In 2022, the case of Jason Lubiejewski against the Australian Federal Police (AFP) caught the attention of HR professionals and employers across Australia. This case provides valuable insight into the implications of flexible work and how far employers need to go to accommodate employees with disabilities. Let’s break down the essential details of this intriguing case.
Jason Lubiejewski, an employee of the AFP since 2010, was assigned to the News and Online Services team. As an individual diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, anxiety, and depression, Lubiejewski required certain adjustments to his workspace to accommodate his health conditions.
The COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020, led to Lubiejewski transitioning to full-time remote work. When asked to return to the office in January 2021, Lubiejewski resisted, expressing his preference and ability to work from home, as also supported by his psychologist’s recommendations.
Despite the AFP’s offers for a quieter workspace and part-time remote work, Lubiejewski continued to insist on working from home. His refusal to comply with AFP’s directions ultimately led to his termination in May 2021, prompting an unfair dismissal claim against his employer.
The Legal Debate
The case hinged on two key issues:
- Was Lubiejewski unfairly dismissed as per section 387 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the FW Act)?
- Did the AFP have a valid reason to dismiss Lubiejewski?
The FW Act specifies that an ‘unfair dismissal’ occurs when a person has been dismissed, and the dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. Moreover, the dismissal should not comply with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code or be a case of genuine redundancy.
Deputy President Dean of the Fair Work Commission (FWC) declared that the AFP’s instructions for Lubiejewski to return to the office were lawful and reasonable, thus establishing a valid ground for his dismissal when he consistently refused to comply.
Lubiejewski contended that his disabilities granted him legal entitlement to flexible work. He further accused the AFP of infringing upon the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) by failing to make reasonable workplace adjustments over the last four years of his employment.
However, the AFP refuted these claims, emphasizing that Lubiejewski was given ample opportunities to gradually return to work, provide up-to-date medical evidence, and discuss the necessary adjustments. Furthermore, the AFP highlighted operational examples demonstrating the need for Lubiejewski’s physical attendance at work.
Deputy President Dean supported the AFP’s efforts to facilitate discussions with Lubiejewski and request current medical evidence. Lubiejewski’s refusal to comply, despite adjustments to his work situation, was deemed unreasonable.
This case underscores that while employees with disabilities may request flexible work arrangements, employers are entitled to refuse such requests if there are sound business grounds for doing so. Employers must carefully manage these situations to safeguard their employees’ welfare and their own risk of liability.
In Lubiejewski vs AFP, the AFP was commended for its proactive approach in accommodating Lubiejewski’s requests while adhering to medical advice, underlining the importance of respectful dialogue and due process when managing complex workplace issues.
Though the employee’s request to work from home may seem reasonable, employers are not legally bound to accommodate such requests if they interfere with business operations. The judgement in favor of the AFP reinforces this crucial aspect of employment law, reminding us that while flexible work can be beneficial, it is not an absolute right for employees.
Call Frontline Employment Defenders Now so we can help you 1300 089 353 or visit https://www.fled.com.au