The inclusion of a robust medical assessment clause in an employee’s employment contract can provide employers with the legal authority to request additional medical information to ascertain fitness for work. The recent Fair Work Commission case of Mr Bertus Moers v The Trustee for Williamson Family Trust [2025] FWC 1344 highlights the critical importance of well-drafted employment contracts in determining the scope of ‘lawful and reasonable directions’ in Australian employment law.
This landmark 2025 employment law case demonstrates how proper contractual provisions can protect employers’ rights while maintaining legal compliance under the Fair Work Act 2009.
Understanding ‘Lawful and Reasonable Directions’ in Employment
In all Australian employment relationships, there is an implied duty for employees to follow their employer’s lawful and reasonable directions. This fundamental employment law principle allows employers to manage and direct employees by providing guidance about what work is required and expected under the employment contract, and how it must be performed.
Lawful and reasonable directions in employment typically include:
- Workplace Health and Safety Compliance – Requirements to comply with work health and safety laws and workplace policies
- Health-Related Directions – Instructions to stay away from the workplace when suffering from a contagious disease
- Professional Standards – Adhering to dress codes, conduct policies, and professional requirements
- Medical Examinations – When properly authorized by employment contract clauses
The failure of an employee to follow these lawful and reasonable directions may constitute serious misconduct, potentially leading to disciplinary action or termination.
Case Background: Mr Moers v Williamson Family Trust – A 2025 FWC Landmark Decision
Key Timeline of Events
March 2021 – December 2024: Mr Moers was employed as Senior Relationship Manager with the Respondent.
7 October 2024: Mr Moers informed the Respondent that he would be travelling to New Zealand on 14 and 15 October 2024 and requested to work remotely during this time.
Employer’s Response: The Respondent denied the request and instead requested that Mr Moers utilise his annual leave. Mr Moers stated that he intended to visit and care for his mother and would instead use his personal/carer’s leave.
Email Correspondence: There were a number of emails between the parties, where the Respondent requested evidence for Mr Moers’ carer’s leave. Mr Moers ultimately provided the Respondent with a medical certificate which stated that he was unfit for work, as opposed to a carer’s certificate.
Extended Leave Requests: Mr Moers made a number of further requests to extend his leave time away from work on account of being unfit for work. He provided a medical certificate noting that he would be unfit to return to work until 31 December 2024 on account of “medical reasons”.
Employer’s Concerns: The Respondent was not satisfied that the medical certificates provided by Mr Moers adequately evaluated Mr Moers’ capacity to return to his role, particularly given the extended nature of the leave and the lack of detail provided in the medical certificates.
Medical Assessment Proposal: The Respondent proposed that Mr Moers provide authorisation for the company to contact his treating practitioner in order to provide answers to a number of pre-prepared questions relating to Mr Moers’ fitness to return to work.
Employee’s Refusal: Mr Moers strongly opposed providing consent for the Respondent to contact his treating practitioner.
Contract Clause Referenced: The Respondent highlighted Mr Moers’ employment contract clause and informed Mr Moers that failure to provide a signed authorisation form would be considered serious misconduct and would result in the termination of his employment.
Final Outcome: Mr Moers did not respond. The Respondent terminated his employment on the basis of serious misconduct.
The Employer’s Concerns and Medical Assessment Request
The employer was not satisfied that the medical certificates adequately evaluated Mr Moers’ capacity to return to his role, particularly given:
- The extended nature of the leave (from mid-October to December 31)
- The lack of specific detail provided in the medical certificates
- The shift from requesting carer’s leave to claiming personal sick leave
The Employer’s Proposal
The employer proposed that Mr Moers provide written authorization for the company to contact his treating practitioner directly. This would allow the employer to ask pre-prepared questions relating to Mr Moers’ fitness to return to work and his medical capacity to perform his role.
Mr Moers’ Response
Mr Moers strongly opposed providing consent for the employer to contact his treating practitioner, refusing to authorize the medical capacity assessment.
The Employment Contract Clause That Made the Difference
The employer referenced a specific medical examination clause in Mr Moers’ employment contract:
“You have participated in, or will agree to participate in any background check and/or medical examination relevant to your position and/or your employment with the Employer to the standard required of your position and the Employer.”
This employment contract warranty clause proved to be the decisive factor in the case outcome.
The employer’s position: Failure to provide the signed authorization form would be considered serious misconduct and would result in termination of employment.
