Court decision provides guidance on managing workplace rights during medical leave
The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia recently examined claims under the Fair Work Act 2009 and the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, involving adverse action allegations against Metro Trains Melbourne Pty Ltd.
A group train driver manager claimed her employer took adverse action against her in three ways: by refusing to provide details of workplace complaints, threatening termination, and ultimately ending her employment. She argued these actions were taken because she exercised workplace rights, including making complaints and pursuing a workers' compensation claim.
The case centered on whether these employer actions constituted adverse action under the Fair Work Act, particularly examining how employers should manage workplace investigations and employment decisions when an employee is certified as medically unfit.
The worker managed Metro Trains' Central Group, the largest of three operational groups, overseeing eight depot train driver managers and approximately 500 train drivers. Her employment started in October 2019 and was governed by a contract requiring compliance with the organisation's code of conduct.
Between February 24-27, 2022, the head of train services received multiple complaints from the worker's direct reports alleging bullying conduct. The employer stood down the worker on February 28, 2022. Shortly after, she reported health issues and provided medical certificates stating she was unfit for work.
On March 16, 2022, the worker submitted a workers' compensation claim with a medical certificate diagnosing a "severe psychological injury" and stating she was "Severely distressed. Not functional. Unable to focus or concentrate."
The employer's handling of the investigation while the worker was on medical leave became a key issue. The operations general manager wrote to the worker on April 5, 2022, stating:
"It is our normal approach to not engage with an employee about an investigation into their alleged misconduct, where the employee has notified us that they are unfit for duty...The reason we take this approach is because it would not be appropriate to notify an employee of work related matters, at a time they are dealing with and recovering from an illness/injury."
Under cross-examination, the operations general manager testified: "I would have made the same decision for any employee who had provided medical evidence that they were not fit during that time, as I would never want to make a person's medical condition worse through my actions."
The Court reviewed the evidence regarding the termination decision. The executive director of safety and people testified: "I formed the view that it was appropriate to terminate [the worker's] employment with [the employer] solely because of her medical incapacity... I considered that [the employer] needed an employee engaged on a permanent basis to fill this role to ensure that all operational requirements for the business were met."
The Court found "the reasons for not providing the allegations to [the worker] were because she was certified as having no capacity for work and [the employer] did not want to put her health at greater risk and was not because of, or for a reason that included, [the worker] exercising any of the workplace rights asserted."
The Court ultimately dismissed the application, concluding that "the exercise of workplace rights by [the worker] was not a substantial and operative reason for the termination of her employment."
The decision confirmed that legitimate business decisions based on medical incapacity and operational requirements could exist independently of an employee's exercise of workplace rights without constituting adverse action.
