The applicant, who had been employed as an administration officer with the respondent, filed an unfair dismissal claim with the Commission asserting that she was forced to resign due to bullying and harassment. The application was filed 220 days out of time, and as such the respondent contends that the Commission ought not to accept the application.

While employed with the respondent, the applicant met with the People Services Advisor regarding concerns about her work environment, the conclusion of which was that the respondent would endeavour to find an alternative administrative role for her. The applicant then commenced an extended period of personal leave, until the respondent notified her that she was required to return to work in her substantive role while the respondent continued to consider alternative roles for her. Following this, the applicant emailed her resignation with two weeks’ notice.

Following her resignation, the applicant emailed and then met with the CEO of the respondent with her grievances and to discuss her request for a financial settlement for alleged harassment and bullying. Subsequently, the applicant contacted the respondent seeking financial compensation and stating that she had been unable to secure alternative employment. In each instance, the respondent replied stating that it did not consider it was obligated to provide any compensation. 

The applicant contended that the reason for her delay in filing an unfair dismissal claim was due to ongoing medical issues, time taken to seek professional advice, and time taken for the respondent to respond to her grievances but did not supply medical evidence to that effect. Reviewing the communications between the parties, Commissioner Walkington determined that while the applicant had pursued her request for financial compensation, she had not demonstrated that her communications challenged the termination of her employment as a dismissal. The Commissioner further found that the applicant had other options to remedy her concerns than resignation, and that she did not attempt to withdraw her resignation during her notice period, and as such her claim was unlikely to succeed.

Finding that there was not adequate explanation for the lengthy delay, the merits of the application, and the balance of fairness, Commissioner Walkington found that it would not be unfair to the applicant to refuse the application and ordered that the application not be accepted.

The decision can be read here.