A “difficult” and “irrational” Services Australia worker has successfully argued his resignation was a constructive dismissal, walking away with over $33,000 at the Fair Work Commission. The high-performing senior project officer had experienced a rapid mental health decline. His issues began after raising complaints about a mould-infested office and workplace bullying, which he claimed led to a respiratory illness, anxiety and depression. At one point, he told Services Australia “if I kill myself it is on you guys.”
Let’s look at the events of this unfair dismissal QLD case: Mr. Luke Wilson (nee Miller) v Services Australia [2025].
Luke Wilson started working for Services Australia in March 2023 as a customer service officer in Toowoomba, Queensland. His time at the agency was initially positive. Following a transfer request, in May 2024 he moved to Services Australia’s Smart Centre in Maryborough, Queensland. He excelled there, earning a temporary performance allowance and a training role with leadership responsibilities.
In late October 2024, Mr. Wilson transferred to a remote project officer role. By November 2024, he was promoted to an acting senior project officer position. However, in his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim Mr. Wilson identified said he experienced several issues that led to a substantial decline in his mental health.
The first issue arose upon his move to the Maryborough, where he claimed he was not informed of significant mould issues. After a short period, Mr. Wilson stated he contracted a respiratory illness. He also alleged that he experienced a hostile work environment and workplace bullying when he made complaints about work-related matters.
A key incident occurred in late November 2024 with Mr. Wilson and a subordinate. Following several terse interactions, the subordinate invited Mr. Wilson’s supervisor into a team meeting to raise issues about him. Mr. Wilson felt undermined and unsupported by Services Australia’s handling of the conflict. His communications with management became excessive. One supervisor reported receiving “36 phone calls and 24 text messages” over a six-week period. He said that these often lasted up to an hour, with Mr. Wilson “venting frustrations” about colleagues, his personal feelings and workplace bullying.
In early January 2025, Mr. Wilson contacted his manager in a “distressed and panicked state.” He requested a move back to the Maryborough office, which was approved as he was a good worker. However, by early February 2025, Mr. Wilson was off work in a state of distress. The following day, his doctor diagnosed him with adjustment disorder with anxiety and depressive symptoms. The doctor certified him as having zero capacity for work. But despite this, Services Australia continued to engage him with work across multiple teams.
On 17 February 2025, the day he was due to return to work, Mr. Wilson filed a workers’ compensation. For the next two weeks, he exchanged numerous emails with a Services Australia rehabilitation case manager. Some were sent late at night, detailing the workplace bullying and “poor treatment” he had experienced. He was at times aggressive and stated he was in poor mental health.
On 4 March 2025, Mr. Wilson told the case manager words to the effect of, “if I kill myself it is on you guys.” After visiting his doctor, he was provided a new certificate stating that he was experiencing extreme stress due to workplace bullying. It said that Mr. Wilson had no capacity to work and that his improvement might take months.
On 17 March 2025, Mr. Wilson spoke with a senior Services Australia manager about his “grievances.” He referred to personal health struggles, including increased reliance on alcohol and medication. He also confirmed that he had drafted a resignation letter and intended to pursue a constructive dismissal claim.
That afternoon, Mr. Wilson sent an email saying that “with deepest hurt” he had decided to resign, providing two weeks’ notice. The email listed ten grievances for his termination of employment, including the mould issues, workplace bullying and Services Australia’s failure to deal with his complaints. Mr. Wilson also cited the fact that he had been required to meet with managers while on a zero capacity medical certificate.
After receiving the email, the Services Australia manager contacted Mr. Wilson’s doctor to ask for medical confirmation that he was “sound of mind” to voluntarily terminate his employment. Mr. Wilson filed his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim the day after he resigned. He alleged constructive dismissal and objected to his doctor being contacted.
A Services Australia HR representative responded to him. He said that he made contact with Mr. Wilson’s doctor due to ‘heat of the moment resignation’ guidelines. Mr. Wilson countered that there was nothing heat of the moment about his termination of employment. He accused Services Australia of using “underhanded” tactics, telling the HR representative “shame on you all.” Mr. Wilson started a new job as an optical assistant about a week after filing his Fair Work claim.
