Employee Who Refused to Sign HSE Documentation After Onboarding Found Not to be Unfairly Dismissed
- Liam O'Connor
- 11 hours ago
- 2 min read
An employee who claimed that he did not have to sign a document outlining his personal compliance with his employer’s safety obligations, workplace expectations and procedures has been found to have not been unfairly or constructively dismissed by the Fair Work Commission.
The Contentions
His employer provided that the document did not alter the terms of his employment and that the acknowledgment of the document was a lawful and reasonable management instruction. Further, that due to the employee’s casual employment and the safety and compliance obligations of the business, that he was unable to be scheduled for any future casual shifts until he signed the document.
The employee contended that due to being a casual employee that was ‘not legally required to sign new policies or contracts after (the) commencement’ of his employment. In addition, that he determined that ‘elements of this new policy may be unlawful and unenforceable, particularly if compliance is enforced through threats, withholding shifts, or other adverse action’. No clauses of the document were identified for the statutory basis of his assertions or claims.
The employer has then removed all future shifts from the employee as the acknowledgement was ‘a precondition for any future allocation of work’.
The ‘Constructive Dismissal’
After the 1 hour and 19 minutes of conversation over WhatsApp between the parties, the employee resigned from his employment by way of email. The employee asserted that his resignation was forced due to the need to acknowledge his employer’s safety obligations, workplace expectations and procedures ‘as a precondition for roster allocation’.
The Conduct of the Employee During the Proceedings
The employee, who was self-represented, incorrectly identified his employer in his Form F2 application. Further, he did not attend the hearing, advise of any difficulties with his attendance or seek an adjournment. He was contacted by the Commissioner’s Associate by telephone minutes prior to the hearing, then appears to have turned off his phone so not further contact could be made by the Commission. The hearing continued without the employee.
The Outcome
Utilising the decision of the Full Bench in Bupa Aged Care Australia Pty Ltd t/a Bupa Aged Care Mosman v Shahin Tavassoli [2017] FWCFB 3941, Commissioner Walkaden provided:
➡️ the employer did not intent to bring the employment to an end; and
➡️ the employee was not left with no effective or real choice but to resign.
The application for an unfair dismissal remedy was subsequently dismissed.
Luca Ferraivolo v Leong & Chamma Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 1968
Comments