Alcock v TNT Australia P/L t/a TNT Express. U2014/11580. [2014] FWC 9120. Wilson C
In what appears to be a common theme from the FWC of late, if you can’t meet the job requirements, the FWC can’t help:
- Applicant suffered from injuries which restricted physical abilities
- Results from physical and functional assessment demonstrated applicant unable to perform heavy lifting duties.
- Found that respondent investigated whether any suitable alternative roles available.
- Unable to offer suitable alternative.
- Requirements of position were predominantly composed of manual tasks.
- Respondent’s requirements for those tasks set out in document outlining physical demands [my emphasis].
- Practical method of determining whether or not requirement inherent to ask whether position would be essentially the same if requirement dispensed with.
- Inherent requirement includes ability to perform duties without unreasonable risk to health and safety or health and safety of others.
- Commission found applicant unable to perform inherent requirements of position. Satisfied valid reason for termination, dismissal not unfair – application dismissed.
Commentary
Another reason we have position descriptions that include a “physical demands” section.
Greg Reiffel Industrial Relations & Human Resources Consulting has been providing the following services to businesses for over 30 years:
- General HR and IR advisory service.
- Fair Work Commission representation (eg unfair dismissals, adverse actions, etc.).
- Workplace investigations and mediations.
- Policies and procedures.
- Discipline & Termination.
- People Audits (are you at risk of prosecution?).
- Enterprise Agreements, Contracts of Employment, Individual Flexibility Agreements.
- On-site HR services.
Contact Greg on 0438 906 050 or mailto: greg@gregreiffelconsulting.com.au.
