Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2025
  4. Mann v Seafarms Queensland Pty Ltd - [2025] QIRC 178

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Mann v Seafarms Queensland Pty Ltd[2025] QIRC 178

Mann v Seafarms Queensland Pty Ltd[2025] QIRC 178

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Mann v Seafarms Queensland Pty Ltd [2025] QIRC 178

PARTIES:

Mann, Sarah

Applicant

v

Seafarms Queensland Pty Ltd

Respondent

CASE NO:

B/2024/87

PROCEEDING:

Recovery of pro rata long service leave

DELIVERED ON:

11 July 2025

HEARING DATE:

25 March 2025

MEMBER:

HEARD AT:

O'Neill IC

Cairns

ORDERS:

  1. The Application is granted.
  2. The Respondent is to pay Sarah Mann the gross sum $16,377.43 (less applicable tax), being her entitlement to proportionate long service leave pursuant to s 95(4)(b)(ii) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) within 21 days of this order.
     

CATCHWORDS:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – APPLICATION TO RECOVER PRO RATA LONG SERVICE LEAVE – recovery of unpaid pro rata long service leave – applicant resigned from employment – applicant terminated employment because of issues related to her son's schooling and bullying issues at the workplace – whether the applicant is entitled to proportionate long service leave – whether the employee terminated employment because of  a "domestic or other pressing necessity" – consideration of the test laid out in  Australian Workers Union of Employees, Queensland v Sunshine Coast Private Hospital (2003) 172 QGIG 1097 – consideration of nature of a "domestic or other pressing necessity" – applicant terminated employment because of a "domestic or other pressing necessity"

LEGISLATION:

Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) s 95, s 475, s 476

CASES:

AWU v Sunshine Coast Private Hospital [2003] QIR Comm 241; (2003) 172 QGIG 1097

British Motor Corporation v Chance (1965) AR (NSW) 364, (1965) AILR 388

Buchholz v Uniting Care Health trading as The Wesley Hospital [2021] QIRC 006

Chapman v A1 Rubber (Aust) Pty Ltd [2019] QIRC 105

Department of Employment and Industrial Relations v Sandoz Pty Ltd (2008) 188 QGIG 151

F.G. Holder v AVCO Financial Services Ltd (1989) AILR 198

Franks v Kembla Equipment Co [1969] AR (NSW) 17

Gibbons v eBet Ltd [2015] QIRC 7

Hoveydai v Nixon Pacific Pty Ltd [2024] QIRC 148

Johnson & Johnson Pty Ltd v Amalgamated Metals Workers Union (1987) 21 IR 457

Ma'Aelopa v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2024] QIRC 29

O'Keefe v Queensland Diagnostic Imaging Pty Ltd (2009) 192 QGIG 93

Oscar Budai v Bartercard Australia Pty Ltd [2006] NSWCIMC 5

Queensland Independent Education Union of Employees (on behalf of Wendy Anderson) v Marchant Park Kindergarten Association Incorporated [2008] QIRC 41; (2008) 188 QGIG 22

Simmons v Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) represented by Uniting Care Health [2021] QIRC 242

Vermeer v Montague Fresh Queensland Pty Ltd [2007] QIRC 56; (2007) 185 QGIG 220

APPEARANCES:

Ms S. Mann, Applicant.

Ms C. Thorley for Seafarms Queensland Pty Ltd.

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

  1. [1]
    Ms Sarah Mann ('the Applicant') commenced employment with Seafarms Queensland Pty Ltd ('the Respondent') on 8 December 2014.[1] She tendered her resignation on 14 September 2022 and her employment ended on 28 February 2023.[2]
  1. [2]
    Ms Mann served a continuous period of 8 years, 2 months and 20 days.[3] She had accrued a total of 279.9273 hours of long service leave, with the total accrual at termination being valued at $16,377.43. The period of Ms Mann's employment and the value of her long service leave accrual are not in dispute.[4]
  2. [3]
    The Applicant applies for an order for the proportionate payment of long service leave pursuant to s 475(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ('IR Act').
  1. [4]
    In the Form 14 – Application the Applicant states[5]:

My resignation was due to domestic necessity. I am the primary caregiver for my son with ASD and my husband with a brain injury.

The management of my sons ASD was difficult due to working away from home and my husband was unable to manage this on my behalf. The medical appointments are 2 to 3 times per week and interaction with the school is on a daily basis. Being absent from home made this process difficult. My son needed more of my time than previously required to ensure he can receive the therapy he needs to enable him to achieve his goals. It was difficult to manage the therapies and appointments associated with the care of my son with ASD. I have been unable to give what is required to manage my sons care as I was working from away from home 2 to 3 days per week.

In addition to caring for my son with ASD, I was also caring for my husband who had suffered a brain aneurysm and was limited in capacity as a result of the brain injury.

  1. [5]
    Ms Mann contends that she is entitled to pro rata long service leave in accordance with  s 95(4)(b)(ii) of the Act, which provides for proportionate payment to an employee with more than seven but less than ten years' service, where the employee terminates their employment due to "domestic or other pressing necessity".
  1. [6]
    The Respondent resists the application on the grounds that the Applicant's resignation was not due to any "domestic or other pressing necessity" but in fact due to dissatisfaction with a number of working conditions or incidences of bullying in the workplace.
  1. [7]
    The issue requiring determination is whether the Applicant resigned due to a domestic or other pressing necessity, or due to dissatisfaction and discontent with issues at the workplace.
  1. [8]
    The following questions provide guidance to the considerations relevant to my determination as to whether the Applicant has an entitlement to claim proportionate long service leave under s 95(4)(b)(i):
  1. Was the reason for the Applicant's termination one which fell within the section?
  1. Was the reason genuine and not simply a rationalisation of another reason which did not fall within the section; or a reason that while having the appearance of truth or right, is in reality a pretence or a deception; or a frivolous reason?
  1. Although the reason claimed may not be the sole ground which caused the Applicant to terminate her employment, was it the real or motivating reason?
  1. Did the reason claimed cause the Applicant to terminate her employment?
  1. Did the reason claimed affect the Applicant in relation to the particular service she terminated?
  1. Was the situation which the Applicant was in at the point of the termination, one in which a reasonable person might have felt compelled to seek to resolve by terminating their employment?[6]
  1. [9]
    For the reasons that follow, I have determined that Ms Mann does have an entitlement to proportionate payment of long service leave pursuant to s 95(4)(b)(ii) of the IR Act.

Relevant legislation

  1. [10]
    Chapter 2, Part 3, Division 9 of the IR Act provides for an entitlement to long service leave in the following terms:

95 Entitlement – employees other than seasonal employees

…

  1. The employee is entitled to long service leave, on full pay, of—
  1. if the employee has completed 10 years continuous service—8.6667 weeks; and
  1. after 10 years service, if the employee has completed at least a further 5 years continuous service—a period that bears to 8.6667 weeks the proportion that the employee’s further period of continuous service bears to 10 years.
  1. An employee who has completed at least 7 years continuous service is entitled to a proportionate payment for long service leave on the termination of the employee’s service.
  1. However, if the employee's service is terminated before the employee has completed 10 years continuous service, the employee is entitled to a proportionate payment only if—

…

  1. the employee terminates the service because of—
  1. the employee's illness; or
  2. a domestic or other pressing necessity; or

…

  1. [11]
    Relevant to Ms Mann's application, the combined effect of s 95(3) and s 95(4)(b)(ii) of the IR Act is that an employee who has completed at least seven years continuous service is entitled to a proportionate payment for long service leave where the employee terminates the service because of a domestic or other pressing necessity.

Relevant Authorities

  1. [12]
    In Franks v Kembla Equipment Co,[7] Sheldon J applied the following test when dealing with a case of "domestic necessity" as follows:

"The test, I would suggest, is whether there is a really serious problem in the home, although not necessarily a crisis. On the one hand, the colourable and frivolous should be rejected but on the other, over-exacting standards should not be adopted. After all, what is being dealt with is not a sphere-shaking issue but a reason for terminating employment and a material consideration must be whether the domestic situation is such that a reasonable man might  feel compelled to seek its solution by terminating his employment. If a really sick spouse, coupled with economic worries and difficulty in coping with small children, falls short of creating a domestic necessity, then it is hard to imagine what domestic chaos must exist before the test is satisfied."

  1. [13]
    In Oscar Budai v Bartercard Australia Pty Ltd [8], Hart M. relevantly held that:

"… The authorities indicate that the concept of a domestic necessity is an extremely wide one. I am satisfied that the term “domestic or other pressing necessity” is even broader. It may be that the intention of the legislature was to ensure that the entitlement to long service leave would not be restricted to circumstances where the resignation was caused by purely domestic considerations without any regard to the workplace situation but to more complex circumstances, such as the circumstances of this case, where the domestic difficulties are so intrinsically interlocked with workplace matters."

  1. [14]
    In Ma'Aelopa v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service),[9] Deputy President Hartigan accepted and applied the authorities excerpted in paragraphs [12] and [13]. Deputy President Hartigan confirmed that the terms 'domestic necessity' should not be conflated with 'other pressing necessity' and that it is not necessary to demonstrate that the domestic necessity is pressing or urgent.[10]
  2. [15]
    The authorities confirm that the appropriate enquiry is whether the reason claimed by the employee for the termination is the reason upon which the employee placed the most weight in making the decision to terminate the employment.[11]
  3. [16]
    In O'Keefe v Queensland Diagnostic Imaging Pty Ltd,[12] the applicant resigned for two reasons, firstly, because of an inability to find day care for her then seven month old daughter, and secondly, to care for her mother-in-law who had been diagnosed with cancer.[13] The applicant had provided information to the respondent about the first issue, but not the issues relating to her mother-in-law.[14] Further, the applicant had not discussed her situation with management of the respondent before terminating her employment and in a short space of time had obtained other employment.[15]
  4. [17]
    Industrial Commissioner Asbury (as her Honour then was) in allowing the applicant's claim, held that an employee's need to care for a child, in circumstances where childcare was not available was a "domestic or other pressing necessity".[16] She further confirmed that childcare is a matter pertaining to household or household affairs.[17]
  5. [18]
    Industrial Commissioner Asbury further noted that the need to provide care for a child was also a matter which could be described as "pressing", when a parent or parents are working.[18] Industrial Commissioner Asbury also confirmed that the applicant's need to provide support and care for her mother-in-law was also a "domestic or other pressing necessity" which satisfied the requirements of s 43(4)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 1999.[19] In relation to the issue of the applicant failing to reveal the need to care for her mother-in-law, Industrial Commissioner Asbury noted:

