Can You Be Dismissed If You Are Medically Unfit

June 16, 2026 By Gary Pinchen

Being declared medically unfit for work does not always mean that you can’t be dismissed. If you can’t perform the inherent duties of your role, an employer may have the right to terminate your employment. However, in some cases being medically unfit for work can be a valid defence against unfair dismissal.

In this article, we examine two Fair Work cases that involved workers who were terminated while they were declared medically unfit at the time. In the first case, the Fair Work Commission ruled in the favour of the employee. While in the second, the employer was deemed to have justifiably terminated the worker.

Worker unfairly dismissed while medically unfit for work

In the Fair Work general protections case Taylah Carrodus v Tunnelling Solutions Pty Ltd & Ors [2026], Ms. Carrodus was sacked following a dispute over a flexible work request. After her request was denied, Ms. Carrodus went on stress leave. She received a doctor’s certificate saying that she was medically unfit to work. Despite this, her employer told her she would be dismissed for job abandonment if she failed to return to work. The Fair Commission ruled that the employer couldn’t expect Ms. Carrodus to return to work given she was medically unfit at the time.

Case summary: Taylah Carrodus v Tunnelling Solutions Pty Ltd & Ors [2026]

Jurisdiction: Fair Work Commission VIC
Key employer argument: Employee abandoned her employment by relocating to Queensland and not returning to work by a deadline.
Key employee argument: She was medically unfit at the time of her sacking. Her employment was ended by a termination letter and payment that followed.
Fair Work outcome: The employee had been dismissed. She had not abandoned her employment and the employer knew she was medically unfit at the time.

Worker’s flexible work request refused ahead of planned move

Victoria-based Taylah Carrodus started working for construction business Tunnelling Solutions in October 2022. In October 2025, she requested a flexible working arrangement that would allow her to WFH full time from 5 January 2026, as part of a planned move to Queensland. Tunnelling Solutions refused the request. When Ms. Carrodus asked management to discuss the refusal, they refused to do so. Soon after, she told the company she would be taking personal leave due to “stress” until a meeting could be arranged.

She began this leave on 25 November 2025 and did not return to work. Two days later, on 27 November 2025, Ms. Carrodus wrote to Tunnelling Solutions proposing a mutual separation. Negotiations between the parties followed but did not result in an agreement. On 5 December 2025, Ms. Carrodus obtained a certificate of capacity stating she was medically unfit at the time to work until 4 March 2026.

Given deadline to return despite being medically unfit at the time

On 15 December 2025, Tunnelling Solutions applied to the Fair Work Commission to deal with the flexible work dispute. It sought an urgent hearing on the basis that Ms. Carrodus’ relocation to Queensland was imminent and no agreement had been reached. A conference was held on 18 December 2025, after which the matter was adjourned. The parties were told to provide a status update by 4 February 2026.

The following day, Tunnelling Solutions warned Ms. Carrodus that “absent a granted flexible work request” it would treat her as having abandoned her employment if she did not return to work by 5 January 2026. It noted that her “unilateral relocation” to Queensland had not been agreed to.

Worker discovered termination payment in bank account

Ms. Carrodus moved to Queensland on 28 December 2025. On 5 January 2026, she provided Tunnelling Solutions with a further medical certificate to support her claim that she could not return to work. A few days later, she noticed that she had received her final termination payment in her bank account.

On 9 January 2026, Tunnelling Solutions wrote to Ms. Carrodus stating that it considered her actions in unilaterally moving to Queensland to be abandonment of employment. It said that it had accepted her repudiation of employment and that it was “now at an end.”

Why did the worker believe she had been unfairly dismissed?

In her Fair Work general protections claim, Ms. Carrodus argued she had not abandoned her employment and had been unfairly terminated. She based this on the following reasons:

She had been notified via letter that her employment was “now at an end.” She had also been paid her final termination of employment payment.
Tunnelling Solutions’s job abandonment warning was conditional on “absent a granted flexible work request.” It was not clear that her employment would end on 5 January 2026.
She was medically unfit to work at the time Tunnelling Solutions alleged she had abandoned her employment. This was supported by a certificate of capacity.
There was a live dispute before the Fair Work Commission about her flexible work request, with a report-back date of 4 February 2026.
She provided a further medical certificate on 5 January 2026. This was the day her employer had set as the cut-off for deeming her to have abandoned her employment.

