Medical leave dismissal raises questions about workplace communication

When does an extended medical absence justify termination?

Medical leave dismissal raises questions about workplace communication

The Employment Relations Authority (ERA) recently dealt with a personal grievance claim concerning the dismissal of a worker on medical incapacity grounds.

Following a non-work-related motorcycle accident in February 2023, the worker experienced periods of absence and faced questions about workplace safety upon his return.

The worker challenged his dismissal on two grounds under the Employment Relations Act 2000: that the dismissal was unjustified, and that the employer breached good faith obligations by failing to be active and constructive in maintaining the employment relationship. He sought remedies including reinstatement and compensation.

The case centred on whether proper processes were followed during the worker's extended medical leave and subsequent dismissal, particularly regarding communication requirements and procedural fairness.

Workplace safety obligations examined

The Whangarei manufacturing company, with over 80 staff members, designed and manufactured pipe fittings and valves for domestic and international markets. The worker joined as a toolmaker in August 2022 on a fixed-term basis before accepting permanent employment in November 2022.

Following a motorcycle accident where both he and his daughter were injured, the worker took various leave periods. Upon return, the safety risk and training manager documented that during their discussion, "[The worker] mentioned that he may be suffering from a concussion-related to his motorcycle accident."

This raised immediate concerns, with the safety risk and training manager noting: "The equipment [the worker] worked with was dangerous and had the potential to cause serious injury if not used correctly. It was critical that an employee using it retained full concentration and focus."

Safety incident management processes

The engineering department manager documented specific safety breaches, stating: "It is a basic health and safety rule that you do not leave the key in the lathe. The key should be removed every time you leave the machine."

During subsequent discussions, the human resources manager observed: "[The worker] became very fired up during that meeting. He continued to insist that there was not a safety issue. He also could not remember having had conversations with [the manager] about the chuck key. His approach concerned me."

The employer decided to treat these incidents as medical rather than disciplinary issues, requiring medical clearance before the worker could return to duties.

Medical assessment and workplace communication

An occupational physician's report concluded: "I would support an immediate return to work activity, as there is no medical evidence to suggest concussion related impairment. I believe that a graduated return would be reasonable whilst [the worker] has some clinical psychology input to assist with his stressors."

The ERA identified critical communication failures, emphasising: "[The employer's] obligation under s 4 was to be communicative with [the worker] in respect of the employment relationship, not with his occupational health physiotherapist."

The Authority found the employer failed to communicate its concerns about potential termination directly to the worker.

‘Flawed’ employment termination process

The ERA determined that the dismissal process was procedurally flawed: "[The employer] failed to comply with any of the minimum procedural fairness tests under the Act. The manner of [the worker's] dismissal was abrupt, and there was no practical opportunity for him to obtain representation, or have any input into the process prior to the decision to dismiss him."

The Authority ordered compensation of $15,000, stating: "Weighing the particular circumstances of this case, and the range of awards in similar cases, $15,000.00 is an appropriate sum to order [the employer] to pay to [the worker] as compensation for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to his feelings."

The compensation was to be paid within 28 days of the determination, with costs reserved. The parties were encouraged to resolve any costs issues between themselves, with provision for further Authority determination if needed.