Implications for employers requesting and managing employee medical evidence

Employers frequently navigate the complex intersection of employee illness, fitness‑for‑work requirements, and operational needs. Independent Medical Assessments (IMA) can play a critical role when an employer has legitimate concerns about the adequacy, consistency, or clarity of medical evidence provided by an employee.

The recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) decision in Moers v The Trustee for Williamson Family Trust [2025] FWC 1344 provides timely and valuable guidance on how contractual terms, evidence requirements such as IMAs, and employer decision‑making processes are assessed in disputes involving fitness‑for‑work and refusal to follow a direction.

This case reinforces that well‑drafted employment contracts and clear, reasonable processes materially strengthen an employer’s position when managing extended absences and inconsistent medical information.

Mr Bertus Moers (Mr Moers) was employed as a Senior Relationship Manager. In October 2024, shortly before travelling overseas, he sought permission to work remotely. The employer declined due to short notice and operational constraints, directing him instead to take annual leave. Mr Moers subsequently advised he would instead take carer’s leave to care for his mother.

During and after his travel, Mr Moers repeatedly provided medical certificates stating he was unfit for work, with varying and vague descriptions of the reasons for his incapacity; ranging from “medical reasons” to an unspecified “issue with his ear.” These inconsistencies raised concerns for the employer about the legitimacy and clarity of the medical evidence.

To address this, the employer issued a lawful and reasonable direction, relying on a clause in their contract of employment requiring participation in medical reviews and assessments. The employer requested written consent to contact his doctor and formally assess his fitness for work.

Mr Moers refused to provide consent, did not engage with repeated requests, and maintained that the employer’s direction was not lawful. Following this refusal, the employer summarily dismissed Mr Moers for failing to follow a lawful and reasonable direction.

The FWC upheld the dismissal, determining that:

1. The employer’s direction was lawful and reasonable

The decisive factor was the existence of a clearly‑drafted contractual clause requiring the employee to participate in medical assessments relevant to their employment. Without this clause, the direction may not have been lawful.

2. Refusal constituted serious misconduct

The FWC accepted that repeated non‑compliance with a medical assessment direction, particularly after extended and unexplained absence, was sufficiently serious to justify summary dismissal.

3. The employer acted fairly and methodically

The employer had rescheduled meetings multiple times, considered the medical certificates provided, and allowed ample time for Mr Moers to comply. The dismissal arose from non‑compliance, not from the employee’s illness or injury.

This ruling highlights the strategic importance of proactive contract drafting and procedural fairness when managing employee health‑related issues.

1. Ensure contracts contain clear medical assessment clauses

This case illustrates that contractual clarity is fundamental. A clause explicitly allowing the employer to direct an employee to participate in medical reviews can be the difference between a lawful direction and an unlawful one.

Takeaway: Employers should review and update employment contracts to include explicit rights regarding fitness‑for‑work assessments, medical information requests, and participation requirements.

2. Address inconsistent or vague medical certificates promptly

Employers are entitled to seek clarification when the medical evidence provided is contradictory or too vague to support an absence.

Takeaway: Where certificates lack detail or appear inconsistent, employers should request additional medical evidence or capacity assessments based on documented policy and contractual authority.

3. Follow a procedurally fair process

The FWC emphasised the employer’s repeated attempts to engage the employee and reschedule meetings.

Takeaway: Employers should document all steps taken, make multiple genuine attempts to engage the employee, and provide clear warnings about potential consequences. 

4. Refusal to follow a lawful and reasonable direction is serious misconduct

An employee’s failure to follow a legally valid direction, especially one based on contract, can justify termination.

Takeaway: Non‑compliance should be addressed firmly, but only after ensuring the direction is lawful, reasonable, and communicated clearly.

5. Maintain strong WHS and operational rationale

The decision aligns with broader WHS obligations requiring employers to ensure employees are fit to work safely.

Takeaway: Employers should ensure that all fitness‑for‑work requests are grounded in legitimate WHS, safety or operational needs.

The Moers decision provides a strong precedent affirming an employer’s right to rely on well‑drafted contractual terms to manage medical capacity issues. It highlights the importance of clear documentation, procedural fairness, and firm but lawful management of extended or unexplained absences.

For employers, the core message is clear: ensure your contracts empower you to act, your processes are fair, and your directions are justified. When these conditions are met, the FWC will support reasonable employer action—even where it results in summary dismissal.

If you have questions or concerns please contact us below and one of Workplace Strategists will be in touch within 24 hours.