Inherent Requirements Unfair Dismissal Dispute: Can an employer lawfully dismiss an automotive master technician with degenerative spinal restrictions when the substantive role still requires regular hands-on mechanical work?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case [2025] FWC 229 (U2024/7970), this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

Court of Hearing: Fair Work Commission

Presiding Judge: Deputy President

Cause of Action: Unfair dismissal remedy application under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Judgment Date: 29 January 2025

Core Keywords:

Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case

Keyword 2: Unfair dismissal

Keyword 3: Inherent requirements

Keyword 4: Capacity dismissal

Keyword 5: Reasonable adjustment

Keyword 6: Procedural fairness in dismissal process

Background

The Applicant was an experienced automotive technician engaged in a senior technical role within the Respondent’s workshop operations. Over time, a chronic and degenerative spinal condition became a live operational issue. Medical advice placed firm limits on repetitive bending, twisting, and neck extension, including working underneath vehicles and prolonged work on hoists. The Respondent treated this as a safety and capacity issue tied to the substantive role, not simply a temporary restriction.

At the centre of the dispute was a practical workplace reality: even senior technicians who spend significant time diagnosing faults and guiding junior staff are still expected, as a regular and substantial part of the day, to perform hands-on mechanical work. The Applicant asserted that his role was, in substance, more supervisory and diagnostic and could be performed safely with adjustments. The Respondent asserted that the job’s inherent requirements included regular physical mechanical tasks that could not be carved out without transforming the position into a different, non-productive role the business could not sustain.

Core Disputes and Claims

Core legal focus: Whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable under s 385(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), having regard to the criteria in s 387, where the employer relied on incapacity to perform the inherent requirements of the substantive role.

Applicant’s claim/relief sought: An unfair dismissal remedy, contending there was no valid reason, and that feasible adjustments or alternative duties existed that would have avoided termination.

Respondent’s position/relief sought: Dismissal of the application, contending the Applicant could not perform the inherent requirements of the substantive role, would not be able to do so in the future given the degenerative prognosis, and that proposed adjustments were not reasonable or viable in the operational context.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The relationship began with a recruitment narrative that carried two parallel expectations.

First, the Applicant accepted a senior technical role, relocating to take up employment and bringing specialist diagnostic skills that were valuable to a busy workshop. Second, there was an aspirational pathway: the possibility of a future foreman role if circumstances aligned. That possibility mattered because it shaped the Applicant’s understanding of what his day-to-day duties would become, and how much physical work would remain part of his working week.

The conflict did not appear suddenly. It emerged through the slow friction between a human body and a workshop’s rhythms.

As the Respondent’s workshop ran under commercial pressure, the Applicant reported being pushed “back on the tools” more frequently. In an automotive workshop, the work that pays the bills often demands posture changes: bending over engine bays, twisting in confined spaces, and looking up while working under vehicles on hoists. For a tall technician, hoist height and the geometry of a vehicle’s underside are not theoretical details; they dictate whether the neck and lower back can remain neutral or are repeatedly forced into extension and flexion.

A decisive moment arrived when an episode of acute pain at work led to medical reassessment. The treating doctor identified permanent degenerative disease affecting both cervical and lumbar spine. The medical restrictions were not framed as short-term, with a quick return to full duties after rest. They were framed as structural limits requiring a sustained change in exposure to the physical movements that aggravate the condition.

From that point, the dispute became a contest over “what the job really is”.

The Applicant’s narrative placed the centre of gravity on supervision, diagnosis, training, quality control, and targeted checks. The Respondent’s narrative placed the centre of gravity on the substantive position as documented, and on workshop reality: medium to heavy labour for many hours per day, including work under vehicles and bent over engine bays, with bending, twisting, and extended postures.

The relationship deteriorated because neither narrative could fully absorb the other without significant cost. If the Applicant’s view prevailed, the Respondent would be obliged to redesign the job into a substantially different role. If the Respondent’s view prevailed, the Applicant’s capacity limits would collide with the job’s inherent requirements, making continued employment unsafe or impractical.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1. Employment communications and asserted role evolution:

– The Applicant relied on the evolution of title and understanding of a “foreman” trajectory, asserting that the role was intended to be largely non-manual, centred on diagnostic leadership and quality control.
– The Applicant contended that hands-on work increased due to workload, staffing pressures, and promised completion times, pushing him into tasks beyond what he believed had been agreed.

