The Fair Work Commission’s recent decision in Yau Yong Ryan Sim v Monash Health [2026] FWC 2633 demonstrates that an employer is not required to “guess” what adjustments might enable an injured or ill employee to return to work, particularly where the employee has repeatedly refused to provide the minimum amount of medical information needed by the employer in order to assess whether reasonable adjustments could be made.
On 10 July 2026, Deputy President Masson dismissed the unfair dismissal application, which was brought by the employee after his employment was terminated on capacity grounds prior to the expiry of his maximum term employment contract. Through his application, the employee attempted to establish that the employer had insufficient basis to terminate his employment on medical incapacity grounds. However, at hearing, the employee conceded that he:
- did not provide the employer with any supporting medical information regarding a claimed mental health condition (ADHD); and
- did not at any point prior to his dismissal identify or communicate to the employer the specific adjustments in his working arrangements which would have enabled the employee to perform his role.
DP Masson found that despite the limited medical information the employee had provided, he was “comfortably satisfied” that the employee was dismissed for a valid reason, being the employee’s incapacity to perform the inherent requirements of a full-time role involving continuous coordination and time-sensitive tasks and advice.
Background
In January 2025, the employee commenced employment with Monash Health, one of Victoria’s largest public health services, on a maximum term employment contract due to expire on 1 March 2026.
The employee’s responsibilities in the role of International Medical Graduate (IMG) Affairs Coordinator included coordinating time-sensitive administrative and compliance processes associated with international medical graduates, including medical registration requirements with AHPRA and visa-related matters connected with international medical graduates’ employment by Monash Health.
Within weeks of the employee’s commencement in the role, Monash Health identified issues with the employee’s performance, including failing to attend work on time, failing to notify of non-attendance to work, unexplained absences, and regularly failing to complete tasks in a timely manner and to the required standard.
During an initial discussion with a Monash Health management representative, the employee disclosed that he had a mental health condition (ADHD) that impacted on his time perception, attention/focus, productivity, information processing and caused him to experience fatigue.
In accordance with its Equal Opportunity Procedure, Monash Health implemented a Management Support Plan (MSP) to support the employee to fulfil the requirements of the IMG Affairs Coordinator role. The MSP included adjustments such as flexible start times, hybrid working from home options and guidance and mentoring to assist the employee to complete his work.
Despite the implementation of the MSP from mid-February 2025, issues continued to arise in relation to the employee’s performance, including in relation to punctuality, failing to notify of non-attendance, and non-completion of assigned tasks.
In support of a (later declined) workers compensation claim, between June and November 2025 the employee provided a series of certificates of capacity confirming his capacity to work to be 2 hours per day, 2 days per week, and only in a “non-stressful” role. The certificates did not elaborate on what would constitute a “non-stressful” role, nor was any medical evidence in support of the employee’s claimed ADHD provided the, or at any stage prior to the employee’s dismissal.
Despite repeated requests by Monash Health for additional medical information addressing the reasonable adjustments necessary for the employee to undertake his duties and safely return to work, the employee declined to provide further information beyond the certificates.
On 28 November 2025, Monash Health wrote to the employee terminating his employment effective 3 December 2025, and paying four weeks’ pay in lieu of notice of termination.
What were the key issues that informed the Commission’s decision that the dismissal was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable?
The primary issue was whether Monash Health had a valid reason related to capacity. DP Masson’s finding that there was a valid reason, being that the employee was incapable of performing the inherent requirements of his full-time role of IMG Affairs Coordinator, weighed in favour of a finding that the employee was not unfairly dismissed.
Another key factor in the decision was the employee’s lack of engagement with the employer’s reasonable requests for additional medical information. DP Masson observed that it was “difficult to envisage a situation where an employee could have been less co-operative” and rejected the employee’s contention that Monash Health failed to comply with their procedure on managing long term ill and injured workers. DP Masson agreed with the employer’s position that the procedure did not apply because the employee himself had failed to comply with it.
Although the application failed on the merits, DP Masson noted that if he were to be wrong in his conclusion that the dismissal was not unfair, he would decline to order compensation for lost earnings, including because of the lack of evidence of any attempt by the employee to mitigate their loss, and because if the employee had remained employed until the end of the maximum term contract, no notice of termination would have been payable.
Practical takeaways for employers
The decision highlights that:
- it is not unreasonable for an employer to seek further medical information to enable them to manage work capacity and medical issues in relation to their workforce; and
- an employee’s failure to engage with an employer’s process for assessing reasonable adjustments will not preclude an employer from making a decision based on the available medical information regarding the employee’s ability to perform the inherent requirements of their role.
If an employer acts reasonably, including by explaining why the information is required and providing employees with multiple opportunities to provide the requested information, or otherwise engage with the exploration of reasonable adjustments process, an employee’s refusal to provide the necessary information (even if this is due to concerns about the scope of information requested, or about the process of handling their private medical information) will significantly weaken a claim that the employer acted prematurely or unfairly.
As always, it is important for employers to keep good records, such as clearly documenting all requests for medical information, follow ups and steps taken in the overall process, in case the records are later needed for the purpose of establishing the legal basis of a termination decision for medical incapacity reasons.
Citation
Yau Yong Ryan Sim v Monash Health [2026] FWC 2633 (Deputy President Masson, 10 July 2026).