Tunnelling Solutions raised a jurisdictional objection to Ms. Carrodus’ Fair Work general protections claim. It argued that she had not been sacked but had abandoned her employment. The company also argued that, even if Ms. Carrodus had been dismissed, her Fair Work general protections claim had been filed outside the statutory 21-day time limit.

Why did Fair Work rule that the worker had been dismissed?

Ms. Carrodus’ Fair Work general protections claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in May 2026. It rejected Tunnelling Solutions’ jurisdictional objections for the following reasons:

Ms. Carrodus did not abandon her employment or repudiate her employment contract.
She could not return to work as she was medically unfit to work at the time. Tunnelling Solutions “knew this because it had been given a copy of her certificate of capacity.”
There was a live dispute with the Commission about her flexible work request, with a report-back date set for 4 February 2026.
Tunnelling Solutions did not attempt to confirm whether Ms. Carrodus had in fact moved to Queensland and whether she intended to return to work.
The company “moved directly to treat the employment as ‘at an end'” by sending the termination letter and paying Ms. Carrodus’ entitlements.
Although Tunnelling Solutions warned Ms. Carrodus that it would treat her as having abandoned her employment, the notice was conditional. That is, it specified that would be the case “absent a granted flexible work request.”
Tunnelling Solutions “could not reasonably have expected” Ms. Carrodus to attend work on 5 January 2026 because it knew she was medically unfit at the time.

The Commission found that Ms. Carrodus had been sacked and that it had taken effect on 9 January 2026. Given this, her Fair Work general protections claim had been lodged in time. The matter was permitted to proceed to a consideration of the merits of her claim.

Ferry worker fairly dismissed for being medically unfit for work

In the unfair dismissal QLD case Jodie Daunis v Rivercity Ferries Pty Ltd [2026], Ms. Daunis, a customer service operator who worked aboard Brisbane’s ferries, missed 114 days of work in 12 months due to a blood clotting condition. Her employer argued she could not perform the inherent requirements of her role and that no reasonable adjustments could be made. Despite arguing a post-surgery return to work was imminent, the Fair Work Commission found the medical evidence was too uncertain and ruled her termination justified.

Case summary: Jodie Daunis v Rivercity Ferries Pty Ltd [2026]

Jurisdiction: Fair Work Commission QLD
Key employer argument: Ms. Daunis was medically unfit to work and perform the inherent requirements of her role. The medical evidence was contradictory and no return to full duties could be confirmed.
Key employee argument: Acknowledged she was medically unfit at the time of dismissal but argued a full recovery was foreseeable. Doctors advised she could return to full duties following surgery.
Fair Work outcome: Termination of employment was fair. Ms. Daunis’ was medically unfit to work and perform the inherent requirements of her role.

Medically unfit for work due to deep vein thrombosis

Ms. Daunis had been working on Brisbane’s river ferries since June 2008. She worked as a customer service operator, which required her to spend lengthy periods on her feet aboard a moving vessel. In 2012, Ms. Daunis developed deep vein thrombosis. For the next 12 years, she kept the condition under control via medication.

But in April 2024, Ms. Daunis began suffering blood clots. In her Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, she said the condition did not significantly affect her work until August 2024. From that point, she took increasing amounts of time off, burning through all of her accrued leave and dipping into unpaid leave. She was referred for surgery in November 2024, but as it was not covered by her insurer, she was placed on the public hospital waiting list.

Unfair dismissal QLD: Declared medically unfit to work

On 6 April 2025, Ms. Daunis was hospitalised for two days due to her condition. After returning, she managed two shifts but struggled with pain. Her doctor issued a certificate recommending she be limited to four hours per shift, twice a week, with a rest day in between.

In the 12 months leading to 15 April 2025, Ms. Daunis was absent from work for 114 days on paid and unpaid leave. She was told that if her attendance did not improve, she may be required to attend an independent medical examination. She disclosed her medical situation and advised the company she was waitlisted for surgery in November 2025.

In late April, Ms. Daunis provided a medical certificate covering her absence all the way to 25 July 2025. She told Rivercity Ferries that she was medically unfit for work for the next three months. The company advised her that she would not be cleared to work for six months.

Doctor gave contradictory advice

Rivercity Ferries issued its first show cause letter on 29 April 2025, flagging that Ms. Daunis was medically unfit to work and could not perform the inherent requirements of her role. The Maritime Union of Australia responded on 9 May 2025, asking the company to keep Ms. Daunis on unpaid leave before a return on restricted duties. The medical evidence that followed only complicated things further. On 14 May 2025, Rivercity Ferries received a certificate from Ms. Daunis’ specialist.