… The failure of an employee to discuss issues which are later said to entitle the employee to payment for proportionate long service leave under s. 43(4)(b)(i) or (ii) may be relevant to whether or not those issues were genuine. However, the fact that an employee does not discuss an issue with his or her manager is not determinative. Issues which lead an employee to terminate employment because of domestic or other pressing necessity, or injury or illness, may be sensitive issues which that employee is reluctant or even embarrassed to raise with a manager. This does not make the issue which causes the employee to resign any less genuine. …[20]

  1. [19]
    In Simmons v Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) represented by Uniting Care Health[21], Industrial Commissioner Power accepted that the definition of "domestic necessity" would reasonably include an employee terminating their employment in order to take care of a sick spouse or take care of children.[22]
  2. [20]
    In Hoveydai v Nixon Pacific Pty Ltd,[23] the applicant made a claim for pro rata long service leave on the basis of a "domestic or other pressing necessity" arising from the requirement to provide care for her elderly mother. In September 2023, the applicant's mother fell and was hospitalised. Following her discharge from hospital, the applicant provided around-the-clock care for her mother. The respondent's contention was that the applicant resigned simply to find another job, and this was reflected in her resignation letter.
  3. [21]
    Industrial Commissioner Pratt granted the application and accepted the applicant's evidence that at the time of her resignation, the main reason for resigning was to find work that better enabled the applicant to provide care and support to her mother.[24] The Commission was also satisfied that the requirement to provide around-the-clock care for the applicant's mother was a pressing need.[25] The Commission was further satisfied that the need to provide care to the applicant's mother was also a domestic need within the meaning of s 95(4)(b)(ii) of the IR Act.[26]

Evidence

  1. [22]
    The Applicant gave evidence on her own behalf.
  1. [23]
    The Respondent called evidence from the following witnesses:
  1. Mr Ian Dudley Leijer, Chief Financial Officer of Seafarms Group Limited;
  1. Ms Annie Margaret Thomas, Human Resources Manager, Seafarms Group Limited.
  1. [24]
    In compliance with a Directions Order issued by the Commission:
  1. Ms Mann filed an Outline of Argument in support of her claim on 25 February 2025; and
  1. Seafarms filed its Outline of Argument on 4 March 2025.

Evidence of Sarah Mann

  1. [25]
    The Applicant confirmed that she had been employed with Seafarms in various accounting roles for just under nine years with her final role being Financial Management Accountant, Seafarms, Queensland.[27]
  2. [26]
    Ms Mann is married to Luke, and they have two children, a son H[28] who was born in 2007 and a daughter D.
  1. [27]
    The Applicant's position with Seafarms was based at Cardwell, however, in 2020 she moved to Cairns when her son H commenced high school at a private school located in Cairns.[29] A flexible work arrangement was put in place pursuant to which Ms Mann would work in Cardwell three days a week, and for the other two days she would work from home.[30]
  2. [28]
    On 2 September 2020 Ms Mann's husband, Luke, suffered a brain aneurism around 9:00pm which caused him to collapse and lose all movement. Mr Mann was taken to the Cairns Base Hospital and eventually flown to Brisbane for treatment.[31]
  3. [29]
    A Discharge Summary from the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital dated 10 September 2020 confirms a diagnosis of  "spontaneous Subarachnoid haemorrhage".[32] Upon discharge Mr Mann was transferred to the Townsville Hospital where he remained as an in-patient for some weeks with Ms Mann commuting to and from Townsville to visit him.[33]
  4. [30]
    As a result of the brain aneurysm, Mr Mann did not work for two years and Ms Mann became the primary care giver to both Luke and their two children. She also became the primary (only) income earner until Luke started some part-time work in a café owned by Ms Mann's brother.[34]
  5. [31]
    A further impact of the brain aneurysm was that Luke experienced difficulties in dealing with conflict situations or issues relating to H at school, or in dealing with higher level parenting.[35] Following the brain aneurysm, it was the Applicant left to deal with issues of this nature.
  6. [32]
    The Applicant's son H was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder ('ASD') level 2 whilst he was in primary school in Tully. In addition to that diagnosis, H also has Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.[36] The combination of those conditions left H with social skills issues and an inability to read facial expressions and understand the nuances in a normal conversation.[37]
  7. [33]
    The Applicant confirmed that H had a Personalised Learning Plan ('PLP') which was established by collaboration with the Head of Learning Enrichment, an Occupational Therapist, a Speech Therapist, the Principal and herself.[38]
  8. [34]
    During 2022 H began to experience repeated behavioural issues at school which led to him being suspended on a number of occasions. The number of suspensions being experienced by H increased markedly in 2022 compared to his earlier years at the school.
  9. [35]
    Ms Mann noted that H had received five suspensions up until July 2022, and he had completed 8000 words a day handwritten in his suspension booklet along with completing his usual school work.[39]
  10. [36]
    Ms Mann confirmed that the suspensions occurred during to varying incidents.[40]
  1. [37]
    When H was suspended, the Applicant in her evidence confirmed that[41]:
  • She would always be the one to take the phone call.
  • She would then have to attend the school and get the debrief. Ms Mann confirmed that after you get these time after time again, it is actually upsetting because she felt that if she had of been there, she could have helped.
  • She would receive advice from the school as to the length of the suspension and what was required in terms of the suspension booklet.
  • She would then have to supervise H at home (as well as working) to ensure that he was completing his school work and the suspension booklet.
  1. [38]
    The agreed bundle included a document setting out a graphical representation of H's sessional absences at school which confirm a marked increase in those absences during 2022.[42]

Mann v Seafarms Queensland Pty Ltd [2025] QIRC 178

  1. [39]
    That graph confirms an initial increase in sessional absences of H from school in March and April 2022, followed by a significant increase in absences in August and September 2022. It is the latter period which will become the focus of attention later in these reasons.
  2. [40]
    The agreed bundle also included a document setting out H's suspensions which noted as follows[43]:

Suspensions:

2020 x 3

2021 x 4

2022 x 6 – Absence rate 42% over whole year

  • March x 2 – Total 6 days
  • April x 1 – Total 5 days. School highlighted that they need assistance implemented at the school to meet DSE
  • June x 1 – Total 3 days
  • July x1 – Total 1 day
  • August x 1 – Total 26 days.
    • Request from director of schools to remain home until school has a solution (home schooling for part of each day)
  • September Total Days -11 days (all of month up to start of school holidays)
    • Remain home
    • Teacher's training commitment
    • PLP understanding and acceptance

…

  1. [41]
    The Applicant noted that H was originally suspended on 8 August 2022, initially for three days.[44] On 11 August 2022, the school issued a notice requesting a further six school days to finalise the new plan for H.[45] That timeframe was extended out (ultimately to 37 days) due to the failure by the school to complete the plan within the stated timeframe.
  2. [42]
    Ms Mann acknowledged that the bullying issues she was experiencing in her dealings with the Hatchery management were a factor in her decision to resign. However, Ms Mann confirmed quite clearly in her evidence that the primary or motivating factor that caused her resignation on 14 September 2022 were the personal issues relating to her son H and his medical condition and the issues related to H's schooling.[46] The Applicant's evidence in relation to this key period is analysed in more detail later in these reasons.
  3. [43]
    In the resignation letter dated 14 September 2022[47] the Applicant nominated a finishing date of Friday, 14 October 2022. The Applicant went on to provide evidence explaining her delayed exit from Seafarms which involved Mr Leijer offering her a retention amount of $50,000.00 to stay on until February 2023 to assist Seafarms with the busy period pre-Christmas and to assist in the completion of an audit.[48]

Evidence of Ian Leijer

  1. [44]
    Mr Leijer has been employed as the Chief Financial Officer of the Respondent from May 2022.[49] In his evidence he confirmed he had been working for the company for more than ten years, however during that time there had been changes in the control group.
  1. [45]
    Mr Leijer confirmed that it was his belief based on the Applicant's email of 14 September 2022 and her resignation letter of the same date, that the Applicant's resignation was caused by her inability to interact with the Hatchery. He noted that earlier in September 2022 Ms Mann had made a complaint about being bullied by the manager of the Hatchery.[50]
  2. [46]
    Mr Leijer confirmed that it took some time for the Applicant's complaint to be investigated and that it was not until some time in October 2022 that there was an outcome of that investigation.
  3. [47]
    In his evidence Mr Leijer stated that he did not want Ms Mann to resign and although he could not recall the timing, he recalled having a conversation with her and coming to an agreement that she would stay until February 2023. He confirmed that the period leading up to Christmas is the busiest part of the year because everyone wants prawns for Christmas. In addition, the business had a half-year audit coming up with new auditors that he wanted the Applicant to be involved in. Ms Mann was paid a retention fee of $50,000.00 by the Respondent for agreeing to stay until 28 February 2023.[51]
  4. [48]
    Mr Leijer could not recall whether in that conversation Ms Mann said it specifically or not, but it was clear that the ongoing tensions with the Hatchery initially, and then Seafarms Queensland management in general, was causing her a lot of stress.[52]
  5. [49]
    Mr Leijer confirmed that the Applicant was given two weeks leave to de-stress and on or about 25 September 2022 (and prior to the Applicant commencing leave) he provided her with correspondence setting out his vision for how the Finance Team would be structured within the Respondent's business moving forward.[53]
  1. [50]
    In that correspondence, Mr Leijer addressed the Applicant's role within the business, her growth and working from Cairns. In relation to the latter, Mr Leijer noted in the letter:

Working from Cairns

I understand your need to support your family. It (sic) always difficult to balance financial income, job satisfaction and then time with the family – you need all three! There is no point doing a job you hate, doing a job that doesn't pay the bills or having a great day job but you neglect the family. Getting the balance right is always hard. Fortunately you seem to be happily married which is advantageous – how each family works to get that balance is a constant challenge.

