An ex-ANZ employee who claimed he was forced to resign over a refused work-from-home plan was actually aggrieved he missed out on a potential redundancy payout by only a few weeks, a tribunal has found.<\/p>\n
Former technology manager Harikumar Balasubramanian filed an unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission claiming his employer of 20 years pressured him to quit in 2025. <\/p>\n
ANZ denied the claims and contended Mr Balasubramanian tendered his resignation of his own accord last July, with the tribunal told he had already received a \u201cfirm job offer\u201d.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Mr Balasubramanian\u2019s case hinged on a request for more work-from-home days in order, he claimed, to perform the school drop-off and pick-up duties for his two children.<\/p>\n
Under ANZ policy in 2024 and 2025, staff were required to be in the office for 50 per cent of the working week unless an approved \u201cexception\u201d was in place.<\/p>\n
The Melbourne-based tech staffer made a formal request for different working arrangements in December 2024, which the employee relations team approved.<\/p>\n
He was granted 30 per cent office attendance for six months until July 2025, after which he was required to revert to 50 per cent office work.<\/p>\n
Mr Balasubramanian claimed a request to extend the arrangement for another six months was \u201cstraight away rejected\u201d without \u201cany written reason or business justification\u201d.<\/p>\n
The workplace tribunal\u2019s Deputy President Andrew Bell found in a judgment published this week that Mr Balasubramanian was not \u201ca witness of credit\u201d as he dismissed the case. <\/p>\n
\u201cI am unable to accept his evidence about a number of significant contested factual matters,\u201d Mr Bell wrote. <\/p>\n
\u201cHis evidence was marked by inconsistencies, both internal and with the contemporaneous documents, and much of it was simply improbable when tested against facts that were not in dispute or could be established from the documentary evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mr Bell noted in his judgment that Mr Balasubramanian had been in contact with a recruiter in May before undergoing a job interview with another company that month.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat leads to the inference that, by May 2025, Mr Balasubramanian was at least considering leaving his employment with ANZ,\u201d Mr Bell wrote.<\/p>\n
He later received a \u201cfirm job offer\u201d of $950 a day with tech company Luxoft on July 10, the tribunal heard, which Mr Bell found came as \u201cno surprise\u201d to Mr Balasubramanian.<\/p>\n
Mr Bell\u2019s judgment states Mr Balasubramanian requested a call with his manager Vijayakumar Bidari, whose version of events was that he was told of the offer.<\/p>\n
\u201cMr Bidari\u2019s version of events is that Mr Balasubramanian seemed happy and told him that he wanted to leave ANZ because he had received a good offer from another bank,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n
\u201cMr Bidari asked whether there was anything ANZ could do to retain him, but Mr Balasubramanian replied that he had already made up his mind and wanted to move on.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mr Balasubramanian\u2019s version was that he told his boss about the potential of him resigning because he felt unsupported after his flexible work request was denied.<\/p>\n
\u201cI was under emotional stress and unsure how to balance my work and family responsibilities,\u201d he said in a statement to the tribunal.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe refusal of my flexible working arrangement request on June 23 really upset me. <\/p>\n
\u201cI felt stuck and emotionally drained because without that arrangement I couldn\u2019t manage<\/p>\n
my family responsibilities.\u201d<\/p>\n
He said during his evidence before the tribunal that his boss had asked \u201ccan I get offer as well?\u201d but Mr Bell did not accept this claim.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe allegation that Mr Bidari pressured his resignation forms part of Mr Balasubramanian\u2019s pattern of seeking in his evidence to portray his resignation as somehow given unwillingly by him,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n
\u201cAs I have found, Mr Balasubramanian had in fact already decided to resign because he intended to accept the job offer from Luxoft.\u201d<\/p>\n
He submitted his resignation on July 14, 2025 to ANZ and signed a contract with Luxoft two days later, the tribunal heard.<\/p>\n
Mr Balasubramanian also \u201cbegan raising the issue of being paid a redundancy package\u201d on July 14 and on August 1 emailed a HR staffer offering to withdraw his resignation so he could be considered in an upcoming round of job cuts.<\/p>\n
\u201cI\u2019m reaching out to seek clarification regarding the recent redundancies taking place<\/p>\n
within the company,\u201d he wrote in the email.<\/p>\n
\u201cI submitted my resignation on 14 July, with my final working day set for 8 August. Since I am still currently employed and the redundancies are occurring during this period, I wanted to check whether I can be eligible for a redundancy, given the timing.<\/p>\n
\u201cI am happy to withdraw my resignation and extend my last working day if that helps.\u201d<\/p>\n
A senior HR staffer responded on August 6 to inform him it was \u201cunfortunate timing\u201d and the company was \u201cnot in a position to amend your reason for exit\u201d.<\/p>\n
He replied again to ask he be considered for redundancy, but the staffer told him his resignation \u201cwill need to be held\u201d.<\/p>\n
Mr Bell noted in his judgment that Mr Balasubramanian\u2019s emails sent about the redundancy made no mention of his claims of being forced to resign.<\/p>\n
