A University of Sydney staffer who argued he was forced to resign after a three-hour Zoom meeting has had his Fair Work general protections claim rejected. The staffer’s husband was in the room while it happened and claimed the stress of observing the meeting caused him to be hospitalised. The staffer also argued that the university attempted to exhaust him by requiring him to go through a nine-step process to lodge an internal complaint.
In this article, we reveal why the Fair Work Commission did not agree the staffer had been forced to resign in this general protections case David Polydores v The University of Sydney & Ors [2025]. We also look at another recent case where a tradie argued forced resignation because his boss had been micromanaging him.
University staffer claims forced resignation due to ‘horrific’ Zoom meeting
David Polydores began working for the University of Sydney in November 2024 as a proposal assurance and submissions officer. He was employed on a full-time, fixed-term contract and was subject to a probationary period. Mr. Polydores argued that the events that forced him to resign started with his mid-probation meeting on 5 March 2025. In his Fair Work general protections claim, Mr. Polydores described the tone of this meeting with his supervisor as “horrific.”
Two days later, he had a three-hour Zoom meeting with his supervisor. Mr. Polydores alleged that he was “berated, belittled, bullied, intimidated, and attacked” by his supervisor. Mr. Polydores’ husband, Mr. Porter, observed the meeting from the same room and corroborated the description of the supervisor’s conduct. Two days after the meeting, Mr. Porter was hospitalised with heart attack symptoms. He claimed this was caused by the stress he experienced during the Zoom meeting. Meanwhile, Mr. Polydores went on leave.
Credit: LinkedIn
Felt he was forced to resign as complaints were being ‘passed around’
On 21 March 2025, Mr. Polydores sent an email to a group of senior University of Sydney managers, including the vice chancellor and HR head. Using the subject line “Urgent Help Requested,” he detailed his allegations and concluded with the plea: “Can someone please help me with this situation?” While the university responded the same day and offered access to its employee assistance program, Mr. Polydores remained off work. On 25 March 2025, he informed the University of Sydney that he believed his supervisor was “doing everything to wear me down” to force him to resign.
In response, the university’s senior HR partner arranged for Mr. Polydores to temporarily report to a different director. This move was to facilitate his return to work on 26 March 2025. Upon his return, Mr. Polydores was directed to file an Incident Hazard Report in the university’s internal risk management system. He also lodged a complaint with the university’s Workplace Relations Online Complaints department. Mr. Polydores expressed “extreme frustration” at the convoluted nature of these requirements, which he calculated involved “nine steps” just to lodge the complaint.
On 28 March 2025, the University of Sydney informed him that his case had been referred to an external consultancy firm for a “preliminary assessment.” Feeling that his concerns were being “passed around,” Mr. Polydores submitted his resignation on 31 March 2025.
Argued complaints process was designed to exhaust him
Mr. Polydores subsequently lodged a Fair Work general protections claim arguing he had been constructively dismissed. He contended that he was forced to resign due to University of Sydney’s handling of his complaint combined with his original supervisor’s conduct. Mr. Polydores told the Fair Work Commission that he had “lost all faith” in the university and that the administrative burden placed upon him while he was “traumatised” and “bedridden” was intended to exhaust him. Mr. Polydores contended that the referral to an external party without providing contact details or a clear timeline was the final factor that left him with “no choice” but to resign.
University argued he was ineligible to make Fair Work general protections claim
The University of Sydney raised a jurisdictional objection to Mr. Polydores’ Fair Work general protections claim. It argued that he was not forced to resign but had voluntarily done so. To make a general protections claim, the applicant must have been dismissed at the initiative of the employer. The university argued that Mr. Polydores had not been dismissed within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009. The university maintained that its conduct was the opposite of forcing a resignation. Instead, it claimed it had taken active steps to preserve the employment relationship.
University of Sydney highlighted that its HR team had made contact with Mr. Polydores within four hours of his initial plea for help. It also said that within days Mr. Polydores had been moved to a new reporting line to ensure he was not “exposed” to his supervisor. The university maintained that following established policies and involving external investigators were standard procedures. It said that these were designed to ensure a fair and consistent outcome for all parties involved in a workplace bullying allegation.
Fair Work: Forced resignation is assessed on facts, not employee’s ‘emotions’
The Fair Work Commission heard Mr. Polydores’ Fair Work general protections claim in July 2025. It noted that for a forced resignation to have taken place, the employer must have intended to end the employment relationship. Or, their actions must have had the probable result of bringing it to an end. The Commission acknowledged that Mr. Polydores was a credible witness and genuinely felt he was forced to resign. However, it noted that the law requires an objective assessment of the employer’s conduct, not the employee’s subjective “emotional response.”
The Commission said that University of Sydney treated Mr. Polydores’ complaint seriously and acted promptly. The swift decision to change his supervisor was viewed as a “strong indication” that the university wanted to assist his return to work. While the Commission agreed the nine-step complaints process was “reasonably painful” and perhaps unnecessary given the detail in his original email, it ruled that a large organisation must follow consistent procedures.
