Employee Who Claimed Boss Threatened His Life Was Not Forced to Resign: Fair Work Commission

A carpenter who claimed he was forced to resign from his employment after a manager allegedly threatened his life, was not forced to resign the Fair Work Commission (FWC) has found.

Background

The case centred on an exchange between the carpenter (Applicant) and the company’s general manager of production on 21 September last year.  The Applicant alleged the manager approached him and said, ‘I know what you fucking said in the lunchroom, next time I take your liver’.  He claimed the manager said the words quietly, but came very close to his face and pointed to his liver.  He said he feared for his life and safety and that of his family.

The Applicant reported the alleged threat to the company’s office manager and health and safety coordinator.  The next working day he did not report for work and sent a message to the office manager stating he was unable to continue working for the company because he believed the company was not providing him with a safe place of work.  He gave two weeks’ notice of his resignation.

An issue in the case was whether the Applicant was forced to resign from his employment because of the conduct of the company.

What the FWC found

Deputy President Colman of the FWC found that the manager did not use the words alleged by the Applicant and had instead said, ‘I show you where your liver’ [sic].  The Deputy President said that, if the Applicant did fear for his life or his safety, there was no rational basis for that fear.

The Deputy President also found that, while the Applicant claimed that he did not believe the company was taking his complaint against the manager seriously, there was no reasonable basis for that belief.  The company suspended the manager without pay, finding he behaved inappropriately.  The company took immediate action to investigate the complaint and took quick and appropriate disciplinary action against the manager.

The Applicant was not put in the position where he had no choice but to resign with the Deputy President describing the resignation as a ‘hasty resignation’.  There was no basis to conclude that the employer had any intention of bringing the employment to an end, or that the termination of the Applicant’s employment was a probable result of the company’s conduct or that of the manager.  As the Applicant was not dismissed on the employer’s initiative, his unfair dismissal application was dismissed by the FWC.

Tondorf v Impresa House Pty Ltd [2019] FWC 1164

ES can help

ES has represented thousands of employers in unfair dismissal cases over the years.  We really are the unfair dismissal experts.  If you receive an unfair dismissal claim, contact us to discuss how we can assist.