Walking the Narrow Line: Discretionary Resignation or Forced Dismissal? 

| April 14, 2026

In today’s high-pressure workplaces, large workloads can be a source of employee complaints and often lead to job resignations. But can an employee claim they were forced to resign due to an excessively high workload?

The recent decision by the Fair Work Commission’s Commissioner Crawford to dismiss a general protections application and ruling the resignation was not a dismissal in Martin v Scentre Pty Ltd¹ (Scentre) offers vital insights.

Scentre raised a jurisdictional objection in response to the application, claiming Ms Martin resigned her employment, and was not terminated at the initiative of the employer. Further, as Ms Martin was not terminated by Scentre, Scentre argued the FWC did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the application.  

The Legal Test Explained 

The Fair Work Commission applies a two-part test under section 386(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 to determine if a resignation amounts to a forced dismissal. As outlined in the decision, a resignation is forced if: the employer intended to end the employment relationship; or resignation was the probable result of the employer’s conduct. 

Commissioner Crawford emphasised the “narrow line” principle from the Full Bench authority in Mohazab v Dick Smith Electronics², noting that courts must rigorously distinguish employer-initiated terminations from employee-driven resignations. Critically, the test focuses on the objective assessment of the employer’s conduct, not the employee’s subjective feelings.

While the Commissioner noted that Ms Martin genuinely felt she had no choice but to resign due to her workload, this was not determinative, clarifying “That means it is the conduct of Scentre which must be assessed, not the subjective impact of Scentre’s conduct on Ms Martin.” This objective lens protects employers from claims based solely on an employee’s frustration, ensuring remedies target true employer-initiated dismissals. 

Why Scentre Was Successful 

Scentre successfully defended the unfair dismissal claim lodged by Ms Martin by proving neither limb of the test was met, with the Commissioner’s analysis turning on documented actions and objective facts. 

On intent, evidence showed Scentre did not aim to force Ms Martin’s resignation.

Key accommodations that were not indicative of an intention to force Ms Martin’s resignation included:  

1. implementing some of her workload reduction proposals;  
2. allowing a 15-minute afternoon walk for stress management; and  
3. granting time off requests with deadline extensions where feasible.  

The Commissioner concluded: “I do not consider these are the actions of an employer that was attempting to force an employee to resign.” Rather, these steps demonstrated responsiveness, inconsistent with coercive intent. 

For the probable result, the objective assessment also favoured Scentre. Ms Martin worked her scheduled hours, took 30 minutes to one hour for lunch, and enjoyed a 15-minute afternoon break—no unpaid overtime or skipped entitlements were required. Her complaint centred on working “excessively hard” within normal hours, which fell short of establishing resignation as probable. Notably, no disciplinary action occurred for incomplete work; the Commissioner observed this absence was pivotal, as reprimands for impossible tasks could have altered the outcome. 

A 30% pay rise request was decisive: Ms Martin’s willingness to withdraw her resignation for higher salary suggested she felt “undervalued and underappreciated,” not trapped by intolerable conditions. If the workload was truly coercive, more money alone wouldn’t resolve it.  

Finally, alternative options existed but went unexplored, including lodging a formal grievance (triggering an investigation), seeking workplace safety regulator assistance, or applying for anti-bullying orders against unreasonable task allocation. These viable paths underscored her resignation as a discretionary choice, upholding Scentre’s jurisdictional objection and dismissing the application. 

Key Takeaways 

This Decision serves as a reminder of the importance of an employer’s actions in determining whether they will fall on the right side of the “narrow line” of constructive dismissal.  Employers should implement key actions, including: 

• Monitor working conditions objectively: Ensure scheduled hours, breaks, and no undue overtime; avoid disciplining for unreasonable workloads, as this could tip the “narrow line.” 

• Document every accommodation in writing: Record the outcome of discussions involving workload issues, stress measures, and deadline management. 

• Proactively direct employees to formal grievance processes: Informal complaints weaken claims if formal avenues exist but are unused; train supervisors to escalate and communicate policies clearly. 

• Separate workload from remuneration issues: Address complaints operationally while handling pay requests formally to avoid conflating grievances. 

• Communicate other available avenues: Highlight internal processes such as reporting safety incidents to demonstrate choices beyond resignation. 

• Engage with offers to withdraw resignation: Even if a pay rise can’t be met, respond in writing, exploring alternatives—ignoring such offers risks implying acceptance of departure. 

Proactive, documented responses to workload complaints are your strongest defence—engage early to keep resignations discretionary and claims at bay.  And if you need help navigating the “narrow line”, please reach out to our team at IRiQ Law.

Footnote

¹ Emily Martin v Scentre Pty Limited [2026] FWC 881 (17 March 2025)

² Mohebatullah Mohazab v. Dick Smith Electronics Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 645 (29 November 1995)