Sticker duty, a 14wpm typing test and six of 13 course subjects in almost two years
An injured council worker's back ruled out outdoor work. Nearly two years of office duties on full pay never became a job.
That was the upshot of a South Australian Employment Tribunal decision delivered on September 28, 2026. The tribunal dismissed the worker's bid to make his employer, the City of Marion, a council in Adelaide's southern suburbs, give him “suitable employment.”
South Australia's return-to-work laws let an injured worker ask their employer, in writing, for suitable work. If none is offered, the worker can ask the tribunal to order it. The question here was what actually counts as a job.
From the drainage gang to the records room
For much of his time at the council, the worker was part of the civil works team. His jobs included operating a backhoe and digging trenches.
He hurt his lower back in 2019 after stepping into a hole described as “fairly deep”. In May 2022, after a week or two of concreting work, he hurt it again.
The council found him office-based duties. A short stint in IT had him peeling stickers off monitors and cleaning off the sticky residue, a task he described as meaningless. By late July 2022, he was working in the council's records unit.
The council also arranged a traineeship, paid for a Certificate III business course and gave him time off to study. According to his evidence, he was paid his full ordinary salary while doing the duties.
The course is usually finished within 12 months, the tribunal accepted. By the time of the trial, he had completed six of its 13 subjects. A typing test in 2023 put him at 14 words per minute.
Asked whether he accepted that was slow, he said: “Yes, but I’m also always learning. You know, it’s just starting.”
On April 17, 2024, the council withdrew the duties. Its letter said they were modified duties, not suitable employment, and that continuing them was no longer reasonably practicable.
A long list of jobs
In June 2024, the worker's lawyers wrote to the council asking for suitable employment. Their letter listed examples “including but not limited to” driving a water cart, street sweeper, community bus or truck; inspecting roads, kerbs, footpaths and playgrounds; auditing contractors' jobs and safety; administrative and records work; and operating a backhoe, excavator, front end loader and forklift.
The council did not promptly respond. On July 15, 2024, he took the matter to the tribunal.
Too risky for his back
The tribunal accepted the worker remained incapacitated for work because of his injury. The real fight was over what work he could safely do.
An occupational physician, who examined the worker at the request of the council's lawyers, said the ideal role for him would be administrative and “entirely sedentary in nature.”
The tribunal accepted that evidence. It found that if the worker slipped on a street sweeper's step and jarred his back, he would be at risk of needing major surgery. Trucks carried similar risks of slips and trips, as well as vibration. The water cart might be manageable in the short term, but the longer he stayed in that role, the greater the risk that something would aggravate his back.
None of the outdoor options was suitable long term, the tribunal found. That left the office.
Full pay, but not a job
This is the part that matters for HR teams. The worker argued that because the council had paid his normal wage for months, the records work was suitable employment.
The tribunal disagreed. The wage was relevant, it said, but “not, in itself, determinative” - in other words, pay alone did not settle the question.
It found the records work amounted to “suitable duties, not employment.” The tasks were basic, made up a small part of an actual position and were of low value to the council. It was not a job the council could reasonably be expected to keep paying a wage for indefinitely.
The records team leader told the tribunal that some of the archive work was “stuff that we can stretch out over 20 years. It wouldn’t matter.” Funding an ongoing position built around that kind of work, he said, would be “a wildly inappropriate use of public resources.”
He also agreed the worker was courteous and got along well with the team, and said he was happy to act as his referee.
Where the worker's account clashed with that of the council's witnesses, the tribunal preferred the council's. It found he had exaggerated his skill level and how much of the records role he was actually doing. It also found he had not shown the skills needed to work as an administrative officer, and that the council was reasonable to withdraw the duties when it did.
Name the job, not a wish list
The tribunal also had a message for workers making these requests. A notice should point to an existing position the employer would clearly understand, or set out a job description if a new role is being proposed. Broad lists of examples “including but not limited to” would ordinarily be unsatisfactory, it said, and could see an application thrown out. Given its other findings, it did not take the point further.
Some questions were left unanswered. South Australia amended the relevant section of its return-to-work law from December 1, 2024. The tribunal did not decide whether the old or new version applied, because the outcome would have been the same either way. It also did not rule on whether the worker had a legal duty to look for work elsewhere, or on the council's argument that the working relationship had broken down beyond repair.
For return-to-work coordinators, the case draws a clear line between keeping an injured worker busy and creating a position for them.
The tribunal gave the parties seven days to apply for costs. It noted that any appeal would have to be on a point of law.