Mr. Wilson represented himself during Fair Work proceedings. He contended that he had been subjected to constructive dismissal. Mr. Wilson believed that he was forced to resign by Services Australia’s persistent conduct. He firmly rejected the notion that his resignation was a heat of the moment decision. He stated that the agency’s actions had created an environment that left him with no choice but to resign.
He also raised the prospect of pursuing a general protections claim and accused Services Australia of seeking to avoid an unlawful termination finding. Mr. Wilson cited the harm caused by staff repeatedly requiring him to revisit his complaints while he was certified as unfit for work.
Services Australia responded to Mr. Wilson’s Fair Work claim by raising three counter arguments. Firstly, the agency argued the application was not competent because Mr. Wilson filed it before his two-week notice period had expired. Secondly, Services Australia contended that Mr. Wilson was not fired at all. It said that he had voluntarily resigned and that it was not a constructive dismissal.
Thirdly, Services Australia argued that even if a dismissal was found, it was not an unlawful termination. It submitted that Mr. Wilson’s conduct towards four colleagues between December 2024 and March 2025 amounted to breaches of the agency’s code of conduct.
Mr. Wilson’s Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard in November 2025. The Fair Work Commission looked past the fact that he lodged his claim during his notice period. It said that it would be “unjust” to dispose of the proceedings on the basis of an irregularity.
The Commission acknowledged that Mr. Wilson was a “difficult” employee who exhibited “irrational” behaviour. It noted that his emails to Services Australia were “long and rambling” and his conversations with staff were “doing him no good.” However, the Commission said that this did not alter the test it would need to apply regarding his termination of employment.
That is, the Commission had to work out if Mr. Wilson was in a state of emotional stress or mental confusion such that he could not “reasonably” be understood to be intending to resign. It found that he had in fact been in such a state. The Commission found that Services Australia treated his “ostensible resignation” as a termination of employment. It noted that the agency did not follow up with Mr. Wilson as to whether he intended to resign.
It was therefore found that Mr. Wilson’s sacking was at the initiative of Services Australia.
The Fair Work Commission classified Mr. Wilson’s sacking as constructive dismissal. It found that Services Australia’s conduct between 11 February 2025 and 17 March 2025 had the “probable result” that Mr. Wilson had no choice other than to resign. This was for the sake of his mental health and the ability to earn income.
The Commission said that Mr. Wilson should have been “given space” to deal with his mental health. It was found that the agency’s engagement of Mr. Wilson while he was medically unfit to work had the effect of “unwittingly exacerbating” his condition.
The Fair Work Commission said that Mr. Wilson’s inappropriate behaviour during this period was a factor of his illness and did not constitute a valid reason for his termination. The Commission concluded the sacking was harsh because Mr. Wilson was a valued employee. It said that his termination of employment came at a difficult time that was worsened by the agency’s failure to properly manage his health.
For these reasons, the Commission deemed that Mr. Wilson’s sacking had been unfair, coming via constructive dismissal. Given Mr. Wilson’s clear desire not to return to his former role, reinstatement was deemed inappropriate. The Commission therefore ordered Services Australia to pay him $33,348.62.
Read more: Dismissed for Mental Health: Singing Bus Driver, Satanic Teacher & More
Another recent Fair Work proceeding that involved a disputed resignation is the unfair dismissal ACT case Alex Yates v Stephanie Muir Ridge [2025]. Alex Yates began working for Stephanie Muir Ridge, the operator of Intentional Care, in March 2023. Shortly after starting, Mr. Yates was promoted to Director of Operations. The events leading to his termination of employment began in September 2023. This was when Mr. Yates and Ms. Ridge began discussing an agreement to become business partners, which included a discussion about restructuring the company.
Due to financial constraints in the business, Mr. Yates agreed to work at a lower pay rate to accumulate necessary funds for the restructure. A key event that led to Mr. Yate’s termination of employment took place in April 2024. Ms. Ridge informed Mr. Yates she intended to increase her own weekly pay. Mr. Yates said he was concerned because he was being paid for fewer hours than he was working. He believed the business could not afford the increase. He also felt Ms. Ridge was not honouring their agreement to progress the partnership.
