A leading city employment lawyer has warned employers they must follow clear and consistent processes when dealing with absence or risk costly tribunal claims.
Mark Ridley, who heads up the employment team at Coventry-based Band Hatton, issued the warning after it emerged Coventry City Council had dismissed 19 employees due to sickness levels in the past six months.
Ridley said this type of case was relatively common, a fact underlined by the figures recently released by the council which is the city’s biggest employer, but emphasised that failure to adhere to strict guidelines could be costly in both the short and long-term.
Those companies found to have treated employees unfairly could be taken to an employment tribunal and be liable for substantial damages for both unfair dismissal and disability discrimination.
“Dismissals in relation to long-term absence are relatively common and I’m sure, as the biggest employer in the city, Coventry City Council will be well versed in employment law and have stringently followed the necessary guidelines,” he said.
“However, it can be easy for smaller employers to be caught out and they must be wary of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination law.
“Employers should have a sickness absence policy, so that managers and employees both know how long-term and intermittent absences will be dealt with. It is also important that all employees are treated consistently.
“The first step in dealing with intermittent absence should be to look out for any patterns, when an employee has a series of short-term absences this is often overlooked.
“Next, employers must address whether there is a genuine underlying health condition giving rise to the absences and satisfy themselves that absences are genuine – although false sickness absences are rare and hard to prove.”
Having dealt with large numbers of these cases in the past Ridley pointed out that, in his experience, absence is often not health related and may actually be a problem with workload or a colleague.
“In this instance a formal meeting to discuss the reasons behind short-term absence can often nip the problem in the bud before it snowballs,” he added.
“If there appears to be no justified reason for absence fair procedure must be followed if issuing an employee with a warning.
“Warnings must have a timescale and suggestions for improvement and details of what will happen if there is no improvement.”
There are often many hurdles surrounding long-term employee illness and disability and employers risk falling foul of the law if they fail to seek the appropriate guidance.
He added: “If an employee does suffer from disability then employers are under an obligation to make reasonable adjustments to facilitate an employee’s return to work and continued working.
“In many cases obtaining medical advice will be appropriate. Employers should meet with the employee to discuss the report before taking any action based on doctor’s recommendations.
“And, of course, if employers are unsure, they should always take appropriate legal advice.”