Recent guidance from the Fair Work Commission is an important reminder that how employers manage bereavement leave and compassionate leave can have real consequences, not just for people, but for compliance and dismissal risk too.
Workplace Express recently reported on the Commission’s strong critique of an employer’s unreasonable approach to bereavement leave entitlements, emphasising that evidence requirements and managerial conduct must be handled sensitively and reasonably under the National Employment Standards (NES).
Under the NES, employees are entitled to compassionate (bereavement) leave when a member of their immediate family or household dies. Employers can request evidence to substantiate the claim — but the Commission is clear that evidence requests should not become barriers or pressure points, especially during emotionally charged times.
The Real-World Test: Reasonableness, Not Rigidity
A recent Fair Work Commission decision: Bianca Knott v Tru Ninja Pty Ltd [2026] FWC 298 (3 February 2026) illustrates how not to handle this. In that case, an employee notified her employer that she would take bereavement leave following the death of her grandmother. Rather than responding with understanding, the employer repeatedly demanded documentary proof immediately and then escalated to additional unrelated documentation requests. Communication continued through the grieving period, culminating in the employee’s dismissal. The Commission found the dismissal unfair, noting the employer didn’t adequately account for the employee’s circumstances or distress and should have stepped back once it became clear she needed time to grieve.
This decision underscores two key points that matter for HR leaders and business owners:
- Reasonableness is not optional. Asking for evidence that satisfies a reasonable person is permitted, but that must be balanced with empathy and flexibility in execution.
- Dismissal risk increases when leave entitlements are mishandled. Treating bereavement-related absence as misconduct or inappropriate for leave can lead to successful unfair dismissal claims and compensation orders.
In Knott, compensation was awarded rather than reinstatement, reinforcing that the Commission will not condone approaches that ignore personal context and procedural fairness.
Practical HR Implications
For employers, this means:
- Policy ≠ Practice: Ensure your bereavement leave policy is not only compliant on paper but operationally sensible; especially around when and how evidence is requested.
- Manager Capability: Equip managers to apply policies with judgment, not rigidity. Training on empathetic communication and compliance is a strategic investment.
- Dismissal Safeguards: Before moving toward disciplinary action for absences that intersect with protected entitlements, pause and assess risk (both legal and cultural).
When a leave issue spirals into a dismissal, the business impact goes beyond the immediate cost, it affects morale, reputation, and risk profile.
What You Can Do Next
Whether you’re revisiting your leave frameworks or currently facing a dismissal risk linked to bereavement or other protected entitlements:
👉 Talk to HR Command. We help organisations audit policies, build compliant and people-centric practices, and navigate dismissal issues before they become disputes.
📩 Reach out to HR Command for tailored guidance: from policy design to procedural risk mitigation.