I would say that I am prepared to support you in that balance. …[54]

  1. [51]
    In examination-in-chief Mr Leijer stated:

… Obviously, after – after her resignation, I didn’t want her to go. I saw her as integral to the team and what I was trying to build from a finance team perspective, um and how that would – would work and – and the opportunities that that would present ah to her. So, yes, it was a – a pitch to Sarah, I suppose, for her to – to buy into that – into that – into that vision of what the finance team could look like given how it – how dysfunction it’d been for the previous 12 months or more, um and I saw her as key to that – as key to that. And I think you’ll see – and, you know, um understood that she had ah – you know, the job was originally in Cardwell; it was originally a full – full-time job in Cardwell. Ah she needed to move to Cairns ah for family reasons; ah we accommodated that. Um and then we tried to strike that balance: it was ah between, you know, working from Cairns, effectively  working from home or – and, you know, spending at least some time in Cardwell given she had a, you know, operational accounting role that did require some face-to-face ah interaction with the people in um – in Cardwell.[55] (Emphasis added)

  1. [52]
    In cross-examination Mr Leijer was taken to the Applicant's resignation letter dated 14 September 2022,[56] and in particular the first three paragraphs where the Applicant mentioned her personal reasons for resigning. Mr Leijer fairly conceded that the family issues were certainly a factor in Ms Mann's resignation.[57]
  1. [53]
    In questioning from the Commission, Mr Leijer confirmed his understanding of the personal issues that the Applicant was experiencing as follows:
  • He noted that H needed extra support and that he presented a number of challenges for Ms Mann.[58]
  • Ms Mann had moved from Cardwell to Cairns because she could get more family support there, and because the local schools in Cardwell were not going to work for H. Mr Leijer noted that the Respondent supported Ms Mann's move to Cairns and that H was a very important part of Ms Mann's life.[59]
  • He was not aware that because of those difficulties that on a regular basis that H was accompanying Ms Mann when she worked in Cardwell.[60]
  • Mr Leijer confirmed his understanding that flexibility was afforded to Ms Mann in relation to both working from home in Cairns and her working hours, for example working after hours, because this was required because of issues relating to H such as attending school meetings et cetera.[61]

Evidence of Annie Thomas

  1. [54]
    Ms Thomas at the time of the hearing was employed by the Respondent as its Human Resources Manager.[62]
  2. [55]
    As her evidence unfolded it became apparent that Ms Thomas was in fact employed in a different role by the Respondent during the key periods of time relevant to this application.
  3. [56]
    Ms Thomas confirmed that she has had three roles whilst working for the Respondent. She was working on a project, Project Sea Dragon, which involved working with the Indigenous population in the Kimberley region for four years and then in a role as social performance manager. Ms Thomas confirmed that her involvement with human resources in a fulltime role only occurred after the current HR manager left in early 2023.[63] Ms Thomas confirmed that prior to that time she had no knowledge at all of the Queensland operations (from a human resources perspective).[64]
  4. [57]
    Ms Thomas' involvement in the matter effectively really commenced when she was tasked with preparing a response from the Respondent to the correspondence dated 19 February 2023[65] from Ms Mann.             
  5. [58]
    In conducting its case, the Respondent effectively took Ms Thomas to the various items of correspondence sent by Ms Mann and then asked her to provide inadmissible opinion evidence as to what she believed the reason for resignation to be based on that correspondence. Ms Thomas' evidence can be effectively summarised from these two excerpts from the transcript:

But what did you consider the resignation to be?---Ah, intolerable working conditions, basically; a breakdown in relationship between the employer and the employee. The employee decided to move on. Um, the – the – there was the formal complaint of Akki O'Mara, which happened before the resignation, ah, that was being investigated. The timeline was that the investigation was ongoing – undergoing, um, until November, but then the resignation occurred in September. So it – it’s just a breakdown in relationships which occurred between employer and employee.[66]

…

Thank you. So I’ll probably just, in summary, considering all the documents we’ve discussed, what do you consider Sarah’s reason for resigning to be?---Intolerable working conditions. Um, I do know that her manager, um, along with the negotiations of the 50,000, did, um, offer other types of trying to get her to continue working with us. Um, Ms Mann decided not to, um, and it was a breakdown in – in business relationship, but it was all due to intolerable working conditions. The resignation letter made it very clear and stated that many, many times.

Yep. And in all those documents that you were privy to, did you at any time become aware that her decision to resign was because of any family matters?---Not at all.[67]             

  1. [59]
    On 19 February 2023, the Applicant sent an email to Mr Leijer in the following terms:

Hi Ian,

Submitting a letter requesting payment of my entitlements on the 28th February 2023 and a request for payments due to the effects of workplace bullying has had on me and excess hours worked over the past 8 years. The request for these is as a result of me having to make a choice to no longer work for Seafarms due to intolerable work conditions that no longer allow me to fulfill the role I was employed to complete.[68]             

  1. [60]
    Attached to that email was a letter from the Applicant setting out what in effect amounts to an ambit claim for various amounts to be paid out to her upon her employment ceasing on 28 February 2023. I will not include the full detail of the claim, but some of the key components were:
  • All leave entitlements with super;
  • Back pay from October to February for wage increase at the wage index;
  • Sick leave paid out;
  • Long service leave paid out at full entitlement 10 years' service;
  • Payment of two years future salary (for employment taken away due to intolerable working conditions);
  • Back for additional hours worked;
  • Payment of the agreed lump sum of $50,000.00.[69] 
  1. [61]
    In that correspondence to Mr Leijer, Ms Mann stated:

As stated last week, it is no longer tenable for me to continue in my role as the Financial and Management Accountant for Seafarms Queensland Operations. This decision is made because of a number of incidents in the workplace which have occurred over an extended period and have not been resolved satisfactorily to ensure that I can continue to work in my current position.

During the last 6-12 months, I have been subjected to multiple incidents of bullying and harassment when on site in Cardwell. Notably, I made a complaint of bullying and harassment which was proven on investigation. The conduct that led to the complaint was aggressive and intimidating and has had an on-going and long-term negative impact to my health. I continue to have trouble sleeping, am depressed and suffer anxiety at work, all of which has taken its toll on both me and my family. However, it is concerning that although the complaint of bullying and harassment which was proven, there has been minimal disciplinary action taken against the bully.

…

In addition to this incident there is further inappropriate behaviour, such as the desk moving incident. As discussed with you as my manager, the ongoing behaviour from that manager has been allowed to continue, which indicates that this behaviour is accepted form him in his role as a senior manager. This clearly demonstrates the executive leadership continues to accept harassment and exclusion of an employee in the workplace.

The ongoing work environment that I am required to work in and be exposed to is unsafe and has forced my decision to leave. The stress associated with the workplace has affected my health and the relationship with my family. The ongoing bullying and harassment has taken away my strength, it has taken away my confidence and left me unable to successfully perform the duties of my position as Financial Management Accountant Seafarms Queensland Operations.
…

As you are aware, I had resigned on the 14th of September, however, I am still here after being requested by you to stay until February. As discussed last week the ongoing mental health issues as a result of the behaviours experienced, and still currently being experienced in the workplace, do not allow me to continue in my current role.[70]

  1. [62]
    Ms Thomas was tasked with and prepared the Respondent's response to Ms Mann's letter which was dated 10 March 2023.[71] In that correspondence the Respondent noted in relation to the claim for long service leave that there was no entitlement under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) to have long service leave paid out on termination. There was no mention of a pro rata claim for long service leave under the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld).
  2. [63]
    Following her employment with the Respondent ending, the Applicant filed an unfair dismissal application in the Fair Work Commission on 21 March 2023.[72] Ms Thomas also confirmed that she was tasked to assist the Respondent's legal representatives with preparing the employer response to that application.[73] In that response, the Respondent raised a jurisdictional objection that the Applicant had not been dismissed and had in fact voluntarily resigned on 14 September 2022.             
  3. [64]
    In preparing her response to the 19 February correspondence, Ms Thomas confirmed in her evidence that she was unaware of the resignation letter dated 14 September 2022.[74] Ms Thomas confirmed that the resignation letter dated 14 September 2022 was not a document she was provided with in order to respond to either the correspondence from Ms Mann dated 19 February 2023 or the unfair dismissal application. Ms Thomas also confirmed that she played no role in the management of Ms Mann's resignation at the time in September 2022.[75]             
  4. [65]
    It became clear during cross-examination that what Ms Thomas believed to be the resignation letter was the correspondence from Ms Mann dated 19 February 2023.[76]
  5. [66]
    In later questioning by the Commission, Ms Thomas resiled somewhat from that earlier evidence, and appeared to confirm that she did have the resignation letter provided on 14 September 2022, and she could not work out why they (the 14 September 2022 correspondence and the 19 February 2023 correspondence) were basically the same, but she considered that there was such an emphasis on intolerable working conditions and the bullying that her focus was fully on that.[77]             
  6. [67]
    After cross-examination had been completed, the Commission asked a number of questions of Ms Thomas and she confirmed as follows
  • At the time of preparing Exhibit 1L, the correspondence dated 10 March 2023, Ms Thomas did not have knowledge of Ms Mann's personal circumstances.
  • She did not have knowledge that her son had been diagnosed with ASD;
  • She did not know that Ms Mann's son was having behavioural issues;
  • She did not know that Ms Mann's husband had suffered a brain aneurysm at an earlier point in time.
  • She knew something was going on at home, but it was not her place to ask.[78]
  • The information she was provided by Mr Leijer was very vague and she felt like she was putting a jigsaw together.[79]
  • She did not consider going to the source, Ms Mann, to obtain further information because at that time she was not the HR manager and her role was very obscure. Further, she did not think she had the right because it felt very personal.[80]
  • She was not aware of there being issues with suspensions from school, nor that Ms Mann's son had medical diagnoses that may be relevant.[81]             

Applicant's Outline of Argument

  1. [68]
    Ms Mann contends that that the resignation she submitted on 14 September 2022 was due to a domestic or other pressing necessity within the meaning of s 95(4)(b)(ii) of the IR Act.[82]             
  2. [69]
    The Applicant contends that the IR Act does not require an employee to advise their employer of the domestic necessity at the time of the resignation.[83]
  3. [70]
    Despite this, the Applicant does contend that within the resignation that was submitted to the Respondent, she outlined the following[84]:

"[My child] needs more of my time than previously required to ensure he can receive the therapy he needs to enable him to achieve his goals."[85]

