The employer won, but Fair Work spotted gaps that could burn other HR teams
Rivercity Ferries won its unfair dismissal case on 5 March 2026, but the ruling exposed process gaps that nearly cost them.
When Jodie Daunis, a customer service operator on Brisbane's river ferry network, was dismissed on 1 July 2025, her employer believed it had done everything right. It had obtained an independent medical examination. It had issued two show cause letters. It had taken legal advice. Commissioner Simpson of the Fair Work Commission agreed: the dismissal was not unfair. But the decision cuts both ways.
Daunis had worked in the Brisbane ferry industry since June 2008, transferring to Rivercity Ferries Pty Ltd in November 2020. Her role required lengthy periods on her feet aboard a moving vessel, a difficult reality for someone managing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and a genetic clotting disorder called Factor V Leiden. In the 12 months leading to 15 April 2025, she had been absent from work for 114 days.
After meetings and requests for updated medical certificates, an independent medical examination (IME) was conducted on 11 June 2025. The IME assessor stated that he and Daunis had agreed: "She is currently incapable of undertaking safely the full inherent duties of her role." Rivercity issued its second show cause letter on 25 June 2025. Her union, the Maritime Union of Australia, responded on 30 June 2025. She was dismissed the following day.
Here is where it gets instructive. The IME report was far from clean. It noted Daunis could not perform full duties while suggesting she might return within a month with modifications, and potentially resume full duties after planned surgery in November 2025. Her specialist's certificate from 14 May 2025 told a similar story, clearing her to return to work in one sentence and then certifying that "her functional capacity and ability to perform work duties is highly variable and her improvement cannot be accurately predicted over the next three months."
Neither Rivercity's People and Culture Manager nor its General Manager sought to clarify these contradictions directly with the treating doctors. The Commission acknowledged this but found the overall weight of medical evidence supported the termination.
The process also came under procedural scrutiny. Daunis's representatives alleged Rivercity had effectively made its termination decision before genuinely considering the union's final show cause response, given the dismissal occurred the very next day. The Commission was satisfied the response had been considered, but the allegation highlights how quickly the optics can turn against an employer when timelines are compressed.
On reasonable adjustments, Daunis's union representatives argued the Disability Discrimination Act and Queensland's Anti-Discrimination Act impose positive obligations on employers regardless of whether the illness is work-related. Rivercity successfully argued its fixed rostering system made modifications impractical. The Commission accepted this, though the argument reflects a shifting legal landscape HR teams should monitor.
Daunis's 17 years in the industry was raised as a mitigating factor. The Commission acknowledged the personal impact but found it did not change the outcome.
A post-termination letter from her surgeon, dated 27 November 2025, cleared her for full duties with no restrictions. The Commission did not allow it to displace the valid reason that existed at the time of dismissal. Facts unknown to the employer at the moment of termination could not override a reason that was soundly established when the decision was made.
People and culture professionals take note: an IME alone does not close the loop on a capacity dismissal. When medical advice contradicts itself, resolving those inconsistencies directly with treating practitioners, and in writing, is what separates a defensible decision from a fortunate one.
