Qantas face mask mandate ‘legal and reasonable’: Fair Work Commission

The airline’s face mask mandate has been ruled ‘legal and reasonable’ following a case by a former flight attendant who claimed wearing a mask made her feel anxious.

Qantas’s face mask mandate for customer facing staff has been found to be ‘legal and reasonable’ by the Fair Work Commission. Picture: Sam Mooy

Qantas has won a case brought by a former flight attendant who refused to wear a face mask at work because it made her feel extremely anxious.

Jessica Watson of Brisbane, accused National Jet Systems, which is part of the Qantas Group, of unfair dismissal after she was told she would have to undergo an independent medical examination to support her claim of being unable to wear a mask.

The Fair Work Commission heard a letter from her general practitioner Dr Philip Stowell conceded Ms Watson had “no medical condition of note” but she was apparently required to wear a face mask at work.

“This makes her extremely anxious and she finds she has trouble performing (her job) safely,” wrote Dr Stowell.

“I know of NO research showing any significant benefit from wearing masks and I doubt the legality of such requirements. My advice and opinion is that she not be required to wear masks at work.”

Qantas Medical national manager of occupational health Peter Prasad gave evidence about the benefits of wearing face masks even though the risk of transmission on an aircraft was low.

Mr Prasad told the FWC that masks were for prevention of an occurrence and for protection because Covid-19 had “grave consequences”.

“I’ve dealt with over 120 cases of Covid in my people,” said Dr Prasad.

“We’ve had all outcomes from asymptomatic people to a death in a young person as well as significant disability associated with long Covid, in several of our flight attendants.”

It’s understood the majority of Qantas employees who contracted Covid were not infected in the workplace, with only one case of in-flight transmission between passengers recorded early in the pandemic.

Dr Prasad said generally wearing a face mask for two-hours straight would not cause harm to someone’s health, and Qantas would not force someone with underlying health conditions to wear a mask.

In Ms Watson’s case, the flight attendant was give the option of wearing a face shield instead of a mask but she refused.

The Commission was told her refusal to wear a mask attracted negative attention from passengers, with one photographing her bare face during a flight in January.

In a 27-page judgment by FWC deputy president Nicholas Lake, Ms Watson’s unfair dismissal claim was rejected, due to the fact it was a “lawful and reasonable direction by Qantas” to wear a mask, and because her position was not actually terminated.

“(Ms Watson) had a number of options. She could attend work as directed or she could attend an independent medical examination to try to obtain medical evidence to support her assertions (she couldn’t wear a mask),” he said. She chose not to do either of those things but instructed her lawyer to communicate her resignation.

Cowell Clarke employment and industrial relations special counsel Peter Healey said the case provided a useful framework for employers to approach mask mandates with staff.

“Often we see medical certificates provided by staff with extremely little detail about what the condition actually is and here we saw the employer say ‘can you give us more information or we’re going to send you off to a doctor to give us that information’,” said Mr Healey.

“I think it’s just a really useful guide for employers to look at, it’s a very considered approach and that’s what employers need to be doing.”