He cited medical grounds to avoid every meeting - but never told his employer what they were
An employee told his boss he would only communicate in writing and stopped showing up to meetings. The Fair Work Commission has backed his employer for dismissing him over it.
In a decision dated September 2, 2026, the Fair Work Commission dismissed an unfair dismissal claim brought by an assistant accountant who refused to attend face-to-face meetings and insisted every instruction from his manager come in writing. The Commission found the employer had a valid reason to end his employment.
The worker joined a family-owned wholesale distributor in New South Wales in February 2024, starting on $90,000 a year. His performance struggled early, improved with his manager's support, and earned him a rise to $100,000 in March 2025. The relationship soured a few months later, after he asked for a further $20,000 and was turned down. From that point, according to the decision, his manner and his work changed.
By August 2025 he was avoiding face-to-face contact and asking for all task requests in writing - even for jobs that took about five minutes, such as setting up two new-starter records in the payroll system. His manager described email chains that ran across a full workday to get routine tasks done, and said he ended up covering the worker's duties on top of his own.
Matters came to a head that November. The manager told the worker to attend a meeting to sort out an ongoing dispute about working hours. The worker declined, pointing to "current medical circumstances and psychological safety concerns." The managing director then gave his own instruction to meet. The worker refused again, this time "on medical grounds," asking for written particulars, formal notice and a support person first.
The Commission found both instructions were lawful and reasonable. The employer had given four days' notice, offered a support person and promised to follow up in writing. The Deputy President also found the worker never actually gave the employer any medical information explaining why he could not attend meetings - something he acknowledged in his own witness statement. The absence of that information, the decision said, "casts doubt on whether such information actually existed."
There was one flaw in the process. After a show cause letter went out, the worker produced medical certificates and moved onto paid personal leave. The Commission found the employer should not have held him to a response deadline while he was signed off sick, as that took away a fair chance to reply. But it made no difference to the outcome. The worker had the chance to answer the allegations at the hearing and offered only general denials, with no medical evidence to explain his conduct.
A second valid reason surfaced after the dismissal. Through a separate Commission decision, the employer learned the worker had been dismissed by an earlier employer and had overstated his time at a former workplace on his resume - listing roughly five years when the real figure was about two. The Deputy President did not accept his explanation that the resume was simply out of date, calling it implausible.
The takeaways for HR are clear. The Commission treated turning up to meetings and speaking in person as core parts of the job, not extras an employee can opt out of. It accepted that a difficult employee's conduct can put a manager's own health and safety at risk. And it drew a firm line on medical claims: an employee who leans on a health condition to justify refusing instructions has to actually tell the employer what that condition is. Vague references to "psychological strain," with nothing to back them up, will not carry the argument.
The sick-leave finding is the counterweight, and it is the one to file away. Once a worker hands in a valid medical certificate and goes onto paid personal leave, they are entitled to be excused from work tasks - including taking part in the disciplinary process itself. The Commission noted the employer could have sent the worker to a company-appointed doctor to test the certificates, but did not. Employers who keep the clock running on a response deadline while someone is signed off sick are risking a fairness problem, even where the reason for dismissal is otherwise sound.
