The Fair Work Commission (FWC) recently handled a notable case involving a university employee who claimed her resignation was effectively forced by her employer. The core issues revolved around workplace accommodations for medical conditions, remote work arrangements, and the distinction between voluntary resignation and dismissal under the Fair Work Act.
The case underscores the challenges employers face in balancing employee needs with organisational requirements and safety concerns.
Employment History
The employee began her role as an assistant HR administrator at the university in September 2019. During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, she, like many others, transitioned to working from home. As the university gradually resumed on-campus operations in August 2020, she was permitted to continue working remotely due to a medical condition.
By June 2022, she began a phased return to on-campus work and, by April 2023, was working under a hybrid model, spending two days a week at home. However, her medical condition, rheumatoid arthritis, posed ongoing challenges, particularly when commuting.
Medical Recommendations and Employer Response
In July 2023, the employee’s doctor recommended she work from home due to difficulties with commuting, though the nature of her work was not the issue. Despite this, the university required her to be on campus three days a week.
An independent medical examination (IME) in January 2024 corroborated that her primary difficulty was commuting, as even short car rides caused significant discomfort. Following this, she was on a gradual return-to-work plan, working from home four days a week. However, in April 2024, she presented a medical certificate advising against any on-campus work for a month.
The university requested additional information from her doctor, who provided detailed symptoms and a need for a trial period with new medication. Based on this, the employer stated they could not accommodate further remote work due to safety concerns and required medical clearance for her return.
The Resignation
On April 30, 2024, the employee resigned, claiming she was forced to do so due to the employer’s refusal to make reasonable adjustments for her medical condition. She argued there was no genuine operational or safety necessity for her on-campus presence, as her remote work during the pandemic had been effective.
Employer’s Standpoint
The university contended that they had been supportive, facilitating remote work based on medical advice and transitioning her to a hybrid schedule in line with her team. They maintained that the resignation was voluntary and that they had suggested measures to assist her during flare-ups.
The Commission’s Verdict
The FWC concluded that the employee’s resignation was voluntary, not coerced by the employer. They noted she could have escalated the dispute within the organisation or through formal procedures but chose resignation instead.
The Commission’s decision emphasised the importance of exploring all available options before resigning and highlighted the need for clear communication and documented processes in managing workplace accommodations.
Conclusion
This case serves as a crucial reminder of the complexities involved in managing medical accommodations in the workplace. Employers must strive for clear communication and thorough documentation, while employees should fully explore dispute resolution avenues before deciding to resign.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this blog was accurate at the time of writing and is intended as general advice. For specific advice, please call AHR on 1800 577 515.