  1. [71]
    The Outline of Argument notes that during 2022 the care requirements for Ms Mann's son increased and required a greater amount of time due to an essential need for her to be able to continually engage with the school about H.[86] Ms Mann notes:
  • Between March 2022 and July 2022 H received 5 external suspensions from his school.[87]
  • On 8 August 2022, Ms Mann received a further external suspension from H's school and on 11 August 2022 she received a request from the Principal and Director of School Effectiveness to keep H at home whilst the school reviewed his PLP.[88]
  1. [72]
    As of 14 September 2022, the school had yet to implement a plan for the Applicant's son to return to school.              
  2. [73]
    The Applicant resigned from her role with the Respondent on 14 September 2022.[89]
  3. [74]
    The Applicant notes that the suspension, review of the PLP, school guidelines and changes under the Disability Standards[90] occurred between 8 August 2022 and 14 September 2022.[91]             
  4. [75]
    In total, H was absent from school for a total of 52 days in 2022 as a direct result of suspensions.[92] The Applicant contends that in Term 4 of 2022, H was able to return to school for 'part days' only.[93] She submits that attendance for part days at school involved:

a. dropping my child to school,

b. picking them up for the first break time (morning break),

c. Dropping them back after break time (morning break)

d. picking them up for the next break (afternoon break time)

e. Dropping them back after break time (afternoon Break)

f. Managing the day's timetable for a successful day at school

g. Working with the school and teachers daily

 h.  Arranging an extra-curricular activity instead of school sport once a week due to lack of staff at school for supervision at sport.[94]

  1. [76]
    Including the part days in Term 4 of 2022, H was absent for 42% of the entire year.[95]
  2. [77]
    The Applicant contends that while her son was suspended from school, she was required to homeschool and would have her son travel with her to Cardwell when she was required to attend work there.[96]  The Applicant further noted:
  1. The effect of a suspension and the related issues that arise from a suspension occur not only for the length of time of the suspension, it is also the meetings to arrange the return to school, meetings to discuss the findings and the ongoing work on prevention.[97]
  1. [78]
    Ms Mann contends that her resignation from the Respondent occurred because of domestic necessity as she needed to care for her child and focus on his needs to ensure that he could complete his secondary education.[98] She submits that this was her primary reason for her resignation, and that this is evidenced in her resignation letter on 14 September 2022.
  2. [79]
    The Applicant submits that the Respondent requested that she continue her employment with Seafarms Queensland Pty Ltd ('Seafarms') until the completion of the half- year audit which would be finalised in February 2023. Ms Mann contends that she agreed to this as the audit would occur during the school holidays and she would have greater freedom during this time as she would not be required to manage school life for her son.[99]
  3. [80]
    Following the audit, the Applicant contends that she was asked to return to the Respondent as a contractor, however, declined this offer as she was still managing her child's part-day attendance.[100]  Ms Mann concluded her Outline of Argument as follows:

I chose to resign from Seafarm Queensland Pty Ltd due to Domestic necessity as detailed. The care of my child and the ability to focus on their needs every day and ensure that they were safe at school, could attend school each day and participate actively at school with their peers was the domestic necessity that I face at the time of my resignation.[101]

Applicant's Oral Submissions

  1. [81]
    At the close of the evidence the Applicant provided short oral submissions in which she emphasised that her motivating reason for terminating her employment with Seafarm on 14 September 2022 was due to domestic necessity and the need to care for her child, who was unable to attend school full-time, homeschool and look after his mental health.[102]
  1. [82]
    The Applicant further noted that H received six suspensions between March and August 2022 and had an attendance of 58% for the whole year. During suspensions, the Applicant provided care for H, which included homeschooling, encouraging him to write over 8000 words per day of suspension, and looking after his mental health. It was submitted that the Applicant's care of her child whilst he was suspended involved her completing 10 to 12 hours per day. When working in Cardwell, Ms Mann would take H with her (when he was suspended).[103]             
  2. [83]
    On the day of her resignation on 14 September 2022, the Applicant had spoken with the school regarding progress on the return-to-school plan and was advised that this was still not finalised. The Applicant submits that this was when she decided to resign as the options for returning to school were still non-existent. On 14 September 2022 she was advised that the options could include distance education or homeschooling. Ms Mann submitted that the decision to resign would allow her to continue work with the school on inclusion, and she would not have to work the 50 to 60 hours per week.[104]
  3. [84]
    The Applicant confirmed that the decision to resign was also based on the events at the workplace, but the one motivating reason for the resignation was her son. Ms Mann submitted that she was effectively burnt out.[105] The Applicant completed her oral submissions by submitting:

… To turn up to work every day knowing that I've got a phone call from the school, I'm dealing with an email, I'm picking up H up from lunchtime break, and everything, and those things happening in addition to that in my personal life, you – you will break.

And, like I mentioned, parents of neurodiverse kids, or ASD, they're in survival mode. I'm in survival mode pretty much every day. And, at that time, I was definitely in survival mode. When you're being told that the school can't find a way to educate your child, yet they're meant to, by the Disability Standards of Education, be able to accept him.

…

So that experience, I think I've tried to explain it from a neurodiverse parent, but if – I think any parent at all would have had to make the same decision, because your working hours are not conducive. The flexibility of having to take your son everywhere you go is not conducive, so that would be my response.[106]

Respondent's Outline of Argument

  1. [85]
    The Respondent concedes that the Applicant had completed 8.23 years continuous service and that the value of any pro-rata long service leave would be $16,377.23.[107]
  1. [86]
    The Respondent further concedes that the Applicant tendered her resignation on 14 September 2022 with her employment ending on 28 February 2023.[108]
  1. [87]
    The Respondent outlines that factors considered in AWU v Sunshine Coast Private Hospital[109] and contends that Ms Mann bears the onus of proving that she resigned "because of" the domestic circumstances that she was subject to at the time of resignation.
  1. [88]
    The Respondent submits that the fact that the Applicant was subject to circumstances that are within the scope of s 95(4)(b) at the time of her resignation are not determinative of whether the entitlement to proportionate long service leave arises; the Applicant bears the onus of proving on the balance of probabilities that she resigned "because of" that circumstance.[110]
  1. [89]
    The Respondent contends that between July 2022 and September 2022, the Applicant expressed written discontent with various working conditions and on 6 September 2022, specifically submitted a bullying claim against the Hatchery Manager. The Respondent also contends that Ms Mann made an informal complaint on the same day outlining a conflict with the Health Safety & Environment Manager involving disagreements over office space.
  1. [90]
    It is noted that these expressions of written discontent and the grievance or bullying claim submitted on 6 September 2022 are not in the evidence before the Commission. Neither party has provided any explanation for this evidence not being tendered.
  1. [91]
    The Respondent submits that in her email which accompanied the 14 September 2022 resignation letter, the Applicant stated, "I cannot continue in my current position with the inability to interact with the Hatchery."[111]
  1. [92]
    Further, the Respondent contends that the reason that the Applicant's son required more of her time was due to the following statement which was included in the resignation letter:

The current situation being experienced from the Hatchery manager is not allowing me to look after my family the way I should.[112]

  1. [93]
    The Respondent contends that the Applicant's reason for resignation was her inability to interact with the Hatchery.
  1. [94]
    The Respondent submits that Mr Ian Leijer, the Applicant's manager, wrote to the Applicant on 25 September 2022 to outline options for the Applicant to continue her employment with Seafarms.[113] It is then contended that Ms Mann responded to this message on 6 November indicating that money was a motivating factor and that she was looking at other job offers.[114]
  1. [95]
    The Respondent contends that the Applicant sent further correspondence on 19 February 2023 in which she:
  1. stated that she could no longer work for the Respondent due to "intolerable work conditions;"
  1. stated that her decision to resign was due to her dissatisfaction with how "a number of incidents in the workplace" had been dealt with;
  1. further stated that her decision to resign was "forced" by her working environment being "unsafe" as a consequence of the above;
  1. demanded payment of long service leave with the full entitlement of ten years.[115]
  1. [96]
    In correspondence sent to the Applicant on 10 March 2025, the Respondent submits that they advised Ms Mann that due to the circumstances of her resignation, she was not entitled to receive payment of long service leave.[116]
  1. [97]
    The Respondent notes that on 21 March 2023, the Applicant lodged and unfair dismissal claim against the Respondent in the Fair Work Commission[117] where she claimed that she was forced to resign die to intolerable work conditions. The Respondent submits that this matter was not settled at conciliation but was subsequently discontinued by the Applicant on 28 April 2025.[118]
  1. [98]
    In addressing the current application, the Respondent contends that it was not until 20 months after her employment ended that the Applicant made the first assertion that her resignation was due to domestic necessity.[119]
  1. [99]
    The Respondent contends that the Commission ought to be satisfied that the reason on which the Applicant placed the most weight for her resignation was not domestic necessity in the following circumstances:
  1. the Applicant stated on numerous occasions over several months that her resignation was for reasons other than domestic necessity;
  1. the Applicant subsequently commenced legal proceedings asserting that her resignation was for reasons other than domestic necessity, namely that her resignation had been "forced" by the Respondent due to "intolerable working conditions;" and
  1. there has been no suggestion prior to the commencement of these proceedings that the Applicant resigned for reasons of domestic necessity.[120]
  1. [100]
    The Respondent contends that the Applicant's claim of resigning due to domestic necessity is not genuine and her attempt to rewrite history is simply a rationalisation to achieve the preconditions of section 95 of the IR Act.[121]
  1. [101]
    The Respondent finally submits that there was no reasonable basis for the Applicant to resign for reasons of domestic necessity. The Respondent contends that in 2020, the Respondent had demonstrated to the Applicant that they were prepared to offer significant flexibility. Given this demonstration, the Respondent contends that there is no rational basis why the Applicant did not at least attempt to discuss alternative working arrangement to address her domestic situation before proceeding to resign.[122]
  1. [102]
    The Respondent submits that the application should be dismissed.

Respondent's Oral Submissions

  1. [103]
    The Respondent's oral submissions largely reiterated the Respondent's Outline of Argument.
  2. [104]
    The Respondent contends that at the time of the resignation on 14 September 2022, the Applicant asserted no domestic necessity as the reason for her resignation. The Respondent notes that in the letter of resignation (Exhibit 1B) the Applicant cited her inability to interact with the Hatchery, and she had no other option but to resign. The Respondent further contends that the evidence of Mr Leijer was that at no time leading up to, or after her resignation, did the Applicant disclose or indicate to him that reasons of domestic necessity had the most bearing on her decision to resign.[123]
  3. [105]
    The Respondent contends that the contemporaneous correspondence from the Applicant (including Exhibits 1A, 1B, 1D, 1E and 1F) all point to the intolerable working conditions as being the cause of the termination of her employment, and does not in any way suggest that the resignation was due to domestic necessity.[124]              
  4. [106]
    The Respondent contends that the Applicant's oral evidence of there being a domestic necessity relating to H and his schooling, coming some 30 months after the fact, and directly contradicting multiple items of contemporaneous evidence she authored, should be viewed by the Commission in effect as a recent invention and an attempt to rewrite history more than two years after the fact in an attempt to satisfy the preconditions.[125]
  5. [107]
    The Respondent points to the fundamental inconsistency between the case presented to the Commission, and the claim for unfair dismissal filed with the Fair Work Commission in which the Applicant claimed for constructive dismissal arising from intolerable working conditions. The Respondent submits that one of these claims must be false. The Respondent further contends that given the weight of the evidence in favour of the narrative advanced in the Fair Work case, the true reasons for resignation were the intolerable working conditions.[126]

Consideration

What was the reason for resignation?

