FWC looks at employer's failure to respond to urgent health issues
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case involving a worker who alleged she was dismissed from her job after her employer refused to accommodate her request for flexible working arrangements due to medical issues.
The decision emphasises the importance of maintaining clear communication with employees on leave.
This case also serves as a reminder to employers about their obligations when managing employees with medical conditions and the potential consequences of poor communication practices.
Worker’s request for flexible work
The case centred around a customer service and sales support worker who had been employed by a small business since April 2023. Her duties involved administration, scheduling of work, and drawing CAD designs for the employer.
In November of that year, the worker experienced medical issues that required hospitalisation. Following discussions with her doctor, she approached her employer about the possibility of reduced hours or working from home temporarily.
The employer, however, swiftly rejected this request. In an email dated 28 November 2023, the employer informed the worker that they could not accommodate her request for flexible arrangements. Furthermore, they directed her not to return to work until she could provide a full medical clearance for her original duties.
The worker believed she could complete her duties from home if allowed to do so. However, the employer, a small business with only five office staff at the time, deemed the request unfeasible due to operational constraints.
Communication breakdown between parties
What followed was a period of minimal communication between the parties. The worker focused on addressing her medical issues, as instructed. However, when she reached out to the employer on 13 February 2024 about returning to work, she received no response.
The worker gave evidence that on 29 November 2023, she had a discussion with the former operations manager who allegedly told her that the decision to decline her request was not his, but had come from higher management. The worker also claimed that she was told that the owner had expressed to staff that she wasn't coming back.
After nearly a month of silence following her February email, the worker filed an application with the FWC on 5 March 2024, alleging that she had been dismissed. The employer objected, arguing that no dismissal had taken place and that they were simply waiting for the worker to provide a full medical clearance.
FWC examines worker’s conduct
In examining the case, the FWC acknowledged that the employer was a small business likely lacking extensive HR resources. However, the Commission was critical of the employer's handling of the situation, particularly their failure to maintain contact with the worker and their delayed response to her request to return to work.
The FWC emphasised the importance of timely communication:
"The assertion that the relevant decision maker at the [employer] was totally out of contact is conveniently self-serving in these circumstances. It is not excusable for an employer to ignore such correspondence or have such a significant delay in response."
This statement underscores the Commission's view that employers have a responsibility to maintain open lines of communication with their employees, regardless of the size of the organisation.
Ultimately, the FWC determined that the worker had been dismissed within the meaning of section 386 of the Fair Work Act. The Commission found that either the employment was terminated at the employer's initiative, or alternatively, the employer's conduct was the primary cause of the employment ending.
The FWC's reasoning said:
"I find that the [worker] had a reasonable belief on 5 March 2024 when filing this application that her employment had ended."
This finding highlights the importance of clear communication in employment relationships, especially when dealing with employees on medical leave.
"I am satisfied that the [worker's] employment was terminated at the [employer's] initiative or, in the event I have erred, alternatively that, given it had not responded to her email from three weeks prior and in the broader circumstances of this matter, the [employer's] conduct was the primary cause in the end of the employment, essentially rendering the [worker] with no alternative but to end her employment or being likely to cause such conclusion."
This case serves as a valuable reminder for employers and HR professionals about the importance of carefully considering and responding to requests for flexible work arrangements, especially when related to medical issues.
