Did she jump or was she pushed?

Fair Work principles on forced resignations

One Minute Summary

A social media coordinator claimed unfair dismissal stating she was forced to resign due to ‘coercion and undue pressure to alter her working hours, a hostile work environment and hostile management practices’.
She outlined various conduct by her employer over a period of 18 months which placed her under a lot of stress – including pressuring her to reduce her working hours.
The Commission examined the actions of the employer to determine whether those actions left the employee with no other option but to resign.
While the Commission acknowledged that Ms Bowden was distressed and believed she had no alternative, it was the employer’s conduct that would be examined on this question.
Ultimately the employee’s unfair dismissal claim was dismissed stating she has not been forced to resign due to the employer’s conduct.

Employees often find themselves under pressure and wonder whether they want to stay with their current employer. If the pressure increases, they can further develop a negative mindset towards any actions taken by the employer even when they are trying to assist them.

Ms Bowden was one such employee who resigned on 19 September 2025 and claimed unfair dismissal stating that the actions of her employer left her with no option but to resign. Her resignation letter states the reason for her termination as ‘coercion and undue pressure to alter her working hours, a hostile work environment and hostile management practices.’

Ms Bowden was employed as a social media coordinator with Cull & Harding – an Australian manufacturer and seller of shoes, from November 2023.

In her unfair dismissal case, she outlined the following conduct by her employer which forced her to resign:

An unreasonable workload during an overseas work engagement in April 2024.
Being placed in an unsafe situation when she was left on her own for several hours during a photoshoot in a National Park in mid-2025.
Confidentiality was breached when the manager she had informed about her safety concerns in the National Park, told the Marketing Manager. The Marketing Manager then had a discussion with Ms Bowden which she described as ‘cold and hostile’.
When Ms Bowden met with several senior managers in August 2025 seeking to change rolls to a styling and creative role the employer could not offer her that type of work. They stated she could reduce her hours to part-time and freelance for styling and creative work. Ms Bowden refused the offer stating she was not in a financial position to do so.
At a meeting in early September a senior manager questioned her commitment to her social media role. They again discussed the idea of Ms Bowden reducing her hours to enable her to freelance in her desired field. The meeting concluded with all agreeing that Ms Bowden continue in her current role full time and give the employer 12 weeks’ notice if she wanted to move to part-time hours to enable her to freelance in styling and creative work.
Several managers behaved in a hostile manner towards her during a warehouse sale weekend on 12 & 13 September 2025. After complaining, Ms Bowden stated the employer failed to act on the treatment she received that weekend.

After this last incident she resigned on 15 September 2025, effective immediately.

In examining the matter, the Commissioner noted the case authorities established that a resignation will be considered forced where,

There was some action on behalf of the employer which was intended to bring the employment relationship to an end; or
Resignation was the probable result of the employer’s conduct.

The focus was on the conduct of the employer, not whether the employee believed they were forced to resign.

While the Commissioner acknowledged that Ms Bowden was distressed and believed she had no alternative, it was the employer’s conduct that would be examined on this question. Ms Bowden was required to establish that the employer intended to force her to resign.

In examining the employer’s response to Ms Bowden’s allegations, the Commissioner made the following observations concerning her employment:

Ms Bowden held an important position that could not easily be replaced, and the business did not want her to leave.
The reduction in hours, to enable Ms Bowden to pursue other freelance interests, was offered to retain her as an employee.
The complaints raised by Ms Bowden against the conduct of several managers at the warehouse sale was not sufficient to demonstrate an intention to force her to resign.
The overseas workload complaint raised by Ms Bowden had occurred well over a year before her resignation. The National Park safety complaint happened some months prior to her resignation.
The complaint about manager’s behaviours at the warehouse sale could have been handled better but was not sufficient to force a resignation.
The employer was not forcing a reduction of hours on Ms Bowden but offering this to her as a way of allowing her to move into her desired career choice while retaining her employment.

The Commissioner then made an interesting point: ‘It appears Ms Bowden’s satisfaction with her role had deteriorated to a level by that weekend that she was extremely sensitive towards any interactions with management’.

Finally, the Commissioner indicated that Ms Bowden had other options available to her including seeking Fair Work bullying Orders against the employer.

The Commissioner stated, ‘I am not satisfied that Ms Bowden was forced to resign due to conduct, or a course of conduct, engaged in by Cull & Harding.’ Her unfair dismissal application was dismissed.

Commentary

The comment made by the Commissioner, (‘It appears Ms Bowden’s satisfaction with her role had deteriorated to a level by that weekend that she was extremely sensitive towards any interactions with management’), highlights how employment relationships can deteriorate due to workload pressure and differences of opinion. In this case it led to the employee resigning and an unfair dismissal case for the employer to respond to. In other cases, it could lead to mental health issues and worker’s compensation claims relating to mental health.

Other legal responses available to an employee could include a General Protections claim and a Stop Bullying Order being made against the employer.

The above legal responses are not desirable outcomes.

Even where the employer has done the right thing – they must be able to show this. (In a General Protections case the onus of proof – why a certain decision was made - is on the employer.)

When managing difficult people situations there is an inherent risk of a legal response. Employer must consider their timing in making decisions and keep written records of conversations and outcomes/decisions. While these cannot stop such legal action by an employee, they will make it much easier to respond to effectively.

When faced with large compensation claims by an employee’s ‘no-win no-fee’ lawyer my preferred response is to offer $0 settlement. This can only happen with good evidence.

Please contact me to discuss any complex employee relations issues – before they become a legal matter to defend.

Kind Regards

Michael Schmidt

M 0438 129 728

[email protected]

www.hunteremployeerelations.com.au