Reserve Bank employee loses major unpaid wages claim but receives limited disciplinary payout

A massive pay claim from a Reserve Bank of Australia employee under extraordinary medical restrictions, including greatly reducing working hours and restricting senior staff from contacting him, has been rejected by the Fair Work Commission.

Senior RBA employee Mr Aditya Singhal is now appealing the decision, which focuses on whether he is entitled to continue receiving his salary while working under tightly controlled medical conditions that significantly restrict his role.

He was paid only 1.5 days’ pay for his time during an internal disciplinary process in which he was alleged to have sent secret emails to his personal account, and the investigation ultimately did not lead to any adverse findings against him.

Mr Singhal suffered a “work-related psychological injury” in June 2024, which subsequently worsened in May 2025, resulting in extended medical restrictions and prolonged absence from essential duties.

His medical restrictions extended beyond his workload limits, including requirements to avoid urgent or high-stress tasks and limit work hours to short non-consecutive days.

At various points he was also required to avoid meetings with senior HR staff and the chief risk officer, and at times he was documented as being completely unfit for the job.

There was also a specific requirement that Mr. Singhal be granted paid or unpaid leave to work remotely from India so that he could accompany his father to medical appointments.

Between June 30, 2025, and January 13, 2026, he performed no substantive work other than his limited involvement in the disciplinary process and two days of work in December 2025.

Mr Singhal argued that he should continue to receive his salary during the limited capacity period, stated that he was “medically fit” for suitable duties and was “ready and willing to perform work”, but argued that the employer had not allocated him duties.

He argued to Fair Work that cutting pay during this phased recovery unfairly penalized him for following workplace rehabilitation protocols designed to support injured employees returning to work.

However, the Reserve Bank of Australia rejected this claim, citing clause 10 of the enterprise agreement, which ties pay to hours actually worked.

The bank rejected Mr Singhal’s claim that he was “ready, willing and able” to work, arguing that his medical limitations meant he could not meet the inherent requirements of his position and that he was entitled to refuse partial return until he could fully perform his duties.

Thomas Roberts, Deputy Chairman of the Fair Work Commission, agreed, finding in a published judgment that the right to pay does not arise without the performance of work.

“In my view, the right to be paid under clause 10 is conditional on the employee performing work during the relevant pay period,” Mr Roberts said.

“Since no work has been done, there is no right to be paid a fee within the scope of the Contract.”

Although his wider remuneration claim failed, the RBA accepted that the time Mr Singhal spent participating in the internal disciplinary process constituted “work” within the scope of the agreement.

But there were serious disagreements about how long it should be paid.

Mr Singhal’s claim fluctuated throughout the trial, initially at seven days, then at 70 hours and finally at 107.3 hours, based on what he described as a “half-day minimum wage framework”.

The RBA rejected this framework entirely, arguing that there was no basis for it and that any entitlement should be limited to approximately one day’s wage.

Vice President Roberts criticized the changed position.

“The applicant’s changing attitude towards the duration of his involvement in the disciplinary process has undermined the credibility and trustworthiness of these allegations,” Mr Roberts said.

The commission also noted inconsistencies between the alleged periods of work and medical certificates showing Mr Singhal was unfit for work for parts of that time period.

Mr Roberts said the absence of key evidence, including the original letter of claim and response materials, made a precise calculation difficult.

Instead, the Commission relied on a predictive approach that took into account medical restrictions, limited access to internal systems and the nature of the investigation.

“I conclude that the dispute in this matter should be resolved by the defendant paying the applicant an amount equivalent to 1.5 days’ wages and appropriate pension contributions in respect of that amount,” Mr Roberts instructed.

Mr Singhal is appealing the Fair Work Commission’s decision.