A senior public servant in Canberra has lost his legal bid to have his termination ruled unfair after he failed to attend work for months without authorisation.
Fair Work Commission upholds dismissal
In a decision published on Monday, January 12, 2026, Fair Work Commission deputy president Lyndall Dean found the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water had a valid reason for dismissing the employee in June 2025. The man, who held an Executive Level 1 role as an assistant director, had argued his dismissal was unfair because he was facing an unaddressed work health and safety risk.
Lawyers for the Commonwealth department successfully argued the employee attempted to retroactively frame his extensive absences as a "protected cessation of work", a claim the commission found was "misguided and without proper foundation".
A pattern of unexplained absences
The employee, who started with the department in 2002, began a pattern of unexplained absences in May 2024. From May to June that year, he was absent for approximately 54 days without communicating with his employer.
The department made more than 19 attempts to contact him via email, phone, and text messages but received no response. Due to concerns for his welfare, police were contacted and officers performed three welfare checks. Police asked the man to contact his employer, but he did not do so.
After being issued a formal return-to-work direction, he returned to the Parkes office in July 2024. He was warned that further unauthorised absences could lead to termination.
Absences resume despite warning
Despite the warning, the public servant left work again without authorisation in March 2025, prompting another police welfare check. He returned after another departmental direction but was absent again about ten days later. In total, he accrued 24 days of unauthorised leave from mid-March 2025.
In April 2025, he was sent a notice advising that termination of his employment was under consideration due to his continued unauthorised absences.
Health and safety claims investigated and dismissed
In his reply to the termination notice, the man cited the Work Health and Safety Act, claiming he was exercising his right to cease work due to serious safety risks. He alleged unresolved psychosocial hazards, including verbal abuse, exclusion, integrity concerns involving senior staff, and referenced "preventable staff deaths" and a "prolonged normalisation of unsafe working behaviours".
The department conducted a preliminary investigation into these claims. A branch head stated in a letter to the man's lawyer that the referenced deaths did not relate to work undertaken by the department and did not create an unsafe work environment. The investigation found no evidence to corroborate his allegations.
With no substantiated health and safety risk established, and given the extensive history of unexplained absences, the department proceeded with the termination. The Fair Work Commission has now upheld that decision, closing the case on the unfair dismissal claim.
