Disputed verbal resignation derails Property Stylist’s general protections bid

An assistant property stylist has been denied the opportunity to pursue her general protections dismissal claim, with the Fair Work Commission upholding her former employer’s jurisdictional objection that she voluntarily resigned because she was “not happy” in her role, rejecting the employee’s argument her employment was terminated because she did not “formally submit a written resignation”.

The stylist’s employment came to an end on 19 May during a meeting with the two directors of the property styling business in Newcastle; the meeting having been requested by the employee to discuss her “role, responsibilities and workload”. Whilst it was clear on the evidence that the stylist’s employment had come to an end that day as a direct result of the meeting, debate ensued regarding the cessation of employment.   The employee persisted with her stance that she had been terminated for “underperformance” whereas the employer maintained the stylist had expressed her desire to resign “four or five times during the meeting” and requested not to serve out the notice period.

Deputy President Saunders was persuaded that the employee had resigned during the meeting of 19 May, observing that an email from one of the directors, which was sent to the stylist shortly after the meeting, confirmed acceptance of her resignation and anticipated a “letter of resignation” would be provided, as the stylist had foreshadowed. The Deputy President noted that, “rather than denying she had resigned or said anything that could be interpreted as a resignation”, the stylist waited until 5.10pm to reply, indicating she “did not formally submit a written resignation and do not consider this to have been a voluntary resignation”.

Preferring the evidence of the employer as to the content of the meeting of 19 May, Deputy President Saunders commented:

“A reasonable person in the position of the parties would have understood, based on what was said in the meeting on 19 May 2025, that [the stylist’s] employment with [the employer] came to an end on 19 May 2025. So much is clear from the fact that [the stylist] said she did not want to “work here” … said she wanted to leave immediately (rather than work out the week) and would email her resignation when she got home… The fact that [the stylist] refused to provide a written resignation after the meeting on 19 May 2025 is not determinative. A written resignation is not required to terminate an employment contract or an employment relationship.”

Turning separately to consider whether the resignation was forced, the Deputy President was “comfortably satisfied that there was no action on the part of [the employer] that was the principal contributing factor which resulted, directly or consequentially, in the termination of [the stylist’s] employment”. Deputy President Saunders reiterated that the employee had been the one to request the meeting of 19 May, prompted by her dissatisfaction with the job, and that she had rejected the employer’s offer for her to return to work and resume her duties “if she truly did not wish to resign”; an opportunity which was extended after the stylist’s email of 5.10pm on 19 May.

Having concluded that the stylist voluntarily resigned, Deputy President Saunders dismissed the application.

Porteous v Aaron Beasley & Lauren Mitchell [2025] FWC 2508 (26 August 2025)