She hadn't driven a bus since 2019 - and her old depot doesn't even exist anymore
A bus driver who had not worked since 2019 has been ordered reinstated to her job - at a depot that did not exist when she was last behind the wheel.
The NSW Industrial Relations Commission handed down the decision following a hearing on October 20, 2026, ordering Hillsbus Co Pty Ltd to reinstate the worker as a bus driver at its Rouse Hill depot, preserve the continuity of her employment, and compensate her for roughly three months of lost pay.
It was not a clean sweep. The Commission declined to restore her seniority ranking or direct the company to give her back the mentoring duties she had held before her injury.
From Northmead to nowhere
The worker joined Hillsbus - a Sydney bus operator that is part of the ComfortDelGro Australia group - in May 2017 as a part-time driver at the company's Northmead depot. She moved to full-time that October. By November 2018 she had been selected for the company's Driver Mentor Training Program, an additional responsibility that came with an allowance.
Then, in June 2019, she was injured on the job.
She stopped working. She did not return. On May 22, 2023 - nearly four years later - Hillsbus terminated her employment, stating she could not perform the inherent requirements of her position.
She filed for reinstatement under Part 8 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), a provision that allows workers dismissed because of injury to seek their jobs back.
The case had already been before the Commission once. In a July 2025 decision, it found the application could not be resolved without an independent medical assessment and ordered one through the Personal Injury Commission.
That assessment landed on April 14, 2026. The finding: fit to return to her pre-injury role.
Hillsbus accepted the result. From that point, the question was not whether she would come back - but on what terms.
Where to put her was the first problem
Northmead had closed in April 2025. Most of its drivers transferred to Rouse Hill. Some went to Dural through an application process. But the worker's employment had already ended before the closure, so no transfer decision was ever made for her.
She wanted Dural. She pointed to vacancy advertisements and staffing records produced under summons. Hillsbus said Rouse Hill, arguing it had effectively replaced Northmead.
The Commission agreed with the employer. The evidence showed Northmead's functions and the majority of its workforce had moved to Rouse Hill. Transfer there was the ordinary consequence of the closure. The summonsed material showed Hillsbus had recruited for Dural at various times, but that amounted to a snapshot of staffing needs at particular points - not enough to displace the broader picture.
Rouse Hill it was.
Continuity held, seniority did not
The worker sought an order that her employment be treated as never having been broken by the dismissal - essentially, that the clock on her service kept ticking throughout.
The Commission granted it. The termination arose from injury, not misconduct or performance issues unrelated to that injury. It was now common ground she was fit to return. Preserving continuity, the Commission found, more accurately reflected the character of the employment relationship.
Hillsbus argued against it, pointing to the lengthy period during which the worker could not perform any duties. The Commission acknowledged the point but placed it in context: the incapacity flowed from the very injury that led to the dismissal.
Seniority was a different story. The worker wanted her old ranking restored. The Commission declined. The evidence showed seniority at Hillsbus operated through workplace custom and practice rather than contractual entitlement, and it affected practical matters like roster allocation and work opportunities. Changing one driver's ranking would affect others - employees who were not parties to the proceedings and had no opportunity to be heard.
Preserving continuity of employment and restoring a seniority ranking, the Commission noted, are distinct questions. Granting one does not automatically deliver the other.
No fast track back to mentoring
The worker also sought an order restoring her Driver Mentor duties. Evidence from a Hillsbus manager established that the role is not a separate position or classification - it is an additional responsibility allocated based on competence, suitability, and operational need. Drivers returning after a lengthy absence would ordinarily need retraining and a competency assessment before being considered.
The worker had not driven a bus since 2019. The Commission declined to direct the allocation of responsibilities that depend on the employer's assessment of current competence. She remains entitled to be considered for mentoring on the same basis as other qualified drivers once any necessary retraining is complete.
What the delay cost
Finally, the worker sought compensation for pay she would have received had reinstatement happened sooner.
The Commission awarded it - but only for a limited window.
Before the medical assessment, the parties were in a genuine dispute about the worker's fitness. The Commission accepted that resolving that question required the formal assessment process and found it was not appropriate to make the employer pay for that period.
But after April 14, 2026 - when the medical certificate confirmed fitness - the employer's main basis for opposing reinstatement had been authoritatively decided against its position. Compensation ran from that date.
It stopped on July 16, 2026. By then, Hillsbus had offered to restore the employment relationship, and the remaining dispute was about terms, not about whether reinstatement would happen. The link between the dismissal and any ongoing lost income, the Commission found, had substantially weakened by that point.
Hillsbus also pointed to a lump-sum settlement the worker had received from a separate motor accident claim. The Commission acknowledged the settlement but found the evidence did not disclose its amount, terms, or what it covered. Without that detail, no reduction was warranted.
The parties were ordered to agree on the dollar figure for the three-month compensation window within 14 days, or file submissions if they cannot.
For HR teams managing return-to-work processes after workplace injury, the case is a practical reminder: once a fitness question is resolved, the meter starts running on the cost of delay - even where the remaining disputes are about logistics, not about whether the worker comes back.
