In a recent decision the Fair Work Commission found that Monash Health fairly dismissed a long-term absent coordinator who refused to cooperate with requests to provide medical information for assessing if adjustments could be made for a return to his position.
The Facts
Monash Health is a large public health service.
The employee was a coordinator for international medical graduates employed by Monash Health. Soon after he commenced employment the employee’s managers noticed issues regarding his performance such as unexplained absences and failing to complete tasks in a timely manner and to the required standard.
When the concerns were raised with him, the employee disclosed that he had a condition (ADHD) that was affecting him. The employer prepared a support plan that offered adjustments such as flexible start times, hybrid work from home options, and guidance and mentoring.
Despite the support plan, the employee continued to perform below the level expected by the employer and a follow up meeting was held.
The employee made a bullying complaint against a co-worker which was not substantiated after investigation by the employer. He also applied for workers’ compensation, which was rejected.
His last day of work was 14 May 2025. From that date he then provided various medical certificates and was absent from work.
From June 2025 his medical certificates stated a diagnosis of “adjustment disorder with anxiety and depression” and a work capacity of “2 days a week for 2 hours a day”.
Monash Health sent him various letters requesting further medical information about his work capacity, but he did not provide the information. On 31 August 2025 he notified Monash Health that he did not consent to providing any medical information beyond what was contained in his certificates of capacity.
On 15 September 2025 Monash Health notified him by letter that in view of the inherent requirements of the coordinator role, which included:
- continuous coordination with various stakeholders,
- time-sensitive advice on visa and medical registration,
- prompt response to urgent workforce issues and escalations, and
- operating under strict timelines and data analysis, interpretation, and reporting,
it could not accommodate his request to work 2 hours a day for 2 days a week on “non-stressful work”.
He sent another email refusing to provide any further medical information beyond his medical certificates.
On 24 October 2025 Monash Health notified him by letter that the adjustments he was seeking were unreasonable, and it was considering terminating his employment in the absence of additional information about his capacity, which he refused to provide.
On 7 November 2025 the employee replied requesting that no further action be taken as “matters relating to my injury and capacity are currently before the Fair Work Commission and the Workplace Injury Commission”.
On 14 November 2025 Monash Health notified him by letter that those matters had no bearing on its review of his employment and gave him another opportunity to provide further information.
He did not respond. Monash Health notified termination of employment by a letter dated 28 November 2025 on the basis that he did not have capacity to perform the inherent requirements of his position and was unable to return to his substantive role in the foreseeable future.
He applied for unfair dismissal.
The Decision
The Commissioner dismissed the employee’s application, finding that:
- There was a valid reason for dismissal where:
- The employee’s medical certificates indicated that at best, he could work four hours per week on ‘non-stressful’ work, which was unclear.
- During his 6 months’ absence he did not say what reasonable adjustments he was seeking.
- His failure to provide medical information and updates meant that processes for pursuing adjustments to his role or alternate roles were unable to be implemented.
- His own medical advice established he could not meet the inherent requirements of the role, and Monash Health was entitled to rely upon that advice.
- He had been notified of the reason for termination before a decision was made to terminate the employment, he was given an opportunity to respond to the reason, and the dismissal was otherwise fair.
Implications
In long-term absence situations, employees can be expected to provide medical information and updates when reasonably requested by their employer, and can also be expected to explain what reasonable adjustments they are seeking.
Employers should undertake a careful process that gives the absent employee an opportunity for input.
If the employee has provided medical advice establishing that the employee cannot meet the inherent requirements of the role, then the employer is entitled to rely upon the advice.
At WorkLegal our experienced team can answer your questions and put you on the right track. A range of fixed-price Initial Consultations will suit most people’s needs in quickly learning what their options are.