Not forced to resign, Fair Work general protections claim dismissed
Ultimately, the Fair Work Commission found that Mr. Polydores’ resignation was not the “probable result” of University of Sydney’s conduct. This was because he had several other realistic options such as taking leave, staying under the new supervisor or applying for anti workplace bullying orders. The Commission determined that the discretion to end the employment rested with the employee, not the university. It therefore found that Mr. Polydores was not dismissed within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009. His Fair Work general protections claim was dismissed.
Tradie argues forced resignation due to ‘humiliation’ from boss
Another recent Fair Work general protections case where the employee argued forced resignation due to a hostile workplace is Cooper Lynch v Mcpherson Window Cleaning Pty. Ltd. & Paul McIntyre [2025]. Cooper Lynch started working for Melbourne-based McPherson Window Cleaning in November 2022, being promoted to a supervisor role in February 2025. He was responsible for leading crews of up to six workers on high-rise commercial window cleaning projects, reporting directly to operations managers Mr. McIntyre and Mr. Houlihan. Mr. Lynch argued that the events leading to his forced resignation began with an incident in mid-2024.
At a job site in Gippsland, Victoria, Mr. Lynch claimed Mr. McIntyre told the crew to “hurry up” despite their hard work. Mr. Lynch subsequently spoke to another manager to have Mr. McIntyre “back off” and later received an apology from the company director. However, Mr. Lynch highlighted this incident to the Fair Work Commission as early evidence of a difficult management style and hostile workplace.
Accused manager of ‘babysitting’ and ‘embarassing’ him
In March 2025, during a project on the Mornington Peninsula, Mr. Lynch alleged that Mr. McIntyre’s supervision was excessive. He said that he would stand in the car park “watching the crew from a distance” and repositioning himself to continue to observe the crew as they moved around the building. Mr. Lynch reported that the crew felt as though they were “being babysat” rather than being supported.
Further friction developed later that month at McPherson Window Cleaning’s warehouse. Mr. Lynch had used Mr. McIntyre’s personal tools to complete a job. Afterwards, Mr. McIntyre questioned him about the location of missing equipment. Mr. Lynch felt “embarrassed and humiliated” as the exchange took place in front of other employees.
The tensions reached a peak on 26 May 2025. On this day, Mr. Lynch checked the online company roster at 9:30pm and discovered he was required for a job the next morning. However, this job conflicted with an important personal medical appointment. A “tense” and “aggressive” phone call followed at 6:36am the next day. After a final discussion at a job site on 28 May 2025, where Mr. Lynch sought a sincere apology, he decided to submit his notice.
Manager argued he was ‘direct’ with employee, not aggressive
Mr. Lynch subsequently lodged a Fair Work general protections claim. He argued that he had been subjected to a constructive dismissal. Mr. Lynch claimed that McPherson Window Cleaning’s conduct forced him to resign as he had no other option but to do so. He contended that Mr. McIntyre’s style constituted workplace bullying and created a hostile work environment. He told the Fair Work Commission that his exchange with his manager on 28 May 2025 was a “tipping point.” He argued that he needed to “prioritise my own wellbeing and direction.”
In response to the Fair Work general protections claim, McPherson Window Cleaning and Mr. McIntyre filed a jurisdictional objection. They argued that the termination of employment was not at their initiative. They maintained that Mr. Lynch had resigned voluntarily to accept a “new position that’s simply too good to turn down.” Mr. McIntyre denied being aggressive to Mr. Lynch, describing his tone as “direct” but firm. The employer argued that they had attempted to resolve issues, such as the director contacting the Fair Work Ombudsman.
Manager was entitled to supervise employee
Mr. Lynch’s Fair Work general protections claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in September 2025. It found that Mr. Lynch was not dismissed under the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Commission noted that Mr. McIntyre had an “active” management style and used a “strict tone.” However, it said that he was entitled to supervise and observe the crew. The Commission determined that this oversight was for the purpose of ensuring high standards rather than an attempt to force a resignation.
Regarding the heated exchanges in May, the Commission found that the phone call on 27 May 2025 was a “tense conversation” where both parties expressed legitimate frustrations. It accepted that Mr. McIntyre had offered to accommodate Mr. Lynch’s medical appointment by ensuring he could leave the site early. Furthermore, the Commission found that the private discussion on 28 May 2025 “ended on a good note,” with both parties offering apologies.
‘Appreciative’ resignation letter suggested he was not forced to resign
The Fair Work Commission placed significant weight on the resignation letter sent by Mr. Lynch. It was described as “reflective and insightful,” noting that it was not consistent with a forced resignation. The letter expressed “genuine appreciation” for the opportunities given and acknowledged that “no workplace runs smoothly all the time.” Ultimlatey, the Commission concluded that Mr. Lynch had made a voluntary decision that he would “better enjoy work elsewhere.” As the resignation was not forced by the conduct of the employer, the Fair Work general protections claim failed for want of jurisdiction.
Read more: University Employee Awarded over $650k in General Protections Claim
Faced forced resignation?
Being forced to resign can feel just as devastating as being dismissed outright. If you’ve been pressured to quit, A Whole New Approach (AWNA) can help you get justice at the Fair Work Commission. For over 20 years, we’ve helped workers across Australian make unfair dismissal and general protections claims.
Time limits apply—Fair Work claims generally must be lodged within 21 days of the date your employment ended, including forced resignations. Don’t wait, contact us at 1300 766 700 for free, confidential guidance on your options.
