Court says worker had ‘choice’ to comply or provide medical evidence
The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) recently dealt with a case involving a worker who contended that his employer took adverse actions against him after being coerced to wear a face mask.
In its defense, the employer contended that the worker failed to follow a reasonable and lawful direction and, consequently, could not perform the inherent requirements of his job.
'Demands' from the company
The worker was a full-time maintenance technician in a manufacturing company of adhesives, solvents, and silicones.
Around 25 May 2021, the Victorian Government required all employees to wear a face mask while at work.
The company was required to comply with the government's public health directions and consequently directed all employees to adhere to this rule and wear a face mask at all times while on site.
Initially, the worker complied and wore a face mask while performing his duties at work. However, he said that he experienced dizziness and headaches after wearing a mask full-time.
On 26 May 2021, the employer observed that the worker performed his work without a face mask, and he said that he had a medical exemption. The employer then allowed the worker to work without a face mask for the time being.
However, around June 2021, several employees became concerned with the COVID-19 spread. At that time, the company also received a complaint from a supplier because the worker had attended their shop without wearing a face mask.
Subsequently, the worker was provided with a face shield which the worker argued still felt uncomfortable and restricted his natural airflow.
Conflict over face mask
In his submission, the worker argued that the company contravened the workplace laws by the company's requirement for him to wear a face mask which he referred to as a "demand."
He further contended that he was denied reasonable adjustments despite his disability or due to his political opinion about COVID-19 and the government's directives and orders.
Meanwhile, the employer argued that the sole reason for the worker's dismissal was that he refused to comply with lawful and reasonable directions to confirm his vaccination status.
HRD reported about the case of an employee who was summarily dismissed because she was not wearing her face mask correctly, which was allegedly against the employer’s policy.
In another case, a retail worker claimed she was fired for wearing a mask. She alleged that her manager asked her to remove the protective cover or go home.
Court's decision
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the worker's claim as it was satisfied with the employer's reasons for the dismissal.
It found that the company's contention that the worker was dismissed due to his failure to follow lawful directions in disclosure of his COVID-19 vaccination status and his inability to perform the inherent requirements of his role because he could not be permitted to attend work on-site was "objectively justifiable."
Regarding the worker's claim that he was coerced to wear a face mask, the FCFCOA noted that the worker was given a choice to either wear the face mask in accordance with the government's directions or produce medical evidence.
