Browsing: Termination | Page 10

A worker who breached national safety standards by not disclosing to his employer that he'd suffered a stroke, was guilty of serious misconduct, a commission has found.

A Fair Work Commission full bench has ruled that a major university was entitled to require one of its teachers to undergo an independent medical examination, after he took extended sick leave and told senior management, "When I go to class I am going to war. The students are waiting to kill me."

A worker's failure to disclose his pre-existing anxiety and medical conditions prevented his employer from adequately planning for his workplace safety and the safety of his co-workers, a commission has ruled.

The Fair Work Commission has affirmed that working safely, in a way that doesn't put fellow workers or the public at risk, is an inherent requirement of a job, in a dismissal case involving a former WorkSafe Victoria lawyer who breached vaccine rules.

A Federal judge has concluded that undertaking a rehabilitation program is not "work" as prescribed by WHS laws - a finding that precludes a worker from making an adverse action claim over her dismissal.

The termination of a long-serving firefighter who refused to disclose his COVID-19 vaccination status while on annual leave has been ruled unfair, with a commission finding his employer embarked on a "well-worn disciplinary path" without carefully considering his correspondence on the issue.

In the last of three related cases involving Nauru postings, a tribunal has upheld a decision to deny compensation to an interpreter who claimed she suffered a psychiatric injury from the abrupt and unjustified termination of her deployment.

A worker who was terminated because of her post-traumatic stress disorder has lost her unfair dismissal and disability discrimination case, with a commission accepting her employer was unable to make suitable adjustments for her.

A commission has found a worker should not have been summarily sacked for breaching her employer's face mask rules for the COVID-19 pandemic, because her misconduct, when interacting with clients, was not wilful or deliberate.

A Federal judge has found that selecting a worker for redundancy, after he raised multiple safety concerns, constituted unlawful adverse action, with his employer failing to prove his termination was due to poor performance and not his exercise of workplace rights.