage human resources administration.


Employer’s withdrawal of role constituted dismissal from employment

Late withdrawal

For most employers, casual employment is favoured because of the flexibility it provides – employees are employed as required and have no guarantee of ongoing employment. This flexibility however does not mean that casual employees are not protected from adverse action.


Employee unfairly dismissed for requesting family and domestic violence leave

Boiling point

All employees (including part-time and casual employees) will soon have the entitlement to 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave per year under the National Employment Standards, replacing the existing entitlement to five days of unpaid family and domestic violence leave.


First Intractable bargaining order made by the Full Bench

How did it end?

Enterprise agreement making under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) requires bargaining representatives to bargain in good faith. Under the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 (Cth), the Fair Work Commission was provided with new powers to arbitrate and issue a workplace determination to resolve intractable disputes about terms and conditions of proposed enterprise agreement in circumstances where there are no reasonable prospects of the parties reaching an agreement.


Federal Court finds employee was not demoted due to his exercise of workplace rights

The final decision

Employees are protected from adverse action because they have exercised, or propose to exercise, the workplace right to make a “complaint” or “inquiry” in relation to their employment within the meaning of section 341(1)(c)(ii) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).


Employer successfully rebuts presumption in adverse action claim

Return to sender

An employer has successfully defended an adverse action claim brought by a former employee as the court was satisfied that the employee was not dismissed for a prohibited reason.


Let's talk

please contact our directors to discuss how ouR expertise can help your business.

We're here to help

Contact Us
Let Workplace Law become your partner in workplace law and sports law.

Sign up to receive the latest industry updates with commentary from the Workplace Law team direct to your inbox.