1. Workplace reality evidence:

– The Applicant described workshop hoists and physical constraints, including that only limited hoists could raise vehicles high enough to work safely given his height.
– He described that regardless of hoist height, under-vehicle work still required looking up, and that certain tasks, including handling heavy equipment, involved overhead movement and neck extension.

1. Medical evidence and work capacity framing:

– The treating doctor issued a letter advising avoidance of repetitive and strenuous flexing or extending of neck and lower back, including no bending or working under a vehicle, and suggested suitability for a supervisory role.
– The Applicant asserted he was fit for foreman-type duties, describing them as short-duration inspections and checks, and proposed changes to minimise work under vehicles with low clearances.

1. Process fairness critique:

– The Applicant argued the process moved too quickly, and that alternatives such as part-time arrangements or different duties were not meaningfully explored.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1. Substantive duties and inherent requirements evidence:

– The Respondent relied on position description content describing general repairs and servicing, safe and timely completion of work, maintenance and service tasks, and assisting other staff.
– The Respondent described the typical nature of technician work: extended time under vehicles and bent over, requiring bending, twisting, and body extension while applying force.

1. Productivity and operational evidence:

– The Respondent relied on internal productivity weighting and data indicating the Applicant’s costed productivity averaged around the midpoint, consistent with a role involving a substantial component of hands-on work.
– The Respondent gave financial evidence about workshop profitability and inability to sustain additional non-productive roles.

1. Medical risk framing:

– The Respondent treated the condition as permanent and degenerative, and argued retaining the Applicant in the existing role would place him at risk.
– The Respondent argued that installing a different hoist would not eliminate the need to look up and stress the cervical spine.

1. Process evidence:

– The Respondent documented letters and invitations to meetings seeking further information and suggestions for reasonable adjustments, and relied on the Applicant’s decision not to attend key meetings.

Core Dispute Points

1. What was the Applicant’s substantive role as at dismissal:

– Was it essentially supervisory/diagnostic, or was it a technician role with a regular and substantial component of physical mechanical work?

1. Capacity at the time of dismissal and into the future:

– Could the Applicant perform the inherent requirements at dismissal, and was there a realistic prospect of performing them later?

1. Reasonable adjustment and role transformation:

– Were the proposed changes reasonable adjustments, or did they transform the substantive role into a materially different position?

1. Procedural fairness under s 387:

– Was the Applicant notified of the reason, given an opportunity to respond, and treated in a manner consistent with a fair capacity-based dismissal process?

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

The affidavits in this matter performed two classic litigation functions.

First, each side used affidavit evidence to lock in a narrative of “what the job is”. In capacity cases, the story of the role is often as important as the story of the injury. The Applicant framed his role around leadership functions: diagnosis, supervision, training, and quality checks. The Respondent framed the role around workshop fundamentals: paid labour attached to physical repair, service, and maintenance tasks, with diagnostic assistance as an important but not exclusive component.

Second, the affidavits positioned medical restrictions as either manageable or decisive. The Applicant treated restrictions as compatible with a refined allocation of duties. The Respondent treated restrictions as incompatible with inherent requirements because the job’s physical components could not be removed without changing the job itself.

A key forensic contrast is how both sides described the same activity: “working under vehicles”.

• In the Applicant’s version, under-vehicle exposure was something that could be reduced through smarter task allocation, better hoist use, and focusing the Applicant on diagnosis and oversight.
• In the Respondent’s version, under-vehicle exposure was structurally unavoidable across many tasks, and even with hoist adjustments the neck extension requirement remained.

Strategic Intent Behind the Commission’s Evidentiary Approach

Capacity cases under s 394 often turn on three evidentiary pillars:
1) the objective content of the role as documented,
2) evidence of how the job was actually performed in practice,
3) medical evidence that is clear about restrictions, prognosis, and what duties can safely be performed.

