Pulling a sickie can lead to dismissal

legal_updates

Never jump to conclusions or dismiss an employee on suspicion only.

Author: Roxanne Bradley
Published:
Reading time: 2 minutes

This article is 4 years old.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

The case of Metroline West v Ajaj 2015 was heard before the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT). A (Ajaj) was employed by Metroline (M) as a bus driver.

In Feb 2014 he reported to have slipped on water in the toilets and suffered a injury. Whilst A was signed off sick, M was concerned about the authenticity of the alleged injuries. M therefore arrange for covert surveillance of A when he attended one of the sites for a sickness absence interview.

From the footage, M concluded that A’s level of mobility was not consistent with the sick claims made. Further covert surveillance was obtained in April 2014. The footage showed A doing things he insisted were beyond his physical capabilities such as carrying heavy shopping bags. M actioned a disciplinary procedure and dismissed A for misrepresenting his ability to work. Ajaj subsequently claim unfair dismissal.

A won the case at the EAT. However this was appealed by M. Which concluded, when an employee claims to be unable to attend work due to sickness but they are not actually ill or not as sick as they claim to be, their actions amount to dishonest. This goes to the root of the employer/employee relationship, the employer can therefore view this as a fundamental breach of contract and terminate their employment.

However, never jump to conclusions or dismiss an employee on suspicion only. Ensure a reasonable investigation has been undertaken and be able to show the employee has made a dishonest representation regarding their condition. This however doesn’t require the extremes of covert surveillance. Medical evidence or social media posts can be used.

To review the full judgement on the case: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2015/0295_15_0312.html

Roxanne Bradley

Legal Advisor

Read more by this author

Getting in touch

You can contact us via the form or you can call us on 01480 455500.