As a general rule it is accepted by the Fair Work Commission that when an employee is unable to meet the inherent requirements of his or her job there exists a valid reason for the employee’s dismissal, subject to other subjective and procedural requirements. What does that mean? This passage from a Commission decision provides the answer.
“[33] The Respondent’s “Job Dictionary” provides a position summary for the position of “Put Away and Retrieval”38. The Respondent states that this broadly aligns with the Applicant’s Storeworker role. In the position summary, it is noted that the location of the duties performed include in the warehouse freezer.39
[34] The Applicant’s argument is legalistic. It is that “if working in cold storage was a ‘inherent requirement’ then it would have been included within the definition of a Grade 4 employee in the Agreement and it is not.”40 It is true that the Agreement can express inherent requirements for the role, but it does not follow that the inherent requirements of the role must be expressed in the Agreement. The Applicant cites Gaudron J in Qantas Airways Ltd v Christie (1998) 193 CLR 280. Her Honour expresses the test for whether a requirement is an inherent requirement as follows:
A practical method of determining whether or not a requirement is an inherent requirement, in the ordinary sense of that expression, is to ask whether the position would be essentially the same if that requirement were dispensed with.41
[35] The Agreement classification structure and Job Dictionary are not comprehensive documents, they are merely indicative of skill requirements. Although the requirement for an employee to tolerate working in cold is not expressed as a requirement of the role, it seems to be an inescapable conclusion that such a tolerance is necessary when employed as a
Storeworker in a cold storage facility. All of the Applicant’s duties were performed inside, the majority being performed in temperatures of approximately zero degrees. The Respondent operates temperature-controlled warehouses in various locations, many of which are refrigerated.
[36] However, I am not prepared to say that a tolerance for working in cold is an inherent requirement for Storeworkers employed by the Respondent. If the Applicant had been redeployed to one of the Respondent’s ambient temperature warehouses as a Storeworker, then the Applicant would still perform the same duties, but without needing to tolerate cold. However, Applicant was not able to be redeployed to the ambient temperature warehouse in Hemmant. Therefore, it was not possible for the Applicant to perform the inherent requirements of his role anywhere else………”
Grujicic v Lineage Aust Trs Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 3526 delivered 18 December 2024 per Lake DP