It's 'reasonable' to require a medical certificate to accommodate request, says employer
The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently dealt with a case involving a worker who resigned from her position at a university and subsequently claimed she was forced to do so due to her employer's conduct.
The case centred around issues of workplace accommodations for medical conditions, remote work arrangements, and the circumstances under which a resignation might be considered a dismissal under the Fair Work Act.
It highlighted the issues that employers face when balancing employee needs with organisational requirements and safety concerns.
The worker began her employment with the university in September 2019 as an assistant HR administrator. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, she and other staff worked from home temporarily in 2020. As employees began returning to campus in August 2020, the worker was allowed to continue working from home due to her medical condition.
In June 2022, the worker gradually returned to on-campus work. By April 2023, she was working under a hybrid arrangement, with two days per week from home. However, her medical situation continued to present challenges.
The worker suffered from rheumatoid arthritis, which generally did not impact her ability to perform her role unless she experienced a flare-up.
However, excessive walking and driving exacerbated her pain, and she could manage her symptoms more successfully by limiting the physical demands placed on her body.
In July 2023, the worker's doctor advised her to work from home due to difficulties with commuting rather than the nature of the work itself. Despite this, the employer expected her to continue working on-campus three days per week.
The employer required the worker to undergo an independent medical examination (IME) in January 2024. The IME confirmed that the main barrier to her return to campus was the commute, noting she experienced discomfort after about 10 minutes in a car.
In the months leading up to her resignation, the worker was on a gradual return-to-work plan, allowed to work from home four days per week. However, on 15 April 2024, she provided a medical certificate stating she couldn't work on campus one day per week for a month.
The employer sought further information from her doctor, who detailed symptoms including fatigue, lethargy, reduced concentration, and issues related to changes in pain medication.
The doctor's letter stated:
"This is to certify that on the 01.11.2023 I examined [the worker] who in my opinion is suffering from a medical condition and will be unfit for Work in the workplace until a review following a trial of a new medication (see attached letter from the specialist), but will be suitable for work from home. I anticipate that to adequately assess the response to the treatment – she would need to complete at least the initial 14 weeks as per the letter..."
Based on this information, the employer informed the worker that they couldn't accommodate further suitable duties due to safety concerns and required a medical clearance for her to return to work.
On 30 April 2024, the worker resigned from her position. She later claimed that she was forced to resign because the employer refused to make reasonable adjustments for her to work remotely due to her medical condition.
The worker asserted:
"I felt that I had no other choice but to resign from my employment with the [employer]."
She argued that there was no genuine operational or safety reason why the employer required her to return to work on campus or provide a medical clearance to resume work.
The worker pointed out that she had worked remotely from home on full-time and/or hybrid working arrangements since the COVID-19 pandemic with no adverse impacts on her performance or output or that of her team members.
The employer maintained that they did not coerce the worker to resign and had been reasonable in supporting her to work from home following medical advice. They argued they were working to transition the worker to the same hybrid arrangement as her colleagues in the HR administrative team.
The employer stated:
"[The worker] did not object to this requirement and subsequently took sick leave starting 23 April 2024 before resigning on the 30 April 2024."
They emphasised that they had been supportive of the worker and provided reasonable accommodations for her non-work-related medical condition.
The employer also noted that they had suggested ways to support her in working on campus three days a week during flare-ups, but it was ultimately her responsibility to make arrangements to be on campus.
The FWC found that the worker's resignation was voluntary and not forced by the employer's conduct. The Commission stated:
"I am satisfied on the basis of the evidence that [the worker's] resignation was a decision taken by her voluntarily."
The Commission noted that the worker could have escalated the dispute about the employer's decision to require a medical clearance to a higher level of management or brought a dispute under the enterprise agreement's dispute settling procedure. Instead, she chose to resign.
The decision emphasised:
"As the [worker] was not dismissed the Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the matter any further and the General Protections application is dismissed."
This case serves as a reminder of the importance of clear communication and documented processes when dealing with medical situations in the workplace. It also highlights the need for employees to explore all available options before taking the significant step of resigning from their position.
