Case shows how medical restrictions influence employment prospects assessment
The Fair Work Commission recently dealt with an unfair dismissal case following a January 2025 decision that found a worker's dismissal was harsh, unjust and unreasonable. The initial decision called for determining appropriate compensation after receiving additional evidence from both parties.
Following the January 2025 decision, the worker provided medical evidence, payslips and other documentation supporting her compensation claim.
Her former employer, an automotive service centre, did not file any additional materials related to the compensation matter.
The case focused on calculating appropriate compensation while accounting for workers' compensation payments the worker was receiving due to a workplace injury that occurred prior to her dismissal.
The worker's employment history showed she worked at the automotive service centre for two years. Her workplace manager provided testimony about her performance during the unfair dismissal proceedings.
The Commission noted this evidence: "[the worker] was a very pleasant person, a kind person, I never had any issues on a personal level with her at all. She did the job pretty well. There were no issues on a professional level either. She always did what was asked of her."
Based on this testimony and other evidence, the Commission found no indication she was dissatisfied with her employment or planning to leave. This led to their determination that she would have continued working at the centre for another two years until July 2026 if the dismissal had not occurred.
Her weekly earnings at the time of dismissal were $1,009.62 plus $116.11 in superannuation, with the Commission noting the legislated superannuation increase to 12% scheduled for July 2025.
A medical certificate dated 15 January 2025 confirmed a workplace injury that occurred on 1 July 2024. The certificate indicated she could work eight hours daily for four days weekly, but not in her pre-injury role.
Documentation from her rehabilitation provider showed she participated in a Job Seeking Program throughout January 2025. The provider confirmed she spent 30 minutes daily searching for suitable jobs online, as recommended by her psychologist.
She received $20,798.03 in workers' compensation payments from the dismissal date to 21 January 2025 and continued receiving weekly payments of $712.80.
The Commission determined that securing new employment would take longer than typical, stating: "[the worker] is likely to obtain employment and cease workers compensation payments within 12 weeks of the date of this decision." This assessment considered her status as an injured worker and her six-month unemployment period.
The Commission projected she would receive workers' compensation payments until 29 April 2025, after which they expected her earnings would return to pre-dismissal levels.
This assessment formed a key part of the compensation calculation under section 392(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009.
Applying established compensation principles from previous Commission decisions, the final order stated: "[the employer] should pay compensation to [the worker] in lieu of reinstatement within 14 days of the date of this decision in the gross sum of $17,629.16."
This amount included $4,992.73 in superannuation covering July 2024 to April 2025, and $12,636.43 in wages, subject to tax deductions.
The Commission emphasized that this amount reflected all circumstances of the case under section 392(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009, explicitly noting it did not include compensation for shock, distress or humiliation.