  1. [108]
    Ms Mann sent an email to her line manager, Mr Leijer on 14 September 2022 to which she attached her resignation letter.[127] In the email, Ms Mann revealed the following reason for her resignation:

I have taken a week to think things through and I cannot continue in my current position with the  inability to interact with the Hatchery.             

The Hatchery is a business unit my team deal with daily and the relationship has been broken to the point that it will affect the performance of my role.

I had seen a long future with Seafarms, but this has been cut short.[128]

  1. [109]
    In the attached letter of resignation[129] the Applicant provides more context behind her decision to resign as follows:

I regretfully inform you today that I will be resigning from my position of Financial and Management Accountant with Seafarm Queensland. My last day will be Friday 14th of October 2022.

I need to be able to give 100% to my family and am currently coming home with stress from work due to the current situation that I have been on the receival end of.

H needs more of my time than previously required to ensure he can receive the therapy he needs to enable him to achieve his goals. As H gets older his ASD is taking more of my time to manage. I have been unable to give him what is required to manage H's care due to my working hours over the past 12 months and in addition to this the current situation being experienced from the Hatchery manager is not allowing me to look after my family the way I should. The stress caused from the current situation being experienced at work is not allowing me to have a clear head when I finish work each day, which has a detrimental effect on my family life.[130]

(Emphasis added)

  1. [110]
    Despite in the passages excerpted above indicating a personal family related issue for resigning her employment, Ms Mann in the next four paragraphs of the resignation letter goes on to indicate that it is work related issues that are also motivating her resignation:

To be honest I am burnt out, I have carried 3 positions for the past 12 months and the behaviours experienced from the Hatchery manager over the past 6 months are not conducive to a nice work environment. These behaviours are not new and have existed in the company for many years. I was looking forward to where the business would progress to over the next 12 months and wanted to be a part of the future of the company, however I feel that this opportunity has now been removed.

I cannot successfully complete my current position due to being on the receival end of aggressive behaviour when interacting with the Hatchery manager and therefore I cannot continue as an employee of Seafarms Queensland. The email received on Friday 2nd September and the subsequent SMS on 6th of September pushed the situation to the point I had to decide to put my family first.

As mentioned to you last week, I do not believe that I can successfully complete my position due to the ongoing negative behaviour that I have had to work with over the past 6 months. My role involves working with all areas of the business, however I am unable to even communicate with the Hatchery due to fear of insults and aggressive nature of communication from the manager of that work area. Another major part of my role is managing a team that also must interact with the business unit. As I am unable to interact with the Hatchery, this puts a large amount of pressure upon me. I do not want my team members to experience any of the behaviour I have had to. My team deals with the Hatchery daily, and I cannot support them with any queries as I am afraid that I will be on the receival end if something was to go wrong.

As a result of my inability to interact with the Hatchery, I see my current position as untenable and therefore I have no other option but to resign from my position. If I were to continue in my current role, I would not be providing the same level of service that I have previously provided. This decision was not easy to make as I enjoy working at Seafarms, but due to the working environment I must work in I am unable to continue my current position. I am putting my mental health and my family first.

(Emphasis added)

  1. [111]
    The Applicant has always conceded that the reasons behind her resignation were multi-factorial and included dissatisfaction with her long hours and her perception of being bullied in the workplace by management at the Hatchery. Both in opening her case and in her closing oral submissions Ms Mann confirmed that there were many contributing factors to her decision to resign.[131]             
  2. [112]
    A number of authorities have confirmed that the reason for the termination of the employment which falls within one of the entitling factors in s 95(4) of the IR Act need not be the sole or only reason for the applicant terminating the employment.[132]
  3. [113]
    The paragraphs excerpted from the resignation letter as contained in paragraph [110] appear to confirm work related issues as being a partial cause for Ms Mann's resignation.
  4. [114]
    Those issues related to long working hours and the difficulties that the Applicant was experiencing at the workplace in Cardwell in her dealings with the Hatchery manager, are not matters that would fall within the grounds set out in s 95(4) of the IR Act as giving rise to an entitlement to claim pro rata long service leave entitlements upon termination of the employment.              
  5. [115]
    Ms Mann in the Form 14 – Application as noted in the excerpt in paragraph [4] of these reasons contends that the reason for the termination of her employment with Seafarms were related to managing H's ASD, effectively issues relating to the care of her son.
  6. [116]
    The resignation letter dated 14 September 2022 also raises those personal issues in the passages excerpted in paragraph [109] above.              
  7. [117]
    The authorities mentioned at paragraphs [16] to [20] confirm that the need to care for an ill family member, or to care for a child are issues that can satisfy s 95(4)(b)(ii) of the IR Act as being a domestic or other pressing necessity.              
  8. [118]
    I am therefore satisfied that the reason that the Applicant has put forward to explain her resignation is one that falls within s 95(4) of the IR Act.             
  9. [119]
    The real issue of dispute between the parties appears to be whether the personal reason relied upon by Ms Mann was in fact the genuine or motivating reason for her terminating her employment. This issue will be examined next.             

Were the personal issues a genuine or motivating reason for the termination?

  1. [120]
    The Respondent contends that the Applicant's claim that she terminated her employment for the family related reasons she now puts forward is a recent invention or an attempt to re-write history to bring herself within s 95(4) of the IR Act.             
  2. [121]
    In pressing that case the Respondent relies upon the oral evidence of Mr Leijer and Ms Thomas in this appeal, and to a significant extent, the Respondent relies upon the contemporaneous correspondence or documentary evidence prepared by the Applicant herself.

Evidence of Annie Thomas

  1. [122]
    Dealing firstly with the evidence of Ms Thomas. It is clear that Ms Thomas had limited involvement with Ms Mann at the time of her resignation on 14 September 2022 and had no knowledge at that time of the issues giving rise to Ms Mann's resignation. Ms Thomas first became actively involved in matters pertaining to the Applicant sometime towards the end of February 2023, some five months after the Applicant had resigned.
  2. [123]
    The summary of Ms Thomas' evidence set out earlier in these reasons confirm that Ms Thomas had no awareness of the personal issues impacting Ms Mann's decision to resign. She indicated that she was given vague and frankly unsatisfactory information from Mr Leijer about the Applicant's resignation. Further, she did not consider it appropriate to personally seek that information from Ms Mann.              
  3. [124]
    Having observed the evidence of Ms Thomas, I am satisfied that Ms Mann's actual resignation letter dated 14 September 2022 was not considered by Ms Thomas when she was preparing the company response to the correspondence from Ms Mann or assisting in the company response to Ms Mann's unfair dismissal application in the Fair Work Commission. This is consistent with her initial evidence that she was not aware of the resignation letter dated 14 September 2022[133] and she did not take this document into account in preparing her response to the correspondence from Ms Mann dated 19 February 2023.[134]
  4. [125]
    As a consequence, Ms Thomas' evidence was limited to inadmissible opinion evidence about what was contained in correspondence or documents provided by Ms Mann and what she believed those documents revealed about the Applicant's reasons for resigning her employment with Seafarms.              
  5. [126]
    Given the findings made above, I intend to give the evidence of Ms Thomas negligible weight.

Evidence of Ian Leijer

  1. [127]
    The evidence of Mr Leijer to some extent suffered from the same issue as the evidence of Ms Thomas. That is, he was taken to the documentary evidence like Exhibits 1A and 1B and asked his opinion as to the reasons for the Applicant's resignation.[135] For similar reasons as noted above for Ms Thomas, I give evidence of this nature negligible weight.
  2. [128]
    Mr Leijer was directly asked in examination-in-chief whether he had any discussions with the Applicant about her ongoing employment in the week before the resignation email on 14 September 2022. He stated that he could not specifically recall.[136]
  3. [129]
    The evidence of Mr Leijer has been summarised in paragraphs [44] to [53] above. I consider Mr Leijer to have been an honest witness who was doing his best to assist the Commission. As he noted in his evidence he had some difficulties in recalling relevant conversations and events related to Ms Mann's resignation.[137]  Where there is an inconsistency between the evidence of Mr Leijer and Ms Mann regarding conversations they had during this period, I prefer the evidence of Ms Mann.             
  4. [130]
    Ultimately, I am satisfied that the evidence of Mr Leijer was largely consistent with the evidence of the Applicant. When assessed globally, Mr Leijer confirmed that the workplace issues that Ms Mann was experiencing were a factor that caused her resignation. In addition, the personal and family issues she was dealing with relating to H were also a factor in causing her to resign.              

