When Attendance Becomes an Inherent Requirement: Lessons from Anthony Clark v Woolworths Group Limited

The Fair Work Commission’s (FWC) decision in Anthony Clark v Woolworths Group Limited (U2025/5687) (Clark v Woolworths) provides timely and practical guidance for employers managing extended absenteeism, caring responsibilities and capacity issues, particularly in operational, frontline and warehousing environments where reliable attendance is critical.

While Australian employers must exercise care when employees take personal/carer’s leave or request flexible working arrangements, this case confirms that those protections are not absolute. At a certain point, persistent absenteeism may mean an employee is unable to meet the inherent requirements of their role, even where medical evidence confirms they are “fit for work”.

Prefer listening? Here’s an audio version of this post: https://speechify.app.link/vxPZUtDCK2b

Mr Clark was a long‑serving Storeperson who had worked in a Woolworths warehouse for more than 20 years. From around 2022, his attendance deteriorated significantly due to a combination of his own health issues and caring responsibilities for his adult son.

Over several years, Woolworths:

• repeatedly raised concerns about Mr Clark’s attendance;
• issued written directions requiring compliance with absence notification and evidence procedures;
• warned him that further non‑compliance could result in dismissal; and
• obtained medical evidence confirming he was fit for work.

Despite these steps, Mr Clark’s absences continued. In the 12 months prior to dismissal, he had been absent on approximately 92 occasions. Woolworths ultimately commenced a show‑cause process and dismissed Mr Clark on the basis that he was not meeting the inherent requirements of his role, specifically, reliable attendance in a full‑time warehouse position.

Mr Clark lodged an unfair dismissal application, arguing that:

• he was medically fit at the time of dismissal;
• he was capable of performing the inherent requirements of his role; and
• the dismissal was harsh given his long service and personal circumstances.

The FWC rejected the claim and upheld the dismissal.

The Commission made several important findings of broad relevance to employers:

Attendance can be an inherent requirement

The Commission confirmed that regular and reliable attendance is an inherent requirement of many full‑time roles, particularly operational roles such as Storepersons and warehouse employees. An employee does not need to be physically incapable of performing duties to fail the inherent requirements test.

The focus is the substantive role

When considering inherent requirements, employers are entitled to assess the employee’s substantive, contracted role, not a modified or hypothetical arrangement. Employers are not required to permanently restructure a full‑time role to accommodate ongoing absences where this is not operationally viable.

Process matters

Woolworths’ dismissal was upheld because it had followed a procedurally fair process in that it had:

• clearly communicated expectations over time;
• issued directions and a formal warning;
• sought medical information;
• allowed the employee an opportunity to respond; and
• grounded its decision in operational impact and capacity, rather than the mere taking of leave.

While the Commission acknowledged Mr Clark’s long service and personal challenges, those factors did not outweigh the employer’s legitimate requirement for a reliable workforce.

The key lessons for employers that this case highlights are as follows:

Leave rights are not unlimited

Employees are protected from dismissal for temporary absences due to illness or injury, but those protections have limits. Where absences become extensive, ongoing or operationally unsustainable, employers may legitimately assess capacity and inherent requirements.

Capacity issues are broader than medical incapacity

“Incapacity” is not confined to physical or medical inability. Persistent absenteeism, even for genuine reasons, can amount to a failure to meet inherent requirements if it prevents the employee from performing the role as required.

Separate compassion from operational requirements

This decision demonstrates the importance of acknowledging personal circumstances while still making decisions based on business needs. Long service, illness and caring responsibilities warrant empathy, but they do not prevent an employer from acting where attendance requirements cannot be met.

Clear expectations and warnings are critical

Employers are far better placed to defend decisions where they:

• clearly articulate attendance expectations;
• document concerns;
• issue warnings where appropriate; and
• give employees a genuine opportunity to improve or respond.

Avoid framing decisions as “because of leave”

A key risk area is unlawful termination or general protections claims. Employers should ensure dismissal reasons are framed around capacity to perform inherent requirements or compliance with lawful and reasonable directions, not because leave was taken or a flexible work request was made.

At Mapien, we regularly assist employers to navigate this difficult intersection between employee wellbeing, flexible work obligations and operational reality. Early advice and careful process design remain the best safeguards when attendance issues begin to escalate.