Among other things, William of Ockham was a 14th century philosopher whose works are most widely known today through the concept of Occam’s Razor.  Put simply, Occam’s Razor is a problem-solving philosophy that posits the simplest explanation for something is usually the most likely to be correct.  The application of Occam’s Razor within people management is likely to be something for debate, but it reminds us that when stepping away from the simplest explanation, we’re more likely to be called on to prove it. 

A recent unfair dismissal decision of the Fair Work Commission illustrates the point well.  Summarised broadly, on Australia Day earlier this year an employee was rostered to start work at 4.00pm.  Earlier that day, the employee was informed by his stepfather that his stepfather’s sister (his aunt) had passed away.  The employee had a close relationship with both. 

After spending time with his stepfather (who lived about five minutes away by car), the employee returned home.  While at his stepfather’s, the employee applied for personal leave through the employer’s automated leave system.  The employee did not attend for work that day.  The employee’s work was noted as being a safety critical, and required driving. 

That evening, the employer’s Operations Manager saw the employee at a local restaurant.  The employee was at the restaurant with his partner, and friends.  It appears there was an interaction between them, at least in so far at the Operations Manager was noted as refusing to shake the employee’s hand.  After dinner, drinks and the evening’s fireworks, the employee returned home.  The following day, the employee submitted a statutory declaration which attributed his absence to family matters. 

Following a show cause process in which the employee said he had taken personal leave because he was in no frame of mind to attend following his aunt’s death, his employment was terminated.  The employer appears to have been of the view that the employee: had not provided a credible version of events; was aware of the plan to go to the restaurant before he applied for personal leave; was not unfit for work; and, the employee had been dishonest. 

In its decision, the Commission accepted there was no medical evidence to establish that the employee was unfit for work, but: 

• Did not accept that the evidence established that the employee had used the events as an excuse to take personal leave so he could attend the restaurant. 

• Accepted the evidence of the employee’s partner that she had repeatedly encouraged him to attend the restaurant with her to take his mind off things. 

• Accepted the employee’s partner had driven to and from the restaurant. 

• Was not satisfied that the evidence demonstrated that the death of the employee’s aunt had no impact on his capacity to work. 

• Was satisfied that after sitting with his stepfather, the employee “made a legitimate assessment that he was incapable of working as required and would present a safety risk to himself and others if he was to attend work later that day.” 

Having found no valid reason to dismiss, the Commission went on to order the employee’s reinstatement, with continuity of service and back-pay. 

While every case is different and published decisions can rarely provide a complete picture of the factual matrix, how events unfolded in real-time, or the impact of people’s relationships and the manner in which they interacted with each other at relevant times, the Commission’s decision is a reminder that: 

• Demonstrating a reasonable basis for a belief can sometimes require evidence that you don’t (yet) have. 

• In the absence of an express requirement for the employee to provide other evidence, displacing an employee’s self-assessment of their one-off incapacity for work will require clear and demonstrable evidence from the employer. 

• An incapacity for work will rarely be seen by the Commission as being an incapacity for other things (including recreation).  Closer consideration needs to be given to the relationship between the reasons for the incapacity, and the core elements of the other activity.  Playing footy might be incompatible with an absence due to a back injury, but laying on the beach may not necessarily been seen as incompatible with an absence due to the flu. 

Ultimately, when stepping away from the simplest explanation, you’ll typically need more evidence to prove it. 

Jenkins v Qube Ports Pty Ltd (Port Kembla) (2025) FWC 2447