Documentary Evidence

  1. [131]
    The Respondent's contention that the Applicant's case of personal reasons motivating her resignation is a recent invention primarily rests upon the contemporaneous documentary evidence contained in the agreed bundle. The majority of that evidence actually post-dates the Applicant's resignation on 14 September 2022. This evidence included the following:
  • Emails between the Applicant and Mr Leijer on 13 October 2022.[138] In her email the Applicant informs Mr Leijer about further instances of events that had occurred that day and reiterates her inability to continue working for Seafarms because of the ongoing work issues. There is no mention of personal or family related issues in that email. In her evidence Ms Mann confirmed that the events she was referring to had occurred that day on 13 October 2022.[139]
  • Email dated 19 February 2023 from the Applicant to Mr Leijer.[140]  This email attaches the letter from Ms Mann dated 19 February 2023. In the email Ms Mann notes that she is submitting a letter requesting payment of her entitlements on 28 February 2023 due to the effects of workplace bullying and excess hours worked over the past eight years. She notes that her request is a result of her having to make a choice to no longer work for Seafarms due to intolerable working conditions. Once again there is no mention in this email of family or personal issues.
  • Letter dated 19 February 2023.[141] This correspondence is discussed at paragraphs [59] to [ 61] above. This letter continues setting out the Applicant's concerns with the workplace and the impact of the bullying and harassment on her. There is no mention of family or personal issues in this correspondence, other than noting that the workplace issues have caused the Applicant to be depressed and experience anxiety at work, which had also taken its toll on her and her family.
  • Form F2 – Unfair dismissal application dated 21 March 2023.[142] This application was completed by the Applicant as a self-represented party. In the application Ms Mann claims that there had been a constructive dismissal of her employment on 1 February 2023. Unsurprisingly, Ms Mann raises her allegations of bullying and harassment in the workplace in support of her claim for compensation.
  1. [132]
    The Respondent relies upon the documentary evidence set out above as supporting or bolstering its contention that the real reason that the Applicant resigned was her dissatisfaction with the Hatchery management staff and how they had been treating her.
  1. [133]
    The difficulty with the Respondent's reliance on that material in contending that the reason for Ms Mann's resignation on 14 September 2022 was work related is laid bare by the Respondent's Form F3 response to the Fair Work Commission unfair dismissal application.[143] In that document the Respondent argued that:
  • The Applicant had in fact resigned on 14 September 2022 and had tendered her resignation voluntarily.[144]
  • Any reliance on events occurring after her resignation on 14 September 2022 cannot be relied upon as "forcing" her to resign.[145]
  • The Applicant in her application relied at paragraphs 3.1(4) – (7) and 3.2(2)-(6) on alleged conduct and circumstances occurring after the completion of the investigation into her complaint, that is, at least six weeks after she had already resigned.[146]
  1. [134]
    Each of the items of correspondence relied upon by the Respondent all post-date the Applicant's resignation on 14 September 2022. In some cases, by some months. Further, although there may have been some reference to the incidences of bullying that occurred prior to 14 September 2022, to a large extent the correspondence relied upon by the Respondent refers to events in the workplace that have occurred post 14 September 2022.
  2. [135]
    There is also a background context which should be taken into account when assessing the documentary evidence that post-dates the resignation which is as follows:
  • Mr Leijer in his evidence confirmed that after the resignation he did not want the Applicant to leave because he saw the Applicant as an integral part of the financial team.[147]
  • At a meeting at the QANTAS club at Cairns Airport after the Applicant had resigned, he negotiated an agreement for the Applicant to stay on until 28 February 2023 to assist in the busy Christmas period, and to complete a half-year audit with new auditors. In return Mr Leijer agreed to pay the Applicant a retention amount of $50,000.00 on top of her normal salary.[148] This was the background to Ms Mann's decision to work on for some months following her resignation. I am satisfied that Ms Mann did not at any stage revoke the resignation letter she provided on 14 September 2022.
  • As part of his attempt to persuade the Applicant to stay on, he sent her a detailed letter setting out his vision for the finance team and the Applicant's role in that team. At the end of that letter he asked the Applicant to consider being part of the team for six months, because he believed after that time Ms Mann would not want to leave.[149]
  • Mr Leijer agreed to the Applicant having two weeks leave in September 2022 post her resignation to allow her to re-assess things and de-stress.[150]             
  1. [136]
    Mr Leijer noted in his evidence that following that period of leave the Applicant returned with a positive attitude and was keen to try and make it work, but there were a few more interactions that caused the negative sentiments (towards the workplace) to resurface.[151]
  2. [137]
    In this context, the correspondence listed above can be viewed as the Applicant reporting to Mr Leijer the ongoing difficulties that she was experiencing in the workplace, and ultimately her conclusion that Mr Leijer (despite his best efforts) had not caused her to change her original decision to resign from Seafarms.             
  3. [138]
    The unfair dismissal application filed by the Applicant in the Fair Work Commission I consider to be a last (somewhat desperate) attempt by an unrepresented former employee to try and maximise the financial benefits to be received from the ending of the employment relationship. Despite the contentions of the Respondent, I do not consider that what occurs in March 2023 has any real relevance to the reasons why Ms Mann resigned on 14 September 2022.             
  4. [139]
    Given those findings, each of the exhibits identified above have limited to no relevance to the reasons motivating the Applicant's resignation on 14 September 2022. As a consequence, I will give them limited weight in deciding the application.
  5. [140]
    This means that the strongest evidence in support of the Respondent's case are Exhibits 1A and 1B.              
  6. [141]
    In Exhibit 1A, the email of 14 September 2022, Ms Mann makes no mention at all of family or domestic issues as giving rise to her decision to resign. The contents of this email have been excerpted at paragraph [108] above, and those contents support the Respondent's contention that it was the work related events that have caused Ms Mann to resign on 14 September 2022. This is confirmed in the first sentence of the email.             
  7. [142]
    Exhibit 1B, the resignation letter dated 14 September that was attached to Exhibit 1A, presents difficulties for the Respondent's argument of Ms Mann re-writing history or creating a recent invention as to her reasons for resigning. As noted in the excerpts of that letter in paragraph [109] above, the Applicant in paragraphs two and three does raise that personal reasons relating to her family, and in particular H needing more of her time, were factors motivating her decision to resign.              
  8. [143]
    Further, the evidence of Mr Leijer summarised at paragraph [52]  and [53] confirms that Mr Leijer was aware of the difficulties that Ms Mann was experiencing with H and his schooling, and was aware of her need to have flexibility in her work arrangements to allow her to attend appointments relating to H. It is not clear to what extent (if any) that Mr Leijer shared that knowledge with other management staff at Seafarms.              
  9. [144]
    The further difficulty for the Respondent's argument of recent invention or a re-writing of history is that there is a body of other evidence before the Commission which confirms that the issues relating to H and his suspensions from school in 2022 were a genuine issue that the Applicant was required to address.             
  10. [145]
    As noted earlier in these reasons, Exhibits 1O and 1P establish that there was a marked and significant increase in the number of suspensions that H was receiving during 2022 compared to the two preceding years. This was consistent with the evidence of the Applicant that H's behavioural issues were manifesting on a more regular basis at school during 2022.             
  11. [146]
    Included in the agreed bundle was correspondence from the Acting Principal of the school dated 11 August 2022.[152] That correspondence notes as follows:

Having considered what has occurred in the recent incident, coupled with our concerns with the lack of engagement in H's learning, we have decided to review his current PLP.

We have sought support of (redacted) personnel to review H's PLP with the view to work with you to discuss a way forward for H.

In order for us to be able to conduct this process, H will be required to remain at home and not attend school until Monday 22 August 2022. Please note that this is not a suspension, but a way to provide our staff with the appropriate time to give full consideration in the development of a revised plan. This will also be an opportunity for H to be complete his suspension booklets.

…

  1. [147]
    On Monday, 12 September 2022, Ms Mann received an email from the Head of Learning Enrichment at the school.[153] In that email the following is noted:

To help us work towards H's return to school, we want to determine how we can best use the documents we've drafted (attached) as navigation tools for teachers and staff who are eager to engage in a clear and consistent approach to support H.

We had discussed amalgamating the documents and including a phased implementation plan similar to what is currently included in his behaviour plan.

Do you want to do this as a team – and will a final document be a requirement before H can return? Or can we continue to develop it (again as a team) as a working document over time and review it and finetune it upon H's return?

In addition to this, can you please advise of any further considerations we need to attend to in order to facilitate our shared goal for H to be more comfortable and confident in returning (e.g., part school days, teacher meeting with OT and/or other professionals, etc)? We can confirm that (redacted) is happy to regularly check in with H upon his return.

…

  1. [148]
    On Friday, 16 September 2022, the Applicant received an email from the Deputy Principal from the school.[154] That email set out various steps that had been taken and were to be taken regarding the completion of the plan and its implementation at the school. The Deputy Principal noted that the PLP was underway and that the school was awaiting feedback from the Applicant. The Deputy Principal further noted that the remainder of the plan for H's re-introduction would need to consider the Applicant's input on the PLP.              
  2. [149]
    The exhibits summarised above in my view confirm the evidence of Ms Mann regarding the issues surrounding H including:
  • his history of suspensions in 2022;
  • concerns regarding his behaviour at school (particularly in light of the last incident);
  • the need to make significant amendments to H's PLP that had been in place; and
  • how, when and in what manner H was going to return to school, were ongoing and significant issues occurring in August and September 2022 which still required finalisation as of 14 September 2022. I am further satisfied that these matters were not only significant matters of concern for Ms Mann, but also for the school.
  1. [150]
    In her evidence the Applicant also confirmed that she had made a complaint regarding the school's handling of issues related to H to the Professional Standards Office and that her complaint was the subject of an investigation.[155] As a result of that investigation, an outcome letter from the Professional Standards and Safeguarding Office was sent to the Applicant on 5 April 2023.[156] That correspondence relevantly noted:

…

It was recognised H's return to the school was delayed following his suspension for a total of 27 days. I understand that this was as a result of expectations that both the PLP and Behaviour Support Plans had been reviewed and an impasse as to the requirements for the suspension booklet to be completed. The investigation indicates that following the withdrawal of the requirement to complete the booklet H returned to school on 5 October 2022 with the expectation that the school complete the plans as committed.

I note that the college has since updated the formal individual PLP for H dated 10 November 2022. The plan was developed by Student Wellbeing staff in consultation with SAC head of year and a CES Occupational Therapist. The plan was endorsed by Principal (redacted) and you as a parent.

  1. [151]
    In light of the evidence summarised above, the Respondent's contention that Ms Mann's reliance on personal issues as a reason motivating her resignation were either a recent invention or an attempt to re-write history simply cannot be accepted.              
  2. [152]
    The issue that then requires determination is whether the personal issues relating to H were the motivating reason for Ms Mann's decision to resign on 14 September 2022.
  3. [153]
    Ms Mann gave evidence of what was required of her during the period that H was absent from school from 11 August 2022 until her resignation on 14 September 2022. A summary of this evidence is as follows:
  • H would be at home with her whilst she was working from home. When Ms Mann was required to be in Cardwell for work, H would go with her.[157]
  • Ms Mann had the obligation to talk to H's teachers to get the school work and assessments that H had to complete.[158]
  • Between August and September, H had exams and assignments on top of his normal school work (the latter being supervised by Ms Mann).[159] She set up her home office with another table and whilst H was doing his work she would attempt to do some of her work.[160]
  • H was experiencing mental health issues arising from being away from school that Ms Mann had to deal with, which were manifesting themselves in some behaviours at home.[161]
  • At exam time, an arrangement was put in place that Ms Mann would drive H to the school and he would attend Learning Enrichment (away from other students) to do his exam. Ms Mann would return home and attempt to do some work and then after approximately an hour she would be required to pick H up from school.[162]
  • Throughout this period from early August Ms Mann's day involved not only work, school, it also involved meetings with the Head of Learning Enrichment to discuss the suggested behaviour management plan, PLP, and strategies that could bring some purpose to H's return to the school.[163] Those type of conversations were occurring every day, twice a day. They were not just a five minute telephone call, the calls could be half an hour to an hour calls on most days to the point where three to four hours a day were being spent on school issues.[164]
  • On 12 September 2022, the Applicant had a meeting with the Head of Learning Enrichment who told her that there was still no plan in place and there was no one in agreement about the plan.[165]
  1. [154]
    The clearest explanation for the Applicant's resignation on 14 September 2022 is provided in the following excerpts from the transcript of Ms Mann's evidence:

… So we’re now talking six weeks, I think, from the 8th of – first week in August of – I think it was roughly until the school holidays. On the 13th, phone conversations were had. I also spoke to the (Redacted), the Specialist Education Department. They were still struggling with putting it all together and everyone was working on. We were all working on it and we were all going to come up with a plan. On the 13th – that was on the 13th. And on the 14th, I think we were two days out of school finishing for will term. So school finishing means school closed, no contact. No teachers, nothing, two weeks. They’ll deal with it all when they come back. Whereas my idea was we need to have had this finalised, we need to have this ready to roll when school comes back in October. On the 14th I was advised that that wasn’t going to be possible.

