Few legal vulnerabilities in the cleaning and facilities management sector are as consistently underestimated as the timing of a dismissal relative to a worker’s injury claim. Operators who make personnel decisions in the immediate aftermath of a WorkCover notification, even with entirely legitimate operational justifications, can find themselves exposed to unfair dismissal proceedings that are extraordinarily difficult to defend without robust documentation and demonstrable procedural fairness.
The core legal principle at play is one of temporal proximity. A termination that follows closely on a WorkCover claim does not automatically constitute adverse action, but it places the evidentiary burden firmly on the employer to demonstrate that the two events were wholly unconnected.
Logic Business Resources CEO Lorraine Rogic says the most common mistake operators make is failing to recognise that connection from the outset. “Once a worker has lodged, or even clearly foreshadowed, a worker’s compensation claim, the employer should assume that every employment decision affecting that person may later be examined through that lens,” she says.
Under the general protections regime, this scrutiny extends well beyond formal termination. Reducing hours, changing sites, removing shifts or issuing disciplinary warnings while a claim is active can all constitute adverse action if connected to a prohibited reason, including the exercise of a workplace right or absence due to injury. An employer may then face a reverse onus, required to prove that the claim was not a substantial or operative reason for the decision.
The paper trail problem
Rogic says operators typically get into trouble when the timing looks retaliatory and the documentation does not independently explain the decision. Frustration-based language is particularly dangerous, with comments such as “we can’t keep carrying this” or “the client won’t accept restrictions” can be damaging if they resurface in emails, text messages or witness evidence. Even when a legitimate reason exists, whether misconduct, genuine redundancy or an inability to perform the inherent requirements of the role, the operator must demonstrate that the reason existed independently of the claim and that the same process would have been followed for any other employee in the same circumstances.
The safest test, suggests Rogic, is a straightforward one: “Would we be making this same decision, at this same time, in this same way, if there had been no injury or claim? If the answer is uncertain, the business should not proceed without advice.”
When to get advice
Rogic is unequivocal on timing, saying operators should seek professional advice as soon as a compensation claim is lodged or flagged and before any adverse change is made to the worker’s employment. “The earlier the advice is obtained, the more options the business usually has. Once a termination has already occurred, the advice often becomes damage control.”
She draws a distinction between prevention advice and termination advice. Prevention advice, obtained from a workplace consultant well before any dispute arises, should help operators design practical systems covering early intervention, return-to-work procedures and supervisor escalation rules. Once termination or disciplinary action is being considered, legal advice is required.
Operators also need to be across the jurisdictional differences at play. In New South Wales, specific protections exist against dismissing an injured worker within six months where unfitness for employment is a substantial reason. Whereas, in Queensland that protected period extends to 12 months. “Operators should not assume that what applies in one state will apply in another,” Rogic adds.
Building a defensible position
The most effective protection is to be proactive rather than reactive. Rogic recommends three practical changes for small businesses in the sector. First, separate functions wherever possible. The person coordinating return-to-work should not be the same person recommending termination, and a second level of review should exist before any adverse action is taken.
Second, train managers and supervisors on language and escalation. Careless wording in an email or text message can become the headline document in a claim.
Third, make HR protocols mandatory with clear guidance on who must be notified when a claim is lodged, who approves suitable duties and who signs off before any disciplinary action proceeds.
Underpinning all of it is consistency. “Performance issues should be raised when they occur, not only after a worker is injured,” Rogic says. “Rostering decisions should be based on objective requirements, not assumptions about a person’s capacity or reliability.”
What a recent ruling illustrates
A Fair Work Commission decision from early 2026 demonstrates precisely what can go wrong. Ivan Rodriguez, a Victorian building manager employed by Centric Facilities Management for nearly four years, was dismissed just two days after lodging a Certificate of Capacity and WorkCover form for work-related stress. The employer’s stated justification – that a client had requested a change in personnel – was directly contradicted by written correspondence from the client themselves. Centric Facilities failed to appear at the February 2026 hearing or submit any documentation despite more than 10 attempts at contact. Fair Work Commissioner Susan Allison found the dismissal harsh, unjust and unreasonable with no valid reason and a complete absence of procedural fairness. Compensation of $15,140.20 plus superannuation was ordered.
For cleaning and facilities operators, the case shows how informal practices and rushed decisions carry real financial consequences. As Rogic puts it, businesses that communicate early, keep performance processes separate and make decisions through a calm review process are far less likely to face adverse action claims. Clear procedures, trained supervisors and a disciplined pause before acting are achievable for any operator, regardless of the size of their HR function.
