A communications and projects manager at an Aboriginal corporation resigned after a board member was found to have sexually harassed her, and the board failed to remove him. The Fair Work Commission found she was dismissed, not a person who simply walked away.
What the Commission decided
Madison Snow worked as Communications and Projects Manager for WA Mirning People Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC. She resigned in writing in October 2025, citing an unsafe workplace after a director, Leslie Schultz, was found to have filmed her inappropriately while she was doing field work, and after the board allowed him to remain in his position despite the finding.
The corporation argued she had simply resigned and had not been dismissed at all, so the Commission had no power to deal with her general protections claim.
Deputy President Dean disagreed. She found that Ms Snow had no real or effective choice but to resign because of the corporation's conduct, which meant her resignation counted as a dismissal under the Fair Work Act.
The decision traces what happened after the incident. Two internal investigations substantiated multiple allegations against Mr Schultz, including inappropriate touching and comments about Ms Snow's appearance. The board's response was to give him a formal final warning, require him to attend meetings by video, and restrict his access to the office, while leaving him in his position as director.
The Deputy President found the new CEO, Mr D'Antoine, had done what he reasonably could to support Ms Snow, including introducing new policies and arranging counselling support. But she found the board itself had failed to take the steps needed to have Mr Schultz removed, and that the corporation's members, who held the power to remove a director, were never even told the allegations had been substantiated.
The Commission described the ongoing situation as one where Mr Schultz would still hold authority over Ms Snow even if physically separated from her, which it found highly inappropriate given his proven misconduct. It held that Ms Snow could not reasonably have been expected to keep working while he remained on the board, given the seriousness of what had been substantiated against him.
What was actually in dispute
The only question before the Commission was whether Ms Snow had been dismissed at all, since a finding of dismissal is the gateway that lets the Commission deal with a general protections dispute.
The corporation pointed to the steps it had taken to limit contact between Mr Schultz and Ms Snow, and argued that later events, including a payment in lieu of notice and a direction for her to stop working immediately, showed it had simply accepted a voluntary resignation. The Deputy President found those later events did not change the character of the resignation given in October, and that what mattered was whether that resignation was given freely at the time.
She found it was not. The finding rested on the board's inaction, not on any single remark or ultimatum, and it was that ongoing failure that the decision held had brought her employment to an end.
What this means
The decision does not resolve Ms Snow's underlying general protections claim, which will now proceed to a conference. It only decides the threshold question of whether she was dismissed. The Commission's reasoning draws on established principles about when a resignation is treated as forced rather than voluntary, a question explored further at /constructive-dismissal/. Readers weighing up a general protections claim against an unfair dismissal claim may also find /unfair-dismissal-vs-general-protections/ useful background.