Absent without excuse: When missing work justifies termination

Managing frequent employee absences and its impact on team productivity is one of the more difficult challenges faced by employers. It is important for employers to approach such absences with sensitivity, and to ensure that they respect an employee’s right to take leave for genuine personal or medical reasons.

However, when absenteeism becomes a recurring pattern, it can affect an employee’s ability to fulfill the inherent requirements of their role and may be a valid reason to terminate their employment.

In the recent decision of Anthony Clark v Woolworths Group Limited [2025] FWC 2226, the Fair Work Commission determined that an employer had a valid reason for dismissing an employee who had been frequently absent from work and who had not followed its directions.

Background

• The employee worked as a storeman at Woolworths for over 20 years. Between April 2024 and April 2025 he was absent from work on 92 occasions.
• Between 2022 and 2025, Woolworths issued written directions to the employee requiring that he provide notice and evidence for his absences, warning of potential disciplinary action if he did not comply. Despite these directions, the employee continued to be absent on a number of occasions without providing evidence or notice.
• Woolworths then requested medical evidence from the employee’s doctor, who confirmed that he was fit for work. Despite this, the absenteeism continued.
• On the basis of the evidence from the employee’s doctor, Woolworths commenced a show cause process, ultimately terminating the employment on the grounds of an inability to meet the inherent requirements of the role.
• The employee lodged an unfair dismissal application, alleging that there was no valid reason for his dismissal, and that the dismissal was unfair given his long service and mitigating personal circumstances.

Findings

The Commission found in favour of Woolworths. In doing so, it was satisfied that Woolworths had two valid reasons to dismiss the employee:

• First, he was not meeting the inherent requirements of his full-time role as a storeman because of his regular absences from the workplace.
• Second, he had repeatedly failed to follow Woolworths’ directions to provide notice of his absences from work and supporting evidence.

While the Commission did take into account the employee’s length of service and his age when considering whether his dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, it considered that on balance his dismissal was not unfair and his application was dismissed.

Key takeaways

• Proactively seek information: if you have an employee who is frequently absent from work without evidence (such as a medical certificate), consider requesting a letter from their doctor confirming their fitness to attend work and perform their role.
• Document everything: ensure that you document each absence and the employee’s response, issue directions if absences continue without explanation, and give the employee an opportunity to improve. Make sure that any directions warn of the consequences of non-compliance (including dismissal, if relevant).
• Seek advice before taking action: this decision is not a blanket endorsement of dismissing an employee because they have been absent from work. The circumstances of each case will differ, and employers should carefully assess the facts specific to each absence, particularly where the employee has been absent due to having an illness or injury.