A Woolworths storeman who worked at the same Melbourne distribution centre for more than two decades was sacked after repeated absences tied to his own illness and his son's mental health and addiction struggles. A Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission has now upheld the decision that his dismissal was not unfair.
What the Commission decided
Anthony Clark worked at the Mulgrave warehouse since 2002, and Woolworths recognised his earlier service when it took over the site in 2021. From 2022 he was frequently away from work, largely due to his own health problems and increased caring duties for his son. (See.) Woolworths issued him written directions on several occasions requiring notice and supporting documents for absences, with the final warning issued in February 2025 stating that his job could be terminated if he did not comply. (See.)
A later letter in April 2025 told Clark he was not meeting the basic requirements of his role because of his absences, and after he responded, Woolworths dismissed him. (See.) At first instance, the Deputy President found there were two valid reasons for the dismissal: that Clark was not meeting the inherent requirements of his job, and that he had repeatedly failed to follow directions about notifying and evidencing absences. (See.) The Deputy President found the dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable and dismissed the original application. (See.)
On appeal, the Full Bench granted permission to appeal, finding the case raised issues of wider importance about how absences from work are assessed under the unfair dismissal rules. (See.) However, it dismissed each of Clark's six grounds of appeal and upheld the original decision in full. (See.)
What was actually in dispute
Much of the appeal turned on whether the Deputy President had properly weighed Clark's personal circumstances, including his health issues and his son's struggles, when deciding whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal. The Full Bench found no error in how the Deputy President separated the question of whether conduct occurred from questions about mitigating circumstances. (See.)
Clark also argued he had been denied a fair chance to respond, because the Deputy President's finding that his explanations for missing paperwork were
What this means
This case illustrates how the Fair Work Commission weighs absences and non-compliance with workplace directions when assessing whether a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Workers and employers navigating similar disputes over long-term absences and inherent requirements of a role can find more detail on how these cases are assessed at unfair dismissal.