Off work sick or injured: when your job is protected
- Type
- Guide
- Topic
- Termination of Employment
- First published
- 22 July 2013

An employer must not dismiss an employee because they are temporarily off work with an illness or injury, as long as the employee gives the right evidence. The protection has limits, especially for long absences and time on workers compensation, but other protections may still apply.
Key points
- Section 352 of the Fair Work Act stops an employer dismissing you because you are temporarily absent with an illness or injury of a prescribed kind.
- The absence is covered if you give a medical certificate or statutory declaration within 24 hours (or a reasonable longer time), or meet your award or agreement's notice and evidence rules.
- The protection can be lost after more than three months off (or three months in total over 12 months) unless you are on paid personal leave, and workers compensation does not count as paid personal leave.
- Even then, dismissing someone because of a disability or a workers compensation claim can still breach the general protections.
The protection
Section 352 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) says an employer must not dismiss an employee because the employee is temporarily absent from work because of an illness or injury of a kind prescribed by the regulations. It applies to any illness or injury, not only one suffered at work.
It is one of the general protections in Part 3-1 of the Act. If the employee alleges that the absence was a reason for the dismissal, the law presumes it was unless the employer proves otherwise (s 361). The absence does not need to be the only reason: it is enough that it was one of the reasons (s 360).
What counts as a prescribed illness or injury
Regulation 3.01 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) sets out when an absence is covered. Any one of three ways is enough:
(a) the employee gives a medical certificate or a statutory declaration about the illness or injury within 24 hours after the absence starts, or within a longer period that is reasonable in the circumstances; (b) the employee's award or enterprise agreement requires them to notify the employer of an absence and back up the reason, and they do so; or (c) the employee has given the evidence the Act requires for paid personal (sick) leave under s 107(3)(a).
In practice, the safest course is to tell your employer as soon as you can that you are unwell and to send a medical certificate promptly.
The three-month limit
The protection is not unlimited. Under reg 3.01(5), an illness or injury stops being a prescribed kind if the absence lasts more than three months, or the employee's absences in a 12-month period add up to more than three months (from one illness or several), and the employee is not on paid personal/carer's leave for the whole of the absence.
This matters most for people hurt at work. Regulation 3.01(6) says time off while receiving workers compensation is not paid personal/carer's leave. So once a worker on workers compensation has been away for more than three months, s 352 itself no longer protects them.
Other protections still apply
Losing the s 352 protection does not mean an employer may dismiss freely. Dismissing someone because of a physical or mental disability can breach s 351, and dismissing them because they made or could make a workers compensation claim can be adverse action for exercising a workplace right under s 340. Unfair dismissal law also still applies to eligible employees.
Stephens v Australian Postal Corporation [2011] FMCA 448 shows how these claims sit together. Mr Stephens hurt his back at work in December 2009, claimed workers compensation, and was summarily dismissed on 7 January 2010. Australia Post conceded that his December absences were covered by reg 3.01, but Federal Magistrate Smith found it improbable that those absences influenced the decision, so the s 352 claim failed. But Australia Post had not proved that his back injury and his pending compensation claim played no part in the decision, so it was found to have breached ss 340(1) and 351(1), and was ordered to reinstate him.
Employees outside the national system, such as many WA public sector and local government employees, have a similar protection against termination for temporary absence because of illness or injury in s 772(1)(a) of the Fair Work Act, with the same three-month limit in reg 6.04. Its evidence rules are the first two ways listed above (a medical certificate or statutory declaration, or the award or agreement's notice rules).
What this means for you
If you are off work sick or injured, keep your employer informed and give medical evidence promptly, and keep copies. If your absence is getting long, it is worth getting advice about where you stand before the three-month mark.
If you are dismissed while unwell or injured, the reasons matter, and the law puts the burden on the employer to explain them. A general protections dismissal claim, like an unfair dismissal claim, must be lodged with the Fair Work Commission within 21 days of the dismissal. In the WA state system, an unfair dismissal claim goes to the WA Industrial Relations Commission within 28 days.
The takeaway
Being off work with a properly certified illness or injury is not a lawful reason for dismissal. After three months the specific protection can fall away, but dismissal because of a disability or a workers compensation claim can still be unlawful.
Note: First published in 2013 and rewritten in October 2026. The old article set out the three-month limit confusingly, repeating the 'not on paid leave' condition as a third item; in reg 3.01(5) it is a single condition that applies to both the single-absence and 12-month tests. It also described s 352 as about illness or injury 'in the workplace'; it covers any illness or injury. It also left out reg 3.01(6): time on workers compensation is not paid personal/carer's leave, so it does not keep the protection alive past three months. The regulation text is the current compilation. Since 7 July 2026 an employee need only allege a dismissal to have a general protections dismissal dispute dealt with by the Fair Work Commission (Act No. 62, 2026).
General information about the law as it stands, not legal advice. Every situation turns on its own facts. First published 22 July 2013; updated 21 October 2026.
Does this sound like your situation?
More case studies

Fair Work Commission · 12 July 2013
Made redundant at 65, but his job was still being done
Kevin Sempf v Transportable Shade Sheds Proprietary Limited
A 65-year-old worker at a Queensland shade shed manufacturer was handed a letter ending his job "due to a lack of available work" after the company had two loss-making months. The Fair Work Commission found the dismissal was not a genuine redundancy, because a co-worker was still doing his job and there had been no consultation, and that the company had not shown it was a small business. He was awarded six months' compensation and costs.
Six months' compensation, plus costsTermination#redundancy#unfair dismissal#small business
Read the case study
Guide · first published July 2013
Is an employment settlement taxable? How each part is taxed
Most of the money paid to settle an unfair dismissal, wrongful termination or other employment claim is taxed, but not all at the same rate, and some of it may not be taxed at all. What matters is what each part of the payment is really for, not what the settlement deed calls it. This guide explains how each part is treated for the 2026–27 income year.
GuideTermination#unfair dismissal#redundancy#compensation
Read the guide
Federal Magistrates Court of Australia · 11 April 2013
Sacked hours after chasing her car and phone allowances
Devonshire v Magellan Powertronics Pty Ltd & Ors
Melinda Devonshire, a business development manager whose case was heard in Perth, said she spent weeks chasing her correct salary, car allowance and phone allowance. On the day she pressed the company's director about it, she went home sick and was dismissed by email that afternoon. Before any trial, the employer asked the court to throw out key parts of her claim. The court refused: asking her employer about her pay was a workplace right, and the two people who ran the company stayed in the case personally.
Claim allowed to proceed; director and manager kept inTermination#general protections#underpayment#leave
Read the case study