The outcome: Mr Moers did not respond to the employer’s direction, and the employer terminated his employment on the basis of serious misconduct.
The Fair Work Commission’s Decision on Medical Assessment Rights
Commissioner Simpson made several crucial findings in this employment law case:
Key Legal Findings
- Contractual Consent: The employment contract term meant Mr Moers had already provided consent to disclose medical information relevant to his fitness for work when required by the employer.
- Legitimate Connection: The proposed medical questionnaire was sufficiently connected to Mr Moers’ capacity to work and was directly related to his employment obligations.
- Critical Legal Principle: Without the specific contractual clause, the employer’s direction would not have been lawful and reasonable without Mr Moers’ explicit consent.
- Fair Dismissal: The Commission determined that the employer’s summary dismissal was fair because Mr Moers had failed to comply with a lawful and reasonable direction to participate in a medical capacity assessment.
This Fair Work Commission decision reinforces the importance of comprehensive employment contract drafting in protecting employer rights while ensuring legal compliance.
Key Takeaways for Employers: Employment Contract Best Practices
This 2025 employment law case demonstrates the critical importance of comprehensive employment contract drafting. Well-drafted employment contracts should expressly provide for the employer’s right to direct employees to attend external assessments.
Essential Employment Contract Clauses
Medical Assessment Provisions should cover:
- Medical examinations and fitness for work assessments
- Mental health evaluations when role-relevant
- Ongoing medical monitoring for safety-critical positions
- Return-to-work medical clearances
Additional Assessment Clauses should include:
- Criminal background checks and ongoing monitoring
- Driving record assessments for relevant roles
- Drug and alcohol testing procedures
- Professional licensing and certification verification
Legal Compliance Considerations
Employment contract medical assessment clauses must:
- Be reasonable and proportionate to the role requirements
- Comply with privacy legislation and workplace laws
- Respect anti-discrimination provisions
- Align with workplace health and safety obligations
Frequently Asked Questions About Employment Medical Assessments
Can an employer force an employee to undergo a medical examination?
An employer can direct an employee to undergo a medical examination only if:
- The employment contract contains specific clauses permitting medical examinations
- The direction is lawful and reasonable in the circumstances
- The assessment is relevant to the employee’s capacity to perform their role
What happens if an employee refuses a medical assessment in Australia?
If the employment contract permits medical assessments and the employer’s direction is reasonable, refusal may constitute serious misconduct. This can lead to disciplinary action, including termination, as demonstrated in the Moers v Williamson Family Trust case.
Are standard medical certificates always sufficient for extended sick leave?
Not necessarily. Employers may require more detailed medical information or independent medical assessments if:
- The employment contract permits such requests
- The leave is extended or unusual in nature
- Workplace circumstances warrant additional information
- Safety-critical roles are involved
How detailed should employment contract medical clauses be?
Employment contract medical assessment clauses should be:
- Specific about when assessments may be required
- Reasonable in scope and frequency
- Relevant to the role and workplace safety
- Compliant with privacy and anti-discrimination laws
Related Employment Law Cases and Precedents
This Fair Work Commission decision joins other significant employment law cases addressing workplace policies and employee obligations in contexts involving contractual clauses, policy enforcement, and procedural compliance requirements.
Protecting Your Business with Expert Employment Law Support
The Moers v Williamson Family Trust case highlights why professional employment contract drafting is essential for protecting your business interests while maintaining legal compliance.
Without proper contractual provisions, employers may find themselves unable to:
- Compel necessary medical assessments
- Ensure workplace safety and compliance
- Manage extended sick leave appropriately
- Protect business operations and other employees
Expert Employment Law Support at MST Lawyers
Our experienced employment law team can help you:
- Review and update existing employment contracts
- Draft comprehensive new contracts with medical assessment clauses
- Ensure compliance with current Australian employment law
- Customise contracts for industry-specific requirements
- Workplace policy development and reviews
- Fair Work Commission representation
- Employee performance and misconduct management
- Workplace health and safety compliance guidance
Contact MST Lawyers for Expert Legal Support
Meet our team: James Sanders (Principal, Employment Law) | Jennifer Sung (Associate, Employment Law)
Related Employment Law Resources:
- Understanding unfair dismissal vs general protections claims
- Drug and alcohol policy enforcement in workplace
Our Melbourne-based employment law team provides expert legal support across Victoria and Australia, ensuring your employment contracts protect your business while complying with current workplace legislation.