The procedural directions and questioning style in such matters typically aim to reconcile the paper role with workplace reality and then test proposed adjustments against operational feasibility. Where the medical evidence supports only a modified role, the tribunal will usually ask whether that modification is a reasonable adjustment or an impermissible transformation of the substantive position.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before the final determination, the Commission’s process involved:
– Confirmation that the application was within the statutory time limit.
– A determinative conference where witness evidence was received from the Applicant and multiple managerial and operational witnesses.
– Consideration of threshold matters under s 396, including coverage, minimum employment period, and that the Respondent was not a small business employer for code purposes, and that genuine redundancy was not in issue.
– A structured analysis under s 385 and the s 387 criteria, with attention to capacity, notification, opportunity to respond, and other relevant matters.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

The hearing functioned like a workshop inspection, but of narratives rather than engines. The Commission tested each account under the pressure of specificity: what tasks, for how long, and with what physical demands.

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

The Applicant’s case required the Commission to accept that the substance of his role was primarily foreman-like, with limited physical work beyond short checks, road tests, and diagnostic oversight.

The Respondent’s case required the Commission to accept that the documented duties were real, and that the Applicant’s actual work patterns were consistent with those duties, not a purely supervisory position.

A critical contest emerged over the mismatch between:
– the Applicant’s asserted list of duties, and
– the “main activities/tasks” as recorded in the employment documentation.

This contest mattered because capacity for inherent requirements must be assessed against the substantive position, not a preferred or modified version of it.

Core Evidence Confrontation

The decisive evidence cluster combined:
1) the written role descriptions identifying general repairs and servicing as core tasks,
2) productivity data showing a consistent pattern of hands-on work,
3) medical restrictions indicating avoidance of bending and working under vehicles, and describing degeneration that would worsen over time,
4) operational evidence that creating an additional non-productive role was not financially viable.

This cluster created a coherent chain: the job required hands-on work; the Applicant’s condition required avoiding key physical movements central to that work; and the proposed solution was a restructured role the employer could not sustain.

Judicial Reasoning With Judicial Original Quotation

The Commission’s reasoning turned on the separation between a substantive position and a modified position created to accommodate impairment. The Commission relied on established authority that inherent requirements are assessed by reference to the substantive role, not a re-engineered role.

“…a reason for dismissal based upon an injured employee’s incapacity to perform the inherent requirements of his or her position or role must be assessed against the requirements of the substantive position or role, not as it may be modified or restricted in order to accommodate the employee’s injury.”

This statement was determinative because it set the legal lens. Once the Commission adopted that lens, the central question became whether the Applicant could perform the inherent requirements of the substantive role, rather than whether a different role could be designed around him.

The Commission then applied that lens to the factual findings about the role’s physical demands and the medical restrictions and prognosis.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Commission determined that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. The unfair dismissal application was dismissed. No unfair dismissal remedy was granted, and the Commission did not issue an order providing a remedy.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis

This case is jurisprudentially valuable because it illustrates a frequent misunderstanding in capacity-based dismissal disputes: the law does not require an employer to preserve employment by converting the substantive role into a different job, particularly where the conversion would reduce productive work, require constant task redistribution, or create ongoing safety risk.

It also demonstrates how a decision-maker can integrate:
– documentary role content,
– objective work pattern indicators,
– medical prognosis,
– and business viability evidence
into a single, defensible conclusion on valid reason and overall fairness.

Judgment Points

1. Substantive role identification is the first battlefield
   The Commission treated the written position descriptions as a primary anchor for what the job required. The Applicant’s preferred description of the role did not align with the documents, and the Commission was not persuaded that the role excluded hands-on work.

Practical lesson: In unfair dismissal matters involving capacity, the party who controls the definition of the substantive role often controls the outcome.

1. Objective work pattern evidence can defeat an aspirational narrative
   Internal productivity data and evidence of consistent hands-on work undermined the claim that the role was overwhelmingly non-manual. The Commission treated this as a reality check.

Practical lesson: Where the dispute is “what did you really do day-to-day”, time records, productivity coding, job allocation logs, and contemporaneous emails can be more persuasive than retrospective descriptions.

1. Medical evidence must be mapped to tasks, not just labels
   The treating doctor’s restrictions were task-specific: avoid repetitive neck and lower back flexion/extension, no bending, no working under a vehicle. The Commission then asked the practical question: are these movements inherent in the job’s core tasks?

Practical lesson: A medical certificate that says “fit for suitable duties” is not enough unless it identifies what duties are safe and whether the inherent requirements can be performed.