And who advised you that?‑‑‑Head of Learning Enrichment.

And that was in another phone call?‑‑‑Yeah, it was a phone call. So I’ve gotten  emails either side of these phone calls, but it sort of gives the information – the same information, one from the Deputy Principal and one from Head of Learning Enrichment.[166]             

…

Okay?‑‑‑So, yeah. Those – and on the 14th there was obviously a lot of issues happening. So I’m still dealing with H not being at school, I’m dealing with whatever. I actually resigned on the 14th of September 2022.

And was that a written resignation?‑‑‑A written resignation.[167]

…

In those verbal conversations, did you have any discuss with him about issues relating to what was occurring at home and with H?‑‑‑Not that I recall, because it wasn’t a specific moment that that was happening. Ian knew for the last two years of everything that was happening. He was aware of that H was on a suspension at the time. And, looking back at it, all of the times where the incidents happened with this Hatchery manager was actually June, July, August and the beginning of September, when I was in full defence mode for H. So I only saw that looking back on the situation, not really actually in it. And I note in my resignation I start with the resignation with H, because I know that I had actually said to Ian, “I can’t do this anymore. H is my priority. I have to look  after my kids”. That was the conversation. I was also very upset about the things that had happened at the Hatchery, but my motivating reason was I have H, who I have to care for, I actually can’t deal with this. That – that was actually I can’t deal with being treated like that when I’m actually fighting a battle over here that – not – and, you know, it isn’t something that everyone experiences every day. It would have been totally out of character for me, because I’m a pretty tough person. So my reaction to this would have – should have shown that this isn’t how Sarah normally reacts. So, yes, they may not have looked back and gone, you know, that’s the actual situation. But, I suppose, preparing for this, I actually never got asked am I okay in that situation. So maybe that should have made me aware that, oh, they think differently of my reasonings. But, as I’ve just explained to you, my life was actually H. It actually wasn’t work; it was H. And my priority to my day was always H first, work second, and hence where we ended. So I resigned and, like will say as I go through the other exhibits, there are – there are other circumstances that were happening at the same time, but the motivating reason is actually family and looking after H, because there was actually no-one else that can actually look after H , and that’s my priority. So words on – words on here, yes, you can see – and I know that Seafarms will say, you know, the issue with Akki was actually the issue, but it’s not the issue because the underlying issue was the pressure at home.[168]

(Emphasis added)

  1. [155]
    I am satisfied that the issues that the Applicant had been experiencing at the workplace in Cardwell were a factor in her decision to resign.             
  2. [156]
    On 6 September 2022 Ms Mann had taken action to address the issues she was experiencing in her dealings with the Hatchery by lodging a complaint with HR.[169] At this time Ms Mann had been employed by Seafarms for over eight years in a senior role. I am satisfied that she would have been aware that her complaint would have to be investigated and that this would take some time. She would not have expected any outcome from that process within a week.              
  3. [157]
    There is no evidence available to me of there being any further work incident between the Applicant and the Hatchery staff between 6 September 2022 when the complaint/grievance was lodged and 14 September 2022 when the Applicant resigned.
  4. [158]
    What did occur during that period was the realisation that the school was not going to be able to put in place a revised PLP and behaviour plan for H to enable him to return to school in October 2022 following the school holidays.              
  5. [159]
    Ms Mann clearly described that it was her concerns for H and the need for her to spend more time caring for him and addressing the issues that had arisen that gave rise to her decision to resign on 14 September 2022. Her explanation is consistent with, and in my view corroborated by, the contemporaneous documentation in the agreed bundle which has been excerpted above.             
  6. [160]
    As noted earlier in these reasons, Mr Leijer, when taken to the contents of Exhibit 1B (the resignation letter) also confirmed in cross-examination that the family issues were certainly a factor in Ms Mann's resignation.[170] Mr Leijer in responding to questions from the Commission provided the evidence set out in paragraph [53] above, which in my view also corroborates Ms Mann's evidence.             
  7. [161]
    I am satisfied that the motivating reason for the Applicant's resignation on 14 September 2022 was the personal issues relating to her need to provide more time to H's care to manage his ASD and to address the issues that had arisen at school. I am satisfied that in the circumstances that Ms Mann faced at the time, that this was both a domestic necessity and a pressing necessity which has given rise to the need for her to resign her employment from Seafarms.             

Did the reason claimed cause Ms Mann to terminate her employment?  

  1. [162]
    I accept the evidence of Ms Mann that the primary motivating reason for her resigning on 14 September 2022 was the advice she received from the school that the school had been unable to complete a PLP to enable H to return to school in October 2022 following the school holidays.             
  2. [163]
    As noted above, there is contemporaneous documentary evidence from the school which confirms her evidence regarding H's situation in August and September 2022. Further, Ms Mann in the resignation letter[171] confirmed that she needed to be able to give 100% to her family and was unable to because of what was occurring at work. She further explicitly stated that as H gets older his ASD was taking more of her time to manage.
  3. [164]
    Ms Mann provided cogent evidence of the impact of H being at home had on her ability to complete her work and provide the necessary care that H required. In order to try and keep up at work she was working long hours into the night to enable her to have time during the day to address the issues related to H. This was in my view untenable on any long-term basis.             
  4. [165]
    I am satisfied that H's greater care requirements caused Ms Mann to terminate her employment.

Did the reason claimed affect Ms Mann in relation to the employment with Seafarms?

  1. [166]
    I am satisfied that the issues relating to H, his additional care requirements and the necessity on a daily basis for Ms Mann to have involvement with the school regarding both H's school work and the revised PLP and behaviour plan impacted Ms Mann's ability to perform her role with Seafarms.              
  2. [167]
    The Applicant was working from home on a far more regular basis in August and September 2022. When Ms Mann did attend Cardwell for work, she would take H with her. As noted above, Ms Mann was also being required to work late at night to enable her to complete her work duties.

Reasonableness of the decision to terminate the employment?

  1. [168]
    For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that a reasonable person standing in the shoes of Ms Mann as a parent, and facing the circumstances she was experiencing in August and September 2022, would have made the decision to terminate their employment in order to be available to provide greater care to H.

Orders

  1. [169]
    I am satisfied that this application meets the requirements of s 95(4)(b)(ii) of the IR Act and I therefore make the following orders:             
  1. The Application is granted.
  2. The Respondent is to pay Sarah Mann the gross sum $16,377.43 (less applicable tax), being her entitlement to proportionate long service leave pursuant to s 95(4)(b)(ii) of the Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) within 21 days of this order.

Footnotes

[1] Form 14 – Application for proportionate payment of long service leave filed 21 October 2024.

[2] Ibid; Respondent's Outline of Argument filed 25 February 2025, (1).

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Form 14 – Application for proportionate payment of long service leave filed 21 October 2024.

[6] Gibbons v eBet Ltd [2015] QIRC 7 ('Gibbons'), [84] per Industrial Commissioner Neate; AWU v Sunshine Coast Private Hospital [2003] QIR Comm 241; (2003) 172 QGIG 1097, 1101-1102 per Industrial Commissioner Asbury (as her Honour then was); Chapman v A1 Rubber (Aust) Pty Ltd [2019] QIRC 105.

[7] Franks v Kembla Equipment Co. Pty Ltd (1969) AR 17 at 19.

[8] [2006] NSW CIM at [30].

[9] [2024] QIRC 29.

[10] Ibid, [16] per Hartigan DP.

[11] Gibbons v eBet Ltd [2015] QIRC 7, [116] and [118] per Industrial Commissioner Neate; Buchholz, Justus Paul v Uniting Care Health trading as The Wesley Hospital [2021] QIRC 006, [25] per Industrial Commissioner Power.

[12] (2009) 192 QGIG 93.

[13] Ibid, 93.

[14] Ibid, 94.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid; see also 96.

[17] O'Keefe v Queensland Diagnostic Imaging Pty Ltd  (2009) 192 QGIG 93, 94 citing Vermeer v Montague Fresh Queensland Pty Ltd (2007) QIRC 56; Queensland Independent Education Union of Employees (on behalf of Wendy Anderson) v Marchant Park Kindergarten Association Incorporated (2008) QIRC 41.

[18] Ibid, 94.

[19] Ibid, 95.

[20] Ibid.

[21] [2021] QIRC 242.

[22] Ibid [19].

[23] [2024] QIRC 148.

[24] Hoveydai v Nixon Pacific Pty Ltd [2024] QIRC 148, [30] per Pratt IC.

[25] Ibid [31].

[26] Ibid.

[27] T 1-8, lines 15-20.

[28] Pursuant to r 97(3)(b) of the Industrial Relations (Tribunals) Rules 2011 ('the Tribunal Rules'), the name of the Applicant's children have been anonymised because they are minors and their identity is not relevant to the issues to be determined by the Commission. The names of staff from H's school have also been redacted where necessary.

[29] T 1-8, lines 18-26.

[30] T 1-8, lines 30-45.

[31] T 1-11, lines 38-49.

[32] Exhibit 1V.

[33] Ibid; T 1-11, lines 46-48.

[34] T 1-14, lines 1-10.

[35] T.1-11, lines 31-33; T.1-12, lines 2-11, 16.

[36] T 1-9, lines -25-27.

[37] T 1-9, lines 26-32.

[38] T.1-9, lines 39-43.

[39] T.1-9, lines 47-49.

[40] T.1-10, lines 3-21.

[41] T.1-10, lines 25-49.

[42] Exhibit 1P – Absences by session/month.

[43] Exhibit 1O – Suspensions.

