The Warren Ave Project
Robert Williams was employed by Longevity Construction as site manager for the Warren Ave development — a 3-level ICF (Insulated Concrete Form) construction comprising 10 terrace houses, operating as a joint venture.
ICF construction is modular and repetitive. Each level is poured from the same formwork system. The labour, the materials, the process — it's designed to be consistent floor to floor. That's the point.
Level 1: $200,000. Level 2: $400,000.
Level 1 of the building cost approximately $200,000 in labour and materials. It took about one month to complete. Standard. On budget. What you'd expect from a modular construction system.
When the monthly account came in for Level 2 — exactly the same size, virtually the same layout — it was $400,000. Double.
There was no design change. No scope variation. No material price spike that would explain a 100% increase on an identical floor. The cost had simply doubled, and Rob Williams was the site manager responsible.
"Just Fire Me Then"
Two of my senior managers approached Rob to ask why the Level 2 costs had doubled. It was a straightforward question: same floor, same layout, same system — why twice the cost?
Rob's response: "Just fire me then."
One of the managers replied: "We don't want to do that. We just want to know why the cost doubled."
Rob's next words: "I will just resign then. I'm going home to talk to my wife."
He left the site. He did not return. For three days, there was no contact — no call, no message, no explanation. The site manager for a multi-million-dollar joint venture development had simply walked away.
The Funder Pulled the Plug
While Rob was absent, the project funder assessed the situation. They determined that Longevity Construction was an associated party to the development, and that the loan-to-value ratio (LVR) had been exceeded due to the market downturn. The funder announced they would no longer pay the site manager costs.
This wasn't a choice Longevity made. The funder made it. With no funding for the site manager role, and with the site manager having announced his resignation and abandoned his post for three days, redundancy was the only option left.
Rob Williams was made redundant — forced by the funder's decision, not the company's.
The ERA: His Word Against Two Managers
At the ERA hearing, Rob denied ever saying he was going to resign. He denied abandoning the site. He claimed the redundancy was unjustified.
Two senior managers gave evidence — consistent, corroborated — that Rob had told them to fire him, then announced he was resigning, then walked off site. Both managers were there. Both heard the same words.
The ERA believed Rob.
Two managers. One employee. The ERA took the employee's word. Rob Williams was awarded $68,000.
The Extortion Attempt
Rob Williams and Didi van Heerden engaged the same advocate — the one van Heerden had appointed. The plan was clear: join the cases together to create the appearance of a serial employment problem with Longevity Construction and with me personally.
That advocate made a demand: $50,000 for each person, or she would "make my life hell."
This was extortion. Not negotiation. Not settlement. A direct threat with a price tag.
My response: "I would rather go bankrupt than give money to those trying to extort me."
The advocate made good on the threat. The ERA awarded a combined $274,000 — van Heerden $206,000, Williams $68,000. I didn't pay a cent to the extortion attempt. I lost the company anyway.
What Employers Should Know
- Two witnesses may not be enough. Two senior managers gave consistent evidence about what Rob said. The ERA believed the employee. If you don't have written resignation, you have nothing — and even then, they may claim duress.
- Document cost anomalies immediately. When identical work doubles in price, get it in writing. Send the site manager an email asking for an explanation. If you only have verbal confrontations — even with multiple witnesses — the ERA may dismiss it.
- A funder's decision is not your defence. The funder forced the redundancy by withdrawing site manager funding. The ERA did not care. The company made the redundancy, so the company paid.
- Three days of abandonment is not job abandonment. In the ERA's view, walking off site, announcing resignation, and being uncontactable for three days did not constitute abandonment of employment. Get a lawyer before you process any redundancy based on conduct.
- Extortion works in the ERA system. When an advocate demands money with threats, there is no consequences for them. The system incentivises this behaviour — demand a payout, make threats, file a claim. The employer pays or the employer loses.