Full Bench upholds dismissal for misuse of personal leave

The Fair Work Commission (Commission) has refused permission for a nurse to appeal his dismissal after finding that the employee was validly terminated for improperly using his personal leave to campaign in a union election. In the case of Parel v Northern Health [2026] FWCFB 254, the Full Bench upheld that personal leave is intended to support rest, recovery and legitimate absences due to illness or injury, not to facilitate unrelated personal pursuits. The decision provides useful guidance on the purpose of personal leave and the circumstances in which misconduct may justify dismissal for employers.

Key facts

The employee, Mr Jimmy Parel, had been employed by Northern Health as a registered nurse since 2016. In 2025, he lodged a workplace bullying application with the Commission, where he alleged inappropriate conduct by supervisors.

Following an internal investigation, Northern Health concluded that Mr Parel’s bullying allegations were unsubstantiated. However, during the course of related disciplinary processes, the employer identified two further concerns.

Firstly, it alleged that Mr Parel had taken two days of personal leave in September 2025, which was supported by an online medical certificate. However, Mr Parel had spent this time campaigning for union elections. Secondly, Northern Health alleged that Mr Parel had engaged in rude, disrespectful and inappropriate behaviour towards colleagues and management staff.

As a result of these concerns, Northern Health terminated Mr Parel’s employment in February 2026. The employee lodged an unfair dismissal application under section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Fair Work Act). In the first instance, Deputy President Alan Colman found there were multiple valid reasons for dismissal, including that Mr Parel had improperly claimed personal leave while engaging in union campaigning and had been dishonest about his activities. The Deputy President also accepted evidence that Mr Parel had engaged in rude and disrespectful conduct towards other employees.

Although the Commission identified some procedural deficiencies, the seriousness of the misconduct was held to outweigh this; the dismissal was not unfair.

Key findings in the appeal

In the present case, Mr Parel sought permission to appeal on 19 separate grounds. Many of those grounds challenged the Deputy President’s factual findings and credibility assessments. He also argued that the Commission had failed to properly consider evidence he relied upon and had misunderstood the circumstances surrounding his personal leave.

The Full Bench rejected all grounds of the appeal. Notably, the Bench found that several of the employee’s allegations were entirely unsupported by evidence, finding that the original decision was “orthodox” and fully open on the evidence.

Personal leave and union campaigning

The most significant aspect of the decision concerns the proper use of personal leave. Mr Parel argued that the Deputy President had incorrectly assumed that because he was physically capable of campaigning in a union election, that he must have been fit to perform the demanding duties of an emergency department nurse.

The Full Bench acknowledged that employees on personal leave are not necessarily confined to their homes. Depending on the nature of their illness or injury, they may need to collect medication, attend medical appointments or participate in rehabilitation activities.

However, the Commission emphasised that personal leave exists for a specific purpose. Employees who are absent due to illness are expected to take reasonable steps to recover from that illness. The Bench stated that the issue was not simply whether campaigning required less physical exertion than nursing duties. Rather, the question was whether an employee could properly claim paid personal leave while spending that time undertaking unrelated activities such as travelling and campaigning for election purposes.

The Commission also highlighted the importance of honesty at paragraph [43] of the judgment. It observed that if Mr Parel believed his medical condition prevented him from nursing but not from driving around and campaigning, he could have candidly disclosed those intentions to the employer. The Commission concluded that a reasonable person would not regard such conduct as a proper use of personal leave.

Relevant legal principles

Valid reason for dismissal

Under section 387 of the Fair Work Act, the Commission must consider whether there was a valid reason for dismissal related to an employee’s conduct or capacity. Dishonesty and misuse of paid leave entitlements can constitute a valid reason.

Medical certificates are not conclusive

While medical certificates remain important evidence in supporting personal leave, the Commission confirmed at paragraph [68] that their effect depends on the surrounding circumstances. Employers may legitimately question whether leave has been used for its intended purpose where other evidence suggests otherwise.

Procedural defects do not automatically make a dismissal unfair

Even where procedural shortcomings exist, dismissal may still be upheld if the misconduct is sufficiently serious and there are valid reasons supporting termination.

Key takeaways

The Full Bench’s decision in Parel v Northern Health serves as a reminder that personal leave is not a general-purpose entitlement to pursue personal interests while remaining absent from work. Although employees may engage in activities consistent with their illness, the entitlement exists to facilitate recovery, not unrelated pursuits. Where there is convincing evidence of the misuse of leave, dishonesty and/or inappropriate workplace conduct, termination may be lawful.

Want to know more?

If you require further guidance on navigating disciplinary matters or leave requests, please contact NRA Legal for a confidential conversation on 1800 572 679.

Mr Jimmy Parel v Northern Health [2026] FWCFB 254