Employee took 100+ sick days in 12 months, tribunal says company was right to fire her

The interpretation of the medical report later became a key point of disagreement between the parties.

A workplace tribunal has ruled in favour of a transport company that dismissed an employee after she accumulated more than 100 days of sick leave within a year because of serious medical problems.

The decision relates to the case of Jodie Daunis, who had been employed as a customer service operator on ferries operating in Brisbane, Unilad reported.

Daunis had worked on the city’s ferry network for several years before her employment was terminated in July last year by transport operator Kelsian Group.

The company determined that her ongoing medical issues meant she was no longer able to reliably carry out her duties on the river.

The dispute was later considered by the Fair Work Commission, which ultimately supported the employer’s position.

Documents presented to the tribunal indicate that Daunis’ health problems began to worsen in April 2024 when she developed deep vein thrombosis. The condition led to recurring blood clots that caused inflammation and ongoing pain.

Medical specialists eventually referred her for surgery in November that year. However, the procedure was not immediately scheduled because her insurance provider declined to cover the treatment, resulting in her being placed on the public hospital waiting list.

Her condition later deteriorated further.

In April 2025 she was admitted to hospital due to deep vein thrombosis and remained away from work for about a week.

After leaving hospital, Daunis attempted to return to her role but managed to complete only two shifts before the pain made it difficult for her to continue performing her duties.

According to evidence presented to the tribunal, she subsequently informed her employer that both a vascular surgeon and a blood specialist had advised her to remain away from work for the following three months.

In June, Daunis underwent an independent medical examination arranged as part of the employment process.

The interpretation of the medical report later became a key point of disagreement between the parties.

Daunis and the Maritime Union of Australia argued that the assessment suggested she could return to work once the planned surgery had been completed.

However, her employer viewed the findings differently, maintaining that the report indicated she was unable to meet the fundamental requirements of her role.

After reviewing the evidence, the Fair Work Commission concluded that the company’s interpretation of the medical assessment was justified.

Chris Simpson said the June report did not clearly demonstrate that Daunis would be able to resume the full responsibilities of her position within a reasonable timeframe.

He wrote in the ruling that the medical opinion “fell well short” of establishing that she would be capable of returning to her duties in the foreseeable future.

Simpson stated: “I do not accept that the [independent medical examination] report conclusively determined that Ms Daunis could fulfil the inherent requirements of her role in the future.”

He added: “I am satisfied that the evidence does not support such a conclusion.”

The decision therefore upheld the company’s move to terminate her employment.