1. Prognosis matters because unfair dismissal is assessed at dismissal, but viability looks forward
   The Commission considered not only capacity at dismissal but also whether the Applicant would be able to perform inherent requirements in the future. Degenerative conditions introduce a forward-looking risk: if the condition will likely worsen, adjustments may need to escalate over time.

Practical lesson: For employers, prognosis evidence supports a conclusion that the incapacity is not temporary. For employees, prognosis evidence must be paired with a credible plan for sustainable performance.

1. Reasonable adjustment has a boundary: it cannot become role transformation
   The Commission rejected proposed adjustments that would have required the Respondent to reorganise workshop tasks so the Applicant could avoid unsafe duties, because that would transform the substantive position into a modified and restricted position requiring constant monitoring and reliance on other technicians.

Practical lesson: The dividing line is whether the person can still perform the inherent requirements, not whether the employer can redesign the workplace to eliminate those requirements.

1. Operational and financial evidence can be decisive where a new non-productive role is proposed
   The Respondent’s evidence about profitability and inability to absorb an extra non-productive role reinforced that an alternative job design was not viable.

Practical lesson: Employers who can clearly explain business structure, role duplication issues, and financial constraints are more likely to establish that proposed adjustments are not reasonable.

1. Process fairness can remain intact even where the employee refuses to engage
   The Commission placed weight on the fact that the Applicant was notified of the reason, given opportunities to respond, and invited to propose adjustments, but did not attend key meetings and did not provide new information.

Practical lesson: In capacity terminations, the documentary trail of invitations, letters, and clear questions to the employee is a strong procedural fairness shield.

1. Human sympathy does not substitute for legal thresholds
   The Commission acknowledged the Applicant’s conscientiousness and personal impact, but the legal framework required an assessment of valid reason and s 387 factors, not an outcome based on compassion.

Practical lesson: Parties should not confuse the Commission’s empathy with a legal basis for reinstatement or compensation.

Legal Basis

Key statutory provisions and concepts applied:
– Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 394: unfair dismissal applications.
– Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 396: initial matters, including 21-day time limit.
– Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 385: whether the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.
– Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 387: criteria including valid reason, notification, opportunity to respond, support person, and other relevant matters.

Capacity and inherent requirements framing relied on established Commission authority that capacity is assessed against the substantive position, not a modified position.

Evidence Chain

Conclusion: Dismissal not unfair under s 385(b).

Evidence + Law chain:
1) The substantive role required regular and substantial hands-on mechanical work, supported by role documentation and objective work pattern evidence.
2) Medical restrictions required avoidance of bending and working under vehicles, and the condition was permanent and degenerative with likely worsening over time.
3) Proposed adjustments would remove the physical core of the role and would require ongoing redistribution of tasks and reliance on other technicians, amounting to role transformation.
4) Business evidence indicated an additional non-productive role was not viable, and role duplication issues existed in the workshop structure.
5) The Respondent provided notification and opportunities to respond, satisfying procedural aspects of s 387.

Judicial Original Quotation

The Commission’s reasoning culminated in a practical finding about the consequences of the adjustments proposed.

“To reorganise the various tasks within the workshop so [the Applicant] could avoid duties that were unsafe for him to perform would have represented a transformation of his substantive position into one modified and restricted in order to accommodate his impairment.”

This statement was determinative because it expressed the decisive line the Commission drew: the law does not require preservation of employment through transformation of the substantive role.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

1. The Applicant could not establish that the substantive role was primarily non-manual
   The Commission preferred the documented duties and objective indicators over the Applicant’s asserted list of responsibilities.

2. The Applicant’s proposed solution implicitly conceded incapacity for inherent requirements
   By seeking avoidance of under-vehicle work and bending, the Applicant’s position aligned with the medical restrictions but conflicted with the inherent physical components of the substantive role.

3. The Applicant did not supply a workable adjustment package in the employer’s decision window
   The Respondent asked for proposals and information. The Applicant declined to attend key meetings and did not supply new information that could change the assessment.

4. The alternative role concept was not supported by operational viability
   The Respondent’s evidence about workshop structure and financial constraints made the “create a new role” pathway weak.

5. Process criticisms did not outweigh the valid reason
   Even if the Applicant experienced the process as abrupt or stressful, the Commission accepted the Respondent had provided notice and opportunity to respond consistent with s 387.

