Worker challenges dismissal after losing driver's licence due to health incident

When core job requirements are temporarily impacted, how long should employers wait?

Worker challenges dismissal after losing driver's licence due to health incident

The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with an unfair dismissal case where a worker claimed he was unfairly dismissed after losing his driver's licence following a workplace medical incident.

The worker filed his unfair dismissal application in September 2024, arguing his dismissal was premature and harsh because his licence suspension was temporary and due to end in October 2024. He sought reinstatement, claiming the employer failed to explore reasonable alternatives to dismissal during the suspension period.

The case highlighted how employers and employees manage situations where workers temporarily lose mandatory qualifications, particularly when the circumstance arises through no fault of either party.

Workplace incident impacts employment duties

According to records, in June 2022, the worker started as a trades assistant at a motor vehicle dealership. His position description specifically listed a manual driver's licence as a required qualification, with 80% of his duties involving vehicle operations and 20% general yard maintenance.

On 20 April 2024, while driving a company vehicle on a public road during work hours, the worker unexpectedly blacked out. The incident resulted in both the dealership's vehicle and a private vehicle being written off, though fortunately without serious injuries.

Following standard South Australian government procedures, his driver's licence was automatically suspended for six months until 20 October 2024.

Despite consultations with various medical professionals between May and August 2024, including a cardiologist and sleep specialists, no diagnosis was reached before his employment ended.

Employer’s operational challenges after worker’s injury

The employer kept the worker's position open for four months while using labour hire workers and existing staff to cover his duties. Evidence presented to the FWC revealed significant operational challenges.

The human resources manager testified: "progressively, the employees who were directed away from their regular duties to perform car washing and yard duties expressed dissatisfaction with being required to do so when they had not been employed to do that work."

During meetings in April and June 2024, the worker requested alternative duties that didn't involve driving. The employer investigated options across their three locations but maintained no suitable positions were available.

Employment termination process

After four months, in August 2024, the employer initiated a show cause process. The notice stated: "Before we make any decisions in relation to your employment, we would like to give you the opportunity to update us on your situation. For your employment to continue, I will need you to be able to confirm to me that you are able to drive and meet the expectations of your role."

The worker refused to resign at the final meeting, maintaining the incident wasn't his fault. The employer proceeded with termination, providing two weeks' notice in lieu.

The termination letter stated: "This decision has not been made lightly but based on the fact that you have been unable to work for more than three months and that you still do not have your driver's license, we are unable to keep your role open. Having your drivers licence is a core competency of fulfilling your role."

FWC determines unfair dismissal claim

The Commission found that holding a valid driver's licence was an inherent requirement of the position, stating: "The reference to 'inherent' requirements invites attention to the characteristic or essential requirements of the employment as opposed to those requirements that might be described as peripheral."

Addressing the timing of the dismissal, the Commission observed: "Clearly the dismissal arose from a dreadful circumstance which was neither the fault of [the worker] nor [the employer]... That circumstance presented a personal, medical, industrial and business reality that both parties needed to deal with."

The Commission dismissed the application, concluding: "Whilst it was open for [the employer] to have taken a different view and waited longer before dismissal (and some employers may well have done so), it was not unfair that [the employer] did not do so... The Commission does not stand in the shoes of an employer and decide what they could or should have done. The issue is whether what the employer actually did was, considered overall and objectively, harsh, unjust or unreasonable."