Fitness assessment reveals limitations creating burden on worker’s colleagues
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently examined an unfair dismissal claim involving a worker who was terminated after an occupational assessment found he could not perform all aspects of his role.
The case arose when the worker's employer became concerned about his physical capacity to complete required tasks and arranged for a fitness assessment that identified significant limitations.
The worker argued his dismissal was unfair, maintaining he was able to drive a forklift and that the tasks he couldn't perform were not part of his role as a forklift driver.
He contended that scanning stock and adjusting trailer floors were duties for storemen and truck drivers respectively, and that his employer had improperly expanded his job requirements beyond the core forklift operation.
The employer contested the worker's claim, arguing the dismissal was justified because he could not perform the inherent requirements of his position.
The company maintained that all forklift drivers were expected to perform scanning and floor adjustment duties, and that exempting the worker from these tasks would create an unreasonable burden on other staff members.
Performance concerns trigger fitness assessment
The employment relationship involved a 67-year-old worker employed as a forklift driver at a distribution warehouse for approximately seven years.
In September 2024, the performance manager became concerned about the worker's capacity after observing him moving a forklift charger to avoid walking the warehouse length because "it was hard for him to walk" and noting he found it difficult to get in and out of his forklift.
Following these observations, the performance manager told the worker she was concerned about his capacity and asked him to undergo a fitness assessment with an occupational therapist employed by the company's insurers.
The worker was stood down from work on full pay until further notice while arrangements were made for the assessment.
The assessment occurred in October 2024 and involved functionality tests requiring the worker to lift weights, squat, bend, and reach.
During the assessment, the worker told the occupational therapist that he did not do scanning work because bar codes were in tight spots that were difficult to scan, and that he could not adjust mezzanine floors in trucks.
Assessment reveals significant work limitations
The occupational therapist's report stated that the worker had difficulty moving between pallets and navigating spaces due to knee pain, that it took effort for him to climb trailers, and that he had difficulty adjusting floors.
The report concluded that the worker did not have the ability to safely scan stock on pallets or to adjust floors in trucks and trailers.
The performance manager received the report and arranged for testing to determine whether the identified restrictions could be accommodated.
The testing concluded that accommodating these limitations would require the company to employ another person to cover the tasks the worker could not perform.
A draft termination letter was accidentally sent to the worker before being finalised. The performance manager was then absent for 11 weeks due to serious health problems, during which time the worker remained on paid leave while the matter remained unresolved.
Management identifies impact on other workers
The site manager gave evidence that scanning pallets and adjusting trailer mezzanine floors were essential parts of a forklift driver's role, with floor adjustment being the most physically demanding aspect.
He explained that the morning supervisor had reported problems because workers were frustrated that the worker was not performing scanning or attending to specific equipment, creating additional work for others.
The site manager stated that other workers had been carrying out the worker's duties and were asking for agency staff to cover this work. He emphasised that the problem was not laziness but simply that the worker could not perform all aspects of his job, which was impacting other forklift drivers.
The general manager explained that the company did not employ storemen, and truck drivers were not responsible for loading or unloading duties. This meant that scanning and floor adjustment tasks fell specifically to forklift drivers as part of their standard duties across all company locations.
Formal dismissal process commences after delay
In February 2025, the general manager sent the worker a letter stating that the company believed he could not perform all inherent requirements of his role.
The letter indicated the company had considered whether his employment could continue by removing these tasks but formed a preliminary view that this would create too great a burden on other staff.
The worker attended a meeting in March 2025 with his solicitor and supervisor acting as interpreter, where he maintained he was capable of operating forklifts.
The general manager responded that it was unfair on the small team to require them to perform other aspects of his role. The worker's lawyer requested a one-week delay to provide a medical report.
Several weeks later, the worker was sent a termination letter confirming his employment was ended because he no longer had the capacity to perform the inherent requirements of his role. He was paid five weeks' pay in lieu of notice.
Commission examines job requirements and reasonable adjustments
The FWC found that "adjusting trays and undertaking warehouse-wide scanning of products are part of the duties of a forklift driver" at the company, accepting evidence that these tasks fell within the position description and that all other forklift drivers performed them.
The Commission found these were "significant tasks that are inherent to the role."
The Commission rejected the worker's argument that these duties belonged to storemen or truck drivers, noting the company did not employ such workers.
The FWC accepted evidence that adjusting trays and floors was part of the service offered to clients and that all forklift drivers around the country performed this work.
The Commission determined that "it would not have been a reasonable adjustment" to exempt the worker from duties he could not perform, finding that while other employees had been covering these duties, it would not have been reasonable to expect them to continue or for the employer to hire additional workers for tasks that were part of his job.
Application dismissed on valid capacity reasons
The FWC concluded that the employer had a valid reason to dismiss the worker based on his capacity, finding: "He was not able to perform all of the inherent requirements of his job."
The Commission noted that the worker had been properly notified and given an opportunity to respond, and that he was not refused a support person.
The Commission acknowledged that the delay between the assessment and the formal process was "regrettable" and that the worker found it stressful, but found this did not render the dismissal unfair.
The FWC noted the process was appropriate and that the worker's lawyer was given additional time to provide medical evidence, but nothing was submitted.
The FWC concluded: "Taking into account the matters in s 387, I conclude that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable, and that it was therefore not unfair. The application is dismissed."
The decision emphasised that the worker did not dispute his inability to perform the scanning and floor adjustment work that were found to be inherent requirements of his position.
