Case never reached merits, but decision revealed exactly what protected the aged care provider
A chef fired after eight months off work lost his chance to challenge the dismissal, but the case exposed what actually protects employers in medical terminations.
Kobina Amponsem had been out on workers' compensation since February 2025. By the time Calvary Aged Care Limited ended his employment on October 30, 2025, he could only work two days a week. His full-time chef position required five.
The numbers told the story Calvary needed. Eight months absent. Forty percent capacity. No prospect of returning to full duties.
Amponsem filed a general protections claim on December 10, 2025, arguing the aged care provider discriminated against him because of his mental disability and temporary absence due to illness. He also said he had complained about an unsafe return to work plan.
But he filed 20 days too late. The Fair Work Act gives dismissed employees just 21 days to lodge general protections claims. Missing that window requires proving exceptional circumstances.
At a hearing on January 21, 2026, the story got messier. Amponsem had been represented by the Health Services Union throughout. His union rep, Tim Judge, had actually filed an unfair dismissal application on the final day of the deadline, November 20, 2025. Judge had told Amponsem his prospects in a general protections claim looked weak.
Amponsem claimed he never read the email confirming the unfair dismissal filing and only discovered the error around December 1, 2025, during settlement negotiations. Deputy President Saunders was not buying it.
The email subject line read "F2 Unfair Dismissal Application K Amponsem v Calvary." The application was attached. Amponsem knew November 20 was his deadline day. He said the email was important.
Deputy President Saunders found that Amponsem knew by November 20, 2025, that an unfair dismissal application had been filed. Even accepting he only found out on December 1, that still left nine days unexplained before he finally lodged the general protections claim on December 10.
The case was dismissed on January 27, 2026, without ever reaching the discrimination allegations. But Saunders made one thing clear: the merits were shaky anyway.
"On the basis of the material before the Commission, I am of the view (as was Mr Judge) that Mr Amponsem's prospects of success in relation to his general protections application are weak," Saunders wrote.
The reason mattered. Calvary's termination letter cited ongoing medical incapacity. The company said it had no record of any complaint about return to work plans. Most importantly, Amponsem admitted under questioning he could only manage two days a week.
"There is no dispute that Mr Amponsem was absent from work and unable to perform the inherent requirements of his job for a considerable period of time," the decision noted.
For HR teams navigating similar situations, the case offers a blueprint. Document the incapacity thoroughly. Be clear about role requirements. Don't call an eight-month absence temporary when medical evidence says otherwise. Make sure the termination letter states the real reason.
Union backing does not guarantee an employee will succeed. Proper process and documentation do the heavy lifting. Calvary never got to defend the dismissal on its merits because Amponsem missed his deadline. But if it had gone to a full hearing, the employer had the evidence ready.
