Jumping to conclusions about secondary employment cost over £300,000 at employment tribunal! 

A manufacturing worker with a long-term disability who was dismissed while on medical leave has been awarded more than £329,000 after an employment tribunal found that his employer acted unfairly and discriminated against him.

The employee, who had worked for the company for more than three decades and held a supervisory role, developed a chronic neurological condition linked to earlier cancer treatment. The condition caused significant physical limitations and led to an extended period of sick leave.

During his absence, company management became suspicious that he might be carrying out work elsewhere. A private surveillance firm was hired to monitor him. Investigators later provided footage showing the employee visiting a friend’s farm and helping with minor tasks during a delivery.

The employer treated the footage as evidence that the employee had been working while on sick leave and questioned whether his activities were compatible with his medical condition. However, the tribunal found that the company failed to obtain proper medical evidence before reaching conclusions about his fitness or conduct.

Concerns about possible secondary employment reportedly began after a colleague claimed to have seen the employee at a local business during his sick leave. Surveillance later captured him carrying out light activities on a friend’s property, including handling small items and assisting briefly with equipment.

The employee successfully brought claims for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and breach of contract. Compensation included damages for injury to feelings, notice pay, loss of earnings, and pension losses, bringing the total award to more than £329,000.

The tribunal concluded that the employer failed to properly investigate the medical context before launching disciplinary action. It also criticised the company for changing the nature of the allegations during the disciplinary process, shifting from suspected outside employment to claims that the employee’s physical activity was inconsistent with being on sick leave.

Judges noted that video surveillance can easily be misinterpreted if employers fail to verify what is actually taking place. The ruling stated that management placed excessive weight on perceived evasiveness by the employee while overlooking possible explanations consistent with his condition.

The dismissal was ultimately found to be outside the range of reasonable responses expected of an employer. The tribunal also ruled that any failure by the employee to mention social visits to the farm during welfare meetings did not amount to gross misconduct.

Following the case, the company acknowledged shortcomings in how the matter had been handled and stated that it had reviewed its internal procedures to avoid repeating similar mistakes. Rather than find yourself in this position, contact 121 HR Solutions on 0800 9995 121 for support with potential disciplinary situations.