Dismissal finding for worker who resigned after being given 24 hours to respond to long list of concerns

A Property Manager has succeeded in demonstrating her resignation was forced by her former employer after she was given just 24 hours to respond in writing to over 20 concerns.

Background

The applicant worked for the respondent as a Property Manager from January 2022 until her employment ended on 25 July 2025. 

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) heard that at around midday on 23 July 2025 the applicant was provided with a show cause letter.  The letter outlined more than 20 concerns about the applicant’s conduct and performance and required her to provide a written response by midday the next day. The applicant complied with the requirement and submitted her response within time. The applicant comprehensively addressed the respondent’s concerns in her response.  She also criticised the fairness of the respondent’s procedure before contending:

This is not about helping me improve. It’s about justifying a decision that appears to have already been made— one built on selective narratives, vague accusations, and complete disregard for fairness, empathy, or professionalism.

A meeting was scheduled to occur at 4.00pm on 24 July.  There was a factual contest about what was said at the start of the meeting, but the witnesses agreed that the respondent’s director had told the applicant’s support person that resignation was the best way forward for the applicant. 

The meeting was short and there was no discussion of the applicant’s written response to the show cause letter.  Most of the meeting consisted of a discussion about the applicant’s entitlement to termination pay and when the payment would be made.  The applicant provided a resignation letter shortly after the meeting.

Dismissal finding

Following the end of her employment, the applicant applied to the FWC under s.365 of the Fair Work Act 2009 alleging contraventions involving dismissal.  The respondent raised a jurisdictional objection to the application, claiming the applicant had not been dismissed and had resigned.  The applicant accepted she resigned but claimed her resignation was forced by the conduct of the respondent.

Deputy President Slevin of the FWC was satisfied that the respondent engaged in a course of conduct with the intention of bringing the applicant’s employment to an end, and that termination was the probable result of the conduct, such that the applicant had no effective or real choice but to resign:

The conduct was the provision of a lengthy show cause letter on 23 July 2025, the requirement that a response be given within 24 hours, conducting a meeting to discuss the response 4 hours later, conducting the meeting in a manner such that the concerns raised by [the applicant] in the response was never discussed, the indication in the meeting that the best way forward was for [the applicant] to resign, and accepting the resignation readily without giving [the applicant] an option other than to resign.

The Deputy President went on to find that the respondent’s conduct amounted to a dismissal for the purposes of s.386 of the Act and rejected the respondent’s jurisdictional objection.

Brincat v Cityside Properties Pty Ltd Trading AS Traversgray Real Estate {2025] FWC 3235