[44] T.1-14, lines 18-20.

[45] Ibid, lines 20-21.

[46] See T.1-15 to T.1-16.

[47] Exhibit 1B.

[48] T.1-16, lines 47-49; T.1-17, lines 1-26.

[49] T.1-40, line 21; T.1-42, lines 22-23.

[50] T.1-40, lines 36-49; T.1-41, lines 26-34.

[51] T.1-42, lines 32-45.

[52] T.1-43, lines 1-5.

[53] T.1-43, lines 36. Exhibit 1-G, correspondence from Mr Leijer to Ms Mann (undated).

[54] Exhibit 1G.

[55] T.1-43, lines 30-43.

[56] Exhibit 1B.

[57] T.1-46, lines 23-30.

[58] T.1-47, lines 27-32.

[59] T.1-47, lines, 34-41.

[60] T.1-47, lines 43-48.

[61] T.1-48, lines 1-16.

[62] T.1-51, lines 23-24.

[63] T.1-59, lines 22-49; T.1-60, lines 1-10.

[64] T.1-60, lines 7-27.

[65] Exhibit 1E.

[66] T.1-55, lines 31-38.

[67] T.1-56, lines 1-10.

[68] Exhibit 1D.

[69] Exhibit 1E.

[70] Exhibit 1E.

[71] Exhibit 1L.

[72] Exhibit 1F.

[73] Exhibit 1M.

[74] T.1-56, lines 45-49; T.1-57, lines 1-5.

[75] T.1-57, lines 7-10.

[76] T.1-57, lines 44-49; T.1-58, lines 26-44.

[77] T.1-63, lines 30-38.

[78] T.1-62, lines 39-48; T.1-63, lines 1-2.

[79] T.1-64, lines 31-42.

[80] T.1-64, lines 44-49.

[81] T.1-65, lines 6-23.

[82] Applicant's Outline of Argument filed 25 February 2025, [3].

[83] Ibid, [4].

[84] Ibid, [5].

[85] Agreed bundle: Exhibit 1B.

[86] Ibid, [7].

[87] Ibid, [8].

[88] Ibid, [9]-[10].

[89] Ibid, [12].

[90] Disability Standards for Education 2005.

[91] Applicant's Outline of Argument filed 25 February 2025, [13].

[92] Ibid, [15].

[93] Ibid, [16].

[94] Ibid, [17].

[95] Applicant's Outline of Argument filed 25 February 2025, [16].

[96] Ibid [18]-[19].

[97] Ibid [19].

[98] Citing Franks v Kembla Equipment Co Pty Ltd [1969] AR (NSW) 17.

[99] Ibid [29].

[100] Ibid [31].

[101] Ibid [32].

[102] T.1-66, lines 20-30.

[103] T.1-66, lines 32-42.

[104] T.1-67, lines 7-15.

[105] T.1-68, lines 19-25.

[106] T.1-68, lines 37-49; T.1-69, lines 1-8.

[107] Respondent's Outline of Argument filed 4 March 2025, [1].

[108] Ibid.

[109] [2003] QIR Comm 241; (2003) 172 QGIG 1097.

[110] Gibbons v eBet Ltd [2015] QIRC 7, at [83](b), citing Department of Employment and Industrial Relations v Sandoz Pty Ltd (2008) 188 QGIG 151.

[111] Agreed Bundle - Exhibit 1A.

[112] Ibid, Exhibit 1B.

[113] Agreed Bundle: Exhibit 1G.

[114] Ibid: Exhibit 1H.

[115] Ibid: Exhibit 1E.

[116] Ibid, Exhibit 1L.

[117] Ibid, Exhibit 1F.

[118] Ibid, Exhibit 1N.

[119] Respondent's Outline of Argument, [16].

[120] Respondent's Outline of Argument, [19].

[121] Ibid, [21].

[122] Ibid, [22]-[24].

[123] T.1-69, lines 19-34.

[124] T.1-69, lines 36-49; T.1-70, lines 1-11.

[125] T.1-70, lines 19-30.

[126] T.1-70, lines 30-40.

[127] Exhibit 1A – Email from Ms Mann dated 14 September 2024.

[128] Ibid.

[129] Exhibit 1B – Resignation letter dated 14 September 2022.

[130] Exhibit 1B – Resignation letter dated 14 September 2022.

[131] T.1-4, lines 20-24; T.1-66, lines 40-43.

[132] AWU AND Sunshine Coast Private Hospital [2003] QIR Comm 241; (2003) 172 QGIG 1097, 1103, citing British Motor Corporation v Chance (1965) AR (NSW) 364, (1965) AILR 388. See also F.G. Holder v AVCO Financial Services Ltd (1989) AILR 198; Vermeer v Montague Fresh Queensland Pty Ltd (2007) QIRC 56.

 

[133] Exhibit 1B.

[134] T.1-56, lines 45-49; T.1-57, lines 1-5; lines 7-10.

[135] See T.1-40, lines 27-37; T.1-41, lines 25-29.

[136] T.1-40, lines 39-41.

[137] See as examples of this: T.1-40, lines 39-41; T.1-41, lines 40-45.

[138] Exhibit 1C.

[139] T.1-30, lines 28-34.

[140] Exhibit 1D.

[141] Exhibit 1E.

[142] Exhibit 1F.

[143] Exhibit 1M.

[144] Form F3 – Employer response to unfair dismissal application dated 4 April 2023, 2.2(7).

[145] Ibid (8).

[146] Ibid (19).

[147] T.1-43, lines 30-33.

[148] T.1-42, lines 32-45; T.1-44, lines 33-38.

[149] Exhibit 1G, letter sent by email on 25 September 2022.

[150] T.1-43, lines 1-8.

[151] T.1-43, lines 9-13.

[152] Exhibit 1Q.

[153] Exhibit 1R.

[154] Exhibit 1S.

[155] T.1-22, lines 14-43.

[156] Exhibit 1U.

[157] T.1-13, lines 15-40.

[158] T.1-12, lines 48-49; T.1-13, line 1,

[159] T.1-13, lines 1-4.

[160] T.1-13, lines 20-30.

[161] T.1-13, lines 3-20.

[162] T.1-14, lines 23-34.

[163] T.1-14, lines 42-44.

[164] T.1-14, lines 45-47.

[165] T.1-14, lines 48-50, T.1-15, lines 1-3.

[166] T.1-15, lines 11-28.

[167] T.1-15, lines 32-34.

[168] T.1-16, lines 16-45.

[169] T.1-54, lines 8-30.

[170] T.1-46, lines 23-30.

[171] Exhibit 1B.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Mann v Seafarms Queensland Pty Ltd

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Mann v Seafarms Queensland Pty Ltd

  • MNC:

    [2025] QIRC 178

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    O'Neill IC

  • Date:

    11 Jul 2025

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
AWU AND Sunshine Coast Private Hospital (2003) 172 QGIG 1097
5 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2003) 172 QGIG 1097
Cite 2 - (2003) 172 QGIG 1097
Cite 3 - (2003) 172 QGIG 1097
Cite 4 - (2003) 172 QGIG 1097
Cite 5 - (2003) 172 QGIG 1097
British Motor Corporation v Chance (1965) AR NSW 364
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1965) AR NSW 364
Cite 2 - (1965) AR NSW 364
British Motor Corporation v Chance (1965) AILR 388
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1965) AILR 388
Cite 2 - (1965) AILR 388
Buchholz, Justus Paul v Uniting Care Health trading as The Wesley Hospital [2021] QIRC 6
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 6
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 6
Chapman v A1 Rubber (Aust) Pty. Ltd. [2019] QIRC 105
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QIRC 105
Cite 2 - [2019] QIRC 105
Department of Employment and Industrial Relations v Sandoz Pty Ltd (2008) 188 QGIG 151
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2008) 188 QGIG 151
Cite 2 - (2008) 188 QGIG 151
F.G. Holder v AVCO Financial Services Ltd (1989) AILR 198
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1989) AILR 198
Cite 2 - (1989) AILR 198
Franks v Kembla Equipment Co Pty Ltd (1969) AR NSW 17
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1969) AR NSW 17
Cite 2 - (1969) AR NSW 17
Franks v Kembla Equipment Co. Pty Ltd (1969) AR 17
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1969) AR 17
Gibbons v eBet Ltd [2015] QIRC 7
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] QIRC 7
Cite 2 - [2015] QIRC 7
Cite 3 - [2015] QIRC 7
Cite 4 - [2015] QIRC 7
Hoveydai v Nixon Pacific Pty Ltd [2024] QIRC 148
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2024] QIRC 148
Cite 2 - [2024] QIRC 148
Cite 3 - [2024] QIRC 148
Johnson & Johnson Pty Ltd v Amalgamated Metals Workers Union (1987) 21 IR 457
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1987) 21 IR 457
Ma'Aelopa v State of Queensland (Queensland Police Service) [2024] QIRC 29
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2024] QIRC 29
Cite 2 - [2024] QIRC 29
O'Keefe v Queensland Diagnostic Imaging Pty Ltd (2009) 192 QGIG 93
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2009) 192 QGIG 93
Cite 2 - (2009) 192 QGIG 93
Cite 3 - (2009) 192 QGIG 93
Queensland Independent Education Union of Employees (on behalf of Andersen) v Marchant Park Kindergarten Association Inc. [2008] QIRC 41
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2008] QIRC 41
Cite 2 - [2008] QIRC 41
Queensland Independent Education Union of Employees (on behalf of Wendy Anderson) v Marchant Park Kindergarten Association Incorporated [2008] 188 QGIG 22
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2008] 188 QGIG 22
Robert John Vermeer v Montague Fresh Qld Pty Ltd (2007) 185 QGIG 220
1 citation
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2007) 185 QGIG 220
Simmons v Uniting Church in Australia Property Trust (Q.) represented by UnitingCare Health [2021] QIRC 242
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] QIRC 242
Cite 2 - [2021] QIRC 242
The Australian Workers’ Union of Employees, Queensland v Transit Australia Pty Ltd t/as Marlin Coast Sunbus [2003] QIRC 241
4 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2003] QIRC 241
Cite 2 - [2003] QIRC 241
Cite 3 - [2003] QIRC 241
Cite 4 - [2003] QIRC 241
Vermeer v Montague Fresh Qld Pty Ltd [2007] QIRC 56
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2007] QIRC 56
Cite 2 - [2007] QIRC 56
Cite 3 - [2007] QIRC 56

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
XY v State of Queensland (Department of AB) [2025] QIRC 2482 citations
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.