The judge's underlying reasoning is that sick leave is actually a form of income protection and since there is no income to protect you are not entitled to sick leave. Section 524/25 of the Fair Work Act is not being taken on face value which I am guessing is what the Unions were hoping for. There seems to be alot of interpretation of the 'intent' of what is written in the law.
In the context of the present case, it is respectfully concluded that the proper construction and application of ss 524 and 525 mirror the object and purpose of stand down provisions as summarised by Morling J in Townsend v General Motors-Holden’s Ltd(1983) 4 IR 358.Contrary to the submissions advanced on behalf of the Unions, to so construe ss 524 and 525 is not the imposition upon these terms of a “judicially constructed policy” but rather a construction of these provisions by reference to their terms as discerned from the legislative context out of which these provisions emerged.
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.a...20/2020fca0656