Sacked after using a sick note to fly to the footy

What happened

Nathan Anderson worked at Crown's casino in Melbourne and was, in the court's words, a football fanatic. By early August 2007 he knew that Essendon's game against West Coast at Subiaco Oval in Perth on 1 September 2007 might be the last game Kevin Sheedy would coach. He bought a ticket and booked flights. He was rostered to work that day.

On 26 August he asked to drop the shift, explaining that he was going to Perth for the football and would see his doctor for a medical certificate. The next day he saw a doctor and told him he wanted to go to the game. The court found that the doctor, without being asked, gave him a sickness certificate dated and covering 1 September.

A manager then met him with a witness. He warned Mr Anderson that Crown took misuse of sick leave very seriously and that the consequences might include dismissal, and suggested swapping shifts or asking for annual leave. Mr Anderson declined. A day earlier, when another staff member suggested he put his name down for annual leave, he had said, "I'm going to call in sick then."

He flew to Perth, watched the game, went to the casino there, came back on the red-eye and turned up for work on 2 September. He was suspended without pay. At a meeting on 5 September, with his union representative present, he said Crown had no right to question his doctor. He was dismissed and paid one week in lieu of notice.

The claim

Mr Anderson's claim in the court was that the dismissal was unlawful under s 659(2)(a) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), which prohibited dismissing an employee for a reason that included a temporary absence from work because of illness or injury. He said that because he had a certificate from a registered medical practitioner, his absence was protected.

The court pointed out that a claim like this does not ask whether the dismissal was fair. The only question was whether Crown's reasons included the prohibited one.

What the court decided

Federal Magistrate Burchardt dismissed the claim on 3 March 2008. He accepted that the certificate was given by a registered practitioner and handed to Crown, so the absence was temporary in the technical sense. But the absence also had to be because of illness or injury, and those words carry their ordinary meaning.

On that question the court found against Mr Anderson. He was in excellent physical health, and on his own evidence he was not suffering from depression or any other diagnosable condition. He had not been the subject of any meaningful medical diagnosis. The court said that if he had not been given the certificate he would not have gone, and would have worked his shift.

Why: when a certificate can be questioned

The court started from a strong rule in the worker's favour. A medical certificate from a qualified practitioner, within the practitioner's area of expertise, is to be accepted at first sight. Only in the most unusual and exceptional circumstances would an employer, or a court, refuse to accept it.

This was such a case, because the facts were not in dispute. Mr Anderson had told everyone in advance that he would go to the game whatever happened and get a certificate to cover it, and the court found he had been fully frank and above board about that. Crown, knowing he had spent the day in Western Australia at the football and the casino, was entitled to look at the certificate askance.

The court gave two further reasons. Even if he had been ill, taking the doctor's evidence at its highest he might have had trouble concentrating, which is not the same as being unable to work. And Crown did not dismiss him because he was sick: it believed he had absented himself wilfully, and dismissed him for what it saw as misconduct. The court also described Crown's procedure as entirely fair.

The law today

The same protection is now in s 352 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), read with reg 3.01 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth). It is a general protection, and if a dismissed worker brings a claim the employer must prove that the absence was not one of its reasons (s 361). For paid sick leave, s 107(3) lets an employer require evidence that would satisfy a reasonable person that the leave was taken for a reason the Act allows, such as being unfit for work because of illness or injury.

Since 7 July 2026, a worker need only allege a dismissal to have a general protections dismissal dispute dealt with by the Fair Work Commission.

What this means for you

If you are genuinely unwell, a certificate from your doctor is strong evidence and your employer should ordinarily accept it. If your employer suspects a sickie, a hunch is not enough: this case turned on facts the worker himself admitted. An employer that rejects a certificate on suspicion alone risks a claim.

If you have been dismissed while off sick, consider getting advice early. A dismissal claim must be lodged with the Fair Work Commission within 21 days.