This stated she was safe to return to work “while on anticoagulation therapy.” However, in the very next paragraph, the specialist said that her capacity to work was “highly variable.” He said that he could not predict her recovery over the next three months.

Unfair dismissal QLD: Sacked while medically unfit for work

An independent medical examination in June 2025 confirmed Ms. Daunis was medically unfit at the time. It noted she might be able to return within a month with temporary modifications and potentially resume full duties after surgery. However, the medical report also stated: “She is currently incapable of undertaking safely the full inherent duties of her role.”

After a second show cause letter was issued, Ms. Daunis was dismissed on 1 July 2025. Rivercity Ferries said it could not modify her duties to accommodate her medical limitations due to the nature of the ferry business. In November 2025, Ms. Daunis’ specialist sent a letter to the company clearing her to return to full-time duties with no restrictions.

Why did the worker believe she was unfairly dismissed?

In her Fair Work unfair dismissal claim, Ms. Daunis acknowledged she was medically unfit at the time of her termination. However, she argued she faced unjustified dismissal because:

The independent medical report stated she could “return to work within the next month or so.”
Following surgery, she would be able to return to normal duties.
Her specialist had cleared her in July 2025 for “full active duties with no work restrictions.”
An ultrasound showed “complete resolution” of her blood condition.
Rivercity Ferries should have objectively analysed her two most recent medical reports rather than rely on its subjective views.
The employer could have allowed the period of convalescence recommended by her doctors and the independent medical examination.
Rivercity Ferries was legally obligated to make reasonable adjustments for her condition under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld).

Why did Fair Work rule that the worker had been lawfully dismissed?

Ms. Daunis’ Fair Work unfair dismissal claim was heard by the Fair Work Commission in March 2026. It ruled that she had been fairly terminated as she was medically unfit at the time and unable to perform the inherent requirements of her role. The Commission’s findings included:

Ms. Daunis herself conceded she was medically unfit to work and could not perform the inherent requirements of her role.
The medical evidence at the time of the termination “fell well short” of explaining whether Ms. Daunis would be fit to return to her full duties in the foreseeable future.
Her condition was lifelong and aggravated by standing and walking on a moving vessel. Blood thinners introduced additional bleeding risks in the event of onboard accidents.
It was “not practical or reasonable” for Rivercity Ferries to make accommodations.
The specialists’ post-termination medical clearance did not displace the valid reason for dismissal that existed on 1 July 2025.

Unfair dismissal FAQs

Can I be sacked for being medically unfit?

Being medically unfit for work does not automatically give an employer the right to dismiss an employee. Under the Fair Work Act 2009, an employer may only terminate employment if the employee is unable to perform the inherent requirements of their role. Even then, proper process must be followed. This generally includes giving the employee an opportunity to respond and considering any medical evidence. Also, exploring whether reasonable adjustments or alternative arrangements are available.

In Jodie Daunis v Rivercity Ferries Pty Ltd [2026], Ms. Daunis was absent from work for 114 days in 12 months due to a blood clotting condition. Despite arguing surgery would allow her to return to full duties, the Fair Work Commission found that the medical evidence at the time of her termination “fell well short” of confirming she would be fit to return in the foreseeable future. The Commission accepted that it was “not practical or reasonable” for Rivercity Ferries to make accommodations given the physical nature of her role.

What classifies as abandonment of employment?

Abandonment of employment is when an employee fails to attend work for an extended period without notifying their employer, and without a reasonable excuse for their absence. There is no fixed rule under Australian law about how many days must pass before abandonment occurs. However, some awards and enterprise agreements specify a timeframe. An employer can’t simply declare that abandonment has occurred if there is a reasonable explanation for the employee’s absence.

In Taylah Carrodus v Tunnelling Solutions Pty Ltd & Ors [2026], the employer argued Ms. Carrodus had abandoned her employment by relocating to Queensland without its permission and failing to return to work by a specific date. However, the Fair Work Commission rejected this. It found that Ms. Carrodus was on medically certified leave at the time and that the company was aware of this.

Read more: Mother of Sick Child Ordered to Return to Office has Huge WFH Win

When your job ends, your rights don’t

We at A Whole New Approach (AWNA) work with employees nationwide on unfair dismissal, constructive (forced) resignation, general protections disputes, workplace bullying and other workplace rights matters. Employers fear us for our track record holding them to account, and we can help you get the compensation you deserve.

Strict submission deadlines apply for Fair Work claims, so contact us now on 1300 766 700 for your free and confidential initial consultation.