Reasonable adjustments for injured employees? Think broadly.
Under equal opportunity legislation, employers are required to make reasonable adjustments for employees with a disability so they can continue to perform the genuine and reasonable requirements of their position.
A recent decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal highlights the importance of taking a broad view about the reasonable adjustments that can be made to enable an employee with a disability to perform their role.
In particular, when determining the reasonable adjustments that can be made to an employee’s position, employers must consider whether the employee would be able to perform an adjusted position in other departments.
The Applicant was employed as a Customer Service Officer (CSO) in a call centre. She suffered neck and shoulder injuries due to alleged overuse of the telephone and subsequently lodged a workers’ compensation claim which was accepted.
After an extended period working modified duties, the employer terminated her employment due to her indefinite inability to perform the inherent requirements of her pre-injury position, and having decided that there were no reasonable adjustments that could be made. The Applicant claimed she had been discriminated against on grounds of disability.
The Tribunal found the employer had failed to make reasonable adjustments. The employer had focused too narrowly on reasonable adjustments that could be made to the Applicant’s pre-injury CSO position in the call centre. The employer failed to consider whether the Applicant could perform an adjusted CSO role in another department serviced by CSOs (and in which she had worked in the past) which involved less telephone use.
The Tribunal held that:
- deciding what, if any, reasonable adjustments can be made requires an analysis of the requirements of the employment as a whole, and that analysis should not be too narrow; and
- here, the role of CSO did not necessarily require answering phones full-time in the call centre. Not all CSOs worked in the call centre. Looking at the position as a whole, there were other areas in which the Applicant could work as a CSO with less telephone time.
The Applicant was awarded $3,325 in damages for economic loss (the Applicant found alternative employment within around six weeks of her dismissal), and $10,000 for hurt and distress.
The Tribunal noted that when considering whether adjustments are reasonable, an employer is entitled to consider the impact on efficiency and productivity, and customer service. Employers are not required to create a new job for a disabled employee, but they may be required to move staff around within a position to allow the disabled employee to undertake a high proportion of other tasks.
It is likely that both parties’ legal costs far exceeded the amounts awarded in this case. As such, the case serves as a timely reminder to consider, if possible, the early commercial resolution of disputes.
Butterworth v Independence Australia Services (Human Rights) [2015] VCAT 2056 (22 December 2015)
Contact
Jordon Lee
Lawyer
Geoff Benson
Lawyer
Harvey Duckett
Lawyer
Luke Denham
Lawyer
Jemima Whiteman
Lawyer
Bradley White
Lawyer
Sarah Khan
Lawyer
Marie Mitilineos
Lawyer
Gloria Tam
Lawyer
Sheldon Fu
Lawyer
Anna Cao
Lawyer
Claire Bourke
Lawyer
Chloe Taylor
Lawyer
Silvana Brcina
Lawyer
Daphne Schilizzi
Lawyer
Andrew Banks
Lawyer
Isabella Urso
Lawyer
Jessica Liu
Lawyer
Amelia Spratt
Lawyer
Luke Raams
Lawyer
Emma McDonald
Lawyer
Carl Ayers
Lawyer
Gus Hu
Lawyer
Rebecca Dodd
Lawyer
Gretel Burns
Lawyer
Rachel Bonic
Lawyer
Samantha Frost
Lawyer
Emma Bechaz
Lawyer
Matt Dolan
Lawyer
Luke Hefferan
Lawyer
Related practices
Employment & Workplace Relations You might be also interested in...
Employment & Workplace Relations | 1 Feb 2016
Tax treatment of employee compensation on termination of employment
There are various ways that employment may be terminated, and the resulting compensation to which the employee is entitled may differ depending on the terms of the employment contract, the manner and reason for termination and the bargaining power of the parties.
Employment & Workplace Relations | 11 Feb 2016
Workplace expectations as to appropriate standards of communication
A recent Fair Work Commission (FWC) decision has considered an employer’s right to set expectations as to appropriate standards of communication in the workplace.