An employee in Brisbane, Australia, who took more than 100 days of sick leave, challenged her termination, but a workplace tribunal ruled in favor of the organization. The tribunal concluded that the company had acted lawfully in sacking the worker, who had taken 114 days of sick leave within a 12-month period.
Jodie Daunis, who worked as a customer service operator on the city’s well-known ferry services, was dismissed last year by transport operator Kelsian Group.
According to tribunal records cited by News.com.au, the company ended her employment on the grounds that she was unable to consistently carry out the responsibilities required for her role.
Daunis’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 a treatment. However, she was placed on a waiting list at a public hospital as the insurance company had declined to fund the treatment.
Her health problems persisted into 2025, culminating in a hospitalization that kept her out of work for about a week. Though she managed a short return, she could only finish two shifts before notifying her employer that she would need another three months off, a recommendation from both a vascular surgeon and a blood specialist.
What did the medical assessment say?
At one stage, Daunis underwent an independent medical examination. She argued that the report suggested she could resume work once her planned surgery had taken place.
However, Kelsian Group maintained that the report did not guarantee she would be capable of carrying out the core duties associated with her ferry position.
The company also told the tribunal that reducing her work hours would place additional strain on other employees who would have to cover her shifts.
Why did the tribunal side with the employer?
Following the dispute, the matter was taken 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 eventually be able to meet the essential requirements of the job.
“I do not accept that the (independent medical examination) report conclusively determined that Ms Daunis could fulfill the inherent 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 outlet.
He further agreed with the company’s position that modifying Daunis’ work schedule was not feasible given the nature of the role.
“I accept, taking into account the nature of the working arrangements, and the impact on other staff, and cost to the respondent (Kelsian Group) in making accommodations as proposed for Ms Daunis that they are not practical or reasonable in this case and that there was no reasonable adjustment that could have been made to Ms Daunis’ role to accommodate her current or future inability given the nature of her role.”
