Do not follow Wattyl Limited’s example.
In August 2004 Mr. H notified his employer, Wattyl, that he would require five months off work for a foot operation and recovery. He had injured his foot at work in an accident. In August 2005 he informed Wattyl that his surgery was scheduled for 26 September 2005.
In June Mr. H had a heart attack and had to take an extra 2.5 months off until he was declared fit to work by his cardiologist. Upon returning to work, Mr. H was admitted to hospital after what was initially thought to be a heart attack, but turned out to be an asthma attack.
Soon after his operation, Mr. H received a letter from Wattyl advising him that Wattyl needed to decide whether it could realistically hold Mr. H’s position open for him, given his current ill health and absences from work. Mr. H presumed that Wattyl were concerned about his foot, so he sent them a medical certificate, confirming that he would only be unfit to work for six weeks (instead of the original five months).
Nevertheless, Wattyl dismissed Mr. H “due to [his] inability on medical grounds to fulfill [his] obligations under the employment agreement”.
It is easy to see why Mr. H was upset. Wattyl had known since August 2004 that Mr. H would need five months off work for his operation, yet they didn’t tell him that his position was at stake until after the operation.
Lesson One: Be open with your employees about the future of their position at the earliest possible stage.
It transpired that Wattyl was concerned about not just Mr. H’s recovery from surgery, but also his general health, including his heart condition, despite his certificate of clearance from the cardiologist.
Lesson Two: Clearly inform your employee of all your concerns so that they have the opportunity to respond to all of them. You may be able to work out a viable solution.
Dismissing an employee on medical grounds is always a delicate situation. Following a fair procedure will go a long way to avoiding problems, but my advice would be to invest in legal advice at the earliest stage to avoid a costly personal grievance later.
Wattyl ended up having to pay Mr H $12,500.00 compensation plus approximately seven months lost wages.