Key to Victory

The successful party’s critical components were:
– anchoring the substantive role in written job duties and consistent work patterns,
– presenting medical evidence as incompatible with inherent requirements,
– framing proposed changes as role transformation rather than adjustment,
– and maintaining a clear procedural fairness trail of notification and invitations to respond.

Reference to Comparable Authorities

Jetstar Airways Pty Limited v Neeteson-Lemkes [2013] FWCFB 9075
Ratio: Inherent requirements must be assessed against the substantive position, not a modified position created to accommodate injury. This authority underpins the legal lens used to reject role transformation as a solution.

CSL Limited t/a CSL Behring v Papaioannou [2018] FWCFB 1005
Ratio: In capacity cases, the Commission examines capacity at dismissal, prospective capacity, and whether reasonable adjustments exist. The structured approach reinforces that medical restrictions must be measured against inherent requirements and that adjustment has limits.

Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 371
Ratio: A valid reason for dismissal must be sound, defensible, and well founded, and not capricious, fanciful, spiteful, or prejudiced. This principle frames the assessment of whether the employer’s reliance on incapacity is legitimate.

J Boag and Son Brewing Pty Ltd v Button
Ratio: As applied in Commission authorities, the focus remains on the substantive role’s inherent requirements rather than an altered set of duties.

Implications

1. If you have an injury or condition, define your role early and in writing
   In workplace disputes, what is written down often decides what is real. If your role has evolved, seek confirmation that the main activities and tasks have changed, not only your title.

2. Medical certificates are strongest when they speak the language of tasks
   A certificate that identifies specific safe duties, unsafe duties, and sustainable hours gives you a clearer platform to negotiate and, if needed, litigate.

3. Reasonable adjustment is real, but it has a boundary
   Adjustments tend to be viewed as reasonable when they preserve the core of the job. When adjustments remove the core, the risk of a lawful capacity dismissal tends to increase.

4. Engage with the process, even when you have legal advice
   Declining meetings may feel protective, but it can remove your chance to propose practical solutions and can leave the decision-maker with only the employer’s information.

5. Your best protection is an evidence trail, not a hope
   Warm intentions and personal hardship deserve respect, but outcomes usually turn on documents, work pattern records, and clear proposals that fit the workplace reality.

Q&A Session

Q1: If a doctor says you are fit for suitable duties, does that stop dismissal?
A1: Not necessarily. The key question is whether you can perform the inherent requirements of your substantive role. If the only duties you can do are a modified subset that removes core physical tasks, the employer may still have a valid reason related to capacity.

Q2: Can an employer be required to create a new role to keep someone employed?
A2: The law generally focuses on whether reasonable adjustments can be made to the existing role. Where the proposal requires creating an additional non-productive position or duplicating an existing role, the risk tends to increase that the adjustment will be viewed as unreasonable, especially if business viability evidence is clear.

Q3: What is the single most important practical step for an employee in a capacity dispute?
A3: Provide a specific, workable adjustment plan supported by medical evidence that maps restrictions to tasks, and engage in the employer’s consultation process. Without that, the decision is likely to be made based on role documents and medical restrictions alone.

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype: Unfair Dismissal – Capacity Dismissal – Inherent Requirements Dispute in a Workshop Environment

Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

Execution Guidance: The following is a structured reference framework. Outcomes tend to depend on precise facts, contemporaneous documents, and the operational context.

Core Test: Unfair Dismissal – Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Step 1: Jurisdiction and Threshold Requirements
– Was the application lodged within 21 days after the dismissal took effect under s 394 and s 396(a)?
– Is the person protected from unfair dismissal under s 382, considering minimum employment period, coverage by a modern award or enterprise agreement, and high-income threshold?
– Is the employer a small business employer and, if so, does the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code apply?
– Is the dismissal a case of genuine redundancy, which would tend to exclude an unfair dismissal remedy?

Step 2: Was the person dismissed?
– Confirm dismissal within s 386. Resignation disputes and constructive dismissal issues can arise, but where termination is explicit, this limb tends to be straightforward.

Step 3: Was the dismissal harsh, unjust, or unreasonable under s 385(b)?
This is determined by reference to s 387 criteria.

