A reverend who resigned from Calrossy Anglican School after an ‘off the record’ conversation about an impending show cause letter (a letter asking an employee to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken) has been refused an extension of time to pursue an unfair dismissal claim. His application was filed 35 days after the 21-day deadline. Commissioner McKinnon dismissed it under s.587(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act 2009 in a decision dated 15 October 2026, following a hearing in Sydney on 14 October.
The applicant was employed by the school in Tamworth, NSW, from 1 January 2024. The show cause letter related to a child safety incident in March 2026. On 29 April 2026 he spoke with the principal about his plans to apply for a job in New Zealand. According to the decision, the principal indicated that a show cause letter had been written or was being prepared and “that it did not look good”. The pair talked about him resigning so he could avoid the process and protect his career prospects.
The next day he asked whether he could receive a warning instead and keep working until the end of Term 2. The school did not agree, but accepted his resignation effective at the end of Term 2, 26 June 2026, and told him he could leave immediately. He resigned in writing on 30 April 2026.
- 30 Apr 2026 Resignation given in writing.
- 26 Jun 2026 Resignation takes effect.
- 29 Jul 2026 Notified of an investigation into separate 2025 events.
- 1 Aug 2026 Begins researching the matter using ChatGPT.
- 5 Aug 2026 Accepts a job in New Zealand.
- 21 Aug 2026 Unfair dismissal application filed.
Section 394(2) allows the Commission to accept a late application only where it is satisfied there are exceptional circumstances. The applicant gave two reasons for the delay: ignorance of the law, and a wish to move on and keep good relations with the school while he looked for work.
He told the Commission he knew of the concept of ‘forced resignation’ (a resignation the employer effectively compelled, which can count as a dismissal) by 3 May 2026, but did not realise until a conversation with a former colleague on 30 July 2026 that he might have been dismissed. He began looking into the matter using ChatGPT on 1 August 2026. He also said he believed the 21-day period ran from the date he resigned, so on 30 July he thought he was already three months late and “felt no pressure” to meet a deadline that had passed.
On the second reason, he said he held off because he feared legal action would affect his reference from the principal. His position began to change on 29 July 2026, when he was notified of an investigation into his role in events in 2025 that had been the subject of a reportable conduct notification. On 5 August 2026 he accepted employment in New Zealand, which meant he no longer needed a reference from the school.
Commissioner McKinnon found neither reason supported an extension of time, writing that “Ignorance of the law is not an exceptional circumstance” and that “it is relatively common for employees to choose to resign to avoid a disciplinary process, or to want to move on, or to seek to preserve relationships for the purpose of obtaining a positive reference for future employment.”
The Commissioner found the July investigation “may have made” the applicant see the April events differently, but did not change the reasons for delay. The only step he took to dispute the dismissal before filing was telling the School Board Chair and the Bishop of Armidale on 17 August 2026 that he was considering it.
The Commissioner found the delay caused the school only limited prejudice. On the merits, the Commissioner found the case “is not strong”: the decision to resign “appears to have been made freely to avoid the prospect of dismissal and to protect a future employment opportunity”. The July notification dealt with separate events from 2025 and had no part in the show cause process raised in April.
At a glance
- Employer: Calrossy Anglican School, Tamworth, NSW
- Citation: [2026] FWC 3962
- Section: Fair Work Act 2009, s.394(2); application dismissed under s.587(1)(a)
- Delay: 35 days
- Outcome: No extension of time; application dismissed
- Who it affects: Employees who resign in place of a disciplinary process and later claim the resignation was a dismissal
The decision applies the s.394(2) test to a resignation given in place of a disciplinary process, treating a later change of mind prompted by fresh developments as distinct from a reason for the delay itself. The school was represented by Colin Biggers & Paisley. The applicant represented himself.
The refusal is the rule, not the exception. OnNotice examined every late unfair dismissal claim finally decided in published decisions this year: 3 of 38 won a further period, a grant rate of 7.9 percent, and two of the three were one day late.
Source: [2026] FWC 3962
General information only. OnNotice reports developments in Australian industrial relations, human resources and workplace law. This article is for education purposes only and is not intended to form professional advice. Always confirm against the primary source and seek specific advice relating to your circumstances.