An employee in Brisbane, Australia, who took more than 100 days of sick leave, challenged his termination, but an employment tribunal ruled in favor of the organisation. The tribunal concluded that the company acted in accordance with the law when it dismissed a worker who took 114 days of sick leave over a 12-month period.
Jodie Daunis, who worked as a customer service operator for the well-known city ferry service, was made redundant by the carrier Kelsian Group last year.
According to tribunal records cited by News.com.au, the company terminated her employment on the basis that she was unable to consistently perform the duties required of her role.
Daunisa’s health problems began in April 2024 when she was diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis – a condition that involves blood clots, causing inflammation and pain. As a result, doctors later recommended surgery as treatment. However, she was put on a waiting list at a public hospital because the insurance company refused to fund the treatment.
Her health problems persisted until 2025, culminating in a hospitalization that put her out of work for about a week. Although she managed a brief comeback, she was only able to complete two shifts before notifying her employer that she would need another three months off, referrals from a vascular surgeon and a blood specialist.
What did the medical report say?
At one stage, Daunis underwent an independent medical examination. She argued that the report suggested she could resume work once the planned surgery took place.
However, Kelsian Group argued that the report did not guarantee that she would be able to fulfill the essential duties associated with her position on the ferry.
The company also told the court that cutting her working hours would put an additional burden on other employees who would have to cover her shifts.
Why did the tribunal side with the employer?
After a dispute, the matter went to the Fair Work Commission, which ultimately ruled in favor of the employer.
Commissioner Chris Simpson said the medical report did not prove that Daunis would ultimately be able to meet the basic requirements of the job.
“I do not accept that the (independent medical review) report conclusively established that Ms Daunis could meet the essential requirements of her role in the future. I am satisfied that the evidence does not support such a conclusion,” Simpson ruled, as reported by the portal.
He further agreed with the company’s position that adjusting Daunis’ work schedule was not feasible due to the nature of the role.
“Taking into account the nature of the working arrangements and the impact on other employees and the costs to the respondent (Kelsian Group) in proposing adjustments to Ms Daunis, I accept that they are not practical or reasonable in this case and that no reasonable adjustment to Ms Daunis’s role could be made to accommodate her current or future incapacity due to the nature of her role.