Step 4: Valid reason related to capacity or conduct under s 387(a)
For capacity dismissals:
– Identify the substantive role and its inherent requirements.
– Assess medical evidence as at dismissal against those inherent requirements.
– Consider prospective capacity, particularly where the condition is degenerative or prognosis is poor.
– Evaluate whether reasonable adjustments exist that preserve the substantive role, noting that a modified or restricted role may be viewed as a different role.

Step 5: Notification and opportunity to respond under s 387(b) and s 387(c)
– Was the employee notified of the reason in clear terms, with enough detail to understand the capacity concern?
– Was the employee given a real opportunity to respond, including by providing further medical information or proposing adjustments?
– Was the timing and method of consultation practically fair in the circumstances?

Step 6: Support person under s 387(d)
– This factor is enlivened where the employee requests a support person and the employer unreasonably refuses.

Step 7: Warnings for unsatisfactory performance under s 387(e)
– This is usually irrelevant where dismissal is for capacity rather than performance.

Step 8: Size of enterprise and HR expertise under s 387(f) and s 387(g)
– These factors may affect how strictly procedural imperfections are viewed, but do not excuse lack of fairness.

Step 9: Other relevant matters under s 387(h)
Common examples:
– Length of service, personal impact, efforts to find alternative duties, genuineness of the employer’s consultation, and contemporaneous conduct of both parties.

Core Test (General Protections)
– Was adverse action taken because the employee exercised a workplace right, made a complaint, took leave, or engaged in protected activity?
– Reverse onus of proof: the employer must show the prohibited reason was not a substantial and operative reason for the action.

Core Test (Sham Contracting)
– Is the worker truly an independent contractor or, on the totality of the relationship, an employee?
– Consider control, integration, financial risk, tools, ability to subcontract, and working for others.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

Procedural Fairness in Workplace Decision-Making
– Was the employee given a genuine opportunity to be heard before an adverse decision?
– Were requests for medical clarification handled fairly and promptly?
– Was there apprehended bias in the decision-making process?

Ancillary Claims and Counter-Strategies
– If an unfair dismissal claim tends to fail due to a defensible capacity finding, consider whether a general protections claim may be arguable if there is evidence of adverse action linked to the exercise of workplace rights, including lodging a compensation claim, requesting flexible work, or raising safety concerns.
– If the employee asserts the job performed differed materially from the written role, consider whether misrepresentation in recruitment or contractual disputes exist, noting that such claims involve different forums and tests.
– If the dispute involves disability-related limitations, consider whether discrimination law avenues are available, noting that the core question often becomes whether the person can perform inherent requirements with reasonable adjustments and whether proposed adjustments impose unjustifiable hardship.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds
– 21-day filing limit for unfair dismissal applications under s 394 and s 396(a).
– Minimum employment period under s 383.
– Coverage by modern award or enterprise agreement, or earnings below the high-income threshold under s 382.

Exceptional Channels
– Extension of time beyond 21 days may be available in limited circumstances where exceptional circumstances are established, but the risk tends to be relatively high where delay is not adequately explained and supported.

Suggestion
Do not abandon a claim simply because a standard time or condition is not met. Compare your circumstances against possible exceptions, but treat any extension application as requiring precise evidence and careful framing.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle
It is recommended to cite this case in submissions involving:
– capacity-based dismissals,
– disputes about defining the substantive role,
– reasonable adjustment boundaries,
– and the evidentiary use of productivity and operational viability data.

Citation Method
As Positive Support:
– Where your matter involves an employee with restrictions incompatible with documented inherent requirements, this authority can support the proposition that the employer is not required to transform the substantive role into a modified role.

As a Distinguishing Reference:
– If the opposing party cites this case, emphasise any uniqueness such as a documented change to duties, evidence of long-term successful performance with adjustments, availability of genuinely suitable alternative duties, or a failure of consultation that materially undermines procedural fairness.

Anonymisation Rule
When discussing the case in general publications, use procedural titles such as Applicant and Respondent.

Conclusion

This case shows that capacity dismissals often turn on one practical question: can the employee, safely and sustainably, perform the inherent requirements of the substantive role, without the role being rebuilt into something else.

Golden Sentence:
Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Fair Work Commission ([2025] FWC 229), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.