Mr. Yates expressed his belief that he had already “paid my own way” into the business partnership and requested equal pay to that of Ms. Ridge. In his Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Mr. Yates claimed that Ms. Ridge replied, “I agree, you’ve paid your way, that’s fine, put your pay up.” But the situation deteriorated in May when Mr. Yates was paid less than he should have been. He brought this up with Ms. Ridge, who denied any agreement regarding the pay increase.
Mr. Yates accused her of lying and told her he would not continue to work for less as he was doing the “vast majority” of the work. He subsequently sent Ms. Ridge a text message saying that he would be “making a report to fair work and contacting a lawyer today.” He said that there’s a “reason staff talk to me, not you.”
Ms. Ridge subsequently told the business’s staff via a group WhatsApp chat of the termination of employment of Mr. Yates. She said that he had resigned, but he later denied this to the Fair Work Commission. He said that he had continued to perform some work until 16 May 2024. That was when he received an email from Ms. Ridge instructing him not to talk to staff or clients nor access any work accounts. This instruction led to Mr. Yates lodging a Fair Work unfair dismissal claim.
Mr. Yates argued to the Fair Work Commission that Ms. Ridge had agreed to pay him $65 per hour and that his termination of employment was at her initiative, not his. He said that his text message just prior to his sacking was not a resignation. He claimed that it was intended to “drive the point home” that she still needed him to run the company. Mr. Yates said he felt as if Ms. Ridge was “looking to get rid of me.”
Mr. Yates argued that given the long hours he had invested in building the business, there was “no way” he would walk away from it. He also confirmed his position in a reply to Ms. Ridge’s request for written confirmation of his termination of employment. He said that “I have not resigned” from his position and “nor do I have any intention of doing so.”
Ms. Ridge raised a jurisdictional objection to Mr. Yates’ Fair Work claim. She argued to the Fair Work Commission that he had voluntarily resigned and was therefore not terminated. Ms. Ridge claimed that Mr. Yates said to her over the phone “I quit!” She claimed that he said he would “take the staff with me” and told Ms. Ridge “you won’t be able to do it without me.”
Ms. Ridge also asserted two primary grounds for a valid termination had one been initiated. Firstly, that Mr. Yates unilaterally changed his pay rate, constituting serious misconduct. Secondly, his post-employment conduct, which included “inappropriate commentary” regarding her and a breach of his contractual obligations.
Mr. Yates’ Fair Work unfair dismissal claim proceeded to a formal hearing in October 2025. On the question of whether he was in fact dismissed, the Commission ruled that this was the case. It preferred the evidence given by Mr. Yates, noting that his actions did not support a finding of resignation. Crucially, the Commission found the text message relied on by Ms. Ridge to be “ambiguous at best” and explainable for the reasons given by Mr. Yates.
The Commission was also satisfied that the duo had agreed to be paid the same amount. Given Mr. Yates’s significant commitment to the business, the Commission found he “would not have simply walked away” from it. It therefore concluded that the termination of employment was at the initiative of Ms. Ridge.
Having found that Mr. Yates had been terminated, the Fair Work Commission considered if there was a valid reason for his termination of employment. It rejected Ms. Ridge’s argument that it was justified because Mr. Yates unilaterally increased his pay. The Commission found that Ms. Ridge “clearly approved” the payments made to Mr. Yates. Her argument regarding Mr. Yates’ post-employment comments was also rejected. The Commission found they were not serious enough to warrant his termination of employment.
Since no valid reason existed, the Commission ruled that Mr. Yates was never notified of a reason for his sacking. He was also denied an opportunity to respond to any such reason before the decision to sack him was made. It was therefore ruled that Mr. Yates had experienced an unlawful termination. The Commission ordered Ms. Ridge to pay Mr. Yates four weeks’ compensation totalling $9,880.00 gross plus superannuation.
For more than 20 years, Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives (AWDR) has helped workers across Australia stand up to unfair treatment at work. With over 16,000 matters handled, we’re one of the nation’s most experienced workplace representative teams.
We support employees through unfair dismissal, general protections, discrimination, bullying and sexual harassment claims. We can take on the stress, manage the process and negotiate on your behalf on a no win, no fee basis.
Fair Work claims have strict time limits, so contact us now on 1800 333 666 for a free and private discussion.
