When Work “Check-Ins” Almost Cross the Line: Forced Resignation Claim Fails
A probationary employee resigned just four months into a Training Manager role, claiming that her concerns about onboarding and training had been invalidated, and that she was subject to intense scrutiny during meetings that left her visibly distraught. She claimed the conduct caused psychological injury and forced her resignation, and also raised that earlier conversations had occurred without warning or the option of a support person.
The employer characterised the interactions as informal check-ins and argued there was no conduct capable of forcing a resignation. It also relied on the fact that the employee had not escalated concerns to HR before resigning. The Fair Work Commission dismissed the claim, finding the employee felt unsupported but was not left with any real choice but to resign – resigning was her considered decision.
Neurodiversity Week: Neuro-Inclusion in Australian Workplaces
During Neurodiversity Week (16-22 March), Australian employers were urged to move beyond awareness campaigns and implement processes and systems so neurodivergent staff can participate and progress on equal terms. Only about 11% of Australian organisations set disability or neurodiversity targets. Most workplaces remain reactive, adjusting only when individuals request accommodations rather than designing inclusive systems from the start.
The Diversity Council Australia notes that HR leaders can make a difference by redesigning recruitment, performance management, and daily processes to reduce cognitive load and embed universal design principles. Training managers in strengths-based conversations, normalising adjustments, and embedding lived experience ensures practical inclusion.
Reports Show That Neurodiversity Drives Performance in the Workplace
Nearly one in five adults is neurodivergent, yet many workplaces still treat neuro-inclusion as an accommodation rather than a business advantage. Research from a Polish university shows that companies embracing cognitive differences generate 28% higher revenue and stronger shareholder returns.
A 2024 neurodiversity at work survey found that 77% of neurodivergent employees feel pressure to “mask” at work, and those who conceal their needs are more than twice as likely to be disengaged or consider leaving. Companies that proactively implement neuro-inclusive systems see measurable benefits: higher engagement, stronger teams, and lower turnover. The evidence makes clear that supporting cognitive differences is not just a matter of ethics.
Racism Still Widespread in Australian Workplaces
An updated study by the University of Technology Sydney of over 1,100 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workers shows racism remains entrenched, with cultural safety still lacking in many workplaces. While 79% of employees now feel safe to share their identity (up from 72% in 2020), 53% still report inappropriate race-based comments or assumptions. Other key findings include:
- 38% experience unfair treatment
- 64% report a high cultural load
- 25% work in culturally unsafe environments
- 35% work in only moderately safe workplaces
Many employers focus on symbolic initiatives – 68% recognise Indigenous dates of significance, but 63% offer no anti-discrimination training, and 69% have no racism complaint procedure. The report warns that at current rates, it could take 118 years to eliminate racial slurs and jokes at work.
NSW Invests $127.7 Million to Crack Down on Workplace Bullying with New Psychosocial Inspectors
NSW is stepping up enforcement of workplace mental health, with employers soon facing fines for bullying, harassment, excessive workloads, or exposure to traumatic events. The government will invest $127.7 million over four years in SafeWork NSW, adding 51 inspectors, including 20 specialised psychosocial officers. A new Psychosocial Advisory Service will provide tailored support to workers and employers, helping manage mental health risks and meet return-to-work obligations.
The reforms signal a clear message: psychological harm at work is now a serious, enforceable safety issue – not just an HR concern.
Stress Rejected as an Excuse for an Employee’s Late Unfair Dismissal Claim
A worker dismissed three weeks before Christmas lost his unfair dismissal claim for missing the filing deadline after the Fair Work Commission rejected attempts to excuse the late filing due to stress or inability to see a GP. The employee alleged ongoing bullying, unsubstantiated allegations, and a lack of support during the dismissal, while the employer pointed to prior written warnings.
The Commissioner highlighted that any workplace bullying claims must be taken seriously, properly investigated, and addressed if substantiated. However, the Commission noted that emotional distress following termination is “not unusual or exceptional.”
An Employee’s Inconsistent Medical Evidence Nearly Helps Unfair Dismissal Claim
A long-serving employee with a history of deep vein thrombosis and a genetic clotting disorder had been absent for 114 days in the year before she was dismissed. Her job required standing for long periods on a moving vessel, raising clear safety concerns. An independent medical exam found she could not safely do the job, but also noted she might return to modified duties within a month and possibly resume full duties after surgery. Her own specialist also gave mixed messages, clearing her for work but warning her capacity was “highly variable.”
The employer did not follow up on these inconsistencies and dismissed her the day after she provided the medical reports. Despite this, the Fair Work Commission found there was a valid reason for dismissal based on her incapacity at the time, and the dismissal was upheld.
$55 Million Claim Dismissed – Documentation Seals Employer Victory
A regional manager’s 2016 termination sparked a $55 million adverse action claim for discrimination and workplace complaints, initially successful at trial with $5.2 million in compensation awarded. The employee claimed he was discriminated against because of his disability – severe stress, anxiety, and depression. On retrial, the Federal Court found the employer had clear, contemporaneous reasons for the dismissal: poor financial performance, strained staff relations, resistance to management changes, and flat revenue.
There was contemporaneous evidence which strongly supported the employer’s version of events. This case highlights the critical importance of real-time documentation to support future legal claims.
A Junior Employee Challenged His Redundancy as Unfair, But Records of Client Abuse and Stress Leave Worked Against Him
An employee made redundant lodged an unfair dismissal claim, arguing the redundancy was linked to recent sick leave. The key issue before the Fair Work Commission was whether redeployment opportunities existed. The employee pointed to an available receptionist role, but the Commission found redeployment was not reasonable – he could not perform accounting work unsupervised, and no qualified supervisor remained.
More significantly, three weeks before dismissal, an email raised safety concerns about very aggressive clients and excessive verbal abuse, with staff reporting they felt unsafe opening the office. Combined with the employee’s stress-related leave, this weighed heavily against placing him in a client-facing role. The Commission also rejected covertly obtained evidence from a family member. The redundancy was found to be genuine.
Fair Work Commission Limits Anti-Bullying Claims
A Telstra employee lodged a bullying complaint alleging 15 incidents of bullying, linked to his performance assessment and management communications during a period when he was on extended leave. The Fair Work Commission found that the alleged conduct did not occur “at work” since the employee was on leave, the managers’ actions were reasonable responses to workplace and leave queries, and the employee’s own behaviour toward management was sometimes unreasonable – with the Commission noting that if anyone faced bullying, it was the manager.
The decision is a reminder that not every dissatisfaction with management decisions and delayed responses constitutes bullying, and must be viewed in the context in which it occurred.