Fair Work Commission confirms forced resignation grounds in case involving early learning provider

Former employee permitted to pursue dismissal claim following jurisdictional ruling.

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) has ruled that a former employee of Goodstart Early Learning was dismissed within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009, allowing her claim to proceed to the next stage of the dispute resolution process.

The preliminary decision, handed down by Commissioner Connolly on 4 December ([2025] FWC 3724), concerned whether the resignation in June 2025 was made voluntarily or under duress.

The Commission found that employees resignation was not voluntary, but instead resulted from conduct by the employer that left her with no “real or effective choice” but to resign. As a result, her application under section 365 of the Fair Work Act will proceed to a conciliation conference under section 368.

It was alleged that the employee was pressured to resign due to perceived conflict of interest concerns relating to her mother’s work as a contractor with Food Hygiene Australia. According to sworn evidence, she was told that continuing her role at the service could jeopardise her mother’s audit contract with the provider.

The Commission accepted her evidence, stating it was consistent, persuasive, and unchallenged by contrary testimony or documentation from the employer.

Goodstart, which was represented by its General Counsel, denied any suggestion that resignation had been demanded or that such a conflict required employment action. However, the Commission noted that Goodstart had failed to provide a report from the investigation it claimed had cleared it of wrongdoing.

In considering the jurisdictional objection, the Commission applied established case law, including Mohazab v Dick Smith Electronics Pty Ltd, concluding that termination had occurred at the employer’s initiative by way of constructive dismissal.

Constructive dismissal rulings are highly significant, particularly in people-focused sectors like early childhood education and care (ECEC). They reinforce the importance of:

• Maintaining transparent, fair and evidence-based decision-making;
• Avoiding actions that could be perceived as retaliation or undue pressure;
• Separating employment decisions from family or external contractual relationships; and
• Responding to complaints with procedural integrity.

The case also serves as a reminder that resignation does not always shield an organisation from legal scrutiny. If an employee can demonstrate that resignation resulted from employer conduct that made continued employment untenable, the matter may still proceed as a dismissal claim.

Beyond legal compliance, the outcome demonstrates a fundamental principle: treating employees with fairness, transparency and respect is not only a legal obligation, it’s critical to maintaining a healthy and professional workplace culture. In early childhood settings, where staff wellbeing directly affects the quality of care and education provided to children, fostering psychologically safe, supportive environments must remain a priority.

This ruling allows the dispute to proceed to formal conciliation and highlights the Commission’s stance on employer conduct that may indirectly coerce employees into resignation.

While the outcome of the dismissal application remains pending, the preliminary ruling serves as a reminder for early childhood education and care (ECEC) providers to exercise caution in managing potential conflicts of interest and interpersonal matters in the workplace, particularly where family relationships are involved.

The full decision is available via the Fair Work Commission.