By
An employee’s absence from work due to illness or
injury is usually not their fault. However, there can be situations where
the circumstances which caused the illness were within the employee’s control,
in which case the employer may be entitled to treat any further absence as a
conduct issue. Jesse Turner of Brodies explains.
Investigation
When
an employee’s short-term absences affect their ability to perform their
role, the first step for an employer is to review the number of absences within
a certain period – normally 12 months – and review the reasons given for the
absences to determine whether or not the level of absence is an issue. The
second step is to hold an informal meeting with the employee to discuss the
level of absences and to understand whether or not there is an
underlying reason for them. It may also be necessary for the employer to ask
the employee’s GP or specialist to provide a medical report.
At
this point, the employer should have an understanding of the causes for the
employee’s absences. If the medical evidence indicates that the employee has a
condition that could be manageable with regular medication, such as diabetes or
epilepsy, it may be necessary to hold further discussions with the employee.
The employee may admit that they have difficulty remembering to take their
medication or they do not like taking it because of side effects,
which leads to illnesses and absences.
Alternatively,
the circumstances causing the absences may be more straightforward. An employee
who is an outdoor sports enthusiast may have frequent absences due to a string
of injuries from mountain biking, abseiling or skiing. Another employee may
have regular nights out at the pub that lead to illnesses the next day.
Circumstances
within the employee’s control
In
all of these examples, the circumstances leading to the employee’s absence are
within their control. Although the outdoor athlete’s injuries and the pub-going
employee’s illnesses are genuine, both employees choose to undertake the
activities that lead to them. Even for the employee who has an underlying
medical condition, it is not the condition that causes the absence, but the
employee’s failure to manage it properly.
Conduct
rather than capability?
It is well known that “capability” is one of the
fair reasons for dismissal under the Employment Rights Act 1996. In addition to
an employee’s health, the definition of capability includes their competence or
aptitude to carry out their role. The Employment Appeal Tribunal
(EAT) case of Sutton & Gates (Luton) Ltd v Boxall dealt
with an employee’s performance-related capability. The EAT determined that
there is a difference between an employee who is incapable of carrying out
their role because of an “inherent incapacity to function” and one who is not
meeting the required standards because of their own carelessness, negligence or
idleness. The EAT stated that when the cause of the employee’s incapability is
within their control, the case is more properly dealt with as one of misconduct
rather than capability.
Disciplinary
meeting
Regarding ill-health
absences, treating these as misconduct cases rather than capability cases
clearly has its advantages for the employer. When an employer considers
dismissing an employee because of frequent ill-health absences, it is
doing so not because of past absences, but because of the risk of future
absences and the fact that they are unsustainable. Predicting how likely it is
that an illness will recur and cause further absences involves a thorough
examination of the employee’s past absences and any underlying medical
conditions, and the prediction cannot be guaranteed. However, if an employer
believes that an employee’s absences are within their control, then its
disciplinary procedure can be used.
The
next step is for the employer to hold a disciplinary meeting. Taking the
employee’s explanations into account, the employer should set out that it is
entitled to expect the employee to be able to perform their role and issue a
warning. The employer should make it clear that if any further instances of the
employee’s “conduct” cause absences from work, this may be treated as
misconduct and could lead to further disciplinary action and ultimately
dismissal.
This
is not a one-size fits all approach to ill-health absences. It will not
normally be appropriate for long-term ill-health absences or short-term
absences spread out over long periods of time. Issues relating to disability
discrimination also need to be considered carefully. However, where the
circumstances causing an employee’s frequent ill-health absences are within
their control, treating it as a conduct issue rather than a capability issue
has the potential to give the employer greater control and certainty.
No comments:
Post a Comment