The tribunal member dismissed the case, finding Mr Balasubramanian\u2019s decision to leave ANZ was \u201centirely voluntary\u201d.<\/p>\n
\u201cMr Balasubramanian\u2019s real grievance is that the timing of his resignation meant that he may have missed the opportunity to depart from ANZ with the windfall of a redundancy package before taking up his new job with Luxoft.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"An ex-ANZ employee who claimed he was forced to resign over a refused work-from-home plan was actually aggrieved…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":75359,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[110616,77649,110639,110613,105693,42799,36911,41360,20573,110590,5609,36933,41376,98147,110630,49536,85920,37565,98572,110609,58245,110596,104617,55043,37330,110623,110608,110595,110643,110612,110637,37699,72639,37726,38219,41743,110626,110635,110603,110594,110593,72867,110592,110600,6429,110610,110634,22,6466,60632,21,110650,110636,36917,110653,38767,110651,38242,39694,50725,110627,20840,110652,6909,70921,41802,37307,110631,110611,110646,44873,66994,110620,89073,110604,64271,110632,49564,110622,42791,110644,55322,2148,38590,47699,38314,43346,44109,110654,110619,49778,110607,110606,110625,110649,40546,110605,110629,110615,110633,110618,110617,110645,43480,48014,110648,103887,13459,3121,31381,110602,110641,110628,110647,45069,7738,110642,110614,73307,40706,59799,36697,39161,36759,110655,110624,46279,110597,46301,110621,40910,110640,57893,40685,40558,110591,110598,78973,110638,55587,38253,110656,110657,110601,93201,38964,50954,110599],"class_list":["post-75358","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-australia","tag-the-workplace-tribunal","tag-s-case","tag-s-deputy-president-andrew-bell","tag-s-judgment","tag-s-pattern","tag-s-version","tag-36911","tag-41360","tag-20-years","tag-2024-and-2025","tag-5609","tag-36933","tag-41376","tag-98147","tag-a-firm-job-offer","tag-a-call","tag-a-contract","tag-a-day","tag-a-formal-request","tag-a-former-bank-worker","tag-a-good-offer","tag-a-hr-staffer","tag-a-job-interview","tag-a-judgment","tag-a-number","tag-a-potential-redundancy-payout","tag-a-recruiter","tag-a-redundancy","tag-a-redundancy-package","tag-a-redundancy-payout","tag-a-refused-work-from-home-plan","tag-a-request","tag-a-senior","tag-a-statement","tag-a-tribunal","tag-a-witness","tag-an-approved-exception","tag-an-ex-anz-employee","tag-an-unfair-dismissal-claim","tag-an-upcoming-round","tag-another-bank","tag-another-company","tag-another-six-months","tag-any-written-reason-or-business-justification","tag-anz","tag-anz-policy","tag-anz-staffer","tag-au","tag-august","tag-august-1","tag-austrlia","tag-balasubramanian","tag-bank-worker","tag-cent","tag-cent-office-attendance","tag-claims","tag-clarification","tag-contact","tag-credit","tag-december-2024","tag-different-working-arrangements","tag-dispute","tag-emotional-stress","tag-events","tag-everyday-aussies","tag-fact","tag-facts","tag-family-responsibilities","tag-former-technology-manager-harikumar-balasubramanian","tag-higher-tax-brackets-mr","tag-his-boss","tag-his-employer","tag-his-employment","tag-his-evidence","tag-his-flexible-work-request","tag-his-judgment","tag-his-manager-vijayakumar-bidari","tag-his-mind","tag-his-own-accord","tag-his-resignation","tag-his-two-children-under","tag-inconsistencies","tag-job-cuts","tag-july","tag-july-10","tag-july-14","tag-july-2025","tag-june-23","tag-last-july","tag-luxoft","tag-may-2025","tag-melbourne-based-tech-staffer","tag-more-work-from-home-days","tag-mr-balasubramanian","tag-mr-balasubramanian-mr-bell","tag-mr-bell","tag-mr-bidari","tag-my-final-working-day","tag-my-flexible-working-arrangement-request","tag-my-last-working-day","tag-my-resignation","tag-my-work-and-family-responsibilities","tag-new-job","tag-no-surprise","tag-offer","tag-office-work-mr-balasubramanian","tag-only-a-few-weeks","tag-order","tag-part","tag-payout","tag-place-the","tag-placewithin","tag-redundancy-payout","tag-significant-contested-factual-matters","tag-six-months","tag-staff","tag-tech-company-luxoft","tag-that-arrangement","tag-that-month","tag-the-allegation","tag-the-arrangement","tag-the-case","tag-the-claims","tag-the-company","tag-the-contemporaneous-documents","tag-the-documentary-evidence","tag-the-email","tag-the-employee-relations-team","tag-the-fair-work-commission","tag-the-inference","tag-the-issue","tag-the-job-offer","tag-the-offer","tag-the-office","tag-the-potential","tag-the-recent-redundancies","tag-the-redundancies","tag-the-refusal","tag-the-school-drop-off-and-pick-up-duties","tag-the-timing","tag-the-tribunal","tag-the-tribunal-heard-mr","tag-the-working-week","tag-this-claim","tag-this-period","tag-this-week","tag-two-days","tag-whose-version"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/australia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75358","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/australia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/australia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/australia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/australia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=75358"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/australia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75358\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/australia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/75359"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/australia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75358"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/australia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75358"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